#book-recommendations
1 messages · Page 218 of 1
I think Rudin is really meant for someone who is in on the game
They're like a set of rough lecture notes for profs and TAs to fill in details
I see, I haven't been in the mathematical world in a few years, my intuition was never trained towards proof rather just applying.
There are other books that are geared towards getting you up to speed
Some people enjoy the challenge of trying to fill in the puzzle
so I need to develop a better intuition
I'm guessing tao is a better and easier appraoch for me probably
Tao's probably a bit too drawn out tbh
Alternatives are like Pugh's mathematical analysis, apostol's mathematical analysis
Or sloth king's igor
Idk Apostol, Pugh is good though his chapter 2 is awkward af
Apostol's text is basically Rudin with details added
Though afterwards it seems to pick up quite a bit
There's a lot of stuff in there on fourier series, boundary value problems, bounded variation
It's a solid text
I found a first edition for pretty cheap
Here they use Apostol for calculus actually instead of Spivak
Apostol's a more difficult read, with some more focused problems
His volume 2 for multivariable calculus is absolutely beautiful
Also, doing integration first is something I'd like to try
I learned differentiation and integration at the same time
Integration first hmm
That's what volume 1 does
Apostol's a solid author, doesn't have a bad book in his name
So I guess it's one of those things where, there might be a nicer logic flow? Like you start with series and then you say integration is kinda your generalization of series
Prior to Thomas' calculus, books were split down the middle where they did integration first
But I guess "a priori" there are two sorta different tracks that are kinda independent and it's probably more efficient to do differentiation first
or differentiation first
Because then you get FTC and can compute things more easily
Thomas' calculus was able to shave a semester or two off of doing calculus, since there was a semester of analytic geometry
Thomas was able to incorporate that and shove calc 3 in lower division
I think books/courses have over committed to doing differentiation first
There should be more of a mixture in my opinion
What's the advantage either way?
The advantage is integration theory/integrals are harder than differentiation
So if you do it first you can spend more time on it
Throughout the term
This is especially true in multivariable
Almost no one struggles with partial differentiation
But setting up double and triple integrals is tricky
My intro analysis course did integration first
We followed apostol's Calculus vol 1
And prof notes
I mean if you decide in advance how much time you'll likely spend on each topic then that resolves it right?
The way people learn isn't linearly in a nice theoretic way - you should spread out the topics throughout the term
Another advantage is front-loading a course puts the hard things first, where other classes are doing easier stuff
You can't really really fine tune it obv because a class might eat something up or get stalled
So they have more time to think through the harder things
So that when you get to the final/end of the course, you can go back over the simpler things you skipped
But you can say alright I'm spending no more than, say, 3-4 weeks on differentiation
Actually in my undergrad we had quarters instead of semesters so it was like
Yeah, quarter systems are literal garbage
Yeah, we have a basic theory for why that is
The idea is that to really learn something you have to forget it
And relearn it multiple times
You have to pick it up, put it down, pick it up again
This is why you take a break from something for like a week or two, come back to it
And you're better
On the quarter system there isn't enough time to do enough cycles of this
To have long term learning - however there are advantages to the quarter system
I mean in semesters is there much of that going on anyway?
People just move on to the next topic
Faster paced, you get better at solving problems faster
If the course is well balanced, there should be plenty of that
That's mainly from the education POV, at the grad level this seems to not have as much as an impact
In fact, at a research level, quarters are better
Like from TAing calc here in Madison.. now the structure is a bit weird thanks to covid but
Since you have the basics better, you can focus on getting exposure to advanced topics
And rotate through those faster
In ordinary semesters I feel like there wasn't that much review going on except midterm and final
Obv the nature of calc is such that later topics review older ones
It's on the students to plan out their study for the semester. For me, there's a huge difference between semesters and quarters
Since I have ADHD, it gives me ample time to plan out my course study
On Quarter system it was literal hell
So I guess on my end, I feel like the good thing about quarter system was that you could sorta do more on the whole, and you never really felt comfortable getting too far behind if that makes sense
Like in grad school I've definitely been feeling like, oh things are going along suuuuuper slowly
So I never feel pressure to get on my feet and actually do things
Yeah, there are advantages to the quarter system - especially at the grad/research level
Until wait now I just missed 5 weeks of class and have to catch up
But at the Undergrad level, semesters edge out quarter for education reasons + professional reasons
e.g. graduating in may gives better employment opportunities/internships
And I just wing it for the sake of tests and psets and not really learn things well
While in undergrad if I missed 3 days I already feel like I'm fucked
So should I do Pugh or Apostol?
And that's enough of an ass kicking to get on top of my shit
The disadvantage of quarter system at Chicago in particular (or maybe it's secretly an advantage idk) is that classes differed on whether they had 2 midterms/semester or just 1, and when
So basically half the quarter was midterm season lol
Now I haven't had many tests in grad school
Whereas on semester I could mitigate it
So I can't really say whether having a single week or two with 4 exams would've been better
We have two days lol
Thursday and Friday of 10th week officially no required classes or assignments
Though I think profs who wanted it had their workarounds lol
"Review session"
Well so, many profs held honest to God review sessions
But that's a good thing lol
Helps study for the final
But for example you could just give a handout before reading period and say "You're responsible for this material on the final, I'm hosting a bonus session during our normal class time if you want to go over it"
Make the assignment due Wednesday (resp Tuesday) but you'll accept late submissions until Friday (resp Thursday)
In all likelihood I'll end up at a quarter school
Unless Austin or Berkeley somehow accepts me lol
Austin and Berkeley are for nerds tbh
Can anyone recommend a good proof based ODE textbook
Boyce and DiPrima?
