/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7346654
Rudin is autistic mental masturbation

>>7346684
>I'm too stupid to do it

Good textbook for molecular simulations?

There's so damn many out there, I was looking at pic related but it's 14 years old, I can't imagine there hasn't been a lot of change in the field.

>>7346747

Best book on undergrad electromagnetism? I have access to Landau's and Feynman's texts, but I don't know if they're the best, though from what I understand they're both quite good

I also got the 'elementary part of a treatise on the dynamics of a system of rigid bodies' today for £5. Is it any good? If not, what texts would be better? Preferably nothing requiring knowledge beyond Fourier/Laplace transforms and multivariable calculus because I'm not yet in uni.

I'm looking for a good text on continuum mechanics and/or fluid mechanics, I've looked myself but reviews are a little hit and miss.

Bump

>>7346654

Rudin belongs in the trash.

If you want an autistically difficult book use Pughs instead.

You don't even need multivariable analysis but if you want use munkres analysis on manifolds after reading a 1dim analysis book(which there are many).

Then move onto Carothers, Royden or McDonald/Weiss Real Analysis.

Fuck rudin, fuck his mother, fuck his wife, fuck his kids and fuck his house.

>Just finished my first year of financial maths and actuarial science.
>Had an analysis module
>Rudin was recommended text for the course
>Worst book ever
>Hardest exam, convinced i failed
>73% ayyyy lmao

>>7347005
>>7347022
This is how you identify people who are bad at math. Baby Rudin is an excellent introduction to proof-based analysis (if a bit terse and old-looking.)

Differential equations?

>>7347145
Bad? still got 82% for the entire year lmfaooooo

>>7347156
Piaggio is a classic.

Ebook for lazy people:
https://archive.org/details/DifferentialEquations_91

>>7347165
That's not what he was saying. Many, many people who are bad at math get first class degrees.

What he was saying is that the way you can identify people who are bad at math is how much they complain about rigorous texts.

Intro to (macro) economics for someone with a strong math background.

The answer to all questions is Dover books on mathematics.

Introductory immunobiology

>>7347178
This

>>7347178
Macroeconomics for Mathematicians by Spivak.
Principles of Econometrics by Rudin.

>>7347192
Thank you! I hadn't realised spivak had done an economics book for mathematicians. I liked his mechanics text.

>>7347201

Can anyone recommend either Young/Freedman's University Physics or the physics textbook by Knight? Is either one better than the other?

>>7347226
Don't worry about the book. Just worry about the content. All first year physics books are effectively the exact same. All have the same or similar exercises.

>>7347231
Young/Freedman has like 300 or 400 more pages. Also more exercises. But some of that material might be pointless (like he goes into particle physics/cosmology which is probably pointless at this level).

On the other hand, I've heard that Knight doesn't use that much calculus (bad thing) despite the fact that it's supposed to be a calculus-based text.

I just can't decide the two and I'm looking for someone who has maybe used one for class and the other on their own to recommend one of them to me.

I'm interested in both mycology and microbiology. Currently am working on a good mycology book but I would enjoy further reading material.

Bump

>>7347175

>Confusing bad pedagogy with rigor.

Either stupid or troll.

General Relativity

>>7347366

"GRAVITATION" by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler

Linear algebra.

I have just finished single variable calculus, now i want a book like Apostol or Spivak about linear algebra.

>>7347373
Linear Algebra by Serge Lang

>>7347355
>>7347175
Ok, so what's the deal here.
It seems that liking Rudin is just as much a meme as disliking Rudin. All I'm looking for is a good Analysis book (written in English). What do I read?

>>7347387
Dover books.


Also, Rudin isn't really that hard. I don't get what the big deal is. It isn't the best (I don't claim to know what the best is), but it isn't bad.

>>7347379
Why not Axler's book?

>>7347165
>bragging about a C

>>7347396
Not that guy, but I think what he is saying is that he did really bad on the final and it only dropped his grade to an 82.
Or he is being sarcastic.

>>7347226
Can anyone please help me choose?

>>7347387
The issue with Rudin is that while it intends to introduce you to some basics of analysis, it does this in a way that is not kind to those who aren't fully comfortable with the process of creating/writing proofs.

Rudin can be an enjoyable read as long as basic formal logic and techniques for proof are part of your skill set, rather than another hurdle to deal with. For many, that extra hurdle is one too many.

