book-recommendations

[prisma snow]

@long bear wow you're quick. And I finished my marking, so now I am taking a 10 minute break. Tell me to fuck off in 10 min, lol

[long bear]

will do.

[drowsy arrow]

wuh?

[prisma snow]

What topic do you want your book recommendation to be about?

[drowsy arrow]

basic geometry?? uh.. not so complex geometry? i dont really know, maybe a beginner friendly one

Lines, Angles, Shapes
Coordinate plane
Area and perimeter
Volume and surface area
Pythagorean theorem
Transformations, congruence, and similarity

that level

[wooden sparrow]

@drowsy arrow AOPS has good books on school mathematics

Try their intro to geometry

I'm going to too after few days

[drowsy arrow]

oh, this is the second time someone has recommended me aops books, first one was pre algebra, thats pretty cool, thanks

[wooden sparrow]

The difference in aops books are, while the topics covered are the same, the book pushes you to teach yourself by asking gradual problems which you solve and learn a concept from

Also has good problem sets

[lime vigil]

@celest robin not sure why people don't recommend this book but I loved Thomas and Finney when i was in high school and learned calculus by myself. They develop the material purely from intuition and it can sometimes feel like you're reading a very engaging novel. Highly recommend this book - perhaps to read everyday early morning 🙂
Edit: I should further elaborate - what i meant by intuition is they take a physics approach to calculus (so you'll expect problems from a physics perspective)

[wooden sparrow]

Ohh that's nice

[gray gazelle]

I'm writing a book guys 🙂

not like "math" but I saw that this says book-discussion so I thought I would mention it

[wooden sparrow]

What is the book about?

[white pebble]

beans

[wooden sparrow]

Jack and the beanstalk 2.0

[pale mica]

Jack and Jill and the big beanstalk

[gray gazelle]

Anyone here familiar with or read the book "Set Theory and Logic" by robert stoll? http://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/132319832/pendidikan/ebooksclub.org__Set_Theory_and_Logic.pdf Pretty comprehensive book.

In that it's a lot of topics

Like

It's showing you loads of stuff at the foundations of maths

Walking through everything

[heavy barn]

Is it introductory level?

[gray gazelle]

I don't know

I haven't seen anyone else talk about it

on the interwebs

Maybe?

Maybe not

[heavy barn]

Oh I just downloaded it because it sounds cool

[gray gazelle]

It's aimed at "advanved undergraduates" so its undergrad level

[heavy barn]

Okay, cool

[gray gazelle]

Yeah its uh

Its a shitload of topics in it

It spends a chapter going through set theory first (chapter being a lot of sub-chapters and sections). Then it goes over axioms of successor function, then it looks are cardinality and ordinal numbers. Then builds up to real numbers from naturals. Then it does some stuff on the logical and axiomatic and philosophical foundations in the 2nd half which I havent read

[heavy barn]

This book looks like it'll explain some stuff that I want to learn, thanks, I'll read it

[gray gazelle]

Yeah man good book 🙏

The second half is very technical it seems

in a semi philosophical way

Probably related to the stuff here in #foundations

But it's just weird that this book is covers so much it seems

[lost fjord]

Not a question

But a recommendation

[ionic wren]

by kaplans?

[lost fjord]

I liked this book very much and I thought I'd share it

It introduced me to several different topics I didn't know about when I first read the book

And it explained it all to me in a very intuitive way

So I just wanted to put this book out there for people who had some time to kill and likes doing math leisurely

[hearty steppe]

What is the book about

[lost fjord]

Well it just goes over a variety of topics: history of math (and mathematicians), some projective geometry, why e raised to pi times i equals -1, and a bunch of neat ways to visualize other stuff

It isn't very high level stuff

As in I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who isn't in uni or beyond

It also gives exposure to couple of introductory proofs

[hearty steppe]

There’s so many history books on math man it’s overwhelming.

[manic turret]

Can any one suggest some books for solved problems in multivariable calculus and linear algebra?

[willow relic]

Good book on Logic? I’m familiar with what is taught in college “symbolic logic” courses, but would like to learn about mathematical logic

[gray gazelle]

Logic, Language, Meaning?

https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/j.vanbenthem/hml-blackburnvanbenthem.pdf

The last one is a pdf on Modal Logic

[valid moth]

@sweet lotus may have some recommendations

[quartz pawn]

I'm reading Peter Smith's book

It's good

[gray gazelle]

give book title and author

or else it's too vague

@long bear

[long bear]

this is the cover

[gray gazelle]

cover is a leaf

[long bear]

xD

[gray gazelle]

🇨🇦

[prisma snow]

Hey, I have the same book! Except a different edition

[gray gazelle]

what are you looking to get out of a calculus book?

[prisma snow]

I never even opened it

So can't recommend

[gray gazelle]

are you self learning or is this out of a class damon?

[long bear]

self learning

I want a more theoretical approach but like, for a first timer if that makes sense

[gray gazelle]

hmmm

what do you mean by more theoretical

[long bear]

like uh

I want something that is very descriptive and tells me why and how something works

[gray gazelle]

hmm

if you are comfortable with mathematical proof (both reading them and writing them) then i would recommend spivak's calculus

if you aren't then that might be a rather daunting recommendation though

[long bear]

I don't have too much experience with them outside of class

[gray gazelle]

hmm

im trying to think of a good book for calculus that isnt too proofy but also not too handwavy

[long bear]

I mean

I'd be willing

to go over proofs

[gray gazelle]

I want something that is very descriptive and tells me why and how something works
spivak certainly meets this criteria, but it is kind of difficult if you're inexperienced with proofs (especially the exercises)

difficult isn't necessarily a bad thing

[long bear]

is it possible to do without a strong background with proofs?

well

[gray gazelle]

it's possible

my university does it for the first year course (albeit with an insane drop rate)

i have a feeling that spivak meant for the first 4 chapters of his book to serve as a psuedo-introduction to proofs

[quartz pawn]

Alot of people say that but I feel like they say that without really considering what it would be like to dive into spivak without any sort of foundation in propositional logic or just general proof knowledge.

Even the first 4 chapters don't really introduce you to the concept of proofs.

Like conditional statements, contrapositives, defintions or even sets really.

[gray gazelle]

yeah he kind of assumes you already know how to do some proofs, which is why im hesitant in directly recommending it

[quartz pawn]

It introduces you to PMI in like chapter 2.