But yeah I mean in grad school obv things are different, you don't have as many exams and classes are kinda easier
Just finished abstract algebra
I might actually have to learn algebraic topology properly : (
And grading is usually ez
Zoph: Check out Perko, ODEs and Dynamical Systems
I haven't read much of it but in analysis when we were doing some stuff a friend discovered it since it aligned with what we were doing reasonably well
Moonbears: I've been trying to learn some homology with a friend recently actually
We're working through Bredon
Chapter 4
Yeah, I have to learn homology and cohomology I guess
I tried reading the primer on mapping class group
I get like 70% of it, but there's this 30% that just references facts in alg. top.
@sage python link me plz
Bredon kinda has the correct logic flow for homology I feel
Hatcher had the stuff there and I recall his explanation of things in homology to be at least locally decent?
I missed a lot of lectures in my Hatcher class and mostly just winged the psets tbh
But idk Hatcher's run through stuff seems like it is perhaps more... "motivated"/historical
But less nicely organized
Bredon's flow is basically
Hatcher seems to be great for passing qualifying exams
Okay this is singular homology. Yay. Okay let's compute H_0. Now let's compute H_1
Uhhhhh we can't really compute anything else in full generality
Alright let's talk about the axioms of homology then
And now let's use the axioms to compute the homology of any CW complex
Boom
Now let's talk about other cool things
It's very clean like you know where it's going
Hatcher iirc kinda presents things like
This is simplicial homology of a delta complex. But wait is it a property of the space? What if we retriangulate or do this or that?
Okay you know what simplicial homology needs patch notes
Time for singular homology
And oh hey cellular homology is a thing too that's cool!
And now at the end let's present some formal stuff 🙂
Which is like sure but kinda awk to me
The nice thing about Hatcher for quals is examples
My first intro to cohomolgy was cech cohomology
Lmao
from Rick Miranda's Algebraic curves and riemann surfaces
it was pretty well motivated
from the whole mittag-leffler problem/riemann roch point of view
and my second cohomology theory was de rham
which is super easy to motivate
alex why...
Cuz I am based
That's a good book brofibration
it's alright
I am a fan of it now
wasn't a fan of it when I first read it 
the exercises were either too easy or fucking impossible
I've heard donaldson's book on it is good
this should be taken with a grain of salt as I did not even know what a manifold was when I read it
Yeah Donaldson is supposed to be nice
Apparently Miranda's more AGish, Donaldson is more topology/GGT, and Forster is more sheafsy
what do you think of this? https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Signal-Processing-Wavelets/dp/3030029395/
I have two DSP books already
nothing on wavelets or linear algebra
I have shannon's papers which are obviously the foundation
sometimes I feel like the math in shannon is over my head
not sure what I need to be more prepared for the DSP books
is it all just calc II? or does it require more ODE or PDE?
I also have these two https://www.amazon.com/Network-Analysis-Mac-Van-Valkenburg/dp/0136110959/
is there a concise reference of category diagrams and how to go about reading them? ie something with "here are all the possible arrows you may see", "here are common patterns to look for", etc.
like most books have them introduced gradually in the text
i want a quick reference
does this help?@gray gazelle
there is a glossary of terms and notation with page numbers
everything is there for a beginner level
not really
some books use different flavours of arrows to denote onto and other things
and ideally what im looking for would have stuff like a quick list of common diagram patterns
Does anyone know a good resource for learning about the theory of modular forms?
Diamond and Shurman?
Thanks
oh, category theory in context?
Hi
@gray gazelle maybe Basic Category from Leinster would help ? He gives a list of common limits in the book. I guess you're looking for pullback diagrams, equalizers, etc.
Which is a good boor for linear algebra for beginners -insel or hoffman or axler?
All three are good, though I would prefer axler
For beginners to pure maths, Insel might be the better one. If you have some mathematical maturity, Axler is good.
Hahhaha I liked axler LA
Yea lmao
@lucid lantern looks a bit more in the ballpark, what I'd kind of like is if something like that had an appendix that just quickly summarizes the diagrams in one spot
If you wanna reach a higher level of math maturity you're gonna need to start reading lol
everybody wants to be a mathematician; ain't nobody want to read no heavy ass math books
I read heavy ass math books doe 
that was a reference to a ronnie coleman quote
Thoughts on Introduction Modern Algebra by Neal Mccoy
Never read the book so I cant give you my opinion but If you are looking for a good Algebra book Id recommend Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote
it really is a classic and im sure others would recommend it aswell
i have nathan jacobsons algebra 2
its very nice
algebra 2 is grad algebra 1 book is undergrad
anyone know any good grad level books on "distance geometry"?
wait @molten wave why is this channel called #book-recommendations and not #discussion-books? my ocd is bothering me here
ch-discussion-ill
I looked at d&f, jacobson, artin and knapp for abstract algebra before knapp was really able to grab my attention and I'm finding it good so far
is there any real difference beyond basic presentation in them though?
