book-recommendations

[grand thistle]

if i recall correctly yeah

he defines the determinant on $n\times n$ matrices as an $n$ linear function which is alternating and sends identity matrix to $1$

[hasty eagle]

sean

[grand thistle]

i think so at least

[analog lava]

yes ur right

[sage python]

Yeah I know of Hoffman-Kunze

But this guy had a book which did it the right way and he was already reading it so no point in starting over

[analog lava]

thank you this guy

it was actually liquid who recommended the textbook

[hearty steppe]

Just say pretty much everything is a tensor and we are done 😂

But that’s probably what the people that end up doing physics with math would say, which seems like the hole im falling down right now.

[slim peak]

The point was about just telling the exact amount of maths needed to understand the concept/construction of the determinant map, nothing more, nothing less

[sick wigeon]

What are the pre requisites to Arnold's classical mechanics book?
I have studied linear algebra and multivariable calculus formally. Would it suffice?

Are there any other classical mechanics books that have only these two as pre requisites but are mathematically rigourous?

[misty wyvern]

I would pick up slightly more advanced vector calculus with proofs (check out Hubbard and Hubbard) and some basic Baby Rudin-level analysis, though the latter is not formally necessary.

And the answer to your second question is no, most rigorous classical mechanics texts assume Riemannian geometry.

Arnold is really doing his own thing here.

[sick wigeon]

Hmm... I have done shifrin (till stokes theorem) and Rudin (first few chapters) for the same.

So i think i can start the book ?

[hearty steppe]

I feel like originally I felt overwhelmed with learning math in proper depth for what I’m trying to do. I think everyone learns math their own way that choose to learn it too.

Most of the texts out there go really deep into the characteristic properties of algebras and functions associated with said algebras.

Eventually it seems to just click for me in my own way.

I think one set back for me is the refinement of my understanding of the more abstract concepts I bump into as I am working with data, papers, and going through physics texts from time to time.

Cuz I started actually learning math abstractly in my 30s

But I don’t think I can see anybody trying to get a handle on quantum mechanics or relativity theory if they don’t spend maybe a good year or two working on some kind of theoretical mathematics foundation

I think it’s also reasonable to say, that foundation is definitely going to help so much if what you do requires the ability to abstractly derive things, even if your an engineer.

I think my main take away is, it’s ok that I don’t know math in that much depth based on my own refinement. That’s why math server exists for one. Also We don’t all have the privilege to spend most of our time working through only math books right? At some point you kinda gotta work with an intuition you can at least settle for. At least as long as the moment allows.

[burnt anvil]

Good suggestions for linear algebra? Finished my course in uni with a 4.0, but looking to get into it more

[hearty steppe]

I definitely still think, even after starting these quantum mechanics and general relativity reads… that baby rudin is still the hardest book I attempted to read so far

[grand thistle]

the fucking topology section man

i hate it

i switched to apostol for point set

then gonna go back to rudin

[hearty steppe]

Man I am curious about going through the next 5 chapters but I don’t really have the time to work through baby rudin right now and I feel like I at least have a surface enough level understanding of most of these concepts

You need to use Munkres and or Mendelson to follow along with baby Rudin I would say. And a linear algebra text that works for you

It will make your life way easier

I really like how rudin defines things, definitely try to work through the chapter. I understand if the exercises are brutal cuz they can be for me too 😂

[sage python]

What stuff do you want? Do you want more theoretical stuff, computational/applied, etc?

[grand thistle]

when do u start needing linalg for rudin?

isn't it just when u start multivariable

im only planning on using first 8 chapters

[sage python]

Yeah it kicks in chapter 9

[grand thistle]

aight

i was gonna review linalg then go to spivak com after first 8 chapters

so ig i don't need to review linalg first then

before rudin*

[sage python]

If you've already seen some LA before esp yeah

Like

Some examples of metric spaces are normed vector spaces

And it can be helpful to have that in mind, but it's not super leaned into at the beginning

[hearty steppe]

Honestly dude linear algebra is a woke subject and I say learn along with it right now

Thinking in dimensions is meta

[grand thistle]

i mean i did learn a bit of linalg up to intro to eigenvalues and eigenvectors

but i haven't done inner product spaces yet

[hearty steppe]

