/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10602790
>Post bait charts. Bonus points if they're still theoretically doable.

>>10602790
>bait
>theoretically doable
So not that much of a bait?

>>10603088
10/10

>>10603105
No, if it's not doable it's just nonsense. If it goes from precalc to symplectic topology in five books it's hilarious.

>>10603168
If you are able to read, comprehend, and internalise Munkres in full just after Lang and Spivak, I'd say you probably have what it takes indeed read about Kähler geometry eventually, maybe after adding a couple of "mediator" books.

>>10603088
Is this the Verbitsky programme? He later adjusted it to be more feasible and less memey.

Don't have the pic with me, but there was a thread here a couple of days ago where anon asked how much time it would take to read around 20 books (everything from diffgeom and abstract algebra to ODEs/PDEs, etc.), and anons unironically replied that it would take, like, a couple of months. Shows how people perceive these charts, bait or not.

>>10603814
Is this actually bait? These are all standard undergrad textbooks, and the spread between topics is sensible.

>>10603600
I made the thread with the books.
The guy who said a couple of months had me cut out what he considered useless since I had already taken through linear algebra.

>>10603814
this is a double bait, reccing books that aren't bait

>recommend good books in the bait thread so none of you read it and stay dumb

>>10605338
I saw the thread, too. Even half of those books will take you around 1.5 years considering your current level as inferred by your posts. People (and you) tend to vastly underestimate the time it takes to read through a mathematics book until you acquire some mathematical culture, so I agree with the anon above.

>>10602790 >>10603814 >>10603088
I'm posting a classic one.

>>10606033
it's doable if... you are an autistic nerd weeb who don't sleep well and have no social life...

Seriously though it's doable if you skim through.

As an undergrad. I unironically enjoyed reading a graduate book on algebraic topology.

Although Some books are definitely not for the weak of mind.

Nicolas Bourbaki's "Elements of Mathematics" were particularly challenging to read.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki

>>10606037
>classic
unless my computer messed up the date i created it at, it's only from 2017 (desu i also thought it was older)

>>10603600
>Verbitsky programme
link?

Also, does anyone here remember a site that was posted here a long time ago which contained recommendations form professors in a range of science topics? I think the universities each had their own circular button or something.

>>10603814
This list is actually good & pretty doable.

I read all of those, except Representation Theory.

>>10606060
>link?
http://imperium.lenin.ru/~verbit/MATH/programma.html

>>10606212
WTF that high school stuff is like 1-3 years of university

>>10607176 >>10607324
Bonus point if you put your anime waifu in your chart

>>10606043

>>10606044
Thanks for you service in the great meme war.
I appreciate your meme chart.

>>10607176
Why is this bait?

>>10608273
It's so easy and slow that it completely kills any and all motivation. A person who can genuinely work through that without developing a profound distaste for maths is more impressive than someone who completes Verbitsky.
It's actually kinda distasteful to post it, even as a joke.
>>10608227
Based and Remipilled.

> Misha Verbitsky lives here, in Rio de CrimeandPoverty, Bananazil

they must pay him really lmao, couldn't think of a worse place to live in unless you like to have sex with child prostitutes

>>10608418
>why is Brazil so bad at producing mathematicians, with very few exceptions?
>we thought it was a good idea to put IMPA in Rio

>>10608418 >>10608536
How can Brazil even compete?

Is there an official chart for dropouts trying to relearn math?

>>10608865
pump

>>10608865
You shouldn't ask that in this thread.
>>10608878
You also shouldn't bump after three minutes, this isn't pol.

>>10606033
Half of it will be review though, so I doubt it.

>>10608330
What would be a better path then?

>>10609016
Skipping to Spivak and checking on Lang for stuff you don't remember.

>>10609025
What’s the rationale for not going straight to analysis? With all the books leading up to it you’ll probably develop the mathematical maturity to handle it anyway

>>10609053
I didn't mean to go for Spivak after following the chart lad.

>>10606033
Again, going just by ECTS, it's 1.5 semesters of workload (but instead of 3 books as is normal in a course, you read just one). I find the ECTS estimates fairly accurate for me, so 1.5 semesters seems about right for the books he picked.
1 ECTS is roughly 30 hours of work, so whatever your schedule is, you can estimate how long it will take you.
I don't get why donuts pretend it takes a long time to go through an undergrad textbook. Here we go through 2 or 3 books for each course, every semester having 4-7 courses (depending on how much sleep deprivation you can handle, for example my current semester was 43 ECTS). So that's 8 books every semester at minimum.

>>10605338
Do you have the archive link to it? I've been in the process of designing a self-stufy math curriculum for myself, and would find it helpful.

>>10609059
Chart up to spivak wasn’t bad if you cut out some stuff imo

>>10609025
>Skipping to Spivak and checking on Lang for stuff you don't remember.
Lang is a meme.

>>10608330
learning the same from different smart perspectives is very important

>>10606037
This is a real chart though. Anyone who can't handle rudin as their first taste of calculus might as well kill themselves.
>The proof of this is obvious and left as an exercise for the reader.

>>10609654
I agree.

>>10609151
lol

>>10610848
???

verify this answer please.