Artin is probably the hardest to read out of all of them maybe
Haven’t actually read D&F since most people tell me to stay away from it since I’m a newb
hey, any book for calc 1-2-3 ? it’s for my brother, he got pre calc / trig and no proof writing
are they heavy ones ? i think he wants something pretty straightforward
no
they're written for highschoolers basically
well
ok no i won't say that
but
they don't require proofs so like
stewart is the most common one I've seen used for calc 1
do you think it’s worth for a math major ? since he will do R analysis after calc3, idk if he needs something with proof
hmm
well
i think itll be fine
if its that much of a concern
use spivak
after
if it's an intro analysis course they'll take it slow
he'll be fine for proofs probably
yea
do advise him to take other courses while doing calc stuff
like if ur school has an intro proofs class
do that
and uh like
yup i think he got lin algebra, so ye
i did lin algebra with calc 2 : (
thank you ! i’ll advise him stewart/thomas and spivak to go deeper then
nioce
yeah it's fine tbh
probably better to do linear algebra before calc 3
unlike my school 🤢
i really think that going calc1-3 without lin algebra feels weird
FWIW this might be a hot take but I think even for a math major just doing a computational not-proof based calc class is fine
You just get familiar with operations and how they work then in your intro analysis you make it rigorous. Just knowing what to expect makes that process a lot easier IMO
Like... you know what the answer should be because you already know how to integrate things, you know how to take derivatives, you’ve seen infinite series and such
i see
i mean i have no room to like complain about this stuff
whats done for me is done
i went through calc 1-2 in highschool which was complete garbage and my calc 3 class has proofs for the theorems/some statements that are accessible at that level (which we were also not tested on)
and only now am i going to go to linear algebra to do proofs and stuff and then i think next year ill be doing analysis
i think itll be totally fine
i don't think that's a hot take at all
isn't d&f literally kinda made for noobs, it has excessive detail and proofs understandable for even high schoolers
it's good for self learning imo
if you have an instructor, then I'd say it's not the best
or if you're already good at abstract algebra and wanna go fast fast fast through a tb
lang is a graduate reference
he has a book called undergrduate algebra
its literally the graduate book but with less content and more explanation
This is the one I'm referring to
I have this one downloaded and I'll try to give it a try along with d&f
That's what I did to learn group theory, now I'm doing ring theory
if it helps I found these problem sets:
http://math.columbia.edu/~kyler/MA1.html
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~khovanov/ma2_fall/
also there's a book named Algebra: Chapter 0 that takes a more categorical view if youre into that. There's also "Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications" which gives nice exposition
These problem sets look useful
but I think I'll just stick with one or two books at a time
guys anyone on number theory and cryptography
because working with lots of references when you are studying a subject for the first time may be kind of a pain
@gray gazelle I know a tiny bit
Cool
Help me
what exactly
well on resourses
student
cs?
ok
yea u?
cool
or do you want ECC
Well, You should know the Euler theorem
group theory?
Because RSA
you need to specialize in one area at a time
pick something that is fun for you
as of now
ok NT
ye
so you start with any book that says introduction or elementary number theory
i finished that
I started reading introduction to elementary number theory by calvin long
cool
let me grab my books
i've been having fun with linear alg for the past few days
reading the book: Linear Alg Done Right by axler
I have theory of numbers by niven and zuckerman
that might be too low level for you
oh
topics in number theory volumes 1 and 2 by leveque
ok
higher level NT stuff
you really got stop and prove these things as you go
each page is an hour of practice and cross reference other books
I went to fast and none of it was any benefit to me
oh
then when I tried to go read it a second time whoa
cool
it was just a massive knowledge dump
yea
also you may be interested in rheimann zeta functions with complex numbers
if you study primes
yea
that connects to complex and imaginary numbers
In mathematical analysis, asymptotic analysis, also known as asymptotics, is a method of describing limiting behavior.
As an illustration, suppose that we are interested in the properties of a function f(n) as n becomes very large. If f(n) = n2 + 3n, then as n becomes very large, the term 3n becomes insignificant compared to n2. The function ...
cool
NT works with inf series or diophantine equations
yea
I always brute force first
17
whats it?
oh nice
are you familiar with python?
I have a book with a basic introduction for cryptography in python
cool
I also use mathematic but I do java and python
the only problem with python is it compiles really slowly
so beware of that
not like really slowly though
oh ok
there are ways around that also
yeah, you can pick a different version of python
hm
but even if an older version has a faster compiler, there are still consequences based on that
I use python 3
Cython is a programming language that aims to be a superset of the Python programming language, designed to give C-like performance with code that is written mostly in Python with optional additional C-inspired syntax.Cython is a compiled language that is typically used to generate CPython extension modules. Annotated Python-like code is compile...
this is built on top of python 2.7
old python fast python ironically🙃
not related but anyway this is cool https://www.amazon.com/Random-Processes-M-Rosenblatt/dp/1461298539/
the second edition is 1974. they added a chapter on martingales
the other one was printed by oxford 1962
Has anyone read "Discrete Mathematics with Application" by Susanna S. Epp ? I just got the book and was wandering if I should start reading it, because in the introdution part she says a good algebra foundation is the base. I don't think I have that foundation in Algebra, but I also bought "Algebra10e for College Students" by Kaufmann/Schwitters.