Nice dude

[grand thistle]

and i mostly forgot a lot of stuff

[hearty steppe]

Hey I mean I say keep learning it

There’s a lot of stuff to uncover with transformations

And when you do physics, your gona see Lorentz Transformations and stuff all over the place

[grand thistle]

but i'm really tight on time right now and i feel like taking on group theory, analysis and linalg while preparing for amc10 will be a bit unrealistic

[hearty steppe]

Well I think do your best to optimize what resources you have and the intuition it gives you. Believe in yourself

[grand thistle]

alright

thanks for the motivation man

i'll try my best

[hearty steppe]

We all need motivation more than ever rn

[fallow cypress]

inner product spaces are so cool

[burnt anvil]

Thanks for responding. I’m reading linear done wrong it’s pretty nice so far

definitely computational

trying to get into ML

[loud cradle]

for computational LA, have you looked at Fundamentals of Matrix Computations by Watkins? Nice book imo. Another that may be of interest is Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra by Meyer, which is more of a traditional matrix-oriented LA course but with computational focus

[burnt anvil]

Thank you bungo

❤️

[foggy relic]

(this is a repost from physics server, posting here as I may be able to get better recs)
whats a nice book for someone who knows some math (abstract algebra, basics of lie groups/algebras and their representations (at level of Hall/Humphryes), real analysis, etc) but virtually no physics besides some elementary mechaniocs and wants to learn physics like quantum theory or statmech with a very heavy math perspective

i read the first 3 chapters of Peter Woit's book but didnt like it much

im thinking maybe folland might be good? idk

[dapper root]

FOLLAND WOOOOOO

Oh idk about that book

I just know the analysis one

[foggy relic]

chWOO

[sage python]

Folland harmonic?

[forest sleet]

for quantum mechanics you can try Shankar (physics), Hall Quantum Theory for Mathematicians (math+physics), Teschl Mathematical Methods of Quantum Mechanics (spectral theory)

teschl is free on author's website, hall is on springer, shankar pdf was also free legally through my university's library

depending on what kind of stat mech you can try https://www.unige.ch/math/folks/velenik/smbook/ from a probability perspective. but it covers different material from what you would get in a physics stat mech class.

for physics stat mech you could try Kardar Statistics of Particles

[forest sleet]

I was guessing Folland Quantum Field theory

though that's not exactly a good place to start if so

I haven't used it but the topic is difficult

[foggy relic]

Yup

Alright thanks washingbear !

How much probability does the link you sent me assume?

[languid pilot]

hello I was wondering does anyone who can recommend me a book about the number theory and zeta function related to prime numbers, thank you in advance. I am just trying to understand the riemann hypothesis.

[quasi niche]

Anyone have book recommendations for complex analysis methods for physicists?

[slate quarry]

Hi. This surely is an over asked question, so I apologize for bothering. I’m willing to self-study calculus and I don’t know which book I should study from. I’m kind of overwhelmed by the gigantic number of calc books out there and the amount of opinions about some of them. Personally I’m not interested in real world applications, but I’m kind of scared to jump right into Spivak’s or other proof based approaches. Don’t get me wrong, I have some experience in basic proofs in geometry, in precalc and in very elementary number theory and I really like proofs. But I’ve heard that Spivak’s (and similar books) is incredibly hard for people (like myself) with zero experience in calculus. Should I study first from a not so rigorous/computational book?

[still jay]

Why not give Spivak's book a try? If you don't feel you are making good progress you can always go back for a more computational introduction.

The best thing is to just jump into something and start learning, try not to get bogged down by all the options

[primal mica]

For getting introduced to calculus just do Khan Academy and get a handle on it. If you want more of the theory after you learn how it works then you can proceed to books on analysis.

[slate quarry]

Yeah, maybe that's a good approach: giving a try to a proof-based kind of book and see how it goes. Thank you very much.

I shall check them out taking into consideration @still jay 's recommendation. Thank you.

[slate quarry]

I appreciate the response, but I don't like videos 😅

[graceful valley]

hi, does anyone have any good resources to bridge the gap between a levels and degree maths, i.e. uni prep?

