Consider: killing yourself puts you in a superposition of genius and retard, which cannot be resolved without finding out just how poor at math you really were. If you never sit a math exam and instead jump out of your apartment window, you will be possibly the smartest person to ever live. Schodingers retard.

>>16994031
-
>>16994033
=
>>-2

>>16994031
This is highly dependent on your level of prior knowledge.
Are you at a secondary-school level or below? Then it does not really matter.
Are you at undergraduate level? Then it does matter, but the importance is on what is discussed in the work. The value of a topic is very personal and strongly related to your own mathematical *taste*, sadly as an undergraduate you lack this maturity.
Are you at a graduate level? Start with the always recommended "classics" and if they are bad, try to look for books on the topic that do suit your taste.

If you were to be more precise with your goals, I could possible introduce some books/lecture notes. However, be warned that learning is an individual experience and hence I can not provide an optimal solution.

>>16994051
Pre-Calc is my highest level.

>>16994055
What do you want to work towards? Maybe a specific application maybe a specific field? Or do you just want to get an introduction to 'college' math as a whole? If you just want to get better at pre-calc then just do Lang's "Basic mathematics" or any of the other classics suited to your taste.

If not, would you prefer a fast paced approach to the material or more handheld?
Lectures are the most extreme form of handheld, they are very slow and information sparse but highly 'illustrative' (according to students).

>>16994069
I would like to improve my math skills generally. So more along the line of college level math.

I'm certainly game for lectures. I'm out of practice a few years.

>>16994077
If you're out of practice I would recommend starting by skimming through Lang's Basic mathematics to see if you still posses the manipulation techniques required for calculus and beyond.

As to not overwhelm I will just restrict my focus to calculus.
For caclulus there is no point in reading a big book. So despite what most of /sci/ claims I will not recommend one.

You can start by watching 3B1B's video series (not very useful but hopefully convinces you of the main ideas of calculus).

A general structured course contains videos and exercises but no book. This is relatively 'fast' and straight to the point.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-01sc-single-variable-calculus-fall-2010

For another lecture series I can recommend, Professor Lenard is fine.


Easy to understand lecture notes for Calc 1-3: https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/CalcI.aspx

If you are done with calculus you must do linear algebra. Preferebly before you start calc 2.
The most important thing is to actually do the exercises. It is very easy to convince yourself that you know something but doing is a different story. Especially for computationally heavy courses like calculus.

Do stuff at your own pace, if you notice that a method is not appealing to you just change the way you're learning. There are millions of methods available for calculus and linear algebra.

If my answer was not satisfactory, feel free to ask further.

>>16994102
This makes pretty good sense to me.

If you want to give any other math advice feel free. Other users make be lurking so they could get some value from your answers I'm sure.

>>16994120
If you're doing this for yourself remember to have fun. It actually makes learning easier. I am not here to convince you of maths' beauty (this is something you must discover yourself), but making yourself suffer for no reason is not worth effort.

Never be afraid to drop a certain book or lecturer. Sometimes a slightly different approach can mean a world of difference in understanding. Try to find the way of learning that suits you best. Maybe teach your cat calculus, who knows he might be the next Euler. Don't be bound by preconceived notions of learning.

Try to actually understand **why** things are being done the way they are. Remote memorization alone will fail you at a certain point. It also makes reviewing a lot easier, since you don't need to start from scratch.

Make sure you actually understand the material before continuing. Early levels of math are build on top of each other. Not understanding now leads to problems later on.

Exercises are the best way to check understanding. Do not skip exercises, challenge yourself. However, do not waste your time on too difficult problems. Looking at solutions is fine, but try to repeat the argument yourself.

Lastly, specifically for calculus (and maybe basic linear algebra), sometimes it is not worth the effort to understand everything 100%. Move on and come back later.

>>16994031
AOPS prealgebra -> aops intro to algebra -> hammack’s book of proof -> zeitz’s problem solving book

>>16994346
Pre-Algebra>Algebra>Post-Algebra

>>16994031
any reason to ditch stewart for Spivak? I'm on the third chapter for stewart

>>16994588
I'd keep reading Stewart and if anything isn't clear check Spivak.

Wrath of Math Calc I series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_BWPgEKtiw&list=PLztBpqftvzxWVDpl8oaz_Co6CW50KtGJy
Exercises:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj8fZb5CS5A&list=PLztBpqftvzxUEqGGgvL3EuIQUNcAdmVhx

Don't be intimidated by the length of the series. The Calc I series is 30 videos long but they probably average about 10 minutes each.
The exercises series is 264 videos but a lot of them are like a minute and a half and are just quadrupling down on a previous lecture. You can easily skip most of them if you feel confident you understand the procedure being tested.
It's not a replacement for a good textbook, but it is great supplementary material if you're struggling somewhere.

File: Math Question Girl.png (1.1 MB, 1523x726)

1.1 MB PNG

>>16994733
Awesome