[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 72 KB, 513x513, 1600905976653.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17350751 No.17350751 [Reply] [Original]

I'm going to start learning math from scratch today.

>> No.17350757

Remember to start with the single digits before moving onto more complex numbers

>> No.17350775

I'm sorry

>> No.17350784

>>17350751
This is not /lit/, but good luck, anon. Don't give up, it is mainly about persistence than anything else. Someone delete this thread.

>> No.17350797
File: 2.61 MB, 4125x2400, 1589095586935.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17350797

>>17350751
Id start w logic first but have fun no matter what. It takes a lot of creativity to fill the intuitive gaps but it's extraordinarily rewarding

>> No.17350801

>>17350797
This chart is garbage.

>> No.17350808

>>17350797
This is getting into the dullest parts of math and neglecting the cooler ones. Don't use that chart, OP. Use Khan Academy or something. Get until Calculus and read Polya's book (that one in the chart), maybe a proof book and a logic one (if you feel like that is your thing).

>> No.17350810

>>17350801
Why? It's foundational so not taught in usual cookie-cutter typical way but it attempts to make every step after make more sense. I haven't had problems with it so far but I find other attempts at foundational reading lists as good criticism.

>> No.17350818

>>17350810
I think it depends on what you are into. But it is a shit chart if you feel like learning mathematics to use on any kind of science or even applied mathematics.

>> No.17350819

>>17350808
Proofs are fun asf and so is logic. I don't see how those aren't the coolest parts. Logic certainly superceded analysis as a foundation to math in general and set theory is fun asf. I was translating into relationships as inductive logic relationships and have been having a blast.

>> No.17350821
File: 132 KB, 1080x1350, 347.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17350821

>>17350797
This chart is garbage.

>>17350801
He is right.

>> No.17350825

>>17350818
It's definitionally foundational so applied is later but if you're into philosophy it's probably more your tea (it's certainly mine).

>> No.17350829

>>17350819
They aren't that useful outside of math. And analysis before calculus is weird af too. Is that the regular order on most math courses in the US?

>> No.17350831

>>17350821
I've made my points. Is it the foundational aspect you dislike or do you recommend a different foundational reading list. I'm following along and it's been a godsend for me.

>> No.17350848

>>17350829
I put an example in into relationships being tantamount to inductive arguments which is important in philosophy. In analytic philosophy, logic, set theory and proofs are extraordinarily important. I'm glad I started it before philosophy of science because I'm understanding everything they mean even probability quotients. I'd say you must read those subjects to be an analytic philosopher but I'm an amateur.

No, usually analysis is taught after but analysis was thought to found math before logic so there's a clear ordering based on foundations.

>> No.17350862

>>17350821
Recommend a better one then.

>> No.17350869

>>17350848
Yes, this chart is weird. Anon is probably better using some actual course syllabus. Is there anything that goes into math to this kind of stuff in particular?

>> No.17350872

>>17350848
And he should read Polya ASAP. At least 'that page.' That fucking page.

>> No.17350878

>>17350869
I'm simply looking for foundational math list. I'm doing good as is but I saw someone have a take in /sci/ and I enjoy the discussion.

>> No.17350880

>>17350848
This is why I hate charts, they aren't half as good as syllabus with reading lists. They are more harmful than good. People don't read books cover to cover linearly in courses. Don't know why anons keep shilling this kind of thing when there are online courses which share this kind of stuff.

>> No.17350892

>>17350872
I think the point is to cover as much ground in proofs and band-aid where it's lacking rather than just using band-aids to build a structure. Proofs seem fine 90% of the time and have more crossover

>> No.17350898

>>17350892
It is a single page, anon. Have you read it?

>> No.17350907

>>17350898
Because you would unironically know what page I'm talking about, if you actually read it.

>> No.17350908

>>17350880
Okay well I read them cover-to-cover. I finished the logic book in a week and hamack in a week after and whooped a 3rd year undergrad in a proof problem. I like this learning style and have heard it referenced several times in different places so there's nothing wrong with it particularly for a foundationalist.

>> No.17350913

>>17350908
bs

>> No.17350917

>>17350898
>>17350907
No I'm at set theory almost done. I'm following a logic reading list beside it and have worked through beginner model theory and computability but I read about the books ahead but it doesn't seem to underlap proofs.

>> No.17350930

>>17350913
Ask me a question. I can screenshot the dialogue. I read for a living and have solely spent the past almost 5 months reading logic 6-8 hours a day on methylphenidate by myself. I tried to pay someone on wyzant to teach me prawitz style natural deduction and you can see me on warosu asking for gentzen biography and tutorial from ppl arguing logic in here on it.

>> No.17350943

>>17350829
Not the anon you're talking too, and this may be retarded, but isn't it important to learn pure math before applied?

>> No.17350945

>>17350913
>>17350930
Besides December 10th that's me >>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=Gentzen
I studied a month or so before that interrupted by a month and a half

>> No.17351002

>>17350913
Have fun, https://www.academia.edu/41267813/Teach_Yourself_Logic_2020a_A_Study_Guide_midyear_update_, it's been almost a year and that I'll have been studying this. I'm in section 5 and I had a lot of difficulty in section 4. He's rewriting it rn otherwise I'd point you to his site. For section 4 I recommend a proof book prior and Bostock first for philosophers but the rest read well (and his non-reccs are actually great too as they are definitely shit or they're missing too much). I've emailed a few of those authors, do you need screenshots?

>> No.17351016

>>17350943
I was the one he talked to but in phonics you teach first speakers synthetically (cuh-ahh-tuh) as opposed to analytically (rhymes with hat) unsurprisingly adapted from Kant. To start analytically can be foolish as a child (unless done correctly) but we usually teach synthetically and give a disjointed smorgasbord of formulas you must remember. If that's your cup of tea, sure, but eventually you have to make it analytic because we're not robots.

>> No.17351073

>>17350757
Don't call them complex, complex numbers are something else

>> No.17351701

>>17350818
It's got Lang and Apostol in it...

>> No.17351706

>>17350751
good luck anon enjoy the ride

I can't help but think less of people who aren't able to do maths and do nothing about it

>> No.17351986

>>17350757
You don't know what complex numbers are, and probably have a humanities degree.

>> No.17352140

>>17350751
I failed at trying to define what a number is

>> No.17352346

>>17352140
Try and just get what x is, it doesn't have to be a number

>> No.17352370

https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics

>> No.17352394

I'm thinking of doing the same, I'm gonna start with Basic Math by Lang.

>> No.17353748

>>17350751
Gl king

>> No.17353799

>>17350751
how?
Wanna try it to

>> No.17353825

>>17350757
Based

>> No.17353857

Define ‘scratch’

>> No.17353874

>>17350751
>from scratch
what are you gonna start with addition first lol