Kino textbooks

[Anonymous No.17223144]

Post your favorite textbook below
Pic related

[Anonymous No.17223150]

[Anonymous No.17223303]

>>17223150
Didn't expect someone to post this, but good choice. Von Soden's Grundriss der Grammatik might be more comprehensive, but it's not nearly as useful as this book is in the beginning.

[Anonymous No.17223313]

People seem to be divided on it but I had lots of success with it

[Anonymous No.17223385]

>>17223144
Fuchs Fomenko Homotopical Topology
Anything by Kolomogorov if you can read russian
Yoshida Hypergeometric functions, My Love

[Anonymous No.17223461]

Obligatory.
Seriously, if I were ever to go into the field of Philosophy of Science I honestly think I would try to the distill the methodological essence of this book, it's just that good.
I honestly can't believe people actually believe in Epistemological anarchism.

[Anonymous No.17223488]

>>17223461
Galileo also has a similar book but in a dialogue form named "The Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences". I've read some excerpts and it seems very intriguing.

[Anonymous No.17223538]

>>17223488
Yes, I've also read some passages of that dialogue. Hopefully one day I will be able to sit down and finally read it, it seems enjoyable. I like dialogues anyway.
Picrel is also pretty obligatory, I learned Geometry like this when I was younger, though it was a Victorian Era translation. Obviously I've learned more modern geometry since but this is a good introduction to logical thinking.

[Anonymous No.17223687]

>>17223150
does this have a chapter on morgan freeman

[Anonymous No.17223704]

>>17223385
>Yoshida Hypergeometric functions, My Love
Did you learn about this book from 4chan?

[Anonymous No.17223705]

>>17223144
Good apart from the fact that it doesn't give a proper definition of real numbers.

[Anonymous No.17223748]

>>17223303
>>17223150
What's the point of reading Akkadian? I can at least understand people learning Latin/Ancient Greek/Biblical Hebrew, hell, I can even understand someone wanting to learn fucking Middle Egyptian, but what's in Akkadian that can make it worth it?

[Anonymous No.17224866]

>>17223748
I’d like to see the answer to this as well. Any value to it beyond having a greater knowledge of language? I don’t even know if I see any value in learning middle Egyptian for that matter.

[Anonymous No.17224882]

>>17224866
>I don’t even know if I see any value in learning middle Egyptian for that matter.
Reading the book of deads, idk.

[Anonymous No.17226139]

>>17223150
>spend 20 years learning akkadian
>now you can read 1 epic, 2 laments and 20000 shopping lists, if you can find them

Woah based!!!

[Anonymous No.17226263]

>>17223705
It includes the Dedekind construction in an Appendix, at least in my edition

[Anonymous No.17226440]

It do be great.

[Anonymous No.17226455]

>>17226440
Aw shit I remember this one. Great text.

[Anonymous No.17226470]

For me, it's the dragon book.

[Anonymous No.17226481]

>>17226470
outdated
imagine reading compiler books from before the SSA revolution

[Anonymous No.17226589]

>>17223705
>implying there is a "proper" explanation of Real numbers
Cringe, real numbers are a spook.

[Anonymous No.17226687]

>>17226589
Read Dedekind's WAS SIND UND WAS SOLLEN DIE ZAHLEN? not a textbook but a monograph.

[Anonymous No.17227157]

Actually a really fun book

[Anonymous No.17227211]

>>17226263
I know. It relies on the notion of a "set", which is left undefined. What he did equates to moving the goalposts. "Defines" one thing in terms of another vague, meaningless thing.
>>17226589
Of course. They cope.
>>17226687
Does he properly define the real numbers in it? Do you have an english translation?

[Anonymous No.17227232]

>>17223313
It's a fine textbook, but the Italian version blows it out of the water.

[Anonymous No.17227527]

>>17223144
I'll be called tryhard but there really isn't anything better than the Elements d'Analyse by Dieudonne on the subject.
Thank God my uncle had it because it costs a fortune now.

>>17227211
The fact you weren't curious about Dedekind while shitposting about real numbers isn't looking good. While he historically is the first to base real analysis on arithmetic, it isn't the only such foundation and others have been discovered since. In particular, the construction by Cauchy sequences.
Note that, as interesting as these constructions are, there is nothing wrong with defining real numbers directly as their own axiomatic system. In fact, such an approach is cleaner in a book strictly about analysis, in that it minimizes reliance on other theories (no matter how older or more classical).
As for sets, instead of going for Tao who isn't big on foundations, go full formalist and admit sets are defined by the rules of the inclusion relation (see Bourbaki for instance).
If you really want to dig into logic way beyond the need for set theory, read Husserl and Łukasiewicz works on mereology. But reading your post, you wouldn't understand.