As an undergraduate I took an analysis course that started with 40+ students (large for the "pure" version of the course--there was an easier "applied" analysis course offered parallel to it.) After the first exam came and went, enrollment dropped to around 12.

The remaining students were largely math majors who had been prepped through a class intended to impart some proof writing skills along with taking other proof based classes that are less intense than the analysis curriculum.

The departing students were largely from other departments and were being asked to prove things for the first time or just lacked what we like to call "mathematical maturity" (familiarity with the way math tends to proceed so that you aren't thrown off both by the presentation and by the material presented.)

If you feel confident with your proof skills or you just feel up to the challenge, Rudin will put you in a position to take the next steps and may become a favorite of yours (as it did for me.)

Otherwise, there are less demanding texts that will find you moving forward albeit at a slower pace.

Whatever the case, the ideal scenario is to try find several texts to work with simultaneously.

>>7347394
Yeah i've always liked that publishing company.

Concerning Rudin:

Self studying Rudin, by itself, is retarded. I know top schools use Rudin, but they are supplemented by lectures. If you have Rudin + lectures, that's fine.

For self study, use a text that motivates the material better, rather than one that goes out of everyone's way for the sake of cleverness. Then, go back to Rudin for the most elegant presentation and for the exercises.

For example, if you take notes, use the simpler text to take notes and reproduce theorems, and then you can more quickly read Rudin in your head. Or read the simpler text, and then use Rudin for your notes having read the same material in a more motivated but in a less abstract/elegant presentation.

>>7347395
Axler ignores determinants.
You can't do linear algebra without them. You don't have to understand determinants. You just use them because they make everything easier.
Serge Lang is the classical book on linear algebra. Has everything. Rigorous. Terse.
Also because its so popular, all exercises in it have solutions online.

>>7347387
Dover books.
Rudin is a good book for reference and as far as text book as an art form goes.
Small, terse, elegant.
It's not good if its your first time opening an analysis book and you want to teach yourself analysis. It's good as reference anj for a second read or a supplement.

>>7347406
They are the same book, man. First year physics shit doesn't matter. Pick any one. If you really want someone to tell you what to do, pick the one by Knight. I advocate it because I have it.

>>7347433
Doesn't knight skimp on mathematics more than young?

Fuck it, I'll get a pdf of both. Pick a chapter on the same topic in both. Read that chapter, then pick one based on which exposition I liked better.

>>7347433
>Axler ignores determinants.

No, he just thinks that they obfuscate things. He introduces the determinant at the end of the book.

>>7347440
Dude, its first year physics.
It's not rigorous.
If you want a mathematical treatment of physics, buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Mathematicians-Mechanics-Michael-Spivak/dp/0914098322

And if you think you're as smart as Michael Spivak, buy this:
http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Edition-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960
All 10 editions.
If you can get through all ten volumes, I expected you'll be getting your PhD in physics from Caltech, Harvard, or MIT.

>>7347442
Yes I know he does. There's no point in doing it that way.
That's like teaching proofs and then leaving proof by contradiction to the end of the book.

>>7347448
>Dude, its first year physics.

But I want a serious calculus-based text, not watered down stuff.

>>7347448
There is no "right" way to do it (despite the fact that the title of the book is "Linear Algebra Done Right"). He simply proves the important basic theorems of linear algebra without determinants. A determinant can obfuscate things. I don't see how it hurts to read it. Perhaps read that and the Lang book. There is also a set of notes out there called "Linear Algebra Done Wrong" which I think is supposed to be complementary to Axler's book (but the notes use determinants).

>>7347448

He puts determinants where they belong.

>>7347463
Here's how it works:

First you learn Newtonian mechanics. This is basic 400 year old shit. Then you do the same thing from the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, and in each case recasting the theory in higher level language.

The latter is what is important, but you have to learn the basic Newtonian mech first, which is very easy and standard.

>>7347474
Right, but from what I've read online, Knight's book really skims on the calculus. The only time one sees some real calculus is in the section on electric fields and Gauss' law, apparently.

On the other hand, Young/Freedman looks big and bulky which might suggest that it isn't written well.

I think I'll read a chapter of both on the same topic. Then I can see if one is badly written. Assuming they are equally good in the "physics" department, I'll probably pick Freedman/Young because a) I assume it has more math, b) even if it doesn't, it certainly covers more topics

But I was really hoping to talk to someone who had read both.