[stray veldt]

👀

may i interest you in my "introduction to proofs" document pinned in #proofs-and-logic

[gray jungle]

tao 's book analysis 1 has an appendix on mathematical logic and proofs which i think is pretty good

found out about it recently when i was looking for recourses for my friend to learn proofs and set theory , tho lochs books in #proofs-and-logic is also sufficient

[graceful valley]

Sorry I can’t seem to find it

[graceful valley]

Never mind I got it

[graceful valley]

Are u referring to the same book as Lochverstärker#5585 ?

[gray jungle]

i am

[graceful valley]

Ight cool

Thanks

Is uni maths all about proof then?

[stray veldt]

when it comes to things that have more content than what i did, i like aluffi's notes

they do a lot of quite advanced math and i dont know how well that works in practice

[graceful valley]

Would u say ur document for intro to proofs is a good doc to study before starting uni?

[stray veldt]

for a math degree, yes

after that you can read an (easy) real analysis book or linear algebra book if you want more

[graceful valley]

Any recommendations?

[stray veldt]

but obviously i might be biased 😛

not really unfortunately

linear algebra maybe "linear algebra done wrong", which is also free (dont mind the name, its a decent book)

[graceful valley]

Did u make that doc for pre uni maths peeps?

[stray veldt]

i made that document for transition from highschool to proof based mathematics

[graceful valley]

So is uni maths all about proof then?

I’ve heard a lot of people say it is

[stray veldt]

in a math degree, yes

in other STEM no, and my document probably isnt (that) helpful

[graceful valley]

Defo gonna read ur doc cheers mate

[stray veldt]

have fun!

[forest sleet]

I think basic measure theory-based probability with conditional expectation, in the appendix they apparently have a section on conditional probability.

it also looks like the first few chapters of Folland qft are review of classical and quantum mechanics, so if you want a fast intro/overview you could try it

I don't know much about the math side of qft but I think it wouldn't have much physical motivation without other physics courses

[wind bramble]

Guys can someone please recommend me differential equations textbook at the level of first year university courses.

[weak violet]

what prereqs are needed to study measure theory?

[quick hornet]

linear algebra and a course or two in real analysis

having topology also helps a lot, might be mandatory depending on the treatment

same for complex analysis

but the only real prereqs are LA and basic real anal.

(and proofs/mathematical maturity obviously, but that's a given)

[hearty steppe]

I think topology and measure theory are meta areas for people that want to do QFT stuff

Which is what I’m looking into

Quantum Field Theory

There’s just so much happening and getting as many instances of measures on observables with respect to their reference frames gets pretty deep. You can calculate measures in minkowski spaces as an easy (maybe not very easy to visualize) example

[analog lava]

knowing point-set is a bonus

i would say real anal and point set more than linear algebra

only like small linear algebra u would need ig

[quasi niche]

Do you do TQFT? Do u do it mathematically?

If not, I have never found use for it.

If yes, I can see how I guess.

[crimson pagoda]

How about field theory? That seems pretty important in an area seeing as it's quantum FIELD theory

[forest sleet]

it's a different field

[crimson pagoda]

Yea like C and R

[half path]

hello world!

is there any book to study functions from scratch to BAC Level (logarithms and exponentials) available (In a way that anyone could understand)?

[fervent mist]

Hi, which book do you recommend for learn mathematics demonstrations?

[lime sapphire]

What do you mean by mathematics demonstrations?

[gray gazelle]

I'm guessing she means introduction to proofs

[hearty steppe]

You can literally learn the intricacies of field theory through relativity and quantum mechanics if you already understand electric fields… this is just how I feel about it.

I’ll let you know if I need to go through a field theory text

But so far so good so… 🤷‍♂️

This is not the same idea of fields in mathematics although we can map those kind of fields to fields of forces and their potential energy

We can just take force vectors and their one forms and we are done? Some snobs will not like that. But the vectors have components that are characteristic of fields and operations that can be performed on them

And we can just say ok, well at the end of the day they generate tensor fields

[hollow peak]

this is absolutely false, as someone who has in fact studied relativity and quantum mechanics and electromagnetism

You should definitely learn classical field theory before quantum field theory

Just because a field is in essence a tensor field doesn't make the theory as simple as doing tensor calculus

[lime sapphire]

Everything is a tensor

[hollow peak]

very true

QFT is a subset of differential geometry

[hearty steppe]

It doesn’t make it simple, I didn’t say that. I didn’t say I wouldn’t go through a classical field theory book but I think I am not having much issue right now going through these books mate. I think I’ll pick up on what I didn’t get from a refined understanding of classical fields

But I think I understand how classical fields work on a surface enough level. I definitely don’t know them as well as people rigorously studying fields 😂

Ok so everything is not exactly a tensor. Don’t forget we get shit like spinors.