[Anonymous No.17227690]

>>17227527
I know the fraudulent "constructions" using Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences very well.
>there is nothing wrong with defining real numbers directly as their own axiomatic system
There is. Because that's not a definition of what the real numbers are, the axioms are just assertions which these supposed "real numbers" are asserted to satisfy, without any proof.
If there were nothing wrong with the axiomatic approach, the fraudulent "constructions" of the reals wouldn't be viewed as necessary.
>go full formalist and admit sets are defined by the rules of the inclusion relation (see Bourbaki for instance).
I've never seen a formalist, nor a platonist define what set is. As for Bourbaki, I downloaded their joke of a book "Theory of Sets". They start talking about sets only in page 65. To them, sets are synonymous with logical terms. Of course, that cannot be right, because two different logical terms can give rise to two equal terms. So then they have to define what it means for two sets (terms) to be equal. Of course, they don't do this, since this is impossible to do.
>If you really want to dig into logic way beyond the need for set theory, read Husserl and Łukasiewicz works on mereology.
I don't want to dig into anything, all I want is a proper definition of the real numbers. Sadly, as of now, it seems like there are none. The whole theory of analysis is based on sand.

[Anonymous No.17227703]

>>17227527
I know the fraudulent "constructions" using Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences very well.
>there is nothing wrong with defining real numbers directly as their own axiomatic system
There is. Because that's not a definition of what the real numbers are, the axioms are just assertions which these supposed "real numbers" are asserted to satisfy, without any proof.
If there were nothing wrong with the axiomatic approach, the fraudulent "constructions" of the reals wouldn't be viewed as necessary.
>go full formalist and admit sets are defined by the rules of the inclusion relation (see Bourbaki for instance).
I've never seen a formalist, nor a platonist define what set is. As for Bourbaki, I downloaded their joke of a book "Theory of Sets". They start talking about sets only in page 65. To them, sets are synonymous with logical terms. Of course, that cannot be right, because two different logical terms can give rise to two equal terms. So then they have to define what it means for two sets (terms) to be equal. Of course, they don't do this, since this is impossible to do.
>If you really want to dig into logic way beyond the need for set theory, read Husserl and Łukasiewicz works on mereology.
I don't want to dig into anything, all I want is a proper definition of the real numbers. Sadly, as of now, it seems like there are none. The whole theory of analysis is based on sand.

[Anonymous No.17227717]

I wouldn't have understood German philosophy without this book, Beiser is based asf.

[Anonymous No.17228002]

>>17227703
Real numbers are formally defined by those axioms. They tautologically satisfy them. You could call those objects goldilocks for all I care.
You seem to entirely fail to grasp the fact that mathematicians always use those definitions.
What I guess you are trying to say it is that those constructions give objects that do not correspond to what you would informally use. In that case, I'm afraid you are quite alone. Everyone recognizes that such ideas are (or at least are equivalent to) the ideas of basic continuous quantities.
If that's what you ask, there is no way to formally prove that a formal definition corresponds to a given informal notion.

>They start talking about sets only in page 65.
This should be a positive should you want sets not to come immediately.
>To them, sets are synonymous with logical terms.
They are indeed equivalent with term within the context of a theory of the relation of inclusion.
>wo different logical terms can give rise to two equal terms
This isn't Hegelian dialectics, logical terms do not "give rise" to anything.
>So then they have to define what it means for two sets (terms) to be equal. Of course, they don't do this, since this is impossible to do.
The equality of sets is defined like every other equality in their books. You know the first 60 pages before your pic, that you didn't read, contain the theory of equality relation within the context of their restricted logic? Ultimately, it is a particular form of Leibniz's identitate indiscernibilium.
But back to sets, equality between them receives a criterion by the axiom of extensionality, which is really a definition of the inclusion relation (I precise because you'll jump on the word axiom without understanding half of them are mere definitions in Bourbaki).

[Anonymous No.17228221]

>>17228002
>Real numbers are formally defined by those axioms
Explain how. What is the exact definition? Formulate it in English please.

[Anonymous No.17228913]

>>17226139
But after 20 years, you can tell yourself and others that you read Akkadian. Isn't that cool?

[Anonymous No.17229788]

>>17226139
>now you can read 1 epic, 2 laments and 20000 shopping lists, if you can find them
sounds kino

[Anonymous No.17229796]

>>17223748
It's the earliest known Semitic language so learning it would help in understanding how Semitic languages evolved, diverged, etc, and it would make learning the other Semitic languages easier, I imagine. Also, traditionally you are supposed to learn Akkadian before you learn Sumerian, seeing as Sumerian has been largely understood by way of Akkadian.