#book-recommendations
1 messages · Page 245 of 1
Nah but yeah I've referenced Perko a bit for my analysis class and liked it
The main ODE theorem is Picard-Lindelof/Cauchy-Lipschitz
There isn't too much else going on
Hmm not sure exactly but I think I'm most interested in applications of analysis to diffeqs
Measure theory, functional analysis
Then it's just pde theory
Maybe numerical analysis if that's a perspective that interests you
Are things like linear systems and existence/uniqueness of ODEs important? I feel like I should at least study those
The existence/uniqueness picture for ODEs is not terribly interesting
Tbh
And like
As long as you know how to turn a higher order ode into a system of first order equations, you'll be fine
Oh ok lol
If I were to study ODEs just for the sake of knowledge do you have an idea of which route to take
Perko probably
Cool thanks!
Perko is the useful ODEs imo lol
Can anyone recommend good maths books for grade 11 student?
what do you want the book for? school stuff or are you interested in learning more?
if the former you would have to give some information about your curriculum
I want it for clearing concepts clearly
in general i think khanacademy is pretty good for all thing highschool
Ok ok wait ill show my maths curriculum is sets and relations, then inequalities, trigonometry, permutations and combinations, binomial theorem, complex numbers, lines, circles, parabolas, hyperbolas, ellipse, limits and derivatives, statistics, probability
if it has to be a book maybe serge lang's basic mathematics
And a few others i might hVe missed
I did try khan academy, but isnt it a bit basic, at least for the videos available in my country?
didnt know its limited by countries
are you indian?
Yes
what about https://www.khanacademy.org/math
the order might be different but you can search for topics
ye, this is ordered for american school
but you can probably find some good stuff if you look a bit deeper
i mean ok
have you learned calculus?
Nope...
i think learning calc might be more interesting then, khan academy has a bunch of stuff for that
most of the stuff you listed would be covered by pre-calc and calc
I do find khan academy explain topics very nicely
with the exception of sets and relations and statistics and probability
so yes, start with pre-calc and then go to calculus on khan academy
if its to hard, start at algebra
if pre-calc is too easy go to calc
Ok ok thanks got it
maybe start at trig actually
oh yeah if you havent done precalc yet it'd be better to just start with that
I finished class 11 trig in khan academy
ok, then try pre-calc and calc
most of the calculus stuff is also in the book i mentioned "basic mathematics" by serge lang
if you prefer a book (and are fine with english)
Yes im fine with English lmao
Ok lemme look it up
This?
ye
Ok will get this, in addition to khan academy
does anyone have book recommendations for multivariable calc/diff equations
would you guys recommend stewart's mvc 8ed
Any good statistics books which are more proof-oriented? Currently learning introductory statistics at my university, and while I don't need to know much beyond how and when to use the formulas given, I would like to get a better understanding of the material
Uh depends
For hard stuff apostol is good
for slightly easier williamson & trotter is good
For standard stuff, I like Thomas University Calculus
alright ill check those out, thank you
Khan is good enough for the larger part. Complement it with your standard school textbook. Basic Math by Lang is a good book too, it would get you used to some more general ideas as well.
@karmic thorn nice role 
see #changelog
oh, n i c e
i also use it
just curious, r u indian?
guys pls best book for middle schooler
Wasserman all of statistics is pretty good, especially if you’re going along with a course (by itself it doesn’t quite cover enough details)
Are you 13+?
this one is really good ngl
Found it, thanks!
Proof of Rotman basedness:
any good books for analysis? i know epsilon-delta and def of continuity and a few oddities (so like weierstrass and dirichlet functions) and i have done a few exercises, but i am by far a noob at anal
You could try Rudin
Tbh, there isn't an analysis book that I really like. Just don't use Tao.
Rudin is not good for intuition and insight
Abbott is better
There are lots of analysis books out there
Don't listen to Luna. Tao is good.
(In any case, you can try out different books and settle for one which clicks with you.)
Tao is wordy
Wordy is good, depending on situation.
Wordiness is precisely what makes it better for beginners who are studying the subject by themselves with minimal help from anywhere else.
Tbh that's true
Most of the first book is literally useless filler
It picks up steam with chapter 6
You can skim through 8
9,10,11 are absolutely cut to the chase
And then on to volume 2
Spivak's calculus
Opinions on category theory in context by Riehl?
its good bcs it requires you to know real math before you can read it
I like Abbott a lot but there is something special about the way Rudin makes you really think about some of the theorems and proofs and really analyze them in detail
Also there is a couple cool supplementary notes to Rudin out there that makes it not totally overwhelming. Many professors and academics out there spend a lot of time working thru Rudin and posting stuff about it online. Another advantage
On another side note, Abbott seems to follow Rudin a bit and break down some of the ambiguity so I would argue that it’s best to use both books together but go to Abbott when you get stuck in Rudin
But also Schroder is a good text. Not many people have checked that one out. Classic Abhijeets recommendation
I would also say that perhaps Abbott sometimes breaks things down too much and makes it misleading to not think much more in depth about each theorem
rudin with these makes it quite readable imo
https://math.berkeley.edu/~gbergman/ug.hndts/06x2+03F_104_q+a.txt
Oh yea Bergman is great
Silvia as well
Like with resources like those notes that those professors took years to craft from Rudin, you have a real Arsenal here
I believe that books should be relatively self contained
If a book needs all of these supplemental materials, then...
So I'm fresh out of hs and I wanna learn the analyses right(as in proof based and what not) this summer, and landed on spivaks book, should I read a book on proofs like Vellman's first or can I jump right in?
maybe just start spivak and see if you can follow along
What’s wrong with supplementary materials
Just do Spivak's Calculus
There's enough training wheels to get you going
I think Spivak Calculus will come in handy for me when I get to the actual calculus parts of rudin. Haven't really fiddled around with Spivak yet besides a quick skim but I already learned elementary calculus up to and including multivar. Also a bit of Diff Eq
anyone know what website can get me an affordable copy of spivak (i don't live in the US so international shipping is preferred)
i think there's one which has free international shipping
and the flat cost is free too
do tell
there's one that can get you a free pdf
Any recommendations for a book on geometric measure theory?
The standard is Federer's Geometric Measure Theory
🎾
Lol
But yeah that book is... very hard, it seems. I know @polar tulip is working through it I think.
I was given a free book once which seemed cool, I think by Morgan? And for the more pure/harmonic analysis/fractal side of GMT, there's Mattila
@nimble sable mattila is my rec
also nobody reads federer, it's a reference
as someone who briefly tried to actually read it, it sucks
0/10 would not recommend ever
I didn't know Roger Federer was a Mathematician as well as a professional tennis player.
So I'm pretty sure this is a different Federer
In fact I learned about the mathematician looooong before the tennis player
nothing is wrong with supplementary material but if you need to use a lot of supplementary material then the book probably isnt great pedagogically
Hello.
Can I get math book recommendations for math competitions(Math competitions which are up till and including 12th grade)?
Not AoPs as they are very costly.
What?
art and craft of problem solving by paul zeits
How many math books have you read?
There is a lot of value in having a main book you go through and one or two supplementary texts to help work through it while strategizing your note taking
Zeitz's text is really good for getting into the nitty gritty of problem solving. Also, Polya and Tao are excellent too. But you wanna get some background first and aops is ideal for that.
solving mathematical problems
"But you wanna get some background first and aops is ideal for that."
Yeah exactly.
That is what I want.
But again AoPs is very costly.
Try the Mathematical Olympiads book series by World Scientific?
There are methods to acquire their digital copies for a trial
Buy only if they seem nice.
Let me see if I can pirate.