[gray gazelle]

i dont see an issue with that, induction is a very important proof technique

[quartz pawn]

No i think it's good

I'm just saying that's the one chapter that really goes into "proofs".

[long bear]

induction is like, showing n and then n+1 works

something upon those lines

[gray gazelle]

assume n, show n + 1 works

[long bear]

right

[gray gazelle]

then coupled with the base case working (check manually), you have that the thing you wanted to prove is true for all n

[quartz pawn]

I tried going into Spivak with no knowledge of proofs and found it incredibly different.

This was freshman year of college.

[scenic briar]

hi

[long bear]

hello

[gray gazelle]

@long bear what i did was cover velleman's "how to prove it" the summer before taking the course that used spivak

[quartz pawn]

I went in straight naked with no knowledge of first order logic propositional logic proofs quantification known of it.

[scenic briar]

any book recommendations for discrete maths?

[quartz pawn]

That seems like a great idea.

[long bear]

I'll check it out.

[gray gazelle]

how to prove it is a nice book that's not too difficult

the title is quite descriptive

it teaches you to prove things

[hollow current]

привет ттера

[gray gazelle]

so if you want to have a solid foundation for proofs (which will help not only for reading a good calculus book, but will help for literally all mathematics), you can read velleman

hello vimes

[long bear]

Nice

How long do you think it would take

To cover both books?

I can dedicate 4-6 hours a day

[gray gazelle]

you don't need to do all of velleman. the important parts of velleman took me approximately a month with like 1-2 hours a day

velleman isn't the only way to learn how to do and read proofs, it's just the one im familiar with

[scenic briar]

is Concrete Mathematics by Donald Knuth good?

for learning discrete math

[gray gazelle]

ive heard good things about it

[scenic briar]

is it introductory?

[gray gazelle]

no clue, never read it

[sage python]

You think its exercises are good for cementing your knowledge of the material?

[long bear]

lol

[gray gazelle]

what is this in reference to

[long bear]

cementing

[sage python]

Knuth

[quartz pawn]

I've heard good stuff about Knuth and it'll probably be what I use when I relearn discrete

that or this other book called discrete calculus

[long bear]

What parts should I be focusing on in How to prove it?

[gray gazelle]

all are important obviously

[long bear]

mk

[gray gazelle]

i learned the stuff from 4-7 by being exposed to it through uni classes

1-3 is what i covered

[long bear]

fair enough

I'll start reading it now

Thanks heaps

[sage python]

I don't know if anyone other than Damon caught the pun so I will say, concrete cement hahahaha

[gray gazelle]

[quartz pawn]

I would do everything from 1-6 7 ain't necessary to prove stuff

I mean it is but it's not as fundamental or ubiquitous as the first six chapters.

[long bear]

I'll cover it all.

[gray gazelle]

yeah the right thing to do would be 1-6

7 is also important but like

you can pick up on that stuff in classes/later

i didn't become comfortable with countability until i took a topology course lol

and i don't actually know what cantor schroder bernstein is

[long bear]

i have a friend

who is related to cantor

[sage python]

Just means that if you have sets and injections both ways

[long bear]

Georg Cantor

[sage python]

Then there's a bijection between them

[gray gazelle]

oh that's not that bad

[long bear]

The guy who came up with set theory right?

[gray gazelle]

i was expecting something more difficult to state

[quick hornet]

"came up with set theory" is a pretty weird thing to try and pin down

[long bear]

Pioneered set theory?

[quick hornet]

but cantor is one of the first people to study sets for their own sake, yes

and defined many of the core notions such as cardinality

[long bear]

cardinality is the number of elements in a set right?

[quick hornet]

in the case of finite sets, yes

thats an obvious enough notion

cantor's contribution was extending this to infinite sets

with cardinality classes being determined by existence of bijections

this was controversial at the time but is now one of the basic tenets of proof-based mathematics

[valid moth]

reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

[quick hornet]

the indian logical tradition is so foreign to me

i ought to look into it at some point

[quartz pawn]

I know that India had a pretty big influence on our current number system.

I remember that the currrent number system were Hindu-Arabic Numerals

like a sort of combination of Hindu Numerals , then they were adopted by the Arabs or something

"Although the Hindu–Arabic numeral system[1][2] (i.e. decimal) was developed by Indian mathematicians around AD 500,[3] quite different forms for the digits were used initially. They were modified into Arabic numerals later in North Africa."

I stole this from wikipedia

"Other alternative names are Western Arabic numerals, Western numerals, Hindu-Arabic numerals"

I know nothing of math history

lol

I want to read a math history book. I plan on reading the new version of Stillwell's book as pleasure book

History is hard because of how much shit you have to remember lol.

[valid moth]

it's harder when you're taught in a shitty way

namely

[quartz pawn]

I definitely liked history and considered a math history double major.

[valid moth]

when they get their priorities mixed up

and make you memorize random pointless, nonessential stuff

[quartz pawn]

Yea, I know even less about Eastern mathematical development.

But there is a dearth of eastern mathematical history I feel like.

[wooden sparrow]

it's harder when you're taught in a shitty way
@valid moth same thing with mathematics

[quartz pawn]

I meant the former.

[valid moth]

well what i mean is

when they make you memorize very pointless things

like specific dates

my APUSH class was actually taught pretty well

and basically, i knew pockets of time

[quartz pawn]

My APUSH was taught like shit

[valid moth]

like "bacon's revolution, late 1600s"

[quartz pawn]

lol

Yea, I don't remember anything from APUSH and those exams we took always were about the most obscure bullshit like what was the color of George Washington's Trench coat at the battle of trenton.

Like fuck that.

lol

[valid moth]

hm i only found bibliography for chinese math history stuff https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/mathhist/china.html#bibliography

[quartz pawn]

We did some chinese math stuff in my linear algebra class. I went to an LA school. We participated in a project by FSU where we studied how the Chinese mathematics to solve everyday problems. They understood how to solve linear systems of equations pretty well.

We even had to use toothpicks for bamboos sticks like they did back then. They had these tables where they would use bamboo sticks and arranging the bamboo sticks represents numbers.

Liberal Arts

It was cool.

But we spent a little too long doing it because our professor was not really... good at teaching the first couple of months of the class.

And I don't really want to vent about that.

But I remembered that they weren't really considered with mathematical proofs. They saw math via it's utility to solve problems.

Didn't care much for proving why their methods work.

[valid moth]

an LA school is like a juvenile detention facility for laurents

[quartz pawn]

What's a Laurent?