But hey you know what? If you got a good classical field theory book I’ll give it a read at some point or even follow it along with Carroll and Wald @hollow peak

I don’t really have any classical field texts on hand I don’t think anyways…

A full on tensor object preserves it’s properties when we Lorentz Transform it

Or at least do a rotation on our coordinate axes for positioning. Given the object is in an inert state, our time parameter doesn’t matter here

[hollow peak]

For your information classical field theory is done on flat spacetime and Lorenz transformations of coordinates become constant linear maps on tensor fields which can entirely be described in terms of coordinates on R^4, so the differential geometry involved is considerably more simple

also, definitionally, Lorenz transformations do depend on time

Lorenz invariance is a desirable gauge for our tensor fields though, yes (for example the electromagnetic field)

[quasi niche]

Lol QFT would kill me without classical field theory.

I find it nontrivial af and I work everyday with it.

[unkempt plank]

Any books about complex numbers and their applications?

[hearty steppe]

Yes you have to use a lot of partial differentials on surfaces/manifolds, although you would have to give me more time to work through Carroll and Wald to add more to the conversation about that.

Cause your not working in minkowski space anymore

I like to think of QFT to be a lot of superpositional constraints which matter on a more atomic and instantaneous level

When you compare them to stuff like electric fields in more classical dimensions

[restive falcon]

looking for a book which rigorously defines all the notation people use in calculus and stuff

[restive falcon]

nvm

i got an answer without a book

and analysis isn't what i mean

[zenith prawn]

hi im a 13 year old and im really interested in maths. im looking for reccomendations on not necessarily a book but rather what i should learn and in what order if i want to pursue more advanced mathematics, im doing pretty well in the maths i learn at school and im willing to spend a lot of time on maths. i would like to start from a level of a 14 year old and go to a more advanced lvel like a 17 year old.

[restive falcon]

what are you currently learning in school

[blazing canopy]

my standard answer is to check out Mathematical Circles: Russian Experience by Fomin et al

geared towards high school kids (I know you haven't quite started HS yet) looking to explore interesting areas o fmath

[zenith prawn]

I’m on holidays rn but I’m just learning like standard curriculum like very basic algebra and things

[zenith prawn]

thanks, but will it be too hard for me? Do you know something I could do before I start with that one

[restive falcon]

ok well
i think you should learn trigonometry

there's not too much "proper maths" that you can really do at this stage

at some point if you feel ready I'd recommend picking up a book on proof techniques

[blazing canopy]

I can't say, but you should be able to understand at least some of it

[zenith prawn]

at which point, and what book

[zenith prawn]

any good websites or books to learn it?

[restive falcon]

I don't know any specific books
you'd have to ask someone else

but i think you can probably tackle it quite soon

[zenith prawn]

it’s ok. thanks I’ll try ask someone and start there

[restive falcon]

they usually don't have many prereqs

[blazing canopy]

For example, the starting chapter "Chapter Zero" starts with some logical word problems to help get you going. Problem 1 is "A number of bacteria are placed in a glass. One second later each bacterium divides in two, the next second each of the resulting bacteria divides in two again, et cetera. After one minute the glass is full. When was the glass half full?"

[restive falcon]

when you get the hang of proofs you can probably tackle quite a lot of things

[zenith prawn]

it’s hard but if I try I think I can do this book

how do I do that question tho

it seems like the answer should be 30 seconds but I know it’s not

[blazing canopy]

I can give you a hint later, but for now I think you should try to explore it a bit

[restive falcon]

calculus probably

sorry

[zenith prawn]

any recommendations on books for starting proofs?