Which ones?
You found?
Wait.
But for those I need some good math background first. A good math background for mathematical olympiads.
This is the one I had in mind
16 volumes 
@gray gazelle You asked about a book which talked about problems concerning sequences/series before, right? Volume 16 of the above series seems to address that.

Thanks.
Math book recommendation for introduction combinatorics!
Check out Khan Academy! ^.^
I printed out khan academy
You can't print an academy
he can
in spain they call him el god
in france they call me le cat
How feasible is it to jump into Dummit and Foote when learning abstract algebra for the first time? Should I read something like Pinter instead?
stfu pls
it spells everything out in extremely painful detail
which may be good or bad depending on you
D&F is super dry and unfocused
seriously use like artin or jacobson for 1st yr algebra
ppl who like dnf have something wrong with them 
Wow that was rude.
mhm and it explores a lot of applications
probably the main complain is that their matrix stuff is a bit disgusting
then again you don't exactly read a book on AA for the matrix stuff
most of the time you'll already have done a course in LA
why are you asking how many math books I've read? Also, yea reading multiple books on a subject and getting a different perspective can be beneficial but what Im saying is if you need multiple supplementary books to make a book readable then it probably isnt good.
Plenty of people think Rudin is overly terse it isnt a new thing. Also nothing is wrong with wanting books to be self contained and not needing multiple sources just to get through it.
I've consulted multiple sources when reading a book it isnt bad but I prefer to just stick to one book and maybe some lecture notes unless another book covers something that the current book doesnt.
Hello guys, what math books would you recommend to a CS major on his first year?
There are things in Rudin explained in ways you will hardly find in other books. Let alone the explanations that are as densely packed as they seem are supposed to motivate the critical thinking about the abstraction of the theorems and examples provided. It is very hard to find a book this consistent. Yes it’s hard to understand but I haven’t been struggling with it to the point it’s unreadable. The struggle with getting through it is consistent with your level of maturity in understanding math rigor mostly.
But perhaps some people have other preferences over analysis books. But Rudin also provides the standard of order in which you learn the content too.
You could try Apostol if you really don’t like Rudin that much. I like Apostol too
There are also some really good companion notes online for Rudin so that does add some leverage as well as many academic and online peers that are consistently going thru it. Not to mention there are more academic peers that spent years trying to break down Rudin for their students and uploading notes online
@obsidian valley I like the math part of it
lol lame
read the uh
CLRS
maybe
thats a nice DSA book
you can also do some theory of comp stuff but I don't know a good book thats approachable for a first year
i mean you can also just do some of the math you're going to need to do in first year
linear algebra first probably
I think most people think Axler is good
What about elementary number theory?
any discrete math book is sufficient for first year cs
It’s probably better to study CS in grad school tbh
yes
If you are interested in actual CS that is. I find undergrad programs disappointing for it
Cuz it really depends on what you want to do. Do you want to study the intricacies of computer systems or do you want to study computability. You won’t learn much intuition for computability in an undergrad program.
Most of your courses are geared toward understanding the motivation behind how computer systems work. Not necessarily the cool aspects of computation with algorithms
im a senior math major basically taking only graduate classes lol, I dont need to read apostol ive done undergrad analysis. Only reason I even mentioned that bc you asked how many math books have I read kind of challenging me and then saying I can read apostol like why are you assuming I dont know basic analysis? Bc I said I dont like rudin lol.
I like algorithms by jeff erickson
Sorry I gave that impression
NERD
Fuck off
You have something wrong with you
Mathematics 🤓 headass

hehe Im taking it right now the first day was yesterday and ive already learned so much
mostly from the asking questions about the Alcumulus and homework
the class itself wasnt too hard
for some reason they make the homework 15x harder than the problems we do in class
from js, ive never needed anything more than some simple equations dont really think you need math for programming you just cant be dum
You might not need math for programming, but you certainly need it for CS.

