I am not good with mathematics notation or terminology. Is there any website that teaches advanced math without using symbols and terms? I understand you need to use them to save time and to communicate objectively but I cannot work with symbols such as those. So what do I do then. Lol.
>>17043290You are not going to get a lot of helpful responses but your best bet and healthiest option is to write yourself a dictionary or basic terms and try to define your own language as an exercise. Through that you will come to understand why the symbolic language arose the way it did. Besides, every symbolic equation can be reasonably well translated into a full sentence. I suppose you will need an example of that. Let me start with a simple one, hoping the TeX rendering engine does not shart itself over white space.[eqn]\mathbb{Q} = \left\{\frac{a}{b} : a\in\mathbb{Z}, b\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}\right\}[/eqn]In words: [math]\mathbb{Q}[/math] is the set of all fractions a divided by b such that a is contained in the set of integers and b is contained in the set of integers with all elements of the set that contains 0 removed. This can be shortened successively into "the set of all fractions a divided by b where a and b are integers and b is nonzero", which in symbols could be written as[eqn]\mathbb{Q} = \left\{\frac{a}{b} : a,b\in\mathbb{Z}, b\neq 0\right\}[/eqn]
>>17043325what would you apply such a thing to?and thanks for taking the time
>>17043325More like:[math]\mathbb{Q} = S^{-1}(\mathbb{Z})[/math] with [math]S = \mathbb{Z} - 0[/math]so that elements of [math]\mathbb{Q}[/math] are equivalence classes of tuples:[math]\frac{a}{b} = [(a,b)] \in (\mathbb{Z}\times S)/\sim[/math] with [math](a,b)\sim (c,d)[/math] whenever there exists some [math]s\in S[/math] such that [math](ad-bc)s = 0[/math]>>17043425in math you apply yourself.
>>17043425He's mocking you. He's describing the first section of the first chapter of any book about set theory. But he's probably only doing it because he correctly identified you as a shit poster asking a question only someone with the answer to it would ask.In conclusion: kill yourself.
>>17043448more like [math]\mathbb{Q} = [/math] the prime field of characteristic [math]0[/math], no gay symbols needed
>>17043290You joked, but it's a real problem in differential geometry. People are just expected to be able to manipulate all the indices and expressions with arbitrary rules.Starting from calculus like eigenchris videos is probably the better approach. But nobody got time for that.
>>17043457prime field of characteristic zero,so i want the smallest field where adding 1's is not periodic.having this constructively is very hard if you want to avoid >>17043448
>>17043425>what would you apply such a thing to?What I gave is a pretty standard introductory definition to the rationals, application is a matter of perspective but starting with numbers and their properties is a very standard approach to math in STEM.
>>17043448if (ad-bc)s = 0 then ad-bc = 0 since [math] s\in\mathbb{Z}^{*} [/math]
>>17043290This is like asking "How do I learn to read without having to know the alphabet".You could theoretically make up your own alphabet, but that will not help you read something that someone else has written or help someone else understand what you have written. Learn the standard terminology or don't bother.
>>17043290You pick up notation as you read and work through textbooks.
>>17043450>set theory, introductory Ya that's kind of what I assumed. It was just describing a set of numbers.>mocking meI hope he feels better I guessDon't Surreal numbers cover everything no matter what?
>>17043540I wasn't mocking you, the other guy is full of shit.
>>17043546ya but let's be honest why post something so broad? Other than to make an example out of someone who questions what it is?Also, don't surreal numbers by Conway's definition cover everything? All sets?
Don't jump in the deep end of math, that's how you get confused and disillusioned. You don't build a house by starting with the roof. You need a foundation.
>>17043549they cover all mathematical structures that are akin to the real numbers, essentially. And they are class sized as in there is, in a conventional formalism, no set big enough to hold all of them.>why post something so broad? because the issue is that your question requires a broad answer. The semantics of the example were immaterial, what mattered was to give you the idea of turning symbolic language into text, each element of the symbolic language can be treated as a sentence fragment, figuring out which is which is of course not trivial without examples but depending on what you wish to study this is what sqt is for, or this thread
