/sci/ - Science & Math

Similar question: I'm a computer engineering undergrad and I'd like to work through math more rigorously. But, for now, I'm only interested in going up to the stuff that's used in EE/CE. Which subject should I stop at? Complex analysis is my first guess, since I've used complex numbers in my classes. Or is that over doing it? Would a book on rigorous calculus cover me? (Is rigorous calculus just analysis?) I'm going to try to use this chart as a guide; any second opinions on the books?

>>9816851
Try going through the first four books in this guide (try Library Genesis if you don't want to buy them right ahead) which should cover the standard HS curriculum, then Hammack's Book of Proof (which is available for free on his website) for a primer on mathematical reasoning

How much of a meme is this book list? Beginner list seems reasonable-ish, (a book to functions and another to coordinates seems a bit odd/unnecessary), some abstraction of basic math by lang, then computative calc which is reasonable Apostle probably would be better but this assumes no mathematical maturity. A couple books on proofs/writing proofs I assume you pick one. Same deal with set theory (though doesn't most proof books teach set notation?) LA before Algebra is also reasonable. Not sure why there's two books for analysis though, two semesters I assume? Then real and conplex analysis which again is reasonable (I assume, undergrad fag), then topology then some random specialization topics at the end.

Is this a reasonable list? Book selection seemed to be by respectable authors, though I might do Lang for as many as possible just because I like Lang. I know it's lacking differential equations, what would you recommend for it?

>>9782836

cry harder please. the tears of juvenile cranks makes my dick hard. people like you are living memes. I wonder what you're going to end up as? Are you going to be the undergrad who argues with the professor every lecture on basic geometry, then drops out because 'muh genius' was too advanced for college simpletons? are you going to be the guy who emails physics department after physics department, trying to get them to look at your bullshit ramblings? or maybe you'll be the guy who gets banned from forum after forum for raving about aforementioned bullshit.

that's only if you manage to stick with things for long enough to come up with any incoherent trash. let's be honest, if you're too lazy to learn math then chances are you'll give up with physics anyway.

Do you want to know how you can avoid all of the above? stop crying, buy a writing pad and some pencils and get to fucking work on learning your math.
try khan academy. follow the first few books in pic related. if you have trouble with concepts ask on math.stackexchange or even this board. work at it whenever you can. do all the problems you can get your hands on.

retard

>>9782855
it's not rare for mathematics graduates to go into theoretical physics. if you want to go on to grad school, you'll likely be on an even playing field with physics majors after a year or two of graduate level modules (with vastly better-developed mathematics skills). however, it'll be pretty difficult if you lack the physical intuition you gain from a physics degree. a good compromise is to double major in physics and mathematics, or major in physics and minor in mathematics. if this isn't possible, just make sure you go into a degree that allows you to study the fundamental pillars of physics (classical mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and relativity) at the very least.

>>9776620

this is infinitely better, your guide is the worst meme

>>9752207
All Stewart and Spivak will do is give you an intuitive understanding of the subject and thus it falls within computation mastery as well, and they're not even the best books for that purpose. If you really want to understand the mathematics (and not just apply it the physics, engineering or whatever) you should take an analysis course.

>>9752174
Tom Apostol's Calculus. You might want to skim through Hammack's Book of Proof to refresh some of the stuff you might've learned in HS (basic algebra, combinatorics and set theory) and to get a better understanding of proofs in mathematics: https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/

>>9756160
not sure if bait, but if so, I'll bite: pretty much all you need to know stems from the recursive definition of sum:

[eqn]\sum^{n}_{k=m} a_k = a_n + \sum^{n-1}_{k=m} a_k\text{, if n>m}[\eqn]
[eqn]\sum^{n}_{k=m} a_k = a_n\text{, if n=m}[\eqn]
[eqn]\sum^{n}_{k=m} a_k = 0\text{, if n<m}[\eqn]

...the fact that this operation is linear:

[eqn]\sum^{n}_{k=m} (a_k + b_k) = \sum^{n}_{k=m} a_k + \sum^{n}_{k=m} b_k[\eqn]
[eqn]\sum^{n}_{k=m} (a_k \cdot b_k) = \sum^{n}_{k=m} a_k \cdot \sum^{n}_{k=m} b_k[\eqn]

...and the fact you can change the index by any arbitrary integer [math]p[/math], as follows:

[eqn]\sum^{n}_{k=m} a_k = \sum^{n+p}_{k=m+p} a_{k-p}[\eqn]

if you're still lost, check out chapter 16 of Lang's Basic Mathematics: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=lang+basic+mathematics

pic related is surprisingly a decent guide. Always be wary of what is posted on Chinese cartoon boards though

is it useful guide?

>>9733296

>>9730108
>The only textbook I've found to be of any use is Book of Proof by Richard Hammack.
Then you're probably struggling with all other textbooks since you do not really know the basics. Follow a study guide similar to pic related. >>9730126 and >>9730129 are also valid points though, maybe it's just a thing of getting used to the material since Hammock's book does tend to explain things in a intuitive way rather than formally.

If your IQ is such that you have any hope of becoming a real scientist and actually have the dedication to commit to the path, you will be able to begin this list in your spare time, community college or no. People will call this a memelist but they are brainlets. There may be a few books you can substitute but the authors are generally good and the subject order is correct. Go through the Gelfand sequence and use it to build the basic mathematical intuition that is developed in K-12. Continue through all of single-variable calculus, and by this time you should be in a formal education setting, because ideally you have been working to get yourself in a community college or 4-year school the whole time you've been self-studying math.

You will need:
>a computer
>plenty of paper, preferably some graph paper pads + your choice of pencil/pen
>knowledge that any math book you will ever need can probably be found in a beautifully crisp .pdf or .djvu file at libgen.io
>for when that file is a .djvu, you will want a .djvu reader, so search that on duckduckgo

Some additional resources (by no means an exhaustive list):
>the Library Genesis project, hosted at both libgen.io and libgen.pw, as well as additional mirrors
>Khan Academy for K-12 curriculum videos
>3blue1brown Youtube channel
>MIT OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu) for every MIT course in a video lecture format, including materials like problem sets
>Coursera, edX, Open Academy for college video courses with free auditing
>http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics
>the /sci/ FAQ

There are other things you can do and other websites, but you can fill a lifetime with the resources described in this post. You can also fill a lifetime with regret and a sense of inadequacy, so choose wisely anon.

Now that you have this information, leave /sci/ forever, it has nothing else for you but a sinking hole for time, energy, and emotional bandwidth.

>>9708009
You can start with calculus, which is pretty cool at first. If there are things you don't know in calculus (trig maybe), you could then start there.
Pic related might also be useful, I wouldn't know I never read any of them. I got into math through programming, then using CAS's like mathematica, jupyter notebook with python and now julia.

>>9698005

>>9690481

Can anybody dump all the SCI Guides here?

If not can they at least dump the guides to chemistry, physics and electrical engineering?

Not OP. In regard to the Calculus section of the image I assume by "traditional approach" they mean the likes of Apostol?

>>9648693

How about this one?

If you don't know arithmetic you're better of getting up to speed on it on Khan academy or something. When you're done, follow this