:brush:
good meme
super based take actually
Do I need to learn functional analysis before learning fractional calculus? I have done basic undergrad analysis/topology but have not learned functional analysis. Any recommendations at my level or what I need to learn before getting into it?
Fractional Calculus may have many and very deep meaning (depending on functional space you want to study it), you need REALLY advanced functional Analysis to have suitable definition...
You need to take a look on Spectral, and Operator Theory on Banach spaces first
Then looking more specifically on sectorial operators and their fractional powers
using deep results of Functional Calculus and vector valued Complex Analysis (which is almost the same as usual Complex Analysis)
If you really want a path to learn about it :
- A Guide to Spectral Theory, C.Cheverry & N.Raymond
- Semigroup of Linear operators, A.Pazy
- Interpolation Theory, A.Lunardi
Did someone say spectral theory
the two last books contains both chapters about fractional powers
but with different point of view, almost complementary
Spectral Theory ❤️
THis reminds me I need to finish up revising my proof of the Weyl law
So recently I got myself roped into an undergrad summer research thingy with a professor at my school and we're going to be working thru Alon and Spencer's book on the probabilistic method. I've completed a year-long graduate measure theory/real analysis sequence but know zero probability theory. I've expressed my concerns to prof but he says I should be fine picking stuff up as I go along. That said, does anyone know of a good probability text? I'm looking at the one by Cinlar but I'd like to hear more recommendations first.
All 3 of those resources you listed look amazing for my purposes. thank you!
When you say probabilistic method
In my mind that says combinatorics
Is that what you mean?
Stuff like e.g. proving existence of a graph with a property by showing P(random graph has that property) ≠ 0, etc
yeah that's basically the sales pitch I have in mind going in
Yeah in that case you might not need heavy probability. A full book is excessive for sure. Lawler's notes is prob the best of the 3
In my undergrad wombo combo class we mostly just used linearity of expectation lol
oh yeah going by what my advisor said I don't expect to need to read a whole prob book cover to cover. but i think having a comprehensive text is still nice for psychological purposes, and I kind of want to use the project as an excuse to kickstart further studies in probability and analysis (i mostly pigeonholed myself as an algebra person way too early). but in any case, thanks for the remark on Lawler. Probably going to make that my main read for the next week or so.
however, i expect that no amount of consoling or preparation is going to make the exercises in alon/spencer any less intimidating lol. i've heard some stories...
I'm intrigued
basically the book is known for its lack of approachable exercises. The authors, who are two of the most recognizable names in the field, seem to not have time to contrive exercises of reasonable difficulty so they end up throwing in results that they themselves proved not too long ago. It's kind of terrifying
alon and spencer exercises are insane
i had a class around the book
and literally every single pset was optional
prof was like "if we work thoroughly on some exercise we might get a paper by the end of summer" lolol
if you manage that in 2 months i will basically revere you as a god
well, you're free to join me this summer 🙂
oh yeah sure
i think i never got beyond erm
ch 1 ex 3
spent like a week on it
👀
I think I'm gonna start reading the book next week. this week i shore up on some prob/graph theory
nice
https://discord.gg/9eM9PqgA
so i set up the discord if anyone wants to join. no pressure, feel free to drop at any time
no

actually I'm starting to like Rudin (PMA), am I weird?

I thought it's cool thing to like Rudin.
Welcome to the club. Did you just start reading it? I have a study group put together for it. We are at the appendix of chapter 1
I'm actually trying to follow MIT 18.100b
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-100b-analysis-i-fall-2010/index.htm
though lately I'm more focused on reading the main text than following it. I'm at chapter 6, when it comes to pure reading. Maybe after finishing with chapter 8, I would reread it, and this time doing the exercise too. maybe
I have a local study group that I sometimes use for my presentation to teach myself.
I haven't finished reading it, and I already could decently do entry test for math grad school in my place. So I guess it's not too bad I guess.
I would be interested with dedicated study group, but I have phobia with commitment. I'm scared of making commitment with slightest possibility I can't fulfill.