[split moon]

a series

[quartz pawn]

[drowsy arrow]

damnit i cant buy stuff from the web how am i supposed to read a book

[gray gazelle]

libgen

[drowsy arrow]

what

[split moon]

based terra

[gray gazelle]

libgen = free books

[drowsy arrow]

interesting..

[gray gazelle]

has saved me a lot of money

[sullen field]

[quartz pawn]

Same, almost rarely had to waste money on textbooks in any class.

[split moon]

never wasted a cent with anything uni educ

ah nvm. I printed out some lecture notes

but thats all

[gray gazelle]

@split moon do you use a mouse

[split moon]

@gray gazelle ye, why

[long bear]

[gray gazelle]

then you spent money on batteries in order to navigate pdfs from libgen

[long bear]

lol

[split moon]

wired tho

I only spent extra energy

[gray gazelle]

you paid in computer lifespan

[split moon]

yes

thats correct

[drowsy arrow]

[edgy loom]

Book for permutation and combinations pls

Preferably HS level

even higher is fine

[edgy loom]

Chat do be dead when I ask for a book

[urban slate]

No book for you

Wikipedia

[white pebble]

just use lecture notes

books are for boomers

[urban slate]

Why use books when you have WolframAlpha, guess-and-check, and frustration?

But Khan academy is like books but free tho 👀

Honestly it's like classes but free and no credit

[long bear]

and sometimes the instructors resolution dramatically changes.

and mic quality

[urban slate]

But when grant is the instructor tho

Aw yeah

Party time

[long bear]

yeah but

if i want grant

i had 3blue1brown

have

[urban slate]

True but 3blue1brown doesn't teach you multivariable calculus

[white pebble]

euh KA isn't great past elementary school though :x

[old matrix]

which book is better : 'How to prove it' OR 'A concise introduction to pure mathematics'?

[white pebble]

neither

[old matrix]

ohh

which is a good starter book for pure mathematics?

i have heard that 'How to prove it' is a pretty good book

[edgy loom]

Yes it is

@hollow current

just use lecture notes
@white pebble What lecture notes

[civic carbon]

It is a course I do not require a text for because I don't like the texts available.

[white pebble]

@white pebble What lecture notes
@edgy loom can u read french

which is a good starter book for pure mathematics?
@old matrix rudin

[brittle latch]

has anyone here read follad, advanced calculus

folland being the author of course

i finished calc 3 last fall and i emailed a professor asking for book recommendations and they mentioned this, just curious if anyone has had experience with it

[hollow current]

@hollow current
@edgy loom ?

[old matrix]

@old matrix rudin
@white pebble do you mean the mathematician Rudin?

[white pebble]

his book

baby rudin

[old matrix]

What are the pre requisites? And what does it talk about

[muted hearth]

book that you have to have experience with proofs with beforehand I think

[velvet briar]

Oof we pushing rudin? Haha

Fraleigh's abstract algebra is a pretty easy book to a pretty easy course, and starts with very easy proofs

Rudin is a very terse intro to real analysis. You need no prereqs, and it has beautiful proof structure, but it's difficult for beginners

[white pebble]

honestly i feel like for rudin, you'll have a pretty hard block in the very beginning (if you haven't done any post hs maths), but once you get past that there's nothing better to learn introductory analysis from

[gray gazelle]

is the kozen book on automata and computability the standard text for a UG class?

i disagree

I will stand by my savior Terence Tao

[white pebble]

rudin > tao :P

[gray gazelle]

Rudin helped with cleaning up my proofs and developing intuition but if i had to restart analysis I would go Tao's first and do Rudin's most difficult problems after

[white pebble]

[muted hearth]

Tao analysis is really easy read according to relatively uneducated high schooler me

from what I've read of it

[white pebble]

rudin -> fma

[gray gazelle]

baby rudin as an intro text is like pushing a morbidly obese infant who cant swim into the ocean with a deflated life preserver

[white pebble]

if he doesn't drown he learns how to swim

[gray gazelle]

Tao is very easy read that's why i like it

[muted hearth]

not everyone actually wants to learn to swim at this very instant tho

[gray gazelle]

at a certain point you have to ask yourself: is the rigor really going to help me

[muted hearth]

the paddle pool can be fun

[white pebble]

[gray gazelle]

exactly

[quartz pawn]

Yea I always end up asking myself that question.

I try to be rigorous in my proofs but I always wonder how much of it is necessary and if I really need to be so rigorous about certain arguments when they seem so blatantly obvious.

[white pebble]

what

[gray gazelle]

proof by triviality never fails

your proofs should also be very clean

[white pebble]

w h a t

proofs have to be rigorous

[quartz pawn]

Of course.

But I'm always wondering if I'm adding too much verbiage for no reason.

[white pebble]

:confusion:

[gray gazelle]

yeah i meant clean in that when you finish the proof and restate it formally everything feels right

[white pebble]

you should aim for the cleanest yet the most rigorous proof you can write

[velvet briar]

We have the wrong word here. The rigour is necessary and yes it will help. Terse-ness may not be helpful

[gray gazelle]

marginal rigour though

[quartz pawn]

I think it's important but I do have a hard time seeing when exactly enough is enough.

[gray gazelle]

like is rudin really going to make you a better analyst than using Tao's text or someone else?

[quartz pawn]

Lol definitely no

But It'll probably make you a better mathematician.

[white pebble]

@gray gazelle yes

[quartz pawn]

Maybe only marginally though.

And then it's again back to the question whether it's really worth it.

like you said.

[gray gazelle]

rudin is the serge lang of analysis

extremely good as reference but i would die before i use it as a main intro text

[white pebble]

never tried lang so dunno what you're talking about

wtf no

[gray gazelle]

honestly this is all foreplay for the Princeton series on analysis

[quartz pawn]

Try spivak, but maybe after learning basics of foudnations.

lol I've heard that they're pretty hard.

You've got baby rudin and then you got Princeton series on Analysis

[white pebble]

no

you've got baby rudin

[gray gazelle]

go straight to Princeton

[white pebble]

then you've got dieudonne's elements d'analyse

[gray gazelle]

UG linear algebra -> grad analysis

we get it ur french

or italian

more power to you either way

[white pebble]

i have the english copy of fma lol

[quartz pawn]

fma?

[white pebble]

foundations of modern analysis

the first tome of dieudonne's text on analysis

[quartz pawn]

Landau

[gray gazelle]

Landau writes math books?

[quartz pawn]

I mean Landau?

