I'm having a really hard time understanding DG of surfaces in particular. I just can't understand Do Carmo's book at all, maybe it's because my analysis is lacking, but I don't think so. Is there any easy books or video lectures out there on the subject? Something that even a low IQ retard like me can understand?
>>16801772O'Niell's elementary differential geometry. If you know some linear algebra and some calculus then it's a great introduction to the differential geometry in 2 and 3 dimensions. While it doesn't cover higher dimensions or manifolds, it gives some good intuition that will serve you well I'm higher dimensions.
>>16801772You've reached you limit. It's just the natural course of things.
>>16801795Go demoralize your parents, not other people.
It was pretty easy for me although I studied it from gravitation, not in pure maths way. You need to know vector calculus tho.
>>16801772Sounds like you need to work on your analysis first.
>>16801772I had the same problem. Try Fortney A Visual Introduction to Differential Forms and Calculus on Manifolds I got bored before I got overwhelmed.
Try spivak
>>16801997Isn't his book outdated? Someone told me that once.
>>16801811Not sure why you're denying facts of life. Some people couldn't even handle calculus. Others went slightly further, and couldn't handle differential geometry. To make things worse, diff geo books imo are not pedagogically sound. Everyone uses their own weird notation. The divide between math and physics approach is huge. And there is no good problem book that you can grind to learn it, unlike lower level courses. There are just so many things going against you.
>>16802028OP clearly is motivated to study, so it isn't applied to them, and discouraging them isn't helpful either. People don't handle calculus and other stuff because they don't want too. And generally don't need it for the future.There is not mathematics without tears. Students must keep this close to their heart and keep pushing. Especially those who want to pursuit academia.
>>16802009Old books don't mean bad books. Specialists of the field literally studied on these old books.
>>16802009>spivak is outdatedZoomers were a mistake
>>16802044Yeah I just read the first three chapters of carmo, what a trash book. It’s clearly designed for engineers and it disgusts me. We need less access to mathematics because the higher the access the lower the understanding.
>>16802402How is it for engineers when there are a bunch of proofs in it?
Is it normal to get a C in a math degree?
>>16802470If it isn't then I'm fucked.
>>16801772Watch Eigenchris' series on Tensor calculus, he goes from extrinsic to intrinsic differential geometry, you can learn about the intrinsic metric tensor, covariant derivative, geodesics, and even the Riemann tensor without doing the tensor algebra series which you can watch later if you want to understand all the deductions and symmetries etc.