oops
this is ur fault
Glad Im not just dumb lol. I've read a few chapters mostly intro, linearity of expectation, second moment method and the excises were absurdly hard.
Someone recomended me to put it here. My light novel was technically a book so I placed it here. Sorry
Hello, I wanna teach myself trignometry. Can someone recommend me a book that's available free online
Paul’s online notes
khan acadamy
also didnt u ask this in multiple channels
openstax.org has some books too
I like KA
Triginometry - By S.L. Loney
Can anyone suggest book for discrete mathematics?
Rosen's text is pretty good. I used it for my sem 1.
Okay
pirate bay B)
.
heya
im hovering on this book
the start look very good
i recommend you to check it up
ok, but what's the point of doing linear algebra now
why not
not covered in highschool
the book you gave not covered in highschool either
honors treatment?
he has two titles under his name. one is intro to algebra and another is algebra for schools and colleges. what is the difference between them?
LA is just generally useful
who is he?
one is supposedly the prerequisite
chrystal
listen
there is not a single reason, to a student that really want to learn, to read a book from 150 years ago
that doesnt make sense
which is why i will learn it in due time
if you are a researcher and you want to study the time - ok i guess
but this book looks extremly outdated
i asked you to find me an alternative
Algebra: An Elementary Text-Book - For the Higher classes of Secondary Schools and Colleges Volumes 1 & 2 by Chrystal
Higher Algebra: a Sequel to Elementary Algebra for Schools by Hall and Knight
College Algebra (AMS Chelsea Publishing) by Henry Burchard Fine
2nd has shitty formatting
3rd can only be found in djvu, online converters have a tendency to fuck up djvus converted to pdfs
and djvu is a shitty format generally
not going to read this shit
Well I know some modern books on this
I did Hornsby, Lial and Rockswold
Buy A Graphical Approach to College Algebra on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders
The book is called "A Graphical approach to algebra and trigonometry"
yeah + the trig one
idk I sorta like it 😂
srsly??
I have a fetish for old texts
this looks like a shitty version of axler
i have an headache just reading the font
it reminds me, when i was at 4th grade, my parents gave me a book who looked like it to "learn higher math". after 2 degrees, still had no idea what this book tried to teach me
yeah I didn't like it either. lots of mundane and mechanical exercises.
i get an epileptic episode from all these rainbows and shreks in modern textbooks, so i don't see how you could prefer them to scans
Is it Sheldon Axler's Linear Algebra text? How is it related to this?
rainbows because of all the colors
shreks because I heard Stewart's Calculus has a Shrek in it
i prefer a cleaner font and not a font that was meant to be printed by some inked machine in the laste 17th century
Pre-calculus
oh I see
I don't find these sorts of books good tbh
i've read through most of it, but i skipped some stuff at the end because i got pissed off by how he presented a new concept in 1.5p while wasting previous 20p reiterating the same boring bullshit
these sort of books? it covers the same material as yours does
I mean, you have to filter a lot of stuff
There is just lots of unnecessary and mundane things in it
if you mean the exercises, isn't it normal to just skip some
for example Axler's Precalculus had 'Exercises' and 'Problems', and every 2nd exercise was solved, so what I did was to check out every question, see if I have an idea how to answer it but not actually write it, and check out the solution
if I didn't know how to, I would attempt to solve it on paper
Is Axler's text good?
i found it to be very good till the end of trig
then
I plan to come back to it once I finish Chrystal's text or some alternative
I must say, I find Chrystal's text very intriguing by glancing at it
again, it's apparently one of the best textbooks on Algebra ever written
some famous mathematicians have recommended it
so it's somewhat famous
where did you get to know about it?
that what i was saying
is there really a meaningful difference between texts at the high school level
like obviously some will be better and some will be worse but i feel like
a motivated student will pass and an unmotivated one wont
and the textbook wont really affect that
not each textbook covers the same concepts, is the main issue being addressed
sure but i feel like the main purpose of high school courses is to develop basic fluency rather than to teach content
if that makes sense
like a high school treatment of complex numbers, polar form, etc. often takes multiple weeks
a mathematically mature uni student learns it in half an hour
so im unconvinced that jamming in as much content at a high school level is the right thing to do
feel like its better to focus on reinforcing foundational skills so that its easier for them to pick that content up quickly when they actually need it
that said, im not a pedagogy expert so im probably talking out my ass here
well, drop the "probably"
each textbook reinforces different skills by covering different material
i think he argued against me using Chrystal's Algebra despite it's comprehensiveness and it's universal acclaim, due to the notation being dated
to which I retorted by saying that I may learn the modern notation later, and what matters is the clear explanation of the concepts and their relation
I agree with Shika here
I agree with putin sushi here
Hey y'all I was looking for a book on the basics of Discrete Mathematics, any recommendations are appreciated.
P.s. I'm looking to gain some insight as a CS student, so a very rigorous book might be an overkill, or I'm just confused atm.
Google for Oscar Levin Discrete pdf. It's a very easy book and will get you understanding logical statements, sets, ect. @crimson slate
Thanks @velvet briar it seem to be a nice start
Hey guys, so I'm starting my masters in applied mathematics and plan to be doing it on mathematical epidemiology, specifically using random forests coupled with Markov chains (as that is what my supervisor is interested in). I myself have never touched Markov chains, i was trained more in time series and statistical inference. So I was wondering if there are any texts you guys could recommend for someone at the graduate level with a relatively gentle introduction to Markov chains and their applications. There are so many books its hard to know what best fits my purpose. Thanks
Looking for books to prepare for a graduate analysis class. Previous books for the course were Lang, Folland, Bass, and Billingsey. I finished going through Spivak and want to prepare over the next year.
I would advise even if you did undergrad analysis just go through baby rudin so your that much better at math
how do yall read baby rudin? i never read it all, i always tried to prove theorems by my own before reading proof but i was too dumb to do all book
There’s a certain way to take notes from math books that I’m starting to understand and it seems to benefit most with standard books I think. Or books that make you really think about the rigor
Some books seem hand holdy and don’t really prompt you to take note of anything or think more about what’s going on
@hearty steppe can you describe how?
Like I think comparing Rudin to Abbott is a great example. Abbott is a good book but it feels like it doesn’t really probe you to think as much about the abstraction of the rigor involved in how Rudin goes about it
Or comparing Janich’s Linear Algebra to Friedberg’s elementary linear algebra and it’s applications
No,He just skips everything
"ok this claim is obviously true. I leave it to the reader to prove it"
The claim turns out to be very nontrivial
And you try to look for the solution on the internet and don't find anything
I find it to be? I like it tho
Oh you're saying catman is a bot?
Lmfao
Oh
I thought you were saying catman was a bot that talks about Rudin and Abbott whenever either comes up
Is there any reason for the Aluffi hate here? Like, if someone already has a reasonable grasp of algebra, is it still a bad book to learn basic cat thoery
Bloop bloop beep
But idk I like Rudin. It just feels like it begs me to interact with it a lot to understand it and stuff
deathcode the problem people have with Aluffi is more like
The exercises are quite bad
It's wayyyyyyyyy too slow
And I've heard from some who used it that it doesn't do a great job at making it clear which parts are categorical/just words and which parts are actual algebraic content
Yeah you need to ask people with the correct perspectives
Is there a better alternative for like, motivated category theory? I was looking at Topology a categorical approach, but I just need something to get me into cat theory, under the assumption that I have a reasonable grasp of like, 1st year graduate algebra (second exposure to group theory, some commutative algebra, galois theory)
Algebraic topology
I do know point set, but our course only went up to topological groups in Armstrong. He said Munkres was "too advanced" for the course
The thing about algebraic topology is that that's where you start jumping back and forth between different things
sus king daminark
Oh christ I don't want to ever deal with lenses again @sweet lotus. I am a programmer and have done a fair bit with Haskell, theorem proving and PL theory in general
Like if you're strictly within algebra then the functoriality of the functors you're dealing with doesn't feel like it's a big thing
At least at the beginning
But in algebraic topology the fact that homotopy and (co)homology are functors is, while not hard to prove, a substantial "statement"
Like alright these are good ways of jumping around between different settings
I want to learn bc I feel like I'm getting to the point where not having cat theory knowledge will actively hinder me. I'm starting to get into AG and wanting to learn some AT, but I'm less confident in my topology than I am my algebra
Yeah a number of AT/AG books introduce what they need as they go
You don't need a dedicated intro
As an aside on the AG, we're using the Hulek book, so idk if it goes into much
I do not know Hulek
My main struggle is proofs and diagram chasing, at least as far as I can tell
Any time I've tried a book (god forbid the time I tried Mac Lane) the diagram chasing just wasn't followable
Thinking with arrows instead of sets is hard 😦
Was it the simple diagrams that messed you up? Like did you stumble when you saw a square?
Triangles and squares were fine, some limits were fine too, like basic ones like product/coproduct, equalizers and coequalizers
pullbacks and pushouts were not fun
And then there was that time Bartosz tried to introduce Yoneda embedding, and thats were I gave up
Haven't heard of it tbh
our grad tolopogy sequence touches it at the end, but our undergrad topology goes fairly slow
😦
I gotta finish my CS degree too :/
No time
Is this a dual degree
Nope, I'm just double majoring
I powered through an entire math degree in only 1.5 years tho
From freshman vector calc to graduate diff geo and intro to AG
We have a dedicated AG sequence too, which uses Hatcher, but even that goes p slow afaik
*AT yes
The keys are right next to each other lol
Cohomology is but a prelude to sheaf cohomology
Undergrad topology covers metric spaces, some general topological spaces, up to compactness, connectedness (some path), topological groups (sometimes) and if you're lucky fundamental group. Grad sequence does all that, fundamental group, and I think some stuff with covering spaces and some other stuff, not 100% sure, and our AT sequence is hatcher
We also run on quarters not semesters here
yep yep