[blazing canopy]

The purpose of these problems is that they all have simple solutions, but require you to think about how to approach them

[restive falcon]

the book of proof I've heard good things about

[blazing canopy]

More importantly, the book has solutions to each problem (still referring to Mathematical Circles by Fomin et al. here)

[zenith prawn]

maybe I can just finish the whole school curriculum until like grade 11 by myself then start advanced maths

[restive falcon]

true

[zenith prawn]

i think I’m gonna look for a book first which is like basic school curriculum

[restive falcon]

that's definitely a valid approach

[zenith prawn]

do you know any for like grade 10

And 9

[storm sage]

the worst worst thing is wanting to be in front of all the others and ending up doing integrals when your bases in algebra are bad

that is the worst thing you could do

[zenith prawn]

when u mean proofs u mean geometry proofs right

[zenith prawn]

that’s good

[restive falcon]

nonono

like

[storm sage]

you have to become great at algebra and you can slowly build yourself up

[restive falcon]

hs geometry proofs generally do not need proof techniques

[storm sage]

@zenith prawn

[restive falcon]

yeah

[zenith prawn]

but that’s in the school curriculum right so shouldn’t I just get a grade 9 and 10 book and do it

[restive falcon]

get the fundamentals down before trying anything too advanced

[zenith prawn]

Or should I get a separate one for algebra

[restive falcon]

no this is fine

[storm sage]

you can get a separate one because it might include harder problems

[restive falcon]

yeah

[zenith prawn]

but I’m confused on which grade 9 and 10 book to get

[storm sage]

but to start it might be grade 9 and 10 the best

[zenith prawn]

yeah that would be good

[storm sage]

to be solid

[zenith prawn]

do you know any like good ones for 9 and 10

ig I could get any popular one they would be good right

[storm sage]

lmao I don’t

you should simply ask your teacher and tell him your situation

I bet he’ll send you the info for a book for gifted kids

[zenith prawn]

yeah I’ll ask him

[blazing canopy]

I would personally branch out and learn the parts of math that aren't covered in school, but I'm only saying that because that's what I did

[zenith prawn]

also do u know any for algebra but not like too advanced for a 13-14 year old

[zenith prawn]

btw just asking in advance where should I go after proofs

wait if not geometry proofs then like proving like what

[zenith prawn]

what kind of topics

[blazing canopy]

all sorts of things, but the book Mathematical Circles that I mentioned has decent coverage

I'd say that the target age of that book is 12 to 16

[zenith prawn]

would you say I should start with mathematical circles or build up my foundation and just do like grade 9 and 10 maths first

[blazing canopy]

mathematical circles is not a book you read cover to cover, it has A LOT of stuff, you go over it slowly over maybe 2 or 3 years

so ideally you are taking your ordinary math classes grade 9, 10 whatever at the same time

mathematical circles is not about learning complicated formulas or advanced theory

it's about learning how to solve problems by developing your mental skills

and your approach to unusual math problems that use, ultimately, very normal math techniques

[zenith prawn]

oh ok so it’s not really like a school thing

i would like that kind of a book

[blazing canopy]

the book is modeled after the russian math circles that would train kids to become mathematicians during the Soviet Union era

[zenith prawn]

actually I also have a maths tutor and he knows about my situation and he is teaching me geometry proofs

[blazing canopy]

that's great

[zenith prawn]

I’m gonna try get the mathematical circles book tommorow thanks for the recommendation

[blazing canopy]

one way to look at this is: in school you learn a lot of subjects. But you're almost always asked to solve a very straightforward problem that applies the math topic that you've learned. Mathematical Circles is more about, how would you go about solving a REALLY HARD problem that uses that same math topic?

[zenith prawn]

so basically just using the same thing I have learned but harder?

[blazing canopy]

I should also note that there are a variety of other books that are similar to that one, Art of Problem Solving, Moscow Math Circle, etc

[blazing canopy]

Yes and no. The point is that problem solving transcends specific math topics. For example, I assume you've learned about the quadratic formula? It's just a formula. you plug in a,b,c, bam, you have the solution to the quadratic equation

[zenith prawn]

but the Russian experience one would be better for me right or are they all similar

[restive falcon]

for example proving that at most two values for x are solutions to ax²+bx+c=0

[blazing canopy]

But what about a problem where you don't yet know you need to use the quadratic formula? How would you represent the problem in such a way as to make it a quadratic problem? or maybe you need to use a different formula, who knows!

