Books I wanna read over the next three months:>Analysis I and II - Terence Tao>Algebra - Artin>Linear Algebra - Hoffman&Kunze>Advanced Linear Algebra - Roman>Introduction to Topology - Mendelsson>Introduction to Manifolds - Tu>Manifolds Trilogy - Lee>Algebraic Topology - Hatcher>Algebraic Geometry - Shafarevich>Classical Mechanics - Taylor>Introduction to Electrodynamics - Griffiths>Quantum Mechanics - Zettili>General Relativity - Wald>Introduction to Elementary Particles - Griffiths>An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory - PeskinBy the end of these I hope I will be able to solve some major problem of modern mathematics or do a major contribution to a modern physics theory.
>>16805887I'm gonna be very impressed if you manage to understand all of that within 3 months.
>>16805897It's just 15 books or so, if I study 6h per day and skip some exercises it's doable.
>>16805914Most people at universities study 8+ hours a day and even then it takes them 3 years to really internalize this stuff. This has to be bait.
>>16805924>Most people at universities study 8+ hours a daykek nice bait.
>>16805929The ones who understand this at least.If you're starting from scratch then unless you're an actual genius you won't be able to get through even 5 books within 3 months.
>>16805914>skip some exercisesngmiIf anything I'd suggest "through problems" books to get the essentials quick. As in:- Halmos' Linear Algebra Problem Book instead of Axler.- Viro's Elementary Topology instead Munkres' Topology- R. P. Burn's Number and Functions instead of any analysis books. That sort of thing. They are also called "guided discovery" or "inquiry-based learning" (IBL) or sometimes Moore method. Just more efficient use of your time. Obviously you can't do the same for physics, unless you do your own labs. But problem books for main physics subjects (CM, EM, QM, Stat Mech) tend to be exhaustive anyways. As in if you can solve all of them, you'll do well in exams. There are many of such books. But Konstantin Likharev's books are free and good. It's worth reading this paper by Hassler Whitney:- H. Whitney: “Letting research come naturally,” Math. Chronicle 14 (1985), pp. 1–19I know this is a joke thread. And this is a semi-joke answer.
>>16805936I have an IQ of 120 which is considered "gifted" as far as I know.
>>16805945Forgot to link this: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/24526/good-papers-books-essays-about-the-thought-process-behind-mathematical-researchI think it's not a bad idea to learn about how mathematicians think so you can larp as an amateur mathematician/crank/crackpot better.
>>16805945This is not a joke thread, I'm really motivated to learn all that, when you’re this motivated to learn something it's natural to just learn fast. Also I reject your recommendation of learning through exercises but I'll take a look at the research paper.
>>16805947Oh I see. With IQ as high as yours I would consider skipping these books altogether and going straight into research. They need you, anon.
>>16805958Lol, at least I have a solid study plan and I'm motivated to learn everything I listed while you're a sad piece of shit trying to demoralize other people on 4chan from following their dreams. I might achieve greatness one day, but you'll be a mediocre forever with that mentality.
>>16805964By all means learn it, it's really cool stuff. But don't fucking rush it. 3 months is not enough, because reading a math textbook (especially the more advanced ones like on algebraic geometry) is not like reading fiction.Also I agree with the other anon, exercises are important.
>>16805968Lmao, you larper don’t know any algebraic geometry and not qualified to advise me.
>>16805970I'm not qualified to advise you because I didn't study special needs education. Have a nice day retard.
>>16805972Lol, you're embarrassed that I realized you're a larper. No need to resort to name calling.
>>16805968It doesn't have to be 3 months, that was just an estimation I made. I have until august of next year to learn all of that I listed, almost an entire year, I'm pretty sure I can do all that in one year.
bump
It would be ambitious to understand this in 3 years. Let alone 3 months. You are delusional OP if you are not genius level of IQ.
>>16805887unironically, how far into this list can a somewhat dumb guy with a bad memory really make it? I am really curious about learning on math and physics like OP (and science generally) but I had a poor background growing up and am undoubtedly an unintelligent person.
>>16807114start with introductory texts. it will be slow if you want to merge the contents (like really slow), but you can go fairly far, it will just be long in time
>>16806885I'm gonna do it in 1 year.>>16807114Uuuh… Most of those books require you to have at least a solid foundation in high school mathematics, calculus and proofs, you should start with those before going any further. I'm not starting exactly from zero.
>>16805887Don't forget functional analysis, lie groups and symplectic geometry. Shouldn't take you more than a couple of days.
>>16805887the very fact that you are willing to learn things which out of interest and not being forced to well seperates you in intelligence than the general population. I'd like to see how you contribute as well.
>>16807604Functional Analysis and Lie Groups do look interesting, I might learn them as well. I don’t know about Symplectic Geometry though, redpill me on it.
>>16807660It's antisymmetric riemannian geometry basically. When you have some function on a manifold (think energy) and you take its derivative, you would like to obtain a vector field. But the derivative lives in the dual (it's a covector), so you have to project it down to a vector first. The Riemannian metric projects the derivative to the gradient of the function, which is a vector field that's normal to the contour lines. In symplectic geometry you replace the metric by the symplectic form, where the projection of the derivative is parallel to the contour lines instead.It makes sense to use this as a model for mechanics, because moving along a contour line means you're preserving energy instead of minimizing it.
>>16805887I listen to audiobooks at work the whole time
>>16807971Math audiobooks? How do they work?
