/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10277583
>tfw i can do most of this

Biofag here. I want to teach myself some useful math. Give me a meme list or a real list of books.

I don't really want to learn how to prove shit, I just want to learn the applied stuff. Like engineers.

Idiot here. Is there a different between proportional and relative proportional relationships or is it just wording?

>>9645595

What's the /sci/-approved textbooks for self-studying how to construct proofs? I've been self studying math for a year or so but I haven't developed any coherent framework for how I should approach proving things. And no, I don't want your brainlet redditfag texts. I want the real deal, the goods, I need my fix. What's the true red pill ubertext of proofs, /sci/? I can keep a secret.

>>9370868

>>9286482
Yes, it's art.

>Your dad asks you what you're studying
>You tell him you're studying abstract mathematical concepts like topology that apply to all areas of knowledge
>He chuckles and says "yep I'm sure son, show me"
>You open "Concepts of Modern Mathematics" by Ian Stewart, i.e. babby's first math book to show him what's up
>Randomly open to a page without looking and show it to him
>You then realize it's page 156 and you're pointing at pic related
>Your dad looks disappointed in you beyond measure, walks off shaking his head
>"I've raised a retard"

How do you convince normies that math is something legitimate and important, the ultimate intellectual discipline, without dumbing it down so much (so that can understand it) that it seems stupid and trivial to them?

I have a math question that I've been wondering about for a while and wondering even more now that I've started to read Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Wittgenstein beautifully brought it up. I'm not very smart so I may be misunderstanding it and completely wrong, but:

When you read mathematical proofs there are words, human language. This is a really big leap as Wittgenstein points out. Does mathematics, to be firmly and thoroughly proven true, need a language all of its own whose meaning is apparent to the reader with no background training, through pictorial illustrations perhaps or just a more intuitive syntax? Otherwise you're indoctrinated with predispositions to certain concepts that may exist very abstractly within your mind due to your, say, English, or German mental background. It will allow the elementary proof for instance in ZFC to use words like "is", "thus", "contradiction", "set", etc.

Is it okay to use human language in such math proofs at the very foundations of the field, or does it need to go a bit lower level, a bit more primitive where no human spoken language is used and instead it's all pictorial and intuitive to even humans who speak different languages?

This question may be retarded

>>8960759
That explanation made it way more harder to understand.