[zenith prawn]

ohhh ok, btw what should I learn after I learn proofs, not that I’m gonna start now but asking I’m advance

[blazing canopy]

I don't have too much experience with all the other books, unfortunately.

[zenith prawn]

i kinda get It. Thanks

[restive falcon]

ok first of all you will need trigonometry

like anywhere

[zenith prawn]

so proofs and trig is what I should learn after I’ve got the hang of grade 10 and 9 maths

[restive falcon]

all advanced maths books will assume you know trigonometry

even if you don't need it

[restive falcon]

trig first

it's less of a big new thing

[zenith prawn]

ok thanks I was really confused on what to learn before I tried to search it up but there were just a bunch of random things. is it ok if I ping one of u or dm one of u in a few months after I’ve done some of the things you said

to ask things

[restive falcon]

ping me if you want

[dapper root]

Hi ally 👋

[weak violet]

is axler's book Measure, Integration & Real Analysis good for measure theory?

[grave thorn]

I haven't personally read it, but I heard it's fine

[analog lava]

yea ofc

[dense wren]

Yes it’s fantastic imo

[grave thorn]

Also it's free, as an added plus

[late plinth]

anyone got good graph theory book

read richard trudeau

book

but want something more in depth

[fallow cypress]

networks

[crimson leaf]

Graph Theory by Diestel might be of interest to you or Modern Graph Theory by Bollobas

[glossy pawn]

Can anyone recommend a book on real analysis for dummies?

[analog lava]

try understanding analysis by abbot

or tao analysis 1 ( boring book too slow )

[glossy pawn]

thanks!

[fallow summit]

What are some good books on learning differential equations??? so clueless. It must have a ton of applications. (without them my mind goes blank) And also practice problems. Any recommendations will do!

[glossy pawn]

My class used* Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems*, 11th Edition, by
William E. Boyce and Richard C. DiPrima. I found it to be pretty good

[restive falcon]

hello

[gray gazelle]

I'm self-studying mathematics and I want to understand calculus — are there any concepts I should know before jumping in-depth on calculus? If so, please recommend me a book 'bout it.
Thanks!

[stray veldt]

highschool algebra, probably check khan academy

[zealous bane]

Rudin - Principles of Mathematical Analysis

[glossy pawn]

Thanks for the recommendation but I would like to hear more about the book; Reason being that according to the #books "Rudin's book is infamous and widely used, but it is also terse and difficult."

[grand thistle]

i mean that review says it all

it is very terse and difficult

it's doable though

[glossy pawn]

which is why I'm trying to figure out why user1 would recommend it considering I asked for real analysis for dummies. Perhaps the difficulty is controversial?

[grand thistle]

the topology chapter i might use a diff resource for though, it's very unmotivated

[grand thistle]

i mean it's unanimously agreed upon to be hard for a first timer im pretty sure unless ur like cracked af or u have lots of mathematical maturity beforehand

[glossy pawn]

that is definetely not me. I am absolutely terrified of real analysis.

[zealous bane]

No real analysis text is easy or for dummies, but it is relative to the work you put in. If you want to get the most out of analysis, I would recommend Tao or Rudin. “For dummies” is selling yourself short in my opinion, but Pugh and Abott would be best due to skipping out of important results

[glossy pawn]

thanks for the clarification. Tao's book seems like a good fit at first glance. I will delve deeper.

[grand thistle]

ive tried both apostol and rudin

for point set needed

and i like apostol's presentation of point set a lot more than rudin's

[halcyon garden]

What important results are skipped in Pugh? Does Rudin have cantor set stuff and Function spaces in as much depth as Pugh? I know for a fact that if you account for the exercises Pugh covers way more than Rudin.

[fervent mist]

Yes!

[nimble hollow]

Hello✨

[gray gazelle]

Hello everyone, can u pls suggest that Books on Differential and Integral calculus (by Joseph Edwards) would be great for beginners or not?

[nimble hollow]

Could anyone suggest about
Calculus with analytical geometry by louis leithold
How is this book?

[coral marsh]

what does abbott skip out on, curious? i'm kinda thinking of using it as a first pass then maybe read rudin as a second, deeper dive into the subject

[coral marsh]

yea that seems to be a very standard text; we used it too

although i can't speak to book quality because i just learned through lecture since my prof was really good so i never read the book

[livid ermine]

The topology chapter is the best chapter in the book.....

