/lit/ - Literature

>>9713784
No. Sometimes it might take hours to understand difficult proofs. Sometimes the solutions just comes to you when you are not working, or when you are at sleep.

You need unlined paper to write on and experiment with the theory on your own. Don't save your notes. The best mathematicians have poor memory.

I warn you: The book contains mistakes. Part of the experience is to find and correct them. Never trust anything to be true before you fully understand it and can easily prove it yourself.

>>9713897
>Forgot pic
If you are doing it right, you are going to consume enormous amounts of paper. I use normal copy-paper. (It is cheap and sometimes you can steal it form the printers at your university, or local library). It is also good to have a board on your wall to write down problems you are suppose to think about.

>>9713897
>>9713905
Damn. Thanks for the tips, anon.
I feel more inspired now

>>9713897
Why not keep your notes?

>>9713912
If you ever manage to finish the book, you are going to be an intellectual giant. The French mathematicians famously studied this book in depth in order to revitalize their understanding in competition with other nations.

When Niels Henrik Abel was asked how he developed his mathematical abilities so rapidly, he replied "by studying the masters, not their pupils." This is it. Good luck!

>>9713923
Do you want to keep a library of scribbles and rambling? Your notes and drawings are just a tool for thinking. The common mistake is that people start writing their own small book while studying another. Studying math should be like meditation, and not like bookkeeping.

It is outdated maths. Please read something after Einstein.

>>9713984
Yes, I do keep all my notes because I have a bad memory. Going back to study my previous readings of books helps me to see where I went wrong and how I can improve. Furthermore, some notes taken at the beginning are relevant to later parts in the book, such that I need to refer to them multiple times throughout the course of my reading: if the book is long or very difficult, it might take me weeks to read, and I don't want to risk forgetting things. I don't really see what's so bad about it. How is it a "mistake"? It certainly doesn't make you read any worse.

>>9714071
I write commentary directly into my books, and sometimes I leave sheets of papers in between the pages. That is fine. What I am talking about is exploring mathematical proofs. Very often mathematical coursework use the words: "we leave this to the reader to proof", what do you do then? Skip over it? You are suppose to work your way trough all the proofs yourself, not just copy them into your notebook. With something like linear algebra or multi-variable calculus, sometimes, you will create alternative proofs and methods to those presented in the book. Understanding math is about rediscovery, not learning.

>>9714117
Oh right. I do the same: I prefer writing in my books. And I get what you mean. Do you suggest trying to figure it out after having read each proof or trying to reach the conclusions by oneself?

>>9713784
You're not going to learn any meaningful geometry with the elements if that's your goal. It's only a good lesson in axiomatics and propositional logic

>>9714129
You start by reading the theorem, then you try to understand why it is true on your own. Never skip over something because it is intuitively obvious, the difficulty is often in composing the argument. If you are lost, then you study the proof. Sometimes you start studying the proof and then jump out to continue on your own. It is also a matter of apatite.

>>9714043

>>9714043
The math isn't outdated, but Euclid's method is. It works, but not nearly as effectively as algebra