/sci/ - Science & Math

>can't find a simple explanation for something needed for a proof
>decide fuck it, I'll just go an entire textbook on the general topic
>open up the textbook
>introduction says that it will supply the lemmas necessary to prove the theorems in the book
ENOUGH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoZEtBQJN4c

Why the FUCK would I want to re-invent the fucking wheel by re-inventing proofs myself what a pointless activity. The whole point of learning in math is to get up to the FRONT LINE of mathematics. To the ROCKFACE of discovery. It's like if I wanted to go to Japan, I bought the ticket, and it was to Indonesia with the helpful suggestion that now I know how to book tickets. WHAT THE FUCK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Qg_pVwUuU

I mean, I'll still make sure I learn everything and it ultimately signals that I can teach math better than any of the people currently providing it, in the long run. But I have been annoyethd.

>>15416184
Thank you for the help, but almost all of those have been re written.
Euclid's Elements has been re written. Also, it's not really a practical math textbook, more of a historically significant one.
Calculus Made Easy has been re written by Gutenberg.
A Course of Pure Mathematics is a very good suggestion, but it has already been re written by Gutenberg.
Probability book before Kolmogorov's foundations. Seems too niche.
Another Hardy book. Also a good suggestion, especially since its scans aren't very good.
Loney's Coordinate Geometry has been re written.
Knuth has been re written.

So the only good suggestion is Hardy's Number Theory, but I despise number theory, so I am not gonna do it. I did find a book called Advanced Calculus by Loomis, which is not in open domain, but in creative commons. It seems to be an advanced version of Munkres' Analysis on Manifolds; a unique book on an important topic. Also, its scans are all shit. This seems like a worthwhile book to re write. The funny thing is: the second author's name sounds like a 4chan satire.

Best resource to trully learn quantum computing? (quantum algorithms etc.)
Are quantum mechanics necessary for quantum computing?

My CS uni doesn't have a fucking quantum computing course so ideally I should at least study the basics on my own. A good course suggestion will do (it is probably preferable to reading a 1000-paged textbook).
I don't want it to be codemonkey-ish like the ones google suggests, I want it to be solid and math-based. I am strong in mathematics for an undergrad (but I don't know if I'll be able to understand something which is written for graduate math students)

>>14972125
>Except that there is no such thing
>However, your suggestion that someone with an extremely high iq can simply read a textbook like a novel and fully understand it's content is just a blatant lie
You've just not been to a prestigious uni where IMO gold medalists enroll. All IMO medalists are able to do what you deem as impossible.But those kinds of people are a minority. Even in the most respected math programs they'll make at most 20% of the student body.
>but until you can do problems relating to the subject with ease, you don't understand the subject
I agree, and that's why I said they are kind of people who never got stuck with the exercises. I went to seminars with those people and they knack of everything on the first try.
>>14972202
Yes, it's true, but don't worry, go at your own pace, eventually you'll also need less time to learn a new topic if you study in the correct way. Honestly I don't know if IQ is such a deciding factor here. The kind of people I mentioned, I'm sure they have 145+ IQ just based on their achievements, but I don't know if someone with an IQ of 118 is doomed to never achieve similar performance.

>>14972007
Except that there is no such thing. If you are very far into math and you pick up a textbook of a course that is 'beneath' you then yes, I can accept the idea that with a glance you can look at an explanation and fully understand it.

However, your suggestion that someone with an extremely high iq can simply read a textbook like a novel and fully understand it's content is just a blatant lie. They may feel that they're understanding the topic, but until you can do problems relating to the subject with ease, you don't understand the subject.

Go pick up any upper level textbook and let me know whether you absorb it's content for ith a single read through.

>>11853645
the only help i can offer is a suggestion to do as many problems as you can. also paul's notes (https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/de/de.aspx)) helped me when the textbook was too unclear
>>11854293
i reco having some complex analysis and diff geometry as well as commutative algebra
>>11854782
important for IUTT

>>9892770
"Formal" logic.

During the late 1800s/early 1900s logic was formalized with precise definitions, semantics, and notation. It didn't happen right away as there were several competing approaches with many differences across the board. This later led to attempts to formalize mathematics on top of the new formal logic (and the ensuing foundational crisis of mathematics).

