I think everybody in this board knows math is pretty awesome. So, I thought I would dedicate the many hours of free time I have to learning math through textbooks.This is my current reading list:- AoPS Introduction to Algebra - AoPS Introduction to Geometry - AoPS Intermediate Algebra - AoPS Precalculus - AoPS Calculus - Spivak – Calculus - Axler – Linear Algebra Done Right - Hubbard & Hubbard – Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms - Arnold – Ordinary Differential Equations - Bertsekas & Tsitsiklis – Introduction to Probability - Wasserman – All of Statistics Is this good enough until I want to move into something specific?
>>16821883Post your work. What have you done? Why shitpost on /sci/? Do you just want to mock textbook threads? Are you that sad?
>>16821883modern math is gay
>>16821883YP17
>>16821977As opposed to what? Recording the weight of your rye sacks with roman numerals?
>>16821883You lack all of analysis. At least toss a Rudin in there.
>>16822413What medium are we using for the recording? Blockchain?
>>16821883>no proof>no analysis>no topology>no number theoryPick literally any undergraduate reading requirement of a university and use that.
>>16821888he is new it seemsI would definitely do a little compsci first. Why? idk. In CS everything is adhoc, you can do anything, but, regarding data structures there's a purpose, or millions really. So you learn the structure or method and you use it. For some reason the first time I tried to learn math it just made no sense bc things weren't uhh doing things at first lol. So, for whatever reason CS kinda gave a spot for math in my brain
>>16822417kek
There is no point in reading precalculus if you plan to learn calculus because precalculus is what they teach you when they are not sure you will make it to calculus.Any respectable calculus lesson is self contained so you don't have to worry about prerequisites.The same pattern applies to other books/fields in your study plan.
>>16821883>This is my current reading list:>- AoPS Introduction to Algebra>- AoPS Introduction to Geometry>- AoPS Intermediate Algebra>- AoPS Precalculus>- AoPS Calculus>- Spivak – Calculus>- Axler – Linear Algebra Done Right>- Hubbard & Hubbard – Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms>- Arnold – Ordinary Differential Equations>- Bertsekas & Tsitsiklis – Introduction to Probability>- Wasserman – All of Statisticsyou'll spend a year reading mostly redundant trash only to barely know more than a freshman. read https://sheafification.com/the-fast-track/>Is this good enough until I want to move into something specific?you don't have the background for anything specific
>>16828621Dear lord no, the algebra practice its desperately needed for some calculus operations
>>16829519You can probably get away with doing them at the same time though, calculus is itself really good algebra practice
>>16824122>no proofNo idea about those AoPS books, but Spivak is a real mathematics book. Axler, Hubbard & Hubbard and Arnol'd as well (the rest I don't recognize).
>>16829480>read https://sheafification.com/the-fast-track/Yeah if he wants to be a physics tard.
>>16821883How am I the only triggered by Spivak when he calls a theoretical mathematician a 'she'
>>16821977Very thoughtful post
>>16829522Have you ever been in a university? Most students literally didn't get away with it. People with weak algebra skills struggle in calculus, a lot fail the course. I suppose you went to a joke mickey mouse university, or worse just larping.
>>16821883too many books. As another guy itt suggested, try looking at the fast track dude's websitefor basics > basic mathematics [Lang ] > either Linear Algebra [Shilov] or [Strang] > there are dozens of good calculus books> sets for mathematics [Lawere] > statistical inference [Casella] > Measure Theory, Probability, and Stochastic Processes [Le Gall] or A User's Guide to Measure Theoretic Probability [Pollard] General suggestion: avoid precaulculus"linear algebra done right is a misleading title, it's actually the opposite. For a linalg done right approach read Strang's book >>16829631his other link has imo more general and spot on recommendations for basics https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Read
>>16821883Bro, skip all that shit. You wanna know how yo master any skill in life FAST, including math?Step 1: STOP STUDYINGStep 2: Outline a project, know what you want to doStep 3: Just start building immediately relying on what you already know and a lot of intuitionStep 4: hit a snag, a roadblock, or some other pitfallStep 5: NOW you start researching only what you need to know to solve the problemStep 6: Repeat steps 3-5 until you complete somethingStep 7: then you can brag about it a little bit, but until it's done, you tell none.So for example, for me? I got tired of watching youtube videos and tv shows talking about quantum mechanics and then feeling retarded whenever they show the math equations, so I literally just asked chatgpt what was the bare minimum math that I meeded to know to unpack the schrodinger equation and it generated a study plan for me that was mostly just integral calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra, because I dont need to know much else to achieve my goal. However, along the way I got really sidetracked by number theory because it starts to get very philosophical and interesting, so that's like a side project for me to work on when I get bored.
>>16830254>> basic mathematics [Lang ]LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO>>16821883OP as someone who actually did competition math, studied math, and is an academic now, AOPS is an excellent start, probably the best resource for newbies. The list is fine, but I'm not a fan of Axler's LA. Much more of a Friedberg/Kunze freak. As an oddball beginner pick, Proofs That Really Count is a beautiful combinatorics book that functions as an excellent intro to proofs. Analysis and set theory are really quite awful starts for picking up proof-writing skills, in my opinion.>>16829480>https://sheafification.com/the-fast-track/this meme's still getting posted I see.
>>16821883Read Herstein's topics in algebra and Rudin's PMA. Read number theory from Ireland and Rosen in between and that would be a good start
>>16830312>LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWhy so? It's a good book for someone who either want a fast recap before getting into math or just starting his journey
>>16830260Decent advice actually. I learned far more when I attempt a project and get a roadmap from an AI than just trying to work through a textbook. Having an end goal does wonders for motivation.
>>16830749Not that guy, but I agree with him. Mainly because I think it’s a bit too basic. It doesn’t prepare you for a real calculus book like Spivak. I know, I know. You guys can go straight to Spivak. I personally couldn’t. Something like AOPS is a better preparation.
>>16830771>Mainly because I think it’s a bit too basicthat's exactly the point and why imo is good for a rapid refresh or perparatory to "get into math"
I am always amazed how people come up with literally who's for ProbabilityThere's Gnedenko, Rozanov, Kolmogorov. Why aren't you researching your books better, anon?
>>16830260>Hey (You), just make a bunch of costly easily preventable mistakes that could have been completely avoided by doing a modicum of research before starting the project.
