Books that survey big brained mathematical concepts like spinors/matrices/topology (ideally physics math) but for retards but which do not oversimplify to the point of just being basically lies to make retards feel like they understand a thing they do not?Looking for intuitive understanding to borrow/steal ideas/thought-frameworks for use in other fields, but not going to actually spend 3 years become a stemfag.
>>25084651I could recommend you some of my engineering and surveying textbooks but I think your problem is not having a sufficient IQ.
Susskinds Books are exactly what you need and are looking for.
>>25084651Math is IQ based 100%, and if you can't do math you can't really do STEM on any level at all, maybe some areas of biology
Feynman's famous intro to calculusThen pic related
>>25084651Don't worry—physicists don't know shit about math already. But you're a bit overeager, because math past basic calculus and linear algebra (latter has no prerequisites, except you'll find the proofs difficult without experience) is not very useful on the applications side, and no normie will ever care that you studied a year of algebra as a prerequisite to understand Galois theory, just to say that there's no general solution for quintics. Best focus on pop-/physics/ and not so much math.Unless you care about understanding things, in which case you start with set theory, real analysis, abstract algebra, linear algebra (parallel with algebra), and topology (after analysis), and then you're free to do whatever. Shrug. The proofs are the math.
>>25084651You can’t get an “intuitive understanding” or real understanding for that matter (the former is actually deeper) without the math. You can watch physicists like Feynman try to explain this for some retard jurno asking them to invent whatever analogies and metaphors they “need” to understand the problem and it’s never going to work because the math is the math and the explanations are flimsy fucking word games to try and get the gist of an idea to a numerically illiterate population. Most of the “physics mysteries” that create headlines for the general public amount to abusing analogies as if you understood the issue at its core. Anything having to do with time, alternate dimensions, higher dimensions, is just pure ass translated to the public. That said, here’s a popsci book on vectors and tensors that might be part of what you’re looking for. But really just get a textbook.
>>25085102Forgot pic rel.
>>25085102Dude—the number of times I've had to explain that the time in spacetime isn't some mystical alternate dimension you can slip into, but a mathematical abstraction in a specific type of manifold, hoolyyy fuck. I hate that the word "dimension" has this common use.Yeah, I have an uncountably infinite-dimensional vector space. It's fucking boring. All the countable ones are just sequences. Magic. Pop science is a scourge.
>>25084651>Books that survey big brained mathematical concepts like spinors/matrices/topology (ideally physics math) but for retards but which do not oversimplifyThey already posted Penrose's Road to Reality. But you should try some of these too:>Math Without Numbers - Milo Beckman>Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction - Timothy Gowers>Experiments in Topology - Stephen Barr>A Mathematical Bridge: An Intuitive Journey in Higher Mathematics - Stephen Fletcher Hewson>The Main Stream of Mathematics - Edna Kramer.>The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics - Edna Kramer>What is Mathematics?: An Elementary Approach to Ideas and Methods - Richard Courant, Herbert Robbins, Ian Stewart>Mathematics and the Imagination - Edward Kasner & James Newman, with preface and review by Jorge Luis Borges>Geometry and the Imagination - David Hilbert and S. Cohn-Vosse
>>25085102yeah sometimes its much easier and faster to learn the actual theory than grapple with metaphorsLearning that entanglement was just the system not being separable/independent was massively demystifying. Same for many-worlds just being observers getting absorbed into the wavefunction.
>>25084651road to reality by penrose /thread> it is he that sitteth upon the track of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a void, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Cool thanks fellas.I’ve got about 5 books to get through before I make it to these but they’ve been fed into the queue.Rare useful thread.
>>25086675Just so you know, you're falling for a midwit/Dunning-Kruger trap by doing this. Math is not a spectator sport; the only way to know mathematics is by doing mathematics.You WILL write hilariously wrong statements about math and you WILL make a fool of yourself if you don't don't read math textbooks and do their exercises instead.>Rare useful thread.No, unless you think getting to know how to masturbate harder is useful on getting actual sex.
>>25085116>Yeah, I have an uncountably infinite-dimensional vector space. It's fucking boring. All the countable ones are just sequences. Magic. Pop science is a scourge.Holy Fucking KEK Godspeed brother.
>>25086805pretty rare to find a person having sex who didnt start out masturbating (but i guess one cant expect a good analogy from a mathematician)
>>25084651Gödel's Proof by Newman, Nagel, and Hofstadter. You can also try Roger Penrose's books pertaining to consciousness but honestly there's no real shortcut. If mathematical concepts could be explained in layman's terms that everyone could understand then they simply would but like my professor used to say "if everyone could do it so easily then it wouldn't be worth doing."
>>25086805I was forthright in my post my only interest in this is to apply it in other contexts.I was upfront that I understand most of it will be midwitted nonsense akin to a ND Tyson yt popsci video that uses so much metaphor that it’s not only completely wrong, that it’s actually worse than just not knowing anything.That being said recently I watched a 3 hour lecture on spinors after the idiots on Reddit failed to explain what spin 1/2 actually means for an electron and it did catch my interest, especially if there are real world implications for spinors (even if they probably don’t behave like that below the floor of what is observable).I do not actually care about the math, except to steal some concepts and use them elsewhere. If it isn’t useful elsewhere, I’m not interested in it. But I can see how spinors for example might be useful in finance or other probabilistic thinking.
>>25085009I think a lot of its numbers and I find numbers menial and trite.
>>25088978>numbersYou mean grade school arithmetic? Higher mathematics has more things in common with philosophy and theology than with number crunching (all done by computer nowadays)
