/lit/ - Literature

>>10963480
Euclid’s elements
Frege
Jordan Ellenberg

thanks /lit/!

>>10963480
The best maths books are textbooks.
If you have a particular subject you're interested in I'd be happy to recommend one (or you can ask on /sci/).

If you only want books /about/ maths then DFW's Everything and More is not bad.

I've heard Flatland by Edwin Abbott is good.

http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/default.html has even more math fiction. I haven't read any of it, but how bad could it be?

Elements mane.

And after Elements, the world is your oyster

>>10963489
>>10964104
>Elements
Is there a board more pseud than /lit/?

>Read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all
t. laplace

>The analysis of Euler comes close to the modern orthodox discipline, the study of functions by means of infinite processes, especially through infinite series. It is doubtful that any other essentially didactic work includes as large a portion of original material that survives in the college courses today...Can be read with comparative ease by the modern student...The prototype of modern textbooks.

>>10963480
Apostal's Calc books that the /sci/niggers recc'd before they fucked up their stupid wiki page like evil niggers and left me a taunt to express their disdain for auto-didacts

>>10963480
Start with Lang's Algebra and Baby Rudin

>>10964111
Only pseud here is you

>>10964447
which of his works?

>>10964104
The world isn't an oyster, but layers of rock.

Lillian Leiber

>>10964079
Enciso's True Beauty of Math series is quite good if you haven't formally studied math before and want to get straight into the fun stuff.
Otherwise as mentioned above you really need to drag yourself through a textbook. Real analysis is a glorious topic to start with if you have the stomach for it.

>>10964079
>>10964696
Was meant for OP

>>10964591
If someone came to /lit/ and said they wanted to start reading you wouldn't recommend them some ancient greek shit (ok you probably would but you'd be wrong).

Euclid's elements is definitely an important historical text but you're an idiot if you think it's a good introduction to maths. Read a modern text which benefits from the the many improvements we have made to axiomisation, readability, etc

Geometry is also a fairly isolated field.
If you want to learn maths you're better off starting with an general intro to proofs textbook then progressing to a textbook which focuses on an area that interests you.

If you don't want to learn maths but just read about it then a modern text will be much more informative. Elements is very early in the history of maths and more interesting in the greater context of what came after.

>>10964696
I think analysis is very interesting but also somewhat difficult to start with.
I would do some basic set theory and logic then go on to something like basic number theory or graph theory (both relatively intuitive topics).

i haven't read anything on this chart but here ya go

Start with the basics, arirthmetic, algebra and geometry:
Serre - A course in arithmetic
Grothendieck - Elements of algebraic geometry

>>10964702
See anon, this was a much better post, why didn't you post it in the first place?

>>10964714
I had to maximise my (you) return

>>10964664
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introductio_in_analysin_infinitorum

>>10964702
>>10964710
Stupid, stupid stupid.

Dumb, dumb dumb.

You start by reading Elements. Then you can grasp everything complex much easier. The people who haven't read Elements don't understand it, (because it is a very complex, and intricate work)

>>10965150
Uninspired bait.
While the simple structure definitely has appeal, don't be afraid to branch out a little and try something a little more ambitious.
You might get a couple of cheap (you)s with work like this but you're never going to come up with something truly meaningful.

I would suggest removing the more overt parts of the post, for example "very complex, and intricate".
"Stupid, stupid stupid" has a certain je-ne-sais-quoi to it, especially missing the second comma. The repetition with "Dumb, dumb dumb" was too much though.
Bonus points for "much easier" rather than "much more easily".
It always pays dividends to sprinkle in some secondary bait.

Overall I give it a 4/10.
I'm sure if you apply yourself you can go on to greater things.

As an example of something you should take inspiration from consider >>10964713

>>10965184
Why not read Al Khwarizmi's Algebra?

I mean we're trying to give this man good advice. He could learn from all sorts of mathematical texts throughout the years. Elements and On Conics are still taught at colleges for a reason you complete nimrod.

>>10964713
This is a fine recommendation. I would also start reading this along with Elements.
Demazure and Gabriel - Introduction to algebraic geometry and algebraic groups.

>>10963480

On the Classification of Topological Field Theories by Jacob Lurie

>>10966897
That's a nice read. I quite like his elementary proof of the homotopy hypothesis assuming the concrete cobordism hypothesis which was proved using only empirical techniques from string theory.

>>10964696
>Real analysis is a glorious topic to start with if you have the stomach for it
no

>>10967054
He is actually correct. If you have the stomach for absolute shit then real analysis would indeed be a glorious subject for you.

>>10963480
Principles of Mathematical Analysis Walter Rudin

>>10963480
Not sure how relevant it would be but I did enjoy "my search for ramanujan"

>>10964702

The past two thousand years of world history prove you wrong.

>>10965885
THIS

>>10968109
What did he mean by this?

>>10968109
no it doesn't pseud

>>10968491
Yes it does pseuder pseud.

He’s referring to the fact that Euclid’s Elements was taught for more than 2000 years.

>>10968558
and it hasn't been for the last 100 hyperpseud. no one living was introduced to geometry via the elements.

>>10965215
What college teaches elements?
Maybe in a history of maths course or one on ancient greek science, but not in the actual core mathematics curriculum.

Why do people here hate Elements? It's the standard reference for basic geometry with an algebraic flavor.

>>10968683
No one hates elements, they're just saying it's next to useless for learning modern mathematics. I love elements and have a nice hardback copy of it on my desk right now.

>>10968698
How is it useless for learning modern mathematics if it's the standard reference in a pretty big branch of modern mathematics?

>>10968730
Because neither of those statements are true. Euclidean constructions have been replaced with coordinate geometry, and geometry is not a large area of modern mathematics.

>>10968756
The Principles are not false, moron. You can learn a lot about modern geometry through Elements

"The Art of Computer Programming" is widely considered to be The Bible among computer scientists.

>>10968756
But neither Euclidean constructions nor coordinate geometry are parts of mathematics. It seems to have quite a few arxiv submissions to not count as a large area of modern mathematics.
>>10968761
That's not surprising since it basically founded modern geometry.

Elements and the Timaeus to teach you why water molecules are shaped exactly like Icosahedrons and in order to properly drink water one must properly train ones body and mind to accept icosahedrons and read the entirety of the Elements to construct it from scratch and make more water with fire and air.

>>10968761
I didn't say they were untrue, obviously they're still true as Euclid's axioms are stronger than the axioms we work with. And yes, the geometry we use can be learned from elements but that does not change the fact that geometry is not a major part of modern mathematics.

If you want to learn maths, you're much better off starting with logic, basic number theory, etc.

>>10968780
Of course people publish on geometry, but that doesn't mean it's a major field. I'm in mathematics anon

>>10963480
you're probably looking for a book like alex's adventures in numberland by alex bellos

>>10963480
Mathematics made hard

>>10968780
>That's not surprising since it basically founded modern geometry.
The Elements is a compilation, and it's not modern. It goes back to Ancient Greece. I hope this didn't come off as news to you. Now where exactly modern geometry begins, that's debatable, but I'd say the development of the concept of a manifold is the pivotal moment---around mid 19th century by Riemann.