If somebody has read "Discrete Mathematics with Application", do you think the algebra foundation is actually required in order to understand the concepts provided in the book?
You can always try it and see if you can follow
You are right but I feel like I would waste my time if I found it out after some weeks
Not really. You will still have learned the parts that you could follow. And then you can continue where you left off after learning more algebra. Or you can learn what you need as you go through the book
Yeah you're right. Are you supposed to learn everything which is covered in these kinds of books or is it more like "I learn what I like" ?
That's entirely up to you
if you're interested in like crypto crypto checkout cryptohack
i suggest using python and sage
cool
"The screenshot demonstrates one of the many mistakes left in the Kindle version of this book.
Especially for the price paid for it, this is unacceptable. And there is no acceptable reason why the hardcopy of this textbook should have any corrections that the digital copy does not.
Universities/Professors, stop using and requiring this dumpster fire of a textbook.
Students, do yourself the favor and just rent the hardcopy of this book (but only if you must; otherwise, avoid it altogether). "
amazon review
why not start with Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications
by Kenneth H. Rosen
that gets mentioned here constantly
also, algebra might be a little misleading
probably more like boolean algebra, abstract algebra, number theory
whats it about
discrete mathematics
yea i got that
oh ok
you want to know what else is in the book?
yup
boolean algebra, combinations and permutations, abstract algebra, number theory
discrete sometimes includes graph theory set theory group theory
I got the book today an so far it is pretty good and well written
wow
whats the cost?
$33 used
ok
idk, you'll get the paperbook v.4
oh
oh
damn
this one is $40 legit
hm
hardcover
wow
honestly though, I get this stuff in different books
group theory books for group theory
same
boolean algebra for boolean algebra
even i would do that
eh
yeah abstract algebra is pretty much just group theory
people get mad
chill
but other people agree
depends on your stance
group theory is a tiny part of algebra pls
But rings are just groups too really, so just agree, ari
every abstract algebra book has group theory
Wow, ari doesn't thing rings are groups under +
(I'm trolling, the rest prob not)
wait abstract algebra has more
I can agree
i cant say tiny but yea its a part
guys we are on a mathematics discord. Try to prove stuff
😄
but at some level you will be introduced to them at the same time
no shit?
huh
wow

this conversation does not commute
i suggest jacobson basic algebra heh
ah
ye
if you guys are not native English speakers -> do you learn all math in English or our mother tongue ?
technically lang/bourbaki is good reference book
English
english cuz idk chinese maf books lol
but i tkhink im non native english and chinese lol
math is a language
mother tongue
both
Germania, I see
german math books when I feel like going on a quest for something good
indeed
wow
but the situation is a bit different, since there are actually good german math books that are sometimes not even translated
exactly!
oh
and some old ones also
also in my professional life i probably talk english 50% of the time and german 50% of the time
oh ok
so it makes sense to at least be familiar with both languages when it comes to mathematical terms
but the german books are amazing
i am moving to cz soon
the older ones
can you recommend a book for general mathematics for beginners in german?
what do you consider "general mathematics"
good question
idk actually know what I mean by that. I just started learning math on my own and have almost no knowledge so idk
oh
thanks
do u know number theory
Grundlagen der Analysis by landau
or prime number theory
it's an introductory number theory book
cool
my (harder) analysis suggestion is amann escher
number theory is the best
other than that ehrhard behrends wrote some nice books
that book by steuding is pretty cool in that it starts with highschool knowledge and then builds some algebra and analysis
there is a sequel i think in english
sequel in the sense that it is written for undergrads in math
I had 0 knowledge going into college (took 7 years off after high school) and after 3 months of khan academy I was unstoppable in calc 1 and have been very successful ever since. I think khan academy is THE best source to learn pre college math
oh this conversation is long dead nvm
khan academy is really good for precollege i agree
I'm looking for a set of books in advanced real analysis and introductory functional analysis to self-teach. I've narrowed it down to Tao's measure theory and "an epsilon of room", in combination with either Stein-Shakarchi's Princeton Lectures 3&4 or Rudin 2&3. Anybody who has read both Stein and Rudin who could give a comparison of the two? Any other recommendations?
both really
There's a lot of good content both in english and portuguese
I'm not native english, but I only learn math in english
(however, I've been in Canada since I've been 3, so I'm kinda almost native, even if not technically)
bruh
i learned english when i was 5 and i count it as native
just say native

translating back and forth is sometimes a great exercise for learning since it involves active thinking and requires a decent conceptual understanding. I usually read math stuff in English and write in my language (Spanish)
Started to take OCW 18.06 (the linear algebra course with strang), but after doing some research I stumbled upon the current 18.06 outline here https://github.com/mitmath/1806/blob/master/summaries.md which mentioned the more modern version version of the course uses julia and doesn't focus on echelon forms or hand calculation as much which I think is great because they always felt boring and somewhat pointless to me.
