/lit/ - Literature

>>22248947
hofstadters other books
penrose
feynman
actual maths textbooks
captcha: SNNARD

Not a maths fag but I had this lying around

I can't give you any advice on that, but since you offered your help: Im interested in learning math so i can be an engineer and make money. its this chart any good?

Does anyone here have any charts for /diy/ and /o/ like the ones for /sci/ and /g/? Thanks in advance.

>>15818772
New and improved chart.

>>15819556
Posting this just shows that you have no mathematical training whatsoever. Euclid's elements is a beautiful book, but it's in no way suitable for learning synthetic geometry in the modern age. One major flaw is that the axiomatic structure is flawed by modern standards. If you want to learn synthetic geometry use Birkhoff & Beatley instead. Mathematics is not philosophy, original works are not more "pure" in any sense. The ideas are disconnected from their discoverers or early proponents.

>>15820789
This is pretty accurate. A very, very small subset of mathematicians even care about the so-called foundations of mathematics. There was of course a massive project of creating solid foundations for math in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but Gödel pretty much killed that. Math is beautiful, and should be studied for its own virtues. The one thing it might help you with in philosophy is understanding the importance of clarity and definitions, as well as being very, very careful about your statements. There's an old mathematics joke about this:

A statistician, philosopher, and mathematician are travelling by train through Scotland. The statistician looks out the window and sees a black sheep.
Statistician: Amazing, all Scottish sheep are black!
Philosopher: No, no, that's a logical fallacy. You only know that _some_ sheep in Scotland are black!
Mathematician: Well, actually, you only really know that in Scotland there is a field on which there is a sheep that is black on at least one of its sides.

>>15323522
New version