>>7346772
Purcell good for freshman/sophomore. Jackson good for advanced upperclassmen/grad students. Griffiths for in between.

>>7347226
University Physics. 'Physics' (not fundamentals of) by Halliday/Resnick is best though.

>>7347474
I just finished introductory physics! Where should I turn to to read up Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms?

>>7347501
Not him, but Classical Mechanics by John Taylor is a good one.

>>7347503
This looks right up my alley. Thanks anon!

>>7347497
Do you agree with what people have said about Knight?

I looked into 'Physics', lots of good reviews. Do you know of a version with both volumes combined? Each one is $150 on Amazon =/

No solutions online to check my answers either =/

>>7347507
Knight is fine. I took a year of knight and I turned out ok.

>>7347501
I may not be the best for recommendations, I'm a math student that does physics on the side. However, after I took the basic mech, E&M and babby QM, I used random lecture notes posted online, as well as Arnol'd Method's of Classical Mech

https://loshijosdelagrange.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/v-arnold-mathematical-methods-of-classical-mechanics-1989.pdf

I think I also looked at Goldstein's Classical Mechanics at some point.

http://www.cmi.ac.in/~souvik/books/mech/Goldstein.pdf

>>7347510
So any particular reason for recommending University Physics over it?

>>7347518
Knight has these 'problem solving' sections where he holds your hand while going through derivations and such. They were very useful.

>>7347521
Wat

University Physics is by Young/Freedman, but now you're saying that Knight has some useful things about it.

>>7347524
You're talking to two different people. I was the one who recommended Young.

Also, the 'Physics' books are way cheaper than $300 on amazon. The international edition of vol 2 is like $90 new and vol 1 around $80. You could also buy used or find them online somewhere. I recommend those for self-study, but any book that has 4+ stars on amazon is fine.

>>7347425
>use a text that motivates the material better
Is Bartle good?

Intro to Combinatorics. The sticky recommends Combinatorics and Graph Theory by John Harris, is this a good place to start?

>>7347541
No idea, sorry. I used Rudin, but supplemented it with lecture notes and a shit tier book by Ross. My point was if you want to use Rudin, you can use a shitty entry level book like Ross, and then read Rudin once you have seen the basics. It seems like your reading twice as much, but it will, at least in my experience, go by faster and you will learn it better.

If you just want a single book however, I can recommend Pugh's analysis

>>7347530
Oh

So why do you recommend Young over Knight?

And also, why is 'Physics' considered good? Just good exposition?

>>7347557
Whose lecture notes?

Recommend me something on molecular biology.

>>7346782
Pricey, but a beautiful book.

>>7347568
I had a class based on Ross, I meant my own notes I took from lectures. The class was pretty weak which is why I also used Rudin on top

>>7347463
Then buy the theoretical minimum book I linked.
It starts off with lagrangians and by defining the principle of least action. That's as mathematical as you're gonna get.

>>7347471
Stop.

>>7347473
Don't make me put you where you belong.

A solid programming book (any language, just has to be good), given that I have CS 101 under my belt.

>>7347560
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/080530634X/ref=sr_1_5_twi_1_har_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435031166&sr=1-5

Going to play the devil's advocate.
Knight is fine for vector mechanics. Here's a book for under $5.

>>7347609
M-muh determinants

>>TFW SPIVAK DICKRIDERS POSTING MEME BOOKS

>>TFW They never will learn to master MacroEconomics

>>7347614
Right, but I'm looking for a calculus-based book

Statistics, preferably AP or UNI-tier useful

>>7347617
There is calculus in vector mechanics. You ever hear of vector calculus?

>>7347621
No, the book you linked, it's not a calculus-based book.

>>7347617
>>7347621
All you really need 'calculus' for in introductory physics is the Work-Energy theorem, Moment of inertia, and a couple of other goodies, all of which are presented fine in Knight.

>>7347611
The C Programming Language, Kernighan, Ritchie

>>7347628
Ok, but is it better than Young/Freedman? That's the problem, I'm trying to decide between the two and I don't see a particularly good reason to choose one over the other.

>>7347625
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but ok. Whatever you say anon. I guess all this calculus in this Knight book isn't 'calculus-based'.