I thought that was one of their books.

[white pebble]

no dieudonne lol

[gray gazelle]

im thinking of different Landuas

[quartz pawn]

I'm gonna take a crack at baby rudin and spivak probably I'd say in about 3 or 4 more weeks

I'll very likely be in help section often.

[white pebble]

uwu

[hollow current]

basically proof is like a program

you can do it in cumbersome way

[gray gazelle]

logicism gang rise up

[urban slate]

📠

[hollow current]

but good program (proof) is the one written without any superfluous details and, ofc, without mistakes

like compare writing "Hello, world" by

cout << "Hello, world"

or

cout << 'H';
cout << 'e';
cout << 'l';
cout << 'l';
cout << 'o';
cout << ' ';

``` etc

[old matrix]

Umm I am sorry to interrupt... So you all are (most of them) are recommending me the book "Principles of Mathematical Analysis"

[quartz pawn]

Yea

[old matrix]

By Rudin

Okay

Thank you

[white pebble]

nah i think they were recommending tao's book for analysis

i liked rudin though

but i've never used tao so can't say anything against it

[quartz pawn]

I was about to make a cavaet and be like actually... maybe not

[old matrix]

But how's Rudin?

[white pebble]

rudin is pretty harsh in the beginning

[gray gazelle]

terse and prosaic

[old matrix]

Like I am good at high school math

[white pebble]

i think it gave me depression for like a week lol

after that it was chill tho

[gray gazelle]

have u taken proof classes?

[velvet briar]

No I'm recommending against rudin haha

[old matrix]

Nope @gray gazelle

[gray gazelle]

calculus?

[quartz pawn]

What do you consider the beginning?

[gray gazelle]

first 2 chapters

after that it actually picked up

[quartz pawn]

Because I've gone through the problems in the first chapter and I don't think they're not bad.

not all of them.

[velvet briar]

I liked Fraleigh's abstract algebra for an "easy proof" book

[old matrix]

Nope I just know a bit about limits

[quartz pawn]

but this is after taking a course in analysis. But it wasn't a rigorous course by any means.

[gray gazelle]

ok learn calculus not analysis

[white pebble]

first 2 chapters
@gray gazelle rudin?

[gray gazelle]

yes from what i remember

[velvet briar]

Oh fk yeah take calculus and linear algebra if you haven't yet

[white pebble]

lol yeah chapter 2 had me down for a bit

after that rudin is great

up till like chapter 8

[quartz pawn]

I'm gonna go look at it; I have a hard copy

[old matrix]

Good resources for calculus?

[white pebble]

desmos

[gray gazelle]

some1 in here is going to say Spivak; dont listen to them

[white pebble]

i was going to say spivak

[gray gazelle]

just do something like James Stewarts Caclulus book

[quartz pawn]

lol

[gray gazelle]

there's a free PDF somewhere online

[quartz pawn]

Yea do Stewart

[gray gazelle]

it goes from limits, function to calc 3

[quartz pawn]

for a first course in calculus

[old matrix]

Ohh ok @gray gazelle

Can I read the book how to prove it?

[quartz pawn]

That's a good idea

[old matrix]

Does it require calculus?

[quartz pawn]

nope.

[gray gazelle]

no

[old matrix]

Ok

Okay thank you everyone

[quartz pawn]

👍

[white pebble]

wasn't there like a whole book on interesting proofs

i forget the name

[gray gazelle]

look up "how to write proofs in analysis" by Kane

^conjecture guy

[quartz pawn]

Proofs from the Book

probably is what you're thinking of.

It gives a bunch of derivations of classical results.

[quartz pawn]

Yup that's it.

[gray gazelle]

get the newest edition

[old matrix]

Okay

I'll try

[gray gazelle]

there's a PDF for one

[old matrix]

I'll try to find one online

[quartz pawn]

it's free so might as well get it

[white pebble]

i did analysis before calculus

Proofs from the Book
@quartz pawn yeaa

[old matrix]

So, which book do I start with first? Calculus OR How to prove it OR how to write proofs in analysis?

[gray gazelle]

calc

[old matrix]

Okay

The next?

[gray gazelle]

up to you

[white pebble]

just read the last two books when you have free time lol

[old matrix]

Ohh okay

[white pebble]

they aren't really serious reads

[old matrix]

Okay

[gray gazelle]

http://93.174.95.29/main/035BD43ED71E6D715ECDEE89745F416B

that's the calc link

[old matrix]

Thank you @white pebble @gray gazelle @quartz pawn

Thank you @gray gazelle

[white pebble]

mvp got two thank yous

[gray gazelle]

when im on fire, im on fire

[old matrix]

Lol

[hollow current]

Umm I am sorry to interrupt... So you all are (most of them) are recommending me the book "Principles of Mathematical Analysis"
@old matrix for analysis nice is also Zorich

i am reading it rn and it is very gut

[muted hearth]

@gray gazelle see the problem with Stewart or Thomas or whatever from what I tried to read is that they're really unpleasant paddle pools

[white pebble]

probably more pleasant than

[muted hearth]

like Paul's notes seem to cover it all with so much less

[gray gazelle]

yeah theyre insufferable but where else are you going to get it

[white pebble]

just do analysis

and pick up calculus

and end up studying calculus

[gray gazelle]

maybe its just me but analysis was an acquired taste

same with calculus

[white pebble]

analysis is less dry

funner

[gray gazelle]

yeah but its hard to appreciate analysis when youre starting out

[white pebble]

i think i started rudin around the same time my class started studying the quadratic formula

[gray gazelle]

like i dont know of anybody who in their first analysis lecture/chapter was like wow this is so fun

[muted hearth]

I mean, hey, as it turns out, spivak isn't for me right now

but Sloth read it at 14

so

[gray gazelle]

sloth can do what he wants

[muted hearth]

🤷‍♂️

it seems that it can work

[white pebble]

tbf i think a lot of people do calc at 12-13 these days

american education 💯

[muted hearth]

do they really though

[white pebble]

yeah

in my old school

[gray gazelle]

i did calc at 13

[white pebble]

they let me take calc freshman year

when i was 12 turning 13

[muted hearth]

I haven't officially started yet

no means to

[white pebble]

then again in france

[muted hearth]

:(

[white pebble]

you learn the quadratic equation junior year

which is

interesting

[gray gazelle]

quadratic eq is algebra 2?

[white pebble]

yeah

[muted hearth]

what age is junior in this context?

[white pebble]

16-17

[muted hearth]

oh

yeah

[gray gazelle]

thats normal in US

[muted hearth]

same here

in aus

[white pebble]

yea but in france everyone has to take the same classes

[muted hearth]

this is sophomore year I think

yeah, same here until junior

[white pebble]

i went from calc freshman year to smth like algebra 1 sophomore year

[muted hearth]

I hope I'm using the right words here

[white pebble]

was amazing

[muted hearth]

but we do same classes up to geo x algebra 2 in year 10, which is sophomoreish

[gray gazelle]

so no skipping classes?

[muted hearth]

then you go somewhere between no maths and going past calc 1 for the next 2 years

no

not usually

[gray gazelle]

that sucks

