/lit/ - Literature

>>10377618
I really like this book and recommend it because Feynman brings the bants

>>10377618
cybernetics is comfy

Read Abbott's Flatland, annotated by Ian Stewart. Then after that, read Flatterland by Stewart. Great great books about mathematics. It's almost like a couple of notches above a layman's understanding. You'll get a nice grasp of the concepts in the books.

You could try Godel, Escher, Bach too if you want. That is a little more in-depth and bland like an academic book.

If you want to learn more math, go to school i=or some shit bro. nothing beats a class, textbook, and teacher, when learning mathematics.

Hardy - A Mathematician's Apology
Gowers - Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction

>>10377954
I was excited this book existed but reading it made me feel like a cuck so I started again with calc 1 again

>>10377618
Invitation to discrete mathematics, Jiří Matoušek

>Remarks on the foundations of mathematics

>foundations and fundamental concepts of mathematics

>any set theory book

>>10377618
Everything ITT is a fucking meme. If you're interested doing mathematics then your first book should be How to prove it by a guy called Vennemann or something like this. If you're only interested in mathematics fuck off and fap to BazingoTv

>>10380622
reading how to prove it right now. I recommend it

>>10380622
Kys

>>10380715
Either you're able to do math or you're not. It's simple as that. But all that faggots that fap to Goedel, that Hardy book or flatland and whatever should be fucking genocided. Math isn't a novel, it's a routine of thinking and modeling your environment.

History and philosophy of mathematics: Morris Kline

The Philosophy of Mathematics
Mathematic Thought from Ancient to Modern Times

>>10380745
Hey man, you okay? Who are you fighting? There's no one here.

>>10380745
>the absolute state of STEMfags
Holy shit kill yourself autist. Go back to your shithole >>>/sci/

>>10380622
Stay assmad. The QED book was a totally useful and simple explanation of the way light behaves-- RF even walks you through each equation. His meme book is the biography not this one.

start with Euclid's elements

>>10377965
>if you want to learn math go to school
Srinivada Ramanujan would disagree

>>10380802
>le rigorous science man
Feynman is a meme. You're not a faggot for reading him, but recommending him. Go watch bazingas you wannabe.

>>10380802
>totally useful and simple
re: "wrong"

>>10380622
What's next after Vennemann?
I hear nightmare stories about college algebra and Calc II, and that's before Discrete Math. how do I prepare myself?

>tfw can barely do anything more complex than basic algebra and even struggle with doing multiplication and division in my head

>>10380745
IQ is not real man, calm down.

Are there any "discrete math" books that are worth a damn?

>>10381151
>IQ is not real
Not him, but what does that even mean?

What comes after differential equations, guys?

>>10381137
Not that guy but its Vellemann. You'll know how to do proofs after that book so the appropriate calc book would be Spivak probably. Calc II is a damn joke, and the whole calc sequence in general. Anyone smart enough to read good lit can accomplish basic mathematics.

>>10381156
Every /sci/ fag gets triggered if you imply that there iqtest.dk results are not real.

>>10381156
>>>/sci/9357217

Let me test it right here.

>>10381146
>omg I HAATE math, im soooo bad at it!! xD
Fuck you.

>>10381156
That depends on what you mean by real. :^)

>>10381197
Actually I'm not happy about it at all. How can I learn?

>>10381137
Idk if you are American or not. But How to prove it simply covers the first week of studying math in a german speaking country. You can do proves in naive set theory and read what's going on. However, how you go on further depends on your knowledge and your study. Usually you start math with linear algebra and calculus. If you're bad at high school math - applied math eventhough it's hardly applied to real world situations- doing abstract math is the wrong pick. You need to get a gist of applied math first. Without knowledge of algebra and geometry proving something like commutivity in set theory or that a vector is actually a group is pretty fucking useless IMO. You need to get your hands dirty on textbook examples, and it would be helpful if you can discuss problems with someone who are above them like a private tutor or something like this.

>>10381156
He means that a quotient is not a real number which is bogus since rational numbers are a subset of real numbers. He literally trolling.

>>10381168
Yes, but real in what way? An accurate predictor of fluid intelligence and performance at most cognition levels? because if that's it, then /sci/ is right to get triggered.

>>10377943
this is actually pretty bad, the mathematical mistakes are quite embarrassing if you know your shit, a shame because the writing is still good

>>10381206
Do math

>>10381206
stomach it and rewire your brain entirely. you'll stop being the person you were.

>>10381210
>a vector is actually a group

>>10381249
>>10381251
What would be a good book or selection of exercises from someone of my skill level? I tried Khan academy before but gave up fast because I don't like the interface or having to watch videos

>>10381270
What's your skill level?

>>10381251
I'm ready.

>>10377943
>>10377618
>pop math
disgusting

>>10381273
I posted here >>10381146, so basically a total beginner.

>>10377618
Serge Lang's Basic Mathematics.

>>10377982
>Gowers - Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction
Asbolute cancer. Tim Gowers must be stopped!

>>10380777
Kill yourself brainlet.

>>10381283
I don't know. I'd say some repetition textbook aimed at college freshmen. You'll go through hell initially, but working through an actual high school textbook will probably take too much time.