Yeah... Just a matter of finding time
Self study is the only way I have time for
AT outline for our uni btw
Well if he's hoping for category stuff then maybe not. If you want an easy book read Rotman. Hard one read May
van kampen is cute
Looking for a book to review odes. This one good? https://www.amazon.ca/Ordinary-Differential-Equations-Morris-Tenenbaum/dp/0486649407
Will Willard prepare for AT
What is willard
Is it fine enough to learn point set
atomic habits >>>
i simply help others instead
you've got me pegged 


What would be some good books to start learning complex analysis?
Gomez, stop trolling, you definitely know CA.
😂
Also check the pins
^
what would be some good books to start learning calc 2?
Second part of baby rudin
I think you're advanced enough to try spivak
Nami should fill in the pre-reqs first. Start with the bare basics.
has anyone read Alex's Adventures In Numberland here?
if so how beginner friendly do you think it is?
a bit of a backstory I know like 0 calculus
HELLO Gays, so i am about to go to college ans a i wanna study the "DISCRETE MATH".what book could you recomended for a beginner?
"HELLO Gays" is somehow accidentally an accurate way to refer to this server's typical membership.
anyway, why are you learning discrete math? for programming/CS or for mathematics? or out of interest?
I wanna for the two.
dont worry about it haha
anyway, it might be worth reading the replies here https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1533/what-is-the-best-book-for-studying-discrete-mathematics
a lot of them seem more CS-oriented
but admittedly mathematics majors usually dont take a course called "discrete math" unless its their first intro to proofs
or required by their degree
they tend to cover the material in more depth in dedicated courses - "elementary number theory", "graph theory", "games", etc
discrete math is kind of a contrivance created for CS students.
Right, i'll take a look.Thanks.
More one thing, what about probrability for a beginner?
I like this stuff too
What might be a good resource for elementary number theory?
The latest pinned message has several recommendations.
What's the difference between discrete mathematics and number theory?
or is a text in discrete mathematics a good intro before diving into elementary number theory
Discrete mathematics is a loose umbrella term for topics like graph theory, some enumerative combinatorics, introduction to proofs, some elementary number theory, propositional logic(one or more of these things could be removed, or added, depending on course). This is basically supposed to be an entry point for CS students to learn some math that might come in handy for them. Number theory, on the other hand, is concerned exclusively with a dedicated study of "numbers", starting off in the familiar context of natural numbers/integers, gradually progressing into more general and abstract settings.
Several texts in elementary number theory are specifically written with a first proofs course audience in mind. Either works tbh, but some familiarity with basic proofs would be very handy for number theory.
I think eventually I'd love to dive into elementary number theory as a subject. I am a bit rusty on proofs at the moment, however.
You could review some stuff from here. This is a very concise set of notes for that purpose.
@karmic thorn thanks. this PDF looks nice