[white pebble]

or

you can skip classes ;)

[muted hearth]

it's not standard, at least

it does happen

[gray gazelle]

one good thing about US educ is that u can skip whatever class u want

[muted hearth]

it's not at all unheard of

[white pebble]

hw abt

[muted hearth]

our system is much closer to the UK

[white pebble]

just not going to school

[muted hearth]

like a levels and most Australian state systems are pretty similar I think

[white pebble]

i think i had like 3 digit absence hours this year

a levels suck

french education sucks

american education better but sucks

[muted hearth]

is us education really better though

lol

like

[white pebble]

i miss 5th grade

[muted hearth]

consistently

[white pebble]

mandatory art was fun

[muted hearth]

art was mandatory until 8th for me

[white pebble]

but

we got to like

cut out our names and paint over them

[muted hearth]

very slow compulsory elementary art curriculum

smh

[white pebble]

we got to make mud things too

[muted hearth]

we were doing weird textile shit in 5th grade

[white pebble]

i rmbr i was sad because they didn't have blue paint for the glaze

[muted hearth]

:(

in other news it's 1:30 so I'm going to bed

[white pebble]

australia :(

[muted hearth]

:(

I was only 10 mins off

[white pebble]

:(

[vagrant hamlet]

hey just a question for the people that have done spivak

is it necessary to do all the problems?

i'm currently following this list https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1793857/is-there-a-list-of-recommended-problems-to-do-in-each-chapter-of-spivaks-calcul, but even then it still feels grindy

[quartz pawn]

I mean, it's almost never necessary to do ALL problems. In any book.

But will you learn more, I'd say yea.

Depends on how the problems are and what they're asking.

Going through all the problems in Friedberg I'm learning some very interesting facts.

[vagrant hamlet]

also are there a lot of subtleties hidden in the problems

[white pebble]

naw i think that list pretty minimalist already

[vagrant hamlet]

oh

ok i'll follow this list then

wait nvm i didn't actually read the list properly

i didn't realise it was only this bad for chapters 1-2

[white pebble]

looks pretty fun though

[vagrant hamlet]

chapters 1-2 aren't really

the main issue is that it's going through a subject most people are familiar with

except from a few properties

so you have to resist the urge to rush through it

and actually take your time

[white pebble]

what kind of class does calculus over a whole year though

[vagrant hamlet]

chapters 1-2 only'

those are the only chapters where i feel the urge to just rush through it

[white pebble]

just rush thru it

[vagrant hamlet]

you have to use the properties they gave

so you can't really do so

you can't pull out well known results

because most of them are to be proven in the problems

[white pebble]

then don't rush through it

[vagrant hamlet]

yea it just makes me feel a bit impatient

doing so

its annoying

to have to force myself to slow down

[white pebble]

huh

y not just skip 1 and 2 entirely

[vagrant hamlet]

idk

i didn't know if they were important

this is my first actual math book

[white pebble]

won't u know if they were important later on

when u get stuck

[vagrant hamlet]

i see what you mean

[white pebble]

[vagrant hamlet]

wow

why did i not think of that

[white pebble]

:D

[edgy loom]

@edgy loom can u read french
@white pebble Sadly, I cannot read surrender

[white pebble]

[gray gazelle]

who on earth does all the problems in a textbook

just do the most difficult ones

[stray veldt]

how do you know before doing them

[white pebble]

just do random decent looking ones

[gray gazelle]

the less numbers and more words = the more difficult

[white pebble]

[gray gazelle]

wow my english stroked out

yeah but its usually sufficiently obvious to discern between easy and difficult by setting it up in your head

[wooden sparrow]

how do you know before doing them
@stray veldt my book has a star beside it for challenging ones

[quartz pawn]

I'm that guy doing all the problem as of late lol.

I mean, I have skipped a couple that I thought were intuitively obvious results but were tedious, if you know what I mean.

But the last section that I did on homogeneous linear DE with constant coefficients I did every single problem in that section

But to @gray gazelle 's point, yea. You can kind of intuit which ones are harder than others.

Basically anyones that you immediately have an idea how to start vs the ones that you have no idea how to start or it takes a little longer.

And you generally tell just when you start reading them.

I usually read all the problems before I even get to them: Just so I know I'm comprehending what is being asked of me.

[gray gazelle]

doing all the problems is good practice for computation and patterned problems(like integrals, finding sols to ODE's, etc.) but for me i found that solely doing the difficult problems was just as good as doing all the problems

but to each their own

[pulsar aurora]

Depends on the book. A lot of the more difficult books will build up on previous problems that skipping might screw you

[quartz pawn]

oh yea spivak is like that

I didn't even consider that

Friedberg has problems like that too actually.

almost all of spivak is like that and rudin is like too

friedberg isn't on the same level as rudin or spivak though. I don't know wants the equivalent of those two in LA.

[gray gazelle]

lot of physics books are like that too

griffith's will literally make u go to problems from 6 chapters back and use that result to help ur problem

[dapper root]

I like to do most exercises when I have time

Some books practically necessitate it

But yeah, if a problem seems really annoying and is some annoying computation about some specific case, I might do one to figure out the method and then skip the rest

[quartz pawn]

On dominiation / relay matrices I skipped all that cause I realized I could learn that at any time and it was computationally tedious.

That's one reason I didn't bother proving a general theorem about why block multiplicaton works.

[dapper root]

Like I’m sort of

[quartz pawn]

Accept it and move on.

[dapper root]

Influenced by the fact I’m doing Hartshorne rn

[quartz pawn]

It makes some intuitive sense to me anyways.

[dapper root]

And I did say half the exercises and moved on

And got destroyed like 2 or 3 sections down the line

[quartz pawn]

I'm gonna try to do all the problems in munkres 😓

[dapper root]

Until I went back and did them all

Oh sure

But the thing is those exercises were just, if u understand them

You could solve them decently quickly

There were just a lot of key results I didn’t have

I mean

They’re Hartshorne exercises

[quartz pawn]

What's a sign of bad exercises?

[dapper root]

It isn’t an exercise

It’s developing the theory by urself

🙃

I mean it takes some work too

But usually the ones u can’t solve is because of some sort of like basic AG idea

[quartz pawn]

I think I know what you're saying.