WARNING: we are not following the book and OCW directly. Rather you are getting an updated course that throws away echelon forms (practically never used), and favors the singular value decomposition (dished out slowly over the whole semester), linear transformations, and matrix calculus. We will do less hand computation, but there will still be some. Eigenvalues are losing their place in line, but still key.
Does anyone have a resource that would follow a similar approach rather than standard approach? The new 18.06 course doesn't seem to have lectures published online yet.
my first lin alg course was an any% speed run of row echelon -> determinant. If you couldnt do it fast then you just couldn't answer the questions on the test in the allotted time
ditching echelon forms is interesitng since they're very very useful to know about for proving things
though admittedly only really in the case of specific spaces (particularly "nice" finite dimensional ones)
a focus on SVD makes sense from a practical-application perspective though
interesting. yeah guess I was kind of curious on the approach. From the rest of the summary page seems like the course was reworked cater better to appliactions in data science/machine learning.
Im pretty sure strang's course was always trying to be more practical rather than theoretical though so it makes sense. Was planning on reading through linear algebra done right after strang for some more theory, but trying to build intuition and get started with computer graphics atm.
is there a good resource for learning SVD and whatever else that course was focusing onseparately if I do the normal strang course because the lectures are recorded?
somehow i still don't really understand SVD, which is sad
never heard of it before that, but Im just a run of the mill software engineer at amazon trying to take up math/cg as a hobby.
nice, i am also a software engineer
I will have the course of Analysis II: contains differentiation, integration, and all that for Analysis II.
Me need book which is abstract.. (Rudin feels too much like introductory analysis)
pong
I found the meta programming in julia. it reminds me of lisp.
just installed julia. thanks for the tip.
Julia is freakin' awesome
no visuals though?
Visuals?
Hi guys. I wonder, is there any good standard reference on combinatorics that covers pretty much every famous combinatorial identities for an example the Hockey-Stick identity etc? I need it in order to give citation to this well known combinatorial result in a final year project I am writing
Hmm, I think if it's so well known, that anyone (say before first year in uni) can figure what it is when looking at it, you probably can leave it out.
I thought so too but my advisor insists me on giving a citation.
Eh, might as well prove it, combinatoric proof is just, say, 2 lines?
Hey Guys, about to enter my last year of undergrad. Any recommendations on a solid linear algebra book at this stage to solidify what I should know and expand into some topics more deeply? Having a hard time picking as most of all my previous algebra courses have been done using professors notes ect so don't really have anything to reference what book I should get.
You can always check the pinned posts in this channel :)
is Spivak or Apostol not a good fit? They prove all result but still have some computations
or rather #books-old
Hoffman & Kunze if by "linear algebra" you mean a math major's linear algebra.
Linear algebra done wrong is also a good option
do they overuse determinants
Hello everyone!
Does anyone have a recommended book to introduce the topic of probability? Specifically, I'm looking for something written by someone who had an enormous impact on the field of probability during their lifetime. For example, the book that comes to mind for me to look at is The Art Of Probability By Richard W. Hamming, given his incredible other writing and enormous impact on mathematics. However, that book doesn't appear to be for people with no prior experience in probability and, therefore, I'm looking here.
do you already know probability?
you need probability befor stats if you are doing calc based
I've actually made an error and called probability statistics @soft terrace I'll correct the original message. I am looking for an introduction to probability.
open textbook library has a pdf of a book called "introduction to probability" that looks pretty nice. I don't know about being written by someone with a huge impact or not though
if your doing it by yourself you might want more than one book in case one of them explains something a way that doesnt agree with you
Probability theory began in seventeenth century France when the two great French mathematicians, Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat, corresponded over two problems from games of chance. Problems like those Pascal and Fermat solved continuedto influence such early researchers as Huygens, Bernoulli, and DeMoivre in establishing a mathematical theo...
i wouldnt worry too much about the impact of the author if the book is written well but thats imo
I definitely agree it isn't hugely important, though just googling his name J. Laurie Snell does actually seem to have been at least somewhat influential.
what is "influential" is largely in the eye of the beholder
imo it should be whether or not their work is interesting to you
whether its written by a big name or not the introductory books are mostly going to be the same material
Snell is supposed to be good from what I heard
But I mean I feel like introductory probability isn’t difficult but more or less a little tricky
getting used to random variables is half the battle
You shouldn’t be spending as much time looking for an intro probability book than you would for math proof writing and intro analysis
This is just a quick justification for why I'm asking about influence. I realize it seems pretty nonsensical to ask about given that if someone's work is good, it doesn't matter if no one knows about their work: I'm interested in influence because I think influence has to do a lot with skill. I don't necessarily mean the author is well known, just that several other people have adopted the methods they've pioneered in their field.
I need one of these things to judge if I should start reading the book because I'm asking people I don't know for advice when I have no experience in the field I'm asking about. This isn't me insulting you; I will now read this book on your recommendation and am sure you're knowledgeable; I'm just describing why I'm asking about influence. Really I should use the word impact.
(Side note, I'm really sorry for being hyper-verbose. I'm really really sleepy.)