>even struggle with doing multiplication and division in my head
Don't be yourself up over that. You'd be surprised how bad many actual mathematicians can be at arithmetic. That's not what math is about past grade school.

Any books for brainlets about almost mystical side of mathematics? Like I understand that "everything is math" but I can't feel it. Something to invite me into that realm and introduce basic concepts to build upon.

>>10381302
Anon. That's like trying to experience the wonder of a great movie by reading reviews.

>>10381310
Shit chart. See me after class.

>>10381302
Godel Escher Bach

>>10381338
Don't you leave this thread without providing improvements to the chart and explaining why

>>10381302
Paul Erdos spoke of a book where God himself wrote down the proofs to all theorems, and only the most beautiful and elegant proofs. Unfortunately we don't have access to that, so we can only try to find them on our own, judging for ourselves which proofs might deserve a place in the Book.

>>10381310
I'd kill for one like these with statistics.

>>10381291
>Asbolute [sic] cancer
Why?

>>10381350
This is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Obviously that book doesn't exist because God isn't real. It's really incredible the sorts of things people will believe.

>>10381378
Erdos wasn't particularly religious and was probably an atheist. It's just a mysticism that he liked to talk about.

>>10381346
Too many redundancies. Chart was made by some brainlet who got stuck in a loop at basic mathematics. There is really no point in any of the other logic and set theory books on the chart besides Enderton's. There is no point to reading Halmos' _after_ any of the others. "A transition to advanced mathematics" is a garbage, useless book. "Principles of Mathematics" is yet again an entirely redundant book.

Basically, that chart seems to be designed to waste your time. Or it was made by an idiot who never really moved on past that level.

>>10381298
Do you think this >>10381310 would be good? Better to be slow and thorough than not, right?

>>10381368
Look up 'owl-sowa'. Happy reading.

>>10381378
Go back to r/atheism

>>10381400
Okay, so it's about trimming the fat, I can agree with that

Thank you for replying

>>10381400
That's a good point. Why the hell does he have "Transition" when you already have Velleman/Hammack? I've seen people recommend "Principles of Mathematics" for various purposes but it's more of a helpful reference and a curiosity if your goal is to progress through undergraduate mathematics.

>>10381402
I don't know. Perhaps. Starting with basic logic might be too abstract to suit you, if you don't have that much experience with math. Starting with the yellow book by Lang might be a better choice.

Honestly, that picture seems like a idealized curriculum for someone who has already achieved a certain degree of mathematical maturity, and who probably can't recall what it means to have little to no experience doing math.

I still think you should pick up something aimed at freshmen.

>>10381431
>for someone
by someone

>>10381402
Just do Precalculus by Sheldon Axler. Go through the entire book as much as you can on your own, using Khan Academy or something as a backup for when you absolutely cannot figure out.

When you're done, read either Hammack or Velleman. Go through the whole book. Then pick up any proofing-oriented mathematics book, perhaps Apostol, Spivak, or Axler's Lin. Alg. Done Right, and you'll be well on your way.

Thank you for all advice ITT
It seemed like all my math tutors were burned out

>>10381402
Nah, the chart is garbage. It's not only redundant, it doesn't cover a lot of what mathematicians actually do, and is probably not in the best order even if you did want to read all of that. And if you still have trouble with algebra, you probably want to review that rather than starting off with pure logic like the chart suggests.
Actual rec list:
Beecher, Penna, & Bittinger: "Algebra and Trigonometry"
Velleman: "How to Prove It"
Axler: "Linear Algebra Done Right"
Spivak: "Calculus"
Those four are enough to give you a solid idea of what proof-based mathematics is about, and you can start studying the real stuff from there.

>>10380745
We are all math on this blessed day.

>>10381310
lmao this chart is laughably bad. Halmos' treatment on set theory is infinitely harder tan anything you'll find in fucking Polya. And I have no real idea why anyone would start with anything by Land and not be a graduate student. For real though, this "basic mathematics" treatment is not the route you want to be going. Study guide also falls into that trap of "if I learn set theory maths will open her sweet pearly legs for me and I can suck out the juice of Euclid" when this is simply not the case. Set theory will be useful as a framework for a lot of topics you cover in maths, but most textbooks on those specific subjects will arm you with the amount of set theory you need to know (at least until it becomes redunant and you end up skipping the first "intro" chapter in your texts) . Set theory =/= fundamental knowledge of maths. You'll spend a fat half of a year trying to wrap your brain around FZ axioms without the slightest idea of why any of it is useful, and end up staring for hours at Zorn's lemma without ANY idea of applications. This list sucks tits

>>10381310
Yeah, no. >>10381660 has it right. Set theory is fundamental to mathematics in the same way that assembly is fundamental to computer programming. It's true that it's often used as a basis for everything else, but it's completely unnecessary to start off programming assembly, or even learning more than the very basics of how assembly works, when more useful and higher-level languages exist.

>>10381517
>>10381531
samefag

>>10380869
yeah, but you ain't no Ramanuja, nigger

and even he went to school afterwards

>>10382044
exactly; there is only one ramanujan lol
and my indian homie went to skewl after

I recommend Homotopy Type Theory. Voevodsky's Univalent Foundations project.

The exercises in how to prove it are so tedious