[dapper root]

That everyone who does it knows

But instead of like saying “hey you can cover the intersection of affines with simultaneous distinguished opens” you have to just realize it

[quartz pawn]

I mean I think it's o.k. to have a couple of thos to get your feet warm and stuff.

[dapper root]

But once you realize you can and prove it

[quartz pawn]

Stop for a sec and make sure you got the material for real for real and then go on to the big boy stuff.

[dapper root]

A couple exercises are just “apply the above lemma”

And some cleanup work

Idk, Hartshorne’s exsrcsises are in small blocks, but they don’t tell you. All exercises in the block require you to basically figure out some trick

Then once u do it’s just do that, then know some commutative algebra result

Then all@problems in that block are solved

Like I would be fine with this approach

If the first exercise in the “block” said “prove this”

And the rest were just exercises in applying it effectively

But it never has that, you have to just realize it or have someone tell you I guess

[quartz pawn]

When we studied out of pintar for A.A. his problems were like that.

Figure out that cute little trick or whatever and you just clean up the rest of them labeled i ii iii ...

with maybe as light cavaet for each one.

If I understand what you're saying

[dapper root]

It just doesn’t seem efficient

I mean

It has an easy remedy

Just assign the key lemma as an exercise before the rest of them which use it

But the reason I brought this up

Is that it forces you to do most of the exercises so you’re forced to learn all these tricks

Idk, some of these things are really ducking hard to think of. Vakil tends to at least throw you a bone

Which makes it so much less painless

It’s still hard and you’re forced to do the work

But at least you have some semblance of an idea of where to go

What do you mean?

Hmm

[quartz pawn]

You mean he kind of overshares?

[dapper root]

I dunno

I wanna say I disagree but

I really haven’t used it all that much, usually if I’m like 8 hours+ stuck on some Hartshorne thing

I look for something relevant in Vakil

Like when I was tryna figure out base change

He has some examples and a bit more expose

[quartz pawn]

@dapper root 8 hours

[dapper root]

And from there I got a better understanding of how to prove base change shit

@dapper root 8 hours
@quartz pawn lol that isn’t even the start of it

Well I did that earlier

In topology and geometry

[quartz pawn]

I know algebraic geo is hard though

[dapper root]

And no one helped me

[quartz pawn]

that and topology

[dapper root]

I think

[quartz pawn]

algebraic topology*

[dapper root]

I was stuck on a problem for 1 month

I didn’t work on it constantly

But I thought about it every few days

I finally solved it by emailing my algebra prof LOL

[quartz pawn]

1 month

[dapper root]

Even then it was hella hard

¯_(ツ)_/¯

Let’s move channels

[quartz pawn]

discuss math?

[wooden sparrow]

e n e r g i s e

[solemn mantle]

anyone know a good, up-to-date, self-contained crypto book

[gray gazelle]

i'm assuming u mean cryptography so I'd recommend Blahut's text. has questions and nice examples. it's not a light read though. you'll have to treat it as an actual textbook but if you do manage to finish you'll have a technical understanding of modern crypto

[soft terrace]

anyone know any good pdfs or web sources for old and obscure math algorithms that are still useful?

[quick hornet]

what is meant by "old and obscure" here

[soft terrace]

i found the babylonian algorithm for square roots after going through a full 4 years of college without knowing it

i was wondering if there was any other sources for algorithms like that that aren't mentioned much in math curriculums but still work

do history of mathematics books have stuff like that?

i've read through some books after I graduated on numerical analysis so that was probably a bad sentence on my part

i was "pure math"

Think mostly I'd be interested in historical ones that aren't mentioned much if that makes any sense

stuff from over at least 500 years ago that still might have uses in current times

thats why im searching on discord google hasn't helped me lol

euclids is number theory isnt it?

seen that one I'll have to check sieve that sounds new

maybe ive done it but that would have been a long time.

if it came up in a number theory class or algebra i probably did it

thats fine it's all part of the journey

if you know any good Neural network theory books or interesting discrete differential geometry i could read those too 😉

mostly looking for theorems on how to optimize the number of layers/units in NN to get them exact

[earnest gazelle]

what's best book that covers all of high school math?

im looking to revise all of my hs/undergrad math to see if i missed anything. (apparently i missed a couple things in hs)

[quick hornet]

jacob lurie's higher topos theory

honestly im unconvinced that getting an entire book for high school review is worth it, there are so many resources online

[earnest gazelle]

i dont like learning from video

[sinful pewter]

relate

[urban slate]

I don't think there'd be a book for the entirety of HS. I think you'd have to get books based on the subjects you think you missed some things on

[granite sluice]

@earnest gazelle People have said things about Lang's Basic Math. They are almost invariably all mathematicians saying these things, so ymmv. There's also the art of problem solving books.

[smoky surge]

@soft terrace im not sure if you like coding but project euler can help as far as helping to make youu research some of those 'old' techniques

[drowsy arrow]

ya guys read book on pc or phone

which is better

and d ya take notes

ive never taken notes

[gray gazelle]

phone screen is too small for me so i use my computer

occasionally im forced to use a pdf on my phone, but if i have a choice im choosing the larger screen

[hollow current]

i eat books

(computer)

[gray gazelle]

in lecture i either write down notes on paper or type them during the lecture, depends on the class

what do differential geometry textbooks taste like

[hollow current]

haven't eaten yet

[drowsy arrow]

[gray gazelle]

[hollow current]

[cloud trench]

is there a good book on probability and statistics that teaches from basics?

and also a book on exercises/problem sets for the same?

[quartz pawn]

From the basics as in what exactly?

Like from measure theory?

[cloud trench]

from central tendency

[quartz pawn]

I mean, I don't know of any book that starts from the concept of central tendency

[cloud trench]

oh ok

then

what's a good book on P&S that covers undergrad level?

[ornate brook]

Anybody has any material that covers spatial trigonometry?

[gray gazelle]

prob theory or prob and statistics?

i think dartmouth has really good lecture notes for the latter; ill try to link them

https://math.dartmouth.edu/~prob/prob/prob.pdf

it has more breadth than a typical PS course but its very cool stuff

