/sci/ - Science & Math

You're trying to run before you walk. If you are completely new to integrals, differentiation etc. you first need to make sure your algebra is solid.

From there look towards graphical interpretation of integrals and diff. (helped me a lot, the area under a graph being made up of infinitely thin lines, the differential being the change at a given point etc.) This may help you get a start, if this pdf (granted I haven't opened it to look at it) is truly aimed at those first learning basics then yes it is dumb but otherwise you're getting ahead of yourself.

Small steps are all that are needed and you will be where you want to be before you know it

>>10323270
Okay but this wasn't my point, most of what I've learned about calculus (used it as an example) is from youtube videos, I know all of those simply from someone else's explanations. But my problem is, even in the simplest algebra books aimed at high school students, shit's riddled with proofs and whatnot. In order to truly begin to study from books myself I must first learn to read the mathematical notation. This is my problem and I don't know where to start. One reason I only study from YT vids even though I go to an engineering school is because I simply cannot take up a physics/math book and just start learning. Maths by the looks of it simply doesn't work like that. Because even at the first page it's filled with rigorous proofs. I'm not a math major, why do they expect me to understand those? And well since I'm forced to, I posted a question here asking what the best way to learn such a thing is?

>>10323291
send a picture of what you are talking about by rigorous proofs in an algebra book

>>10323256
>I find I can only do maths if shown by example
Because you're not understanding concepts.
> will never be. I don't want to.
This is why you fail.
>The point I'm getting at is, how do you learn to read this notation, in order to be able to actually study high level math? OR any math in general?
Read a proofs book.
https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/
>and in order to understand the proofs you need to know math in the first place
All you need is precalculus to understand proofs.

>http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~heiner/calculus.pdf
>In one more way we depart radically from the traditional approach to calculus. We introduce differentiability as a local property without using limits. The philosophy behind this idea is that limits are the a big stumbling block for most students who see calculus for the first time, and they take up a substantial part of the first semester. Though mathematically rigorous, our approach to the derivative makes no use of limits, allowing the students to get quickly and without unresolved problems to this concept. It is true that our definition is more restrictive than the ordinary one, and fewer functions are differentiable in this manuscript than in a standard text. But the functions which we do not recognize as being differentiable are not particularly important for students who will take only one semester of calculus. In addition, in our opinion the underlying geometric idea of the derivative is at least as clear in our approach as it is in the one using limits.
>More technically speaking, instead of the traditional notion of differentiability, we use a notion modeled on a Lipschitz condition. Instead of an ε-δ definition we use an explicit local (or global) estimate.
>This approach, which should be to easy to follow for anyone with a background in analysis, has been used previously in teaching calculus.

Why did you pick a book written by an autist?

>>10323291
yeah, you're not in an internationally accredited engineering school which gives out engineering degrees recognized in developed countries - let us just get that out of the way first. You're probably not even aware that your poo belongs in a loo yet; begin with the simple equation (you+squat_to_poo)/(loo)

>>10323256
Learning math from physics texts is often easier, as they don't assume you have perfect mathematical ability like similar math texts do.

>>10323428
He can't, he already admitted he does most of his learning from youtube videos and therefore owns no textbooks OR bought the textbooks and doesn't use them.

You can't read a math textbook like a novel. Take your time, re-read sections as often as you need to. If you really get stuck just read further, there may be some clues ahead, alternatively look up the same concept in different books. It will give you some more perspective. Also, above all, do the fucking exercises.

>>10323428
see pic related
>>10324930
fuck you

>>10324071
Yeah, seems like the pdf you posted is what I needed. So basically it all stems from logic as far as I can see. Also the pdf introduces and explains how to read proofs nicely. I Appreciate your help anon.

Also while my background in precalc is solid (at least the manipulation of doing math), does this book also cover the logic behind formulas? What I mean is, I understand the concept behind ex. pressure=F/area, increase the area but leave the force alone, and you've reduced the pressure. I understand this logic. But what about way more complex formulas? How can I learn to make sense of those? When things start to get complicated I tend to just rather memorize than try to make sense of it, for example the formulas of kinematics. I've seen how they're derived, aka where they came from, but are they simply just tools/technology we use to get to a conclusion, or do they have a deeper meaning at a more intuitive level?