>>7347560
Honestly because I've seen that Young is more widely used. Nobody has ever told me they dislike either, and it worked fine for me. Knight may be just as good, you can't go wrong.

Physics is good because it is comprehensive and detailed but it's not patronising and it won't leave you in the dust.

>>7347632
I'm not sure what you mean by better. The material is pretty old and very pedagogical. There are many 'classic' problems in these books that are 'calculus-based' that are hundreds of years old and can be found on nearly every book on the subject. It's more or less up to your personal preference.

>>7347366
Spacetime and Geometry by Caroll is also excellent. Builds up Differential Geometry quite well and the entire book is based on a series of lecture notes which he released online for free.

>>7347433
Thanks, anon. Then i'll read Axler and Lang at the same time. I have already studied determinants, but not the right (rigorous) way.

Quantum/physical chemistry

Quantum mechanics/physics is fine provided it doesn't delve past undergraduate math.

>>7347767
Physical Chemistry by McQuarrie and Simon is really nice

Complex Analysis anyone? I took a class recently that used Fisher's book, which was a Dover print, but a fairly shitty book. I'd like a slightly more advanced treatment of the subject. I've heard good things about Ahlfors. Any other recommendations?

Anyone know a good organic chemistry book?

I'm working my way through baby rudin for self study right now and I have to say I don't feel the lack of motivation. I'm putting some serious sweat into it but I feel like I'm peeking directly into truth.

Does anyone know if the princeton companion to mathematics is worth 80 bucks for a math lover?

>>7347226
I used knight for first year. It covers what you need, but it's one of those modern-American-type textbooks with too much superfluous text and too many pretty pictures.

It's like the Stuart's calculus of basic physics. I didn't like it.

>>7348082
>http://books.pakchem.net/organic-chemistry-by-brown-foote-iverson-and-anslyn.html

>>7347355
>not hand-holding is bad pedagogy

I don't even like Rudin much as a textbook, but you'll learn much more from that than some shitty "my first analysis textbook: now with 50000 more worked examples"

>>7347387
I the discussion over books like rudin is whether you want a maths textbook, or a school textbook.

Best aswell as fun book for logic

I want to spend the summer to get into logic. I want the book to not be all course-literature-y. Instead a mix of both; literature-y and a bit of exciting/historical aswell as rigorous.
Does this kind of book exist?

Ps. I know books about logic exists. But I want a personal recommendation fitting my description vaguely/accurately.

Thanks.

>>7348109
bump, sorry for impatience

Are the calculus books by Apostol worth buying? People are shilling them hard on amazon but somehow I trust /sci/ more.

>>7348109
The Logic Book by Bergmann is the standard introductory logic book. Unfortunately it's aimed at philosophy majors so most of the examples and analogies are real world examples and analogies as opposed to mathematical ones. The book is still fairly solid and has a fair amount of rigor for a lower level undergrad course. You may also want to supplement that book with Simpson's 'Mathematical Logic' notes or Hirsts's 'A Primer for Logic and Proof' notes (they're both available for free by the authors, just google for them). The lecture notes are more rigorous than the book but be aware that they use notions like functions and sets and since those notions are founded on logic then you kind of end up with a weird chicken and egg situation. The way to resolve that issue is to think of the functions and sets that Simpson and Hirst use as just very stripped down simple concepts and not full blown set theory and functions.

>>7346747
>>7346749
Bumping for this question.

>>7347394
>It isn't the best (I don't claim to know what the best is), but it isn't bad.
What is the best then?

>>7347396
>>7347398
82% overall for the year across all modules is a first class honor ??? r u dumb?>>7347398

>>7346654
Does anyone know good introductory textbooks to learn about thermodynamics, statistics and electromagnetism (waves)?

>>7348508
Bulmer's Principles of Statistics is very good as an intro

AdS/CFT

>>7346654
This is a good thread. Much better than most other book recommendation threads I've seen.

Is Dummit & Foote a good first abstract algebra book?

>>7348508
Dover books on physcis

>>7348059
Shakarchi and Stein is pretty nice and easy going
Hormander for hard mode (several variables)

>>7346772
Purcell or Jackson

>>7347156
Braun

>>7347226
I prefer Resnick but for general physics it really doesn't matter much. If you are serious maybe start with a mechanichs book like Morin or Kleppner/Kolenkow.