for prob theory: http://web.stanford.edu/class/stats310a/lnotes.pdf

it reads like an UG analysis textbook so very concise but also prosaic

[cloud trench]

prob theory or prob and statistics?
@gray gazelle Probability and Statistics

https://math.dartmouth.edu/~prob/prob/prob.pdf
@gray gazelle Thanks, I will look into this one

[trim narwhal]

Do you have any suggestions for a introductory calculus book/material?

[long bear]

I mean

I was told spivak

but you need to have foundations in logic

which someone recommended to use vellemans "How to solve it"

it assumes high school knowledge only

[hearty steppe]

Spivak is good to eventually look over. Idk about beginner. You can get by with YouTube videos and working on problem sets in a generic book like James Stewart or Ron Larson

But for a more deeply ingrained understanding you will want to eventually read Spivak but id save Spivak for when you are starting to learn analysis

[long bear]

I mean

[hearty steppe]

Problem with math books is you want to ease yourself into them. The best book for doing that is Velleman

[long bear]

my current calc book

[hearty steppe]

But that’s intro to proofs

[long bear]

doesn't go into much depth

as to "why" stuff works

[hearty steppe]

The generic Calc books don’t because they are not designed for math majors

[long bear]

i'm in hs atm

[hearty steppe]

Ahh ok I mean Professor Leonard is an amazing YouTuber and he has great series for Calc 1 and 2 courses and especially multivariable calculus

[long bear]

I will look into his vids

he's like the bulky guy with glasses

[hearty steppe]

Yea

The guy with Superman icon shirt

[long bear]

ya i've seen some of his vids

yeah lol

[hearty steppe]

He’s great

[dusty notch]

Stewart actually proves quite a bit more than most generic calculus books

[hearty steppe]

But just be mindful when you get to mathematical Analysis and beyond (the transition to higher level math) there won’t really be a generic YouTube series to hold your hand. By that time you want to be comfortable with reading books

Yes he does

But he’s not nearly as insightful as Spivak

Spivak will be intimidating for a calculus newb that doesn’t want to pursue math as a career or is unsure

Paul’s Online notes also very good

[dusty notch]

Stewart does quite a creative proof on the second partials test without going into quadratic forms

Seconded Paul’s

[gray gazelle]

just taylor expansion lol

what's stewart's proof?

[fringe slate]

Is trigonometry by sl loney good?

[weak fossil]

best highschool statistics book?

[gray gazelle]

for all the econ people in here: what's the merits of the differential geometry presentation of economy? i dont really see how it provides any more insight/range than colloquial econ practices. i am also a baby at diffogeo so any help wouldd be appreciated. here's the link to what im referring to: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/1839/1/WRAP_Marriott_fwp99-10.pdf

nevermind i got it now

here's another link that helped clarify the purpose for any1 interested

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/iandrews/files/geometry_paper.pdf

[quartz pawn]

I thought you were a math econ skeptic for a sec; which there is nothing with. Some people are super critical of "Econophysics" and mathematical sophistication in econ literature; They feel it many times is superfluous.

[gray gazelle]

the first paper was just incredibly difficult for me to derive any sense of purpose from so i was naturally skeptical about the actual purpose

i know like QFT based financial models actually perform better in a statistically significant way so i was sort of looking for something of that same sentiment

2nd paper sort of alluded to that

[wooden sparrow]

any book suggestions to encourage you to think mathematically?

[fringe slate]

Solve problems

[wooden sparrow]

@fringe slate trying to do that and failing miserably. look at my requests in #prealg-and-algebra . you'll understand how badly I want to kick myself

[fringe slate]

Same happened to me to

[wooden sparrow]

and?

[fringe slate]

I motivated myself and eventually started solving problems

I was reading a book on einstein and it mentioned how einstein failed entrance exam and how much he hated science

And now his name is synonymous to genius

Stuff like that motivated me

[wooden sparrow]

dude I'm doing problems everyday

einstein was really good at math

he didn't hate science\

he hated all other subjects

[gray gazelle]

einstein was good at math compared to the gen pop but he notoriously was upset at himself for not taking math as seriously he shouldve been

[wooden sparrow]

ohh

[gray gazelle]

he wasnt a "bad" student either; he was a C student in everything except math and science

he did have terrible memory andd struggled with computations in his head

but he had a very deep understanding of things

i think fermi had a really good quote about him give me a sec

[wooden sparrow]

I'm waiting

[gray gazelle]

having difficult

it was eugene wigner : ""Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement.""

so the apparent demarcation between standardized intelligence like that of Von Neumman's and some profound intelligence like Einstein's was in einstein's creativity/beauty of thinking

[stray veldt]

afaik einstein needed a friend he studied with to help him formulate/verify his theories

due to him "not paying enough attention" in math classes

and at the time that was quite heavy mathematical machinery (and quite unknown) for a physicist

[wooden sparrow]

umm.... so what book/ course should I take to be like that?

[stray veldt]

and einstein famously said that he couldnt understand his own theory anymore, after it was touched by other researchers

[gray gazelle]

you cant teach it

its not genetic though

[wooden sparrow]

I mean it kinda seems like genetic lottery

[stray veldt]

i'd say you can teach it, but nobody knows how to

[gray gazelle]

no einstein ddid not win genetic lottery

neumann won that

‘I can’t understand my own theory anymore’

einstein's favorite philsopher was spinoza

start there

hmmmmmmst

[wooden sparrow]

okay

[quartz pawn]

@gray gazelle Yea John Von Neumann contributed to more areas of mathematics and physics than Einstein did. But what Einstein did for physics is probably magnitudes greater than anything Von Neumann did for it.

[gray gazelle]

von neumann wasnt really a physicist

he was a jack of all trades

if he focused on physics like he did computers/math im sure theyd be comparable

[quartz pawn]

Einstein was definitely brilliant but like you said he didn't have that same sort of conventional intelligence that people are always in awe of. Like everyone is impressed with that guy who can multiply and divide 7 digit numbers in his head.

Yea he did basically everything.

[gray gazelle]

its a shame he died so young

[quartz pawn]

That type of intelligence that I mentioned is the type that Von Neumann had.

All great mathematicians basically die before they have a time to really do anything.

well, more than they could have done.