Yes, I'm mainly willing to get a strong maths background to better my understanding of physics. I don't quite enjoy maths itself, but I love physics. I don't dislike maths, I feel neutral towards it. It's a very useful tool and I wish I had this kind of mindset a few years back.

>>10324917
Yeah, I'm not. But I'm willing to work hard to become at least decent at my job.

>>10324922
Yes I can agree with that, it's way simpler to picture maths when thinking in terms of physics, but unfortunately when the formulas get complicated I can't really make sense of all of them, some just seem impossible to grasp intuitively, unlike ex. F=ma.

>>10325033
This is some next level shit

>>10325033
you said algebra yet I see several integrals on that page?

>>10325033
mathgen

>>10325146
OP didn't post that pic

>>10325033
This is from a website that auto-generates legit looking papers. It's not actually coherent.

>>10323256
>>10324071
>Why did you pick a book written by an autist?
This. Book is terrible. If you try to learn from it you'll have limited resources and maximum difficulty as it's way outside the way literally everyone else teaches calc.
Also it's called applied math but is bogged down with proofs. It's good to get some exposure to proofs at this point, but it's usually enough to just keep up with the formulas and notation at this point.
Also I found two typos on the first three pages.

If you're doing self study, go on some university websites math dept pages and go to the calculus course information and check what texts they're using. Stewart is pretty common and is serviceable.

>>10323256
Calculus is the easiest shit on FUCKING earth. Learn limits, learn differential notation, learn integrals, fucking DONE.

Calculus is ALL notation. 99% of it. Understand the notation and everything else is a meme.

>>10325327
i can guarantee you are not good at proof based calculus

>>10325280
no, it's written correctly. a book is not meant to be comprehensible, it's meant to be consistent.

>>10325349
>a book is not meant to be comprehensible
tf does that mean? A teaching text certainly is. Anyway, a book with typos isn't written correctly.

OP here, so far I've got

>George Finlay Simmons-Precalculus mathematics in a nutshell
>Mcgraw Hill - Pre-Calculus Demystified 2005
>book of proof - Richard Hammack/ proofs and concepts - Morris
>Paul G. Hewitt - Conceptual Physics Package Edition (2005, AW)

I'm going to completely brush up on precalc to make sure I'm fully familiar and comfortable with precalc, then I'll read a proofs book, and before tackling mathematics heavy physics, I'll read the book I posted. I'd love recommendations on a simple to understand (after I read the aforementioned I probably won't have to dumb down everything to the fullest) algebra based physics book, and another one that's calc based. That naturally requires a solid understanding in calc, so I'd appreciate a book on calc, similar to the likes of precalc in a nutshell, aka intuitive, and I suppose it'll have proofs but by the time I even get to that book I'll be ready for it.

>>10325365

it means the books are written by people that are experts at the material already and are trying to write things such that they stay consistent and once you understood them you will understand why they wrote it the way they wrote it

a teaching text is not meant to be dumbed down to the point where it is inconsistent such that you ahve to later on essentially relearn everything

as is the case for many engineering mathematics books

>>10325640
So all you have to do to understand a textbook is to already know all the material before you read it?
wtf, the point of books isn't to be consistent, it's to communicate ideas. Including every book. Including every math book. Including every math paper.
And anyway I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was bad to learn calc from.

>>10325781

no, the point is, textbooks are written so you dont have to read another textbook to cover the fucking topic
it has nothing to do with "ideas" or anything vague. you write down the definitions and you prove stuff, if people are too dumb/dont want to put in the work to understand either , then the book is simply not for them, and most likely neither is the material
you can not dumb down everything , and understanding the basics goes a very long way, f.e. a good real analysis book will cover sets in such a way that you will profit from it when you take measure theory
the funny thing is, the book(s) OP is talking about are most likely already dumbed down (or at the very least have stripped away essential things to make the book less time consuming)