/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5401316
Brb, going to bed

I'm awake.
So have any of you seen that link yet? What do you guys think?

It's a book list.

>>5402129
Yes.
That's called a bibliography, Tommy.
This particular bibliography is devoted to good books on mathematics, as you can see.
Since /sci/ is full of undergrads and teenagers, I thought this might be useful for them.

>Chicago undergraduate mathematics bibliography

Somehow I became the canonical undergraduate source for bibliographical references, so I thought I would leave a list behind before I graduated. I list the books I have found useful in my wanderings through mathematics (in a few cases, those I found especially unuseful), and give short descriptions and comparisons within each category. I hope that this list may serve as a useful “road map” to other undergraduates picking their way through Eckhart Library. In the end, of course, you must explore on your own; but the list may save you a few days wasted reading books at the wrong level or with the wrong emphasis.

The list is biased in two senses. One, it is light on foundations and applied areas, and heavy (especially in the advanced section) on geometry and topology; this is a consequence of my interests. I welcome additions from people interested in other fields. Two, and more seriously, I am an honors-track student and the list reflects that. I don't list any “regular” analysis or algebra texts, for instance, because I really dislike the ones I've seen. If you are a 203 student looking for an alternative to the awful pink book (Marsden/Hoffman), you will find a few here; they are all much clearer, better books, but none are nearly as gentle. I know that banging one's head against a more difficult text is not a realistic option for most students in this position. On the other hand, reading mathematics can't be taught, and it has to be learned sometime. Maybe it's better to get used to frustration as a way of life sooner, rather than later. I don't know.

Reviews not marked with initials, or marked with [CJ], were written by me, Chris Jeris ('98). Other contributors are marked: [PC], Pete Clark ('98); [PS], Pete Storm ('98); [BB], Ben Blander ('98); [RV], Rebecca Virnig ('00); [BR], Ben Recht ('00); [MG], Marci Gambrell ('99); [YU], Yuka Umemoto ('97). Thanks to all of them for their input.

>>5402197
Warning: Statements about books I haven't looked at in a couple of years may be factually incorrect; please forgive my spotty memory. I don't think I have any really egregious falsehoods in here. I apologize for the appearance of this page; most web browsers have not yet been updated to handle the HTML4 entity set, so fools like me who read the definition write ugly-looking pages.

Enough apologia. Here we go:

bump

wtf

>>5402224
Does it shock you that someone would dare post a thread of relation to mathematics on the science and maths board?

I can't believe there are people in the world who have worked through so many math texts. What the fuck.

>>5402235
Does it shock you 8/10 posts in this thread were made by you?
You can add this to the resources website in the stickies, otherwise not many people are gonna care.
Book lists are not a rare commodity.

>>5402245
If you want to actually be good at math, then you kind of have to.
>>5402249
They tend to be shit.
I was hoping to start a discussion about it, but it looks like /sci/ is no longer about science and maths.