Axiomatic Set Theory was created in this era. We also got a lot of fundamental tools like the epsilon-delta limit definition for analysis (formulated as a workaround for dealing with infinitesimals which no one seemed to be able to formalize at the time). Mathematics before this point relied on oldschool logical syllogisms and lots of natural language. To see what math was like before that you can find plenty of interesting articles talking about earlier approaches on arxiv, such as:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.00455.pdf
Another suggestion would be to try to read a copy of Newton's Principia. It has extremely flowery text and is difficult to understand (the English, never mind the math).

>>9892777
Nice trips.

No mathematician would go on record like that against Brouwer in the same way that none would go on record against Wildberger. It's unprofessional. That isn't to say that Brouwer didn't face a lot of opposition and political trouble in mathematical circles (there were also other issues of course such as the two world wars in Germany and stigma against him for wanting Jewish mathematicians on the editorial board of his journal).

Brouwer wasn't the only intuitionist at the time, though formalism was the norm in the era.
https://books.google.it/books?id=j6f9CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA47


>>9892807
Some of his stuff is elucidating. Like the videos on the axiomatic set theory constructions raise concerns that every textbook and course glosses over. Some of it is so dumbed down that it really just seems like it could've been summed up in one sentence (like the OP video).

>>9152369
>>/sci/?task=search2&search_text=math+textbook+suggestion

>>9076050
>What are you studying this summer?
C, Pthon, Embedded Hardware

>Have you come across any interesting problems, theorems, articles or books lately?
www.gold-saucer.org/math/lebesgue/lebesgue.pdf


>Are you open to the suggestion of starting an /mg/ reading group, where we'd go over a paper or textbook together?

Yes. With whiteboards.

>>8706838

appreciate, I know he's written other political stuff but for the moment my interest is to compile his math. I welcome links about the yahoo stuff.

My reliance upon the rpi site as a starting point is for no other reason than that it is (effectively) number one in the pertinent google/internet search rankings.

I think you know perfectly well why the RPI site gets listed, though exactly what you mean in your second and third paragraphs is suspect, and you should expand on it. I assume you are implying that the page was written by a former FBI cryptanalyst, but cursory checking of the rest of the site suggests that the author is instead a sort of (civil?) engineer/textbook author.

Your second paragraph is the most important one, as it contains both the most blatant falsehood, and also contains a cryptic (heh) suggestion that I don't put much credence in. It goes like this: first, your claim that the page isn't a "source of truth" on Kaczynski's mathematical publications is objectively and demonstrably false. I have very thorougly documented this in previous threads, and I have personally visited physical print library stacks containing, sure enough, the little articles by "T.J. Kaczynski", whether at Evergreen Park IL or otherwise (his personal migrations during the sixties, which are also documented). I have tracked down every single piece from the bibliography (short the dissertation), whether in a physical stack, or online at a source that makes total sense, and gives credible provenance to the same bibliography (midwestern universities, minor/major American math journals).

Your dangling in the end of the the second paragraph is the tasty bit. "Whose" encryption scheme? K's, the web page author's? Placing this suggestion next to the bit about "derp that site is totally wrong" (it isn't) makes it sound as though there is some "secret knowledge" somewhere. I invite you to explain what that is, but for reasons I've explained, I'm dubious.

>>7683896
>By the gour years you mean university training or pre-university time?
University. Pre-university math is engineering-math, boring and less focused on thinking.}

>So should I just continue studying Calculus or should I postpone it and dedicate some time to e.g. the book I posted?
If you have the time to read it, go ahead.
I personally don't like calculus because I don't like dealing with formulas and numbers, so my very personal suggestion for you is getting into some introductory topology or abstract algebra textbook, then you'll have a better idea of what modern math is about, and you'll be doing proofs that are more fun than that pesky boring calculus.

>>7540448

Thanks friend, I read your post and I'll save it my math word doc. I really enjoy math, I don't mind doing it daily, so far I'm really enjoying it! Once I got past that grade school stigma of "Math is boring!", I've been doing worlds better, and sitting down for multiple hour math sessions isn't a big deal anymore.

>>7540468

That's a good suggestion (buying college level textbooks). You're most likely ahead of me if you're studying pre-calc already.

Anyways Pomodoro Technique sounds like a good idea, as well, I've seen someone post on a different board about that technique, I will implement it.

I have a college level textbook already that my older brother gave me, pic related.

I'll check the Sticky, but if not, are there any go to companies that put out text books?