And probably the best chapter on metric space topology in any real analysis book

[heady ember]

Try Schroder and Browder? I mean Dami and some others have recommended them as their top intro R.A. picks

[sudden kindle]

Whats a good undergrad differential geometry course textbook?

@gray gazelle

[gray gazelle]

if "undergrad" means curves and surfaces then i have no recommendations other than do carmo

[tawny copper]

Lectures videos on real analysis, around principles of mathemtical analysis Rudin level

THanks

[nimble hollow]

Has anyone read or heard about
Calculus and analytical geometry by louis leithold

[broken pollen]

I know analytical geometry but idk louis

[nimble hollow]

Oh, was it calculus?

[worn oasis]

I have an old version of this, my dad used it in his college days

[surreal phoenix]

Look up Harvey Mudd Real Analysis, by Professor Francis Su

The camera quality isnt good but you'll get used to it, the blackboard's still readable

He lectures from Rudin, with the addition of giving you some intuition where it's needed

[golden yacht]

I’ve almost finished 3b1b’s essence of linear algebra series and would like to learn more about linear algebra , what book should I get

[shell geyser]

I think Hammack's Book of Proof is quite good for introductory proofs. It's free online. Though I think the last few chapters are considerably more challenging, the first 10 chapters should be a solid foundation.

[nimble hollow]

How is it?

[worn oasis]

I have it as a relic, have never used it

[nimble hollow]

Ohk

[heady ember]

Check pinned in #proofs-and-logic for loch's summary

[tawny copper]

Look at pinned messages in this channel, there are good recommendations

[tawny copper]

Thank you

[shy compass]

does anyone know of software that factorises 2-variable polynomials?

[sage python]

I didn't use it but my older brother did

[gray gazelle]

best statistics book?

[gusty smelt]

any michigan ann arbor ppl here

if so can you look in your library for this reference request:

Samelson, H., Differential geometry, “Lecture Notes,” Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1955

[forest sleet]

are you sure it's published notes?

you can check the library catalog https://www.lib.umich.edu/

[river tangle]

Guys which books do u recommend for combinatorics, number theory and geometry?

[halcyon garden]

What do people think about Needham's Visual diff geo book?

[primal mica]

As someone mathematically immature I found it quite easily digestible, the long explanations usually kept the amount of time I’d have to think to understand what it’s saying down to pretty reasonable times. The diagrams are of course beautiful.

I can’t speak on the whole thing, though. I only made it about halfway through.

[formal tinsel]

is it fine to ask for cs/programming recommendations here

[hollow dome]

You mean book recommendations for those or just questions related to them?

[formal tinsel]

book recommendations for them

[hollow dome]

Eh not really sure about that then

[halcyon garden]

I see, thanks!

[zenith prawn]

does anyone have any good reccomendations for the grade 9(13-14) and grade 10(14-15) curriculum. books or websites or any resources

[stray veldt]

khan academy

[zenith prawn]

it only has uptil grade 8

i think

[stray veldt]

i dont think so

[zenith prawn]

i cant find above grade 8

[stray veldt]

its then split into pre-algebra, algebra, calculus, trig etc

[zenith prawn]

so is grade 9 algebra pre algebra or algebra 1

[stray veldt]

no idea

[solemn musk]

Alg 1 is the grade 9 curriculum for America I believe, but even if you don’t live in America it should roughly be grade 9 level

Some things might not be exact but it should pretty well follow it

[wintry hornet]

book recs for prep for oxford MAT?

ive exhuasted all the prev papers

[worn oasis]

ALG 1 is 8th grade to set up for calculus in HS- thats how I did it

[glossy tundra]

any books that has a lot of exercises for algebraic fractions?

[glossy nova]

what king of ex's you need?

[coral marsh]

i have a version from dover somewhere but misplaced it some time so idk where it is

https://www.amazon.com/General-Chemistry-Dover-Books/dp/0486656225/ref=sr_1_2?crid=8ATLIEHM3K4A&keywords=linus+pauling+chemistry+dover&qid=1658450859&sprefix=linus+pauling+chemistry+dover%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-2

this

ic