/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11476508
>You have completed the required reading, right?
Of course.

>>11476508
where did you got this chart?

>>11476637
google images

>>11476508
i started with this OP.

Can you help me if it is good?

>>11476519
Post an actual book list next time you faggot

>>11477027
>t. How to waste four years and set yourself up for a middling gre score

>>11477027
If you're serious, just pick any math curriculum of some university and read those books used in each course.

>>11476508
No.

>>11477052
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>>11477052
>Post an actual book list next time you faggot
The books are listed next to the topics.

>>11477055
i think it's just for getting the "proof-based" foundations of maths.

>>11477085
Sounds like a good idea, thanks

>>11477861
Hoffman and Hunze Linear Algebra. But before this you better read Apostol's calculus as an intro to proofs

>>11477888
Lang is a meme.

>>11477888
Jech doesn't have enough exercises, it is a reference text. You want Kunen to learn forcing then Schindler book to get an intro to descriptive set theory, constructibility, and large cardinals. From there you can branch off into anything. There is also a relatively new book by Halbiesen on Combinatorial set theroy that is looking interesting, I have only read the intro chatpers on Ramsey theory though. The later parts of the book have intros to cardinal characteristics and other types of forcings.

>>11476519
If you did this would you be better at math than Tao and other genius mathematicians?

I want to read all of these books, but I just coom

>every list has the bible
Why? Is there math in it?

>>11476508
It will be fun, when fresh interpretation of differential calculus, book of proof and 4d geometry will be given acid and end up in jar.

But it hurts.

>>11477027
Don't follow this list: It's retarded, and it's redundant. Here is the true and right way to gain a foundational approach; the harsh reality is that mathematical maturity is obtained through time. You cannot just read a bunch of dry and verbose books and expect to get a grip on foundational mathematics. What is required is that you go through though the standard computational mathematics (single and multi-variable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra) to get motivation behind foundational mathematics. Why? Because what point is there in learning proofs, logic, set theory, etc? What are you trying to prove ultimately? You need a reason to learn these rudimentary math topics, or else you're going to burn out trying to get through a proofs book because you lacked the maturity and motivation to learn it in the first place. This is the part where people fail, because they get strung out trying to learn a boring subject without any motivation. Don't end up here, go through the computational mathematics first.

The next step in the foundational mathematics approach, once you gained the appropriate motivation to learn it, is then learning the foundations themselves. Now that you have a motivation and eagerness to learn whats under the hood, you need to know what books to read, and in what order. As for that, this is all that's required for now, in the following order:

1. Intro to Propositional and Predicate Logic
2. Intro to Proofs
3. Naive Set Theory

That's it. Literally just read three books that cover those three topics and you're set. No need to follow that retarded list that has you read a bunch of redundant shit. Once you have read up on these topics you're set to learn most upper level mathematics. Now you can pick up real analysis, abstract algebra, number theory, or whatever interests you and go from there. Hope this helps.

>>11478452
So just learn calculus and the rest. Then learn proofs. Got it