So serious suggestion you should stop going on fucking sluthate, that shit is absolute cancer it is worse for you than watching hardcore porn, it is addictive and it is a feedback cycle that gets you hating yourself and society and not caring about your work and wanting to do it more. Cut that shit out for good. Fucking seriously. If you go on /pol/, stop. More than like half an hour a day of /pol/ is fucking poison for your brain. Stick to blue boards or at worst go on /b/ or /s4s/, /pol/ is toxic and sluthate is a thousand times worse.

I'm in a pretty similar situation to you, no friends, internet addiction, desperate desire to turn my life around and be productive but too addicted to 4chan and mired in procrastination to accomplish anything. I've stopped going on /pol/ pretty much altogether since /pol/ harbor and I really feel a little bit better with myself already, never was bad enough to get into sluthate but you have to stop that shit man.

The only other advice I've found to work is, stop trying to turn your life around all at once, you aren't going to just fix yourself and turn around and start doing 9 hours work a day every day, it's a long process. Get some actual work done, force yourself to hang out in the library, try to stay off 4chan and sluthate, maybe you'll only get an hour or two of work done today but maybe next week you'll get 2 and a half hours done and the next week you'll get 3 hours done and by the end of the semester you still won't be at 9 hours but you'll be working for 6 which is a hell of an improvement. And that should be good enough, really, you don't have to fix everything just get better and if you're doing better every week that should help you keep it up.

Also channel your autism to getting /fit/, I can still stare at a page in my math textbook and browse 4chan for 3 hours without doing a single problem but I've got enough self discipline when it comes to fitness to make it to the gym consistently which helps a ton.

>>6972226
Well, the whole of Biology is growing and Chemistry as well. Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering are growing strong. Cannot explain how so in detail really, and don't know how to put it in words. Ask some biofags in here instead.

>>6972229
>mixing basic Algebra with Calc I
>For Dummies as a serious textbook for Physics
I never heard of any of those books at all. Can't judge, but the links I gave you on >>6972170 and >>6972186 contain the best you can get. Pirate them through:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/
http://en.bookfi.org/
http://bookzz.org/
http://booksc.org/
http://www.freebookspot.es/
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/
http://ebookee.org/
http://www.ebookss.xyz/
Then print them in plain black&white (The only coloured shit is the front/back cover) and use them. I just printed some shit from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html (I linked this in >>6972170) for my course.

And as >>6972236 said, it's impossible to finish those before January unless you know your shit or are a hunchback with advanced autism and an acne infested face like some dude I knew that did 3 years of school in and got his BS and MSci after 2 years of high education. Now, I am assuming the big ones are as lengthy as your typical 'small' textbook (100-150 pages) and the small ones are nothing less than 50 pages.

Also, as a note, all the links I gave you are mathematics heavy and focus more on theory rather than on application. Just so you know. I also apologise for my autistic suggestion of books that have been dried of colours. I also hated them until I saw the dang shit in those.

>>6972248
If you wanna get into bioengineering, avoid theory and don't pay attention to physics as much. Pay more attention to Biochemistry, Chemistry and some Biology, anon.

So fall semester is starting up soon and I'm looking for some self study stuff to go alongside coursework (EE major). The last pure math course I took a differential equations course - and recently took a signals course (aka just Fourier/Laplace transforms with some mild complex analysis).

All that said, I'm looking to do some self study in the maths. I would love some book/textbook suggestions that maybe follow after what I've already taken - I've not had a proper class in proofs, if that helps any (open to remedying that in self study). Also, it would be great if these books/texts were easily accessible, but I think that would be a given.

I guess in the nature of this thread, if people want, a general math text suggestion thread can stem from this.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a good quantum mechanics textbook?

I'm an aerospace engineer currently working as a postdoc, and although I'm familiar with QM, I never had a formal course and feel I should learn it properly.

I've heard that some texts intentionally avoid some of the serious math in favor of explaining concepts. That's great, but I can handle the math. I would like something that is paced well and spends time with both concepts and math.

I've heard some people recommend
>pic related
and Cohen-Tannoudji.

Other states are waiting until at least 2014-15 to implement Common Core tests that are still in development. But at the state and district level, educators are tinkering with the curriculum in the hopes of having students prepared for the new tests – sometimes with disastrous results. In the affluent town of Fairfield, Conn., the school district last year adopted a new math curriculum for eighth- and ninth-graders called College Preparatory Math, with an eye toward the looming Common Core tests. But a year later, standardized test scores dipped and, according to one parent, Kelly Crisp, kids who had always done well in math were left disillusioned with the subject.