they definitely did something lol

[gray gazelle]

his collected works was roughly 3000 pages

that was unpublished papers

[quartz pawn]

Von Neumann seems like the type of guy who couldn't just sit still in one area or project; he wanted to learn basically about everything.

[gray gazelle]

he basically did

[quartz pawn]

Ramanujan died at a pretty young age.

so did Galois

Einstein shows that you don't have to be the smartest (thought you do have to be pretty intelligent). What you really need is to be an innovative thinker and have an ability to see how things all come together or how to look at things differently.

Cantor and Grothendieck come to my mind as guys who were able to create incredible innovating theory.

[gray gazelle]

u cant try to quantify the thinking of geniuses

[quartz pawn]

Though there may have been "smarter" people at the time they were alive.

[gray gazelle]

like there's no logic or patterns between each supposed genius

in their thinking

that's why they produce different results in different fields

comparing like newton and leibniz, leibniz basically predicted the modern computer and focused on phil

[quartz pawn]

I've never heard of the leibniz and the modern computer theory stuff

[gray gazelle]

http://www.gwleibniz.com/calculator/calculator.html

i think i read about it in this book called turing's cathedral which was basically a testament to the abundance of geniuses during WW2

really good book though

[quartz pawn]

The guys who I was always really impressed with were the dudes who set on the quest to formalize mathematics and formal logic in general.

[gray gazelle]

so hilbert and goddel

[quartz pawn]

Tarski and Godel come to mind

yea

hilbert too.

[gray gazelle]

banach

must have been an exciting time to be alive

[quartz pawn]

Yea, for sure.

[gray gazelle]

i wonder who'll be memorable from our era

[quartz pawn]

It's a bit harder because there is less low hanging fruit than there was back then.

[gray gazelle]

maybe

[quartz pawn]

not to dimnish the achievements of the dudes who came before.

[gray gazelle]

there's still tremendous amount of work to be done

neuroscience is basically stagnated

many body problem, quantum gravity, dark energy

the genome project was a huge failure

[quartz pawn]

We still got MP problems and things we don't even really know how to appraoch like Collatz Conjecture.

So there is still some stuff, the question is will they likely be solved in our lifetime.

I have doubts.

[gray gazelle]

i think we have an abundance of information but a lack of tools to process it

i dont want to rant but viva la analog computer and cellular automata

if it helps the most interesting stuff is about to come

commerical spaceflight

that's it actually

huh

[wooden sparrow]

the genome project was a huge failure
@gray gazelle what?

wasn't that successful?

[gray gazelle]

no

they got the genome and stuff but it has barely done anything

[wooden sparrow]

bruh

[gray gazelle]

they were hyping it up a lot

saying the end of diseases is near

but so far it's a disappointment

[wooden sparrow]

well, there's also lack of funding for unbiased research right?

[gray gazelle]

wut

[wooden sparrow]

I might've got that wrong

[pulsar aurora]

I think science/math goes in flows. Makes me think of optics in the Middle East. They had a lot of that research, but they never did anything with it or considered it then it got into the Europe and bam, Renaissance era kicked in.

[quick hornet]

thats uh

a pretty biased account

lots of early work in applying optics was done by arab scholars - early glasses technology for instance (though the first pair of glasses were invented in Pisa)

they certainly "did things with it"

[pulsar aurora]

🤷 that's not what my research told me when I did a history paper in my western history class

[wispy wren]

Well the knowledge needs to be discovered before it can be applied, which needs to happen before it can be commercialized.

[broken meadow]

lmao

[gusty smelt]

Atiyah-Macdonald - very annotated
marcus number fields - mostly untouched
ireland-rosen - a bit annotated
lang- mostly untouched, bad binding a bit torn
artin - very battered lmao
riehl cat theo - mostly untouched
rudin baby- also very battered
gamelin comp anal- a bit annotated

if any of you are interested in getting a copy of either of these, hmu. Im giving away my old math books

ill just charge shipping and maybe a bit on top of that

[valid moth]

would you be willing to accept something other than cash for the bit on top of that @gusty smelt

[gusty smelt]

well depends on what this something else is lol

[valid moth]

how about a hug

[gusty smelt]

ok

but u cannot sue me if u get covid

[valid moth]

sike

simps begone

😎

[gusty smelt]

sad

i havent been hugged in months you monster

[golden halo]

are any of these introductory?

[valid moth]

you're introductory

[golden halo]

yes I am

[gusty smelt]

yeah some are

what you looking for

[valid moth]

riehl is introductory

you want riehl

trust me

especially if you are in hs

[golden halo]

idek what categorical homotopy theory is

[valid moth]

riehl is the perfect book for a highschooler

[golden halo]

idk I just looked up riehl and saw that

[gusty smelt]

riehl is intro cat theory

but you prolly wanna have good alg experience b4 hand

cause a lot of examples and references

[valid moth]

wtf

imagine not learning cat theory before algebra

[golden halo]

are these all related to abstract algebra?

[valid moth]

if algebra is so good why do people not keep them as pets

cat theory on the other hand

[golden halo]

cats < dogs

[gusty smelt]

not all

[valid moth]

you flipped your order there

[gusty smelt]

what algebra level do you want

[golden halo]

introductory

[gusty smelt]

artin is 1st year for example

[golden halo]

I only know basic concepts and definitions

[valid moth]

youd want artin

[gusty smelt]

yeah artin is what you want then

[valid moth]

but you need to enter a bidding war

:owo:

starting bid is $4.20

[gusty smelt]

lol

[golden halo]

can I look into it and get back to you

[gusty smelt]

sure

[valid moth]

$6.9 increments from there

[gusty smelt]

ill write down your name in my spreadsheet

[golden halo]

aight

[gusty smelt]

(repost)
Atiyah-Macdonald - very annotated
marcus number fields - mostly untouched
ireland-rosen - a bit annotated
lang- mostly untouched, bad binding a bit torn
artin - very battered lmao
riehl cat theo - mostly untouched
rudin baby- also very battered
gamelin comp anal- a bit annotated
Hatcher - a bit annotated

if any of you are interested in getting a copy of either of these, hmu. Im giving away my old math books
ill just charge shipping and maybe a bit on top of that

[tight crag]

I would like marcus

And ireland- rosen

@gusty smelt

[gusty smelt]

oh sure

[tight crag]

I'll dm you

[flint forge]

@gusty smelt ill buy your copy of hatcher and riehl

[gusty smelt]

alright

dm me

[dapper root]

Wat

I already laid claim to hatcher meme

😔

max

would probably do better with it hto

since he does AT