Which some good euclides geometry books?
Why do you want to do Euclidean Geometry
It's completely useless for any real life purpose
Except for olympiads
I dont care, i like and that it
and is useful for me
Ans my projects
i dont give a f**k if it is useful for other people or life in general.I just wanna be happy with this type of knowledge.
Can't you just Intuit the Euclidean Geometry you need
Lol it was mispelled error of my part
Spacial one.
And 2d geometry as well too.
hi
Is discrète maths really that important
I was gonna go vellman then axler's liniar algebra
Is there a better choice for a CS major?
Depends on your needs.
That sounds solid enough. Go for it.
Sounds good!
Thank you!
Probably not
@hasty turret can you elaborate
Can you solve basic logic problems
Try solving
"Suppose you have to climb up a stair with n steps. You could either take 1 step at a time or 2 steps at a time. Find the total number of possible paths you could take"
Ok,it might be relevant
That sounds like probability to me
Suppose n=3 your paths are
0->1->2->3
0->1->3
0->2->3
If that makes sense
And this falls under which branch of maths?
As in what book do I need to read to be able to do this?
Well, Combinatorics
Discrete can be important for a couple reasons
1 is if it's a CS oriented class, it can be a good introduction to the theory behind structures like trees and graphs
2 it can be an intro to proofs class for non-math majors (engineering and CS types mostly)
will anyone Recommend me some books or papers of Hyperbolic, Hilbert, Hausdroff spaces(for beginners)?
They are completely unrelated...
On the surface, they seem to have nothing to do with each other
LOL
Is there a reason you want to learn these thing besides the fact that they are terms for spaces which start with an H?
He wants to study spaces xD
yes, I want to study Space times, for in Black holes & near Singularities

A Hausdorff space is a topological space in which each two (different) points have disjoint neighbourhoods.
introduction finished
i don't know what the others are, so I can't help with those xD
hillbert spaces are complete inner product spaces
I know that, I just want a Beginning start(papers?)
If you want to study Hausdorff spaces, read a book on general topology.
anything in Hyperbolic & Negative Curvatures?
Hyperbolic space is a non-Euclidean space with constant negative curvature + a couple other technical requirements (simply connected, etc.)
A Hilbert space is a generalization of Euclidean space; it’s a vector space with an inner product + completeness
Did someone say Hilbert space
yea discrete math is all that matters
What should I read then after axler's? @narrow echo
Whatever youre interested in
@gray gazelle
You should read things online and try to find something interesting.
Well I'm doing CS major what do I need to know
You dont need axler for a cs major
Isn't there a lot of linear algebra in CS
Axler will be most abstract then you would likely need. But I think its still worth it to learn
Bc you could very well need it if you wanted to do cs research.
However, the linear algebra you'll see in CS is less abstract vector space linear algebra and more computational matrix algorithm linear algebra
For this, I recommend Demmel
"Linear Algebra Done Right for Math Majors"
Well arent you doing the CS major to learn this stuff?
@tulip blade yeah it's summer and I get bored and did math in my free time
Now I have 3 months of free time
Then try to learn stuff youre interested in imo
Might as well be ahead
It will still help when you take your classes. You have time to learn this stuff when youre in the class.
But isn't undergradad math hand wavey for CS majors?
I wanna know Why something is the way it is
Or am I wrong
Depends it can be I guess.
I just said learn something youre interested in. If its linear algebra then learn it. It will be useful.
undergrad math is handwavey for all undergrad majors other than math
Linear algebra isn't really a subject that I would say is hand waved
That's more what I think of physicists and analysis lol
It's more black boxed
Since it's not like they give you a wishy washy intuition. Maybe Cayley-Hamilton has a fake proof lol. But otherwise they either tell you why it's true or just say it's true. Which is more honest
the fake proof for cayley hamilton is to just substitute it in
the one i saw was to form a cyclic subspace and form the char poly from there
which then follows nice
I like the "diagonalizables are dense in R^(nxn)" proof
Complex Analysis proof of Cayley Hamilton for everyone, it's the best proof
quite handy for Physicists and Analysts
ooh how does that start
Look at this : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/20677/cauchys-integral-formula-for-cayley-hamilton-theorem
cool ill try it out
i still need to get around to doing dami's question from earlier but aaah things have been rough
need to get ahold of myself
note that one can use such kind of formulas to give a good (and very deep) meaning to f(A), f being a suitable function, holomorphic, A a densely defined closed operator on a Banach space (but this may need additional assumptions : like spectral ones, the Banach space to be a Hilbert, etc... )
Oh yeah I meant the bs bs proof lol
If p_A(t) = det(tI-A), then p_A(A) = det(AI-A) = det(0) = 0
whats wrong with this proof?
Nothing it's a correct proof
Yup, it's correct.
yes.

Okay I think everyone's in on the joke but I feel like there's a non-trivial possibility someone's actually bamboozled

TTerra do you know lie groups

@gray gazelle to answer to your request in #groups-rings-fields , you should check this one, that you can expect to find on usual websites 
Anatole do you know lie groups
Just the basics and nothing about Iwasawa decomposition, just already heard of it at most
sorry bruh
ask daminark
Okay bro
I just spend a couple hours
trying to explain the proof that
a polynomial is solvable by radicals iff the galois group of its splitting field is solvabel
i have a pretty good contextualization of where Kummer extensions fit into Galois theory now