>>7347366
Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, Carrol, Hartle

>>7347373
Lang, Axler, Hoffman, Greub

>>7347501
Taylor or Goldstein complemented with V.I. Arnold methods

>>7347541
It's reasonably good.

>>7347178
Barro Macroeconomics or Romer Advanced Macroeconomics or Doepke/Lehnert/Sellgren (this ones is free, just google dls macroeconomics), or Recursive Macroeconomic Theory by Sargent/Ljungqvist. Depending on the level you need.

>>7347620
Wackerly or Casella/Berger

>>7348059
Depends on the level you're looking. Marsden or Ahlfors complemented with visual complex analysis by needham or just go for Conway's.

>>7348262
Yes. Try buying cheap used or past editions.

>>7348613
No, but it's THE reference book. I'd start with another book like Artin, Pinter, Fraliegh, Herstein or maybe start with Rotman's group theory.

>>7347503
this is probably the best undergrad physics book out there. there's only one chapter on hamiltonian mechanics though; langrangians are used in multiple chapters.

Any recommendations for a brief overview of differential geometry? A lot of areas seem to draw on this for intuition.

>>7348721
>ahlfors complex analysis

Need recommendation for an inorganic chemistry textbook pls

>>7347387
Read Rudin, unless you're an idiot it should be fine.

>>7348848
Lee's intro to smooth manifolds

>>7348900
Oops

Not brief at all

But it covers everything I'd imagine you'd need to know

Complex analysis?

I know the professor that will be teaching the course, and while incredibly intelligent, is terrible at explaining the material to be easily understood.

Jesus christ, are there no books for anything outside of math? Multiple unanswered chemistry and biology questions in this thread

>>7350057

"What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology"

haven't finished it yet, but pretty interesting book on how life first came about from chemicals


that said, anyone have a good pre-calculus or trigonometry book? Or both? I am taking both classes next semester and I haven't studied math in almost 8 years. Except for one semester of Introductory Statistics

Just read a really nice ochem starter book. Called

Organic Chemistry and Graphic Design. by Brian Zhao

It's free and the way the information is presented is very compact but not imposing and relies on a person intuiting out nuances based upon leading information and well put together graphics. To be fair I'm probably not doing it justice, it's free try it out.

>>7350061
Just wondering, has the book mentioned the role of spirals or vortices in relation to chemistry and DNA?

Posted this in a /sqt/ but I suppose it's worth posting here as well
I haven't done any maths study since high school, but I'd like to start studying it again. What textbooks would you recommend that go over year 11 and 12 for revision before I start anything else?

>>7350304
The Gelfand ones on the wiki.

>>7347372
This is only good if you've already studied GR. It is not an introduction, unless you're perhaps a grad student.

>>7347611
What does CS 101 entail?

>>7346654
What's the best fluids book for an absolute beginner?
And what's the best fluids book for a mathematician?

>>7350322
Thank you

>>7347005
Rudin's wife was a monster of general topology. Fuck off faggot

Any good modern/abstract algebra intro books?

>>7350671
"A Book of Abstract Algebra" by Pinter
Just started it but I really like it. It's also very cheap

>>7350671
Pinter

>>7350671
Aluffie: Algebra Chapter 0

>>7350355
I know how to write simple (fewer than 100 line) python programs, know basic sorting/search algorithms and stuff like that.

>>7350942
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

>>7347433
Can you read Axler without having encountered any linear algebra previously?

>>7350952
If you have experience with proofs

>>7348109
Principia Mathematica

>>7346654
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki

>>7348613
>>7350671
You wanna know what an amazing introductory algebra book is?

Aluffi - Algebra: Chapter Zero.

I don't recommend it if you're not comfortable with math, but if you've had other experience with proving things, it's amazing. I went into it with just a good analysis background, no algebra. His writing makes it fun to read, and it's more up to date with modern mathematics than other books. The first chapter is a bit hard to slog through, but with the second chapter it gets more straightforward, and with that background the rest is smooth sailing. I could rave more about why exactly it's such a good book but I doubt anyone here is actually going to take these recommendations to heart anyway.

What's a good introduction to ricci curvature / ricci flow?

>>7350996
The way he introduces categories and morphisms threw me off because the way my course is structured is completely different, but if it's really a great book I may give it a read this summer before the course starts up in the fall. My course is using Dummit & Foote.