Five parents filed a complaint with the state over use of the new Algebra 1 book, and, after a protracted battle, forced the district to establish an "instructional online interactive forum" for Algebra 1 students and adopt new regulations for pilot programs as part of a settlement on the controversy over use of a textbook. Crisp said she worries about some 800 students who spent a year studying from a textbook hastily adopted in the frenzy to align with Common Core.

“Common Core is forcing districts to re-think math curriculum,” Crisp said. “And in cases like ours, they are making poor decisions.”

McCluskey said school districts are “flailing to try to adopt curriculum that will prepare students for Common Core, but there is no real standard.

“What we’re seeing is the market flooded with curriculum that claims to be Common Core aligned,” McCluskey said.

While the Obama administration has embraced Common Core, the plan was actually drawn up by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Carissa Miller, deputy executive director of Council of Chief State School Officers, bristles at the suggestion that Common Core seeks to impose a Washington-based, politically correct curriculum on local districts.

Fuck. I wrote out a large response but the stupid 4chanx thing fucked it up.

tl;dr - I don't care about the no note taking method, unless your in a degree like chemistry or geology. Tell me about your color scheme if you have it.


I have to take notes. I only copy examples in math courses, I could get away with not taking any notes but I make my own exams for studying. Most people can get away with it in math, that's not new information to anyone here.

I'm asking about this because I have a friend in psychology who mentioned I'm definitely a textbook hardcore visual spatial learner, based on my past struggles and successes in life, as well as scores on some spatial tests I took for a program. The main suggestion is to illustrate and use color. And I was already using bubble maps to overview the connections between things I'm learning in courses for review.

I already have a note taking method that isn't "retarded on 9000 levels", as I quickly study from my notes every week, it means I barely study for exams. I don't need tips on the note taking method. Just color if you have any info.

Hey. I taught myself everything from trig to Calc II. I sucked at math, blahblahblah. Point is, I made it; and I did what felt impossible. My suggestion?

For math or science you can NOT depend on just one textbook. You need a few videos, maybe a workbook, a solutions manual to your textbook, and just about anything else you can find on the subject. I've never taken a precalc class, but I took the AP Calculus AB test in highschool and got a 4/5.

I suggest torrenting the dummies guide to calculus by michael kelley. It's very good.

Khanacademy is helpful, but the guy's rambling can be a time-waster. I definitely suggest patrickjmt.com

I'll reiterate what these guys said: don't worry about algebra and trig and all that. It'll show up in Calc, which will make the initial learning curve very steep; but the benefit is you learn everything a lot faster since it's all integrated together.

So go ahead and skip to Calc I. Pretty much all calc books have a section on requisite math anyway; so you're set.

Hey OP I know how you feel.

I barely graduated highschool myself but I wanted an engineering degree since highschool.

I've taken a total of 8 highschool classes.

My suggestion is that you self-study all the way up to university level. I have to work ever since moving out at age 18 but when I was 19 I was studying math after I got home from work. What I did is I went to a highschool and I got correspondence classes, you know, classes you can do at home. All you did is get booklets and a textbook then you read the textbook and work on the booklets. If your textbook isn't getting concepts through use websites like khanacademy or patrickjmt to help you.

In regards to the taking a long time, 8 years you said to become an engineer, it's worth it because in the long run the money you will make will make up for the time you spent studying - Opportunity costs.

I'm only interested in the basics for now. If I decide to delve further into probability, I'll remember the measure theory suggestion. It's debatable whether I'm even going to grad school for math so I'm not looking to teach myself probability rigorously. Maybe in the future, but for now I'm just looking for an undergraduate's type of textbook.

>>4476135
You have a point. I'll change it to <span class="math">ker \partial_{n}[/spoiler] when I hand the pset in. Thanks!

>>4476128
>>4476125
Yeah, I just used that as a picture to post the thread. I'm not even using a textbook, rather just following lecture notes and psets. Thank you for the suggestion, though, I'll see if I can find Hatcher online.

>>3135608
Unless he wants to major in math, many people start at pre-cal in college, even though it is technically remedial. Especially if they switched midway from business/liberal arts to a science or engineering major, or if they are entering college late and forgot high school math.

My suggestion to OP:
>Buy/rent/acquire a decent calc textbook
>If you need to, brush up on algebra and trig on khan academy/the internets
>Also, read the sticky, tons of resources everywhere for this sort of endeavor