[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 249 KB, 367x499, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12716674 No.12716674 [Reply] [Original]

does there exist one or do i need to create one myself?

>> No.12716686

I wish i read topology. I study an applied math subject, but i really want to put some time ahead for me and read some pure math. F.

>> No.12717012

>>12716674
Don't read Munkres. It's a terrible book and I learned nothing from it.
Read an analysis book instead.

>> No.12717016

>>12717012
brainlet

>> No.12717062

>>12717012
Don't read Rudin. It's a terrible book and I learned nothing from it.
Read an algebra book instead.

>> No.12717071

>>12716674
I'll join but not Munkres. Read Janich or Lee

>> No.12717134
File: 144 KB, 367x499, Layer 0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12717134

>>12716674

>> No.12717608

>>12716674
We had one last June, you missed it. Now we're studying Lie Algebra

>> No.12717624

>>12717012
>analysis to learn topology
>I cracked open rudin last week: the post
AHAHAHAHA
yeah, metric topology maybe, but even then you miss out on literally everything else

>> No.12717678

>>12717624
Metric topology is all you need. Other topologies are just mental masturbation until you get to functional analysis.
Also Rudin sucks. I did not suggest it.

>> No.12717717

>>12717678
Rudin has so much supplemental material that it might be worth reading.

>> No.12717747

>>12717717
Rudin is good as a reference. You should not learn from him.

>> No.12717789

>>12717747
brainlet

>> No.12718129

>>12717747
Rudin's pretty straight-forward desu, i don't see why people hate its pedagogy.

>> No.12718368

>>12717789
Why? Because I've used other books, which I think are better?
You are a moron lol.

>> No.12718376

>>12718368
>t. brainlet

>> No.12718394

>>12718376
Honestly if you think Rudin is a good first read with his asspull unmotivated proofs then you're a brainlet with no understanding of analysis. Anyone who understands analysis (like me) sees how horrible his exposition is.
Here's a brainlet test for you: suppose f is a real smooth function such that at every point x there is an N such that for all n>N the n'th derivative of f at x is zero. Prove that f is not a polynomial.
If you're not a brainlet then you should be able to do it. But you are, and you can't. So stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

>> No.12718398

>>12718394
>not a polynomial
obviously meant
>is a polynomial

>> No.12718403

has anyone tried reading anything from anyone other than Munkres or Rudin? My topology course has us using Gemignani which is alright I think.

>> No.12718431 [DELETED] 

>>12718394
Any polynomial works
>>12718398
Any bump function works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_function

Rudin haters are always brainlets. Every math professor knows this.

>> No.12718439

>>12718394
Any polynomial works
>>12718398
Let f(x)=e^(1/x^2) and the domain be [0] since you didn't specify :^)

>> No.12718497
File: 378 KB, 2467x1551, TIMESAND___logoLOGOlogo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12718497

Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237

Pic from here:
Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function Within the Critical Strip and Off the Critical Line
https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0030

>> No.12718519
File: 205 KB, 435x645, TIMESAND___700xxx762XXXzdivkjjfhfsni8vkjjfhfsni833hbfvkjjfhfsni833hbf5vkjjfhfsni833hbf5s.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12718519

This is the analysis book I used in college. I think it's a good one. Also, I think it would be completely stupid to study topology before studying analysis.

>> No.12718529

>>12718439
Any function over domain [0] is a polynomial, since functions in mathematics are extensional.

>> No.12718534

>>12718519
>Tooker recommends analysis book