But someone's ability to do groundbreaking research has almost no impact on their ability to write an intro book
I don't agree with that, I think knowing how to do great work is a skill and being able to do that work will be reflected in all of their writing.
It actually is probably better for me to ask for a book based on my goals rather than the topic 😅.
I'm looking to read "The Elements of Statistical Learning" and it recommends that, before reading it, you take an introductory level statistics course:
"We expect that the reader will have had at least one elementary course in statistics, covering basic topics including linear regression."
I have never taken one so I'm asking for recommendations based on needing that. (I realize I asked about probability, I made a mistake while doing that though I imagine s00mb is totally correct and I should have an understanding of probability going into learning about stats and would also appreciate a recommendation about that, which you have already given.)
Really sorry that this question has become this overly complicated. I am super running on low sleep 😓.
The great work will be reflected, true, but whether that work is reasonably clear or accessible to the audience is not always true. Being an expert and being a communicator are not necessarily the same thing.
I grant that to be true, but I don't grant that all influential people are bad writers and so I have a preference for books written by people who are influential.
Kai Lai Chung's "Elementary Probability Theory" might fit all your criteria: it's introductory, very complete and the author was central in the early development of the theory of Markov chains as well as the study of Brownian motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Kai-lai#Biography). Accordingly, the last edition includes a chapter on stochastic processes and another on applications to mathematical finance.
read the part about linear regression
read about conditional probability
chebyshev is a huge influential name in mathematics
you could argue that hamming and shannon were the founders of information theory
Thank you so much 😃
This is absolutely wonderful.
but that overlaps into probability
Do you recommend I read this instead of Kai Lai Chung's "Elementary Probability Theory?" (This also looks amazing.)
all these books are almost the same
like 2+2=4 in every book on addition
but I am skeptical about reading hamming if you don't care about combinatorics and information theory
I am a huge fan of shannon but that is more for different areas of math not exactly related to statistics
I'm avoiding Hamming's book on probability because it's clearly not at the level of reading I'm at. If you're talking about Hamming more generally, than the only other text I'm reading by him at the moment is "The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to learn."
this gives some history of claude shannon
it argues that he was big in the foundations of probability
but this is really coming from an information theory context
I don't think you will see any mention at all in an intro to statistics course today
I mostly know about Shannon through reading about him in "The Art of Doing Science and Engineering: Learning to learn." I will almost certainly read more about him and I appreciate you linking me writing about his work 🙂
he did so much for math and you don't hear the name talked about very much
aliasing is something I study a lot
it comes up in analog to digital converters
He also did a bunch for computing. He was really amazing.
So amazing.
Just unbelievably talented. Really really glad he was brought up in the book.
he invented math that made fiber optics possible before fiber optics were invented. before digital audio was invented. the math preceded all digital communication and information theory that we use today.
What is the lastest edition?
(Like, is it the fourth edition?)
yeah the fourth edition
the title should be "Elementary Probability Theory: With Stochastic Processes and an Introduction to Mathematical Finance", the finance bit was included in the latest edition iirc
yes
Is the above book the recommended book for probability? I took a course in College, but I forgot most of it after years of not practicing. Now I am trying to learn probability and get a deeper understanding as I begin machine learning and statistics.
honestly if you really wanna learn some probability you can start with khan academy
probablility and statistics for engineers and scientists by walpole, myers, myers, ye
is a cool book
Ok, thanks very much! I prefer books over video lectures so I will look into that book instead
There's a ton of books for probability, Clue was asking specifically for a introductory book written by someone influential in probability theory and I thought Chung's was a good fit.
Intro to probability imo tends to be a bit dry
Just feels like learning a lot about a whole bunch of distributions which kinda all feel similar in purpose
Feel like the fun stuff is applying probability

its true

can i jump right into Algebra by artin or should i cover some LA first (strang)
for self study
should do lin alg first
you dont exactly need lin alg to do much of groups or rings or stuff
but it's more of a mathematical maturity kinda thing
A lot of formalities covered in a pure LA book is exactly what you want before actually going into Abstract Algebra, I think that’s the main point a lot of people here are trying to make
also abstract algebra can often be a bit too abstract at points, lin alg (and vector spaces) are much easier to think about
and a bunch of major theorems in other places in abstract algebra
have nice analogues
to lin alg theorems
AA is just a special case of math 
math is just a special case of philosophy 
all of the universe is a special case of physics 
Chemistry
is just a special case of 
is a special case of
is a special case of
is a special case of 
🌕 ->
->
->
->🌕
Mildly related to the probability recommendation. Since I was interested in combinatorics and some TCS, I found a probability course that involved applications of concentration inequalities and other prob ideas to theory and the probabilistic method quite nice. Are there any books that have this kind of a flavour? The only one I can seem to recall is Mitzenmacher and Upfal.
Oh yes, I've heard of that. There must also be other combinatorics books that have a good chunk on the probabilistic method, like Jukna's Extremal Combinatorics.