that's not the channel to discuss about it right ?
No problem haha
coomer extensions
haha funny joke
Thanks
(first time I've seen this proof, I got completely bamboozled and realized only a few hours later that there was a problem with it
)
Hah the story of me with it is funny
Is Stewarts calculus good for someone who isn't too familiar with trig? I have tried reading the calculus book Quick Calculus but I couldn't understand it.
It is still correct once you embed the commutative ring into the ring of matrices over it right? The homomorphism should preserve the determinant
I think one issue might be that the determinant would have different values for computations done by expansion along different rows since the matrix ring is non commutative but once you choose one of them as the definition it should work out
Since the determinant for over the matrix ring is only being used in the intermediate steps
Ah the det(AI-A) = det(0) step won't be justified then
yes
Yes it’s good
It has a full appendix on trig
Also it introduces trig quite a bit in chapter 1 as well as the chapter where derivatives are handled
Hey any recommendations for good book that takes from beginner to advance on algebra
When someone says higher and algebra in #books-old 👀
@barren raptor we normally just suggest khan academy
Khan academy is good for learning up to elementary level calculus and linear algebra. That’s really about it
It’s not going to get you through an entire undergrad math program
I dont think theres any reason to believe they wanted undergrad material
well, They don't have a linear algebra module
They only have lecture videos
But they do have a calc 3 module
Wait Khan Acadamy can't teach me real analysis and differential geometry?
Though there are people who are just as good that are great post-khan academy math channels
Michael Penn, Brighter Side of Mathematics, Richard Borcherds, and a few others come to mind
(just be sure to exercise caution when/if you discover Insights into Mathematics)
Fun fact: if you google NJ Wildberger, one of the top results is "NJ Wildberger crank"
It’s mostly based on preference
the few I looked at was not bad, even good, but maybe it is quite overrated
I never got to learn why things are like that. Just able to solve them.
I think it’s good for like a quick review of a topic
Not for learning a subject
As far for calculus then
Algebra idk how good it is
That’s why it’s not so good for learning a subject like calc
But that doesn’t mean it’s bad
Yes, solving wise it is good.
But it came too back when youtube didnt have much maths tutoring videod
Now I think it's average comparing others.
I see, how long does Stewarts take to finish?
Very long
I haven’t finished it yet
It has calc 1 to 3
1400 pages
Oh, how much is necessary for physics
Tf
Everything I would say
Oof, I want to pass the F=ma exam for phys oly and I need to learn calc for it.
Yea
Don’t then
If you are only gonna buy it for a exam
If you are planning on studying calc I would say buy it
Otherwise don’t
I mean I haven't taken calc yet and it might help me in my calc class when I take it so idk
For a physics exam there are plenty of other recourses out there then buying a 300 $ book
Is Khan academy fine for f=ma?
Im learning limits on Khan academy and so far it doesn't seem too hard.
Yea
But if you are looking for a calc textbook without a lot of prerequisites then I would say Stewart’s is one of the best
As it’s easy to read and covers enough
I see, I think for the phys only I will just use Khan academy and in the future for a moreh in depth understanding of calc I will get Stewarts.
whats the best textbook for practice questions for calc I and II?
that i can buy on amazon
Schaum's Outlines "Calculus" has a bunch of problems with answers.
@gray gazelle Looks like there's also Schaum's Outlines "3,000 Solved Problems in Calculus"
thanks @slender spruce
Apparently, you shouldn't buy the Kindle version of the last.
They made the mistake of not including any inequality signs.
maybe don’t make the mistake of buying the kindle version of any math textbook lol
actually it doesn’t seem so bad
but still I’d prefer my computer if I don’t have the paper copy
Would bott-tu be a good book for me to learn algebraic topology if I have completed tu's intro to manifolds book and have rudimentary knowledge of point-set topology but no previous algebraic topology knowledge?
no
any recommendations then?
Hatcher algebraic topology
Thank you
what is bott-tu good for then
Making you read hatcher