Anyone know some good up to date books on classical differential geometry and riemann geometry respectively? I've got some old books and the notation is dated; it's starting to drive me nuts.
whats the first name
oh was that mine or different
ok sounds good
i see them
is there any difference really between a riemann geometry book and manifold one? i know what a manifold is i was just wondering if there is any notable difference
riemannian geometry imposes a metric
on a smooth manfold
and discusses the consequences of that
by metric i mean something that allows you to measure geometric quantities like length, volume, angle of tangent vectors, and so on
im not digging how lee is leaving most of the theorem proofs as exercises

lee isnt being friendly lol
i like lee more than do carmo
but do carmo has much lighter prereqs imo
oh yeah, s00mb, you could check out do carmo's book as well
like every theorem and lemma in this book is followed by "exercise. prove the lemma.
yeah i'll try that
its nice if u want a challenge not so nice if u want to see a proof on the spot
when you are self studying it is very inconvenient having all the main theorems as exercises
do carmo looks much nicer
i like having examples from the main theorems because it clarifies things that might be vague
i do not go to college so i have no one except this discord to clarify things
when everything is "proof this" with no example i dont like it
yeah
i don't recall do carmo leaving theorems and stuff to the exercises
im looking at it now he doesnt
i know he's talking about lee
im not saying i cant do lee but when im reading for review i dont want to have to go back and prove everything to get a small piece of information i want
i used do carmo for a semester and found it to be good, also it's short compared to the monster that is lee
do carmo jumps right into the meat of rg but lee spends a ton of time building up the basic stuff
well
lee assumes you read ISM so he can afford to spend a lot of time building up basic stuff
lee is nicely written
like chapter 2 in lee's IRM is fucking packed
lee has examples 
yeah but not enough proofs
how so
first half of the book requires very little
then in the second half words like covering spaces and equicontinuous and whatnot start popping up here and there
thats just undergrad analysis though isnt it
ya
i dont imagine too many ppl taking riemann geometry would skip that
well let me see what do carmo says at the start of his book
lol
nice one
i'm taking analysis next semester and i've already finished a full riemannian geometry class

well i've never had a trouble with knowing analysis, and i picked up a fair amount of analysis during my """"""functional analysis"""""" course
look
it's complicated 
how did u take functional without real lol
""""""functional analysis""""""
functional is what metric spaces and what not
oh like metric spaces
uuuuuh
let's say i learned whatever analysis i know now by either my topology class or by googling random shit
so u never proved basic calculus? oh u missed out 😉
do carmo
lol riemann geometry before analysis analysis is going to be easy
my prof in undergrad college made me take real analysis before doing classical differential geometry
oh u took it?
ya
yeah thats what i meant
equicontinuity is undergrad analysis
i still remember my professor getting upset at someone for confusing it
he wasnt really stuck up
just reallllly nerdy
yohan read all 595 pages of lee's ism before irm 
like he wasnt mad he was just so smart that he couldnt figure out that other people couldnt understand certain things
probably not a good idea tbh
i am pretty sure IRM assumes you read ISM
LIKE
fully
caps
well "fully" as in "the meat of it" since ISM is a gargantuan book
This book is designed as a textbook for a graduate course on Riemannian
geometry for students who are familiar with the basic theory of smooth manifolds.
idk
probably?
i wish my RG course had classic dg as a prereq
well i guess u can skip that but it makes more sense if u do it
lee 
if lee leaves all the proofs as exercises for DG id get a supplement that shows proofs
well not mine mine is like 1950s and builds it up from cartan theorems lol
yeah its a dover book republish
i love it to death but the way it builds it up is NOT the way you would normally do it
yeah i dont think cartan matrices are used in modern dg
did you do lie groups in riemann geometry tterra?
sadly, no
i've been reading up on them myself the past while though
working on the exercises in chapter 3 of lee's irm 
if you want something interesting to take a peek at look at my old book "differential geometry" by guggenheimer
i think it uses lie derivatives to prove stuff at some point
its an old ugly book
lie algebras lie derivatives moving frames cartan matrices
its got a lot of old stuff thats still interesting but isnt covered in newer books
well cyall tommorow
I like truth derivatives better
H e l g a s o n
I'm starting probability and have chosen "A First Course in Probability by Ross" as my book to self-study.
I am past half of Calc II.
What do you think?
Maybe other choices better for this?
Thanks
Idk where that is in the US curriculum, but have you done measure theory?
It's unlikely
Hmm okay, I‘d usually recommend doing these two side-by-side
Or probability theory after measure theory
I think they were trying trying learn statistics. And instead found a probability theory book.
no, I want to learn probability first
then maybe do some statistics
I don't even know what measure theory is 😅
I'm not advanced
Like mid of a full computational calc book (Thomas/Larson/Stewart)
Wanted to take a probability book along calc
elementary probability theory chung 
I think that‘s a good book but I have only skimmed the contents a bit
It‘s entirely self contained
There's this MIT open course https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP61MdtwGTqZA0MreSaDybji8
Where they use this book as a reference
And yeah, it's a great book to learn basic probability.
And is really basic.
You only need like real one variable and multivariate calculus to go through it.
It doesn't talk too much about the modern way we study probability theory, which is by using a tool called measure theory.
You usually learn about measure theory after a first course in real analysis.
So if you still haven't
This book is a great and the lectures by MIT are a great reference for studying the subject.
thanks will definitely check
If you want a more advanced book you can check this
"A course in Probability Theory by Kai Lai Chung"
I still haven't read it mostly because I don't have too much appreciation of Probability Theory.
Claudio Landim These lectures cover a one semester course in probability theory. Comments, corrections and exercises can be found in my webpage http://w3.imp...
This book is used as a reference for this course.
So again, if you are more of a lecture kind of person instead going through books this is a really set of lectures.
That's ok, take your time. But if you feel interested to learn more, then these are really good references.
will definitely do, thanks a lot
There's also lots of problem solving videos between each one of the lectures.
Don't forget to check them.


Hey everyone. I'm a highschooler who's been self-studying Spivak's Calculus on and off for a while now. I've decided that I want up to resume my studies, but I'm not sure if I should continue with Spivak or if I should pick up a different book like Abbott's Understanding Analysis. I've taken calculus in school, and I've developed experience reading and writing proofs through books in other areas. I guess, since I haven't worked through Spivak in a bit, I've become kind of demotivated to read it. The exposition is great and the problems are difficult and interesting, but I've started to get excited about reading other books. I'm wondering if I should stick with Spivak. On one hand, I think I have sufficient mathematical maturity to move onto a real real analysis book. In fact, I've already read most of Tao's Analysis I. I've just forgotten a lot. Also, I'm kind of burned out with Spivak. On the other hand, I think I might benefit from working through it. What do you guys think I should do?
How's your multivariate calculus?
I'd suggest apostol volume 2 if it's lacking
Linear algebra is also good to pick up
Hoffman and kunze is the best
Spivak's calculus on Manifolds is the natural next step after multivariate, linear, and spivak's calculus
@dawn tapir
@marble solar I took a multivariable calculus course this summer using Stewart, which was pretty computational
I’m taking Linear Algebra right now.
I’ll probably go through a book like Axler or Hoffman and Kunze eventually too
Spivak's calculus on Manifolds is an excellent book
I think it's a good book to continue with
It introduces a lot of the beginnings of all the subjects you'll learn about
And shows how they're related
I'll probably stick with it
I guess I'm just kind of burned out since I've been working through it for a while
And there are a lot of other subjects that I'm excited about
I really want to learn more about algebra and linear algebra too
you're in high school still, and spivak isn't an easy book, you have a ton of time to learn everything
if you're burning out and not progressing through spivak that well
then take a break for a few months
do lin alg in the meanwhile and then come back to spivak later
That's true
I might do that. I'll give Spivak another try, and I'll focus on Linear Algebra if I feel like I need a break
last night I was checking prices for spivak calculus. the manifolds book is way cheap the calc book is $100+
supply and demand I guess
I really have to think about dropping $100 on a book though
calc book is also like 500 pages
lol
i have the manifolds one besides me it is tiny
I heard the spivak book is out of print super collectible is that true?
spivak calculus
spivak 
but I had the ron larson videos and they were excellent
ron larson teaches calc 1 like an analysis class on video
you can only get it streaming from great courses plus
the book is really a mess with all the hot hints and colored word balloons in the margins
pointless math history in a calc 1 book everywhere
pictures of dead people
That's because that's what sells
have you seen this book IRL? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Calculus-of-a-Single-Variable-11th-Edition-for-the-AP-by-Edwards-and-Larson/393000401296
it is thick
there is the AP edition for HS right?
there is also the precalc by larson
the book covers AP
the precalc book is really good
I never read a textbook before calculus so idk
the precalc book teaches calc start to finish
Nice
the calc book skips steps in the examples
then fills the book with exercises but no answers
yeah I used the 6th edition shit came out in 1998
but they still haven't even shown any step by step of a really hard problem
right but the examples don't show anything at all
it was like here is the question here is the answer
now do these 30 problems
Highschool textbooks always suck
I compare the ron larson calc to ron larson precalc and I don't understand how one of them is so great while the other is so shit
and his videos are amazing
basically teaching it like rudin
theorems on screen, proofs on screen
super hard examples
I never had a proof based calculus class in highschool
or any proof based class at all
I wont could geometry proofs
all the proofs were introduced as soon as the theorems were introduced
some of them he didn't show proofs of the theorems but proofs of the problems at least
he did prove some of the theorems though
Any good suggestion for Model theory books?
I think I've heard Chang & Kiesler suggested
I found this one the other day https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/Online/doets-basic-model-theory.pdf
Intro and maybe something I can work towards
I have a bit of background (not a ton) in logic if that helps
My undergrad logic class uses Chang and Kiesler I think
Y'all are blessed for having logic classes smh
Something more advanced: Topological Model Theory by Flum, Ziegler, First Order Categorical Logic by Makkai, Reyes, if you know your set theory then Forcing, Arithmetic, Division Rings by Hirschfeld and Wheeler
Topological model theory will use some (weak) second order however
https://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.pl/1235417263#toc this book is also pretty good, it‘s about infinitary languages
Project Euclid - mathematics and statistics online
Note that the notation is a bit non standard in all of these but ig that‘s common in model theory
Non-standard notation isn't too much of a bother for me
Only one that irked me was in my copy of mendelson where they use the subset symbol as implication
That‘s.. suboptimal
Tbf it was a first edition that I got for $8