Okay so
Bott-Tu kinda does different things from Hatcher
Hatcher's a more standard intro to algebraic topology. pi_1, covering spaces, homology, cohomology, pi_n
Bott-Tu focuses on stuff like De Rham theory, spectral sequences, char classes, etc
Can someone suggest a good and difficult book for single variable calculus I am learning it for the first time....I have heard a lot about spivak's calculus
Thus, would they complement each other or would I read bott-tu after hatcher or something?
Or is there no point reading both
If you are learning calc for the first time I don’t recommend spivak ( I heard it is best for a 2nd look into calc, and when you are planning on doing analysis)
For the first time I would recommend Stewart’s calculus
Or any book with the same kind of format
go to #old-network there you will find a link to a similar kind of physics and chemistry server join them, you will get more clarity
Does anyone have some Sat suggestions
khan academy.
Description?
its a free website so just check it out yourself
has a bunch of videos and basic problems on every high school math topic
not really a book but still probably the best free resource for high school
Thank you 😊
you could also check out the openstax free textbooks on algebra + trig but idk how closely they follow the sat curriculum
i think they cover some stuff that isnt on the sat
and go deeper into certain stuff than the sat does
Again thanks
Not sure why this advice is so commonly repeated.
Spivak is intended as a mathematically rigorous first course in calculus, and it absolutely serves that purpose well. Nothing about the book is written with a prior calculus background in mind. No, it does not need additional notivation or intuition from a book like Stewart, which is mostly a bizarre product of American educational culture.
American educational culture is its own plague
Sometimes I wonder if I would have been more engaged in theoretical math if my first few semesters had been spent on Spivaj rather than Stewart 😩
Yeah Spivak is tougher than Stewart but it's an alternative rather than a "second take"
If you've already done Stewart better thing is to use linear algebra as an intro to proofs and then go to Rudin or smth
isnt this the lgbt ikea shark?
what
what
theres an lgbt shark
at ikea
i had to read that twice to make sure i read that right
it's you
i would never be a shark
Yes
yes
Which edition of How to Prove It by Daniel J. Velleman is best?
oy
What math do you need for the eulers project
I got the coding down
But I'm afraid it will hit me with something I don't know
Euler method in numeral analysis?
I don't think you need that much maths.
No
The website
@stuck onyx latest version probablly
@stuck onyx also his prénom was évariste
His name was galois
The French are weird like that
As I said, you need mostly coding, not maths.
Well I think you kinda want some math?
My impression about project euler problems is that you can in principle code them a stupid way
But the point is that the code runs in just a minute
you'll probably need some basic number theory, I guess.
And chances are knowing math or at least being able to figure out math is important to find the right simplifications
It won't be technical math but in general being able to feel your way around discrete math is probably what helps
Aight I'll add knutths book on discrete math to my to read list
If you will get a hard copy, then probably the 3rd edition is okay. If you will somehow get an electronic copy, I prefer the 2nd
you shouldn't really judge the prerequisites from the first problems, also there are some problems where you really really need some maths theorems
but they are the minority
most of the problems are math problems and once you find the solution it’s pretty straightforward to implement
they’re not very algorithmic
using problem 1 to demonstrate the point is very weird
id liken project euler more to competition math than anything
the technical knowledge required isnt immense but solutions still require a fair bit of mathematical cleverness
problem 1 is unnaturally easy, because its problem 1
Can someone give a comparison between Folland and Big Rudin for self-studying real analysis?
My analysis background is roughly on the level of first 7 chapters of baby rudin + analysis on R^n + basic measure theory
any differential equation textbook recommendations? (for self studying)
ODEs or PDEs
anticipated 'all ODE books are bad' remark
I think Ross' Differential Equations is a good mix of light theory and the techniques. Has lots of problems and some examples to highlight them.
All ODE books are bad
ODEs is kind of a bad subject, especially at the undergraduate level
If you get more advanced there are some more things you can do with them
But they generally aren't called ODEs
True af, the only good ones I know are to almost graduate people
Are the undergrad level courses prerequisites to the grad level ones?
Theoretically
Practically, probably not
All of undergrad ODE is solved by mathematica~~
For computational techniques, and some basic theoritic results (for those who have theoritic results in their notes
)
I see
quite "difficult" for undergraduate but appropriate
very theoritical
is what I mean by "difficult"
but it contains examples
links with differential equations from casual Physics
o
I see
good books in linear algebra? Looking to really understand the matrices I use in opengl
friedberg insel spence
appreciate it
anyone selling algebra by artin in europe
you can get it on Springer
yeah but no hardcover
I know it's not a recent book, and I know this isn't really a "recommendation", but has anyone else noticed a mistake in "The Manga Guide to Linear Algebra", on page 56, when explaining combinations?
i don't think many people here have read the book, and that's an awfully specific thing about it, so if you want good feedback you should include an image
oh the manga guides are not necessarily designed for people who are serious about mathematics
its really really surface level computations generally
that are applied level
I couldn't find anyone talking about it, so I thought it might have been me misinterpreting...
Lol, they still need to be accurate and informative.
They still can't make mistakes just because it's not a super serious read.
they are but like... its not something you would read if you wanted to do theoretical math stuff or you want to do grad level stuff in mathematics
Sure, I only rely on them for conceptual understanding.
most of the manga guides are designed for like general STEM students that like anime and manga
I never read any manga in my life outside of them and still found them good.
But yes.

i mean it will get you through like very intro level calculus and stats/probability classes for sure and stuff like that
They give a conceptual understanding, but for actual calculations they are not ideal.
what's the mistake?
idk how far in math you want to go lol
i'm not sure how this conversation went from "there's an error in page 69 of this book" to "this book isn't suitable for learning mathematics deeply"
i feel like this hasnt been answered yet
page 56
haha tterra owned
Fine, I'll post a picture

32 and 33
why would you do this
I would skip this page without blinking
The pages afterwards still based themselves off having 35 patterns.
ok, then it's definitely an error (the fact that they are the same, that is)
35 is the correct count, its 7 choose 3
idk where they messed up
probably missed a combination somewhere
alongside the double counting
OK, what matters is there's 35 patterns
The subgroups should decrease uniformly though.
That would be one way of spotting the error.
idk what you mean by subgroups
but all the counts are correct except for DEG instead of DEF.
Yes!!
Gosh, I read the F further down, and I was reminded order doesn't matter
That's why I was confused.
They should have had DEF for pattern 33
Unless you want to know which line you are talking about XD
I'll make it quick. for calculus: stewart, larson, thomas or salas/hille? and why?
idk about larson or salas/hille but
stewart and thomas seem to be well written, but out of the two i have more experience with stewart and it does an okay job. The best part of stewart has to be the challenge problems at the end of every chapter, i recommend to do as many of them as possible
they are called Problems Plus in the stewart books but perhaps the thomas books have a similar problem sets
Is there any book that treats euclidean geometry in modern axiomatic way
As far as I know, Euclids Element isnt "complete" or "fullproof" axiomatically speaking
Is there amy modern axiomatic systems that takes linear algebra and group theory to develop the euclidean geometry axiomatically?
Hilbert, Tarski, and Birkhoff have each proposed different sets of axioms to develop Euclidean geometry axiomatically
You can probably find a translation of Hilbert's Grundlagen der Geometrie online
And wht abt the others?
Tarski's axioms appear to have been exposited at a symposium so finding those proceedings might be a bit difficult
I see..Thanks for the heads up
BTW,are they all synthetically developed or analytically?
George D. Birkhoff, A Set of Postulates for Plane Geometry, Based on Scale and Protractor, Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 1932), pp. 329-345
This is Birkhoff's thing
Thanks mate
theyre synthetic
analytic geometry encodes arithmetic so is incomplete
but tarski axioms are complete + consistent
& i think the others are as well
Neither. Use Stein/Shakarchi for a first intro. But if you have to choose between those two, Folland is much better. Rudin uses this strange hyper-general approach and just does everything out of order.
What's a good history of math book? I read a journey through genius by dunham over the weekend and really enjoyed it but want something a little more in depth.
Does Stein/Shakarchi assume that I've read the other books in the series?
i misread it as CSS