>>7351003
It is structured entirely different from basically any introductory algebra course using a different textbook, but I'd recommend it especially if you're prepping for another course.
- Dummit and Foote, if memory serves, is very "element based", and having experience with arrows will make arguments easier for you than others.
- You'll be able to brag about how you can prove the snake lemma
- Since you're going to take the course anyway, you don't need to worry about doing precisely every little thing it covers.
- If it's an undergrad semester course, it'll only cover (a lot) less than the first five chapters or so, but it doesn't take so long to work through that much. I read through a lot of it last summer and I was doing 2 sections a day, or 1 if it was a harder section.

Plus D&F sucks.

Also, you need this: http://www.math.fsu.edu/~aluffi/algebraerrata/Errata.html

>>7351021
Oh, and it has the best self-aware sense of humor of any math book I've read.

>>7351021
It's a graduate course, supposably covering groups, rings, linear and multilinear algebra.
Thanks for the share, I think I shall read as much of it as I can before the semester begins.
>>7351023
From the little I read previously, he can be very cheeky at times. Much less dry read than D&F.

>>7351027
I'm glancing through my D&F and I'm reminded why it's so bad. It doesn't try to give any sort of idea for what's actually going on (I guess that's sorta one of the whole points of categories), plus the whole dry and taking forever to get anywhere thing. Everybody I know loves it, so it must do something right, but I'm not entirely convinced. Good source of exercises, though.

>>7351055
It's OK anon, I hate D&F too. All my friends give me funny looks when I say this for some reason...

I want an self contained book about set theory, with a mid/high level of rigor. It will be my first book about this subject, I know a bit of single variable calculus and linear algebra.
What does /sci/ recommend?

>>7350358
bump

>>7351371
Bump.

>>7351371
You don't want to go there. If you do, Naive Set Theory by Halmos.

>>7350358
I used Fluid Mechanics by Frank White and found it alright. For a serious mathematician, probably Landau and Lifschitz. That's a graduate level physics book though, and I don't think there are any 'consensus' intro books.

>>7351463
>You don't want to go there.
Why?

>>7351501
Idk, maybe you do. It's just tedious, low-level mathematics. You'll definitely hone your proof skills though.

>>7351371
>What does /sci/ recommend?
My recommendation is that you don't. I love to see people interested in logic, but formal set theory is something you just don't want to see as one of your first rigorous mathematics subjects.

Unless you just mean the so-called "naive set theory", i.e. the only set theory used by most every mathematician, in which case I hear that the first chapter of Munkres' Topology is good.

this is a book used by my university if anyone is interested in working in a molecular biology lab

not an extremely advanced book. it goes through laboratory techniques you see in a mol. bio lab (SDS-PAGE, chromatography, DNA/Protein purification and visualization, cloning, recombinant DNA, PCR, western blots, NMR, bioinformatics)

doesnt go into a lot of details, but its a good start. not shit, not amazing, just decent

I graduated as an mech engineer a year ago but I was never incredibly strong in math.

I know this will sound vague but is there a book I can go through that will help me understand the fundamentals of undergrad math?

I'd like to get better at proofs and more comfortable with higher level math (analysis, PDE, etc) but I gotta start somewhere.,

Maybe proofs?

>>7351796

Anyone find it odd how engineers can build bridges but don't actually have to prove that it works?

>>7351800
Ho don't worry, they prove it.

>>7351800
You dont have to take topography to build a bridge.

CEs only go up into diff eq

Any geofags here that know a good book about (preferably igneous) petrology?

>>7346654
*undergraduate analysis

Pic related is for actual analysis

>>7351371
You may want to read ''A transition to Advanced Mathematics'' by Douglas Smith, Maurice Eggen and Richard Andre. This book is more an 'introduction to math book' rather than a serious set theory book so I think it should be a nice book for someone with low math maturity. This is much better than Halmos Set theory book.

>>7351830

>doesn't actually develop measure theory, just uses it.

>>7347181
All hail the allmighty Dover!

>>7346654
Hey guys, there's a problem with libgen. It seems that many of the links are going down. Some guy on /co/ (apparently libgen hosts comics as well) says it's because the site doesn't have money to pay bills but then there's also this.

https://torrentfreak.com/libgen-goes-down-as-legal-pressure-mounts-150622/

>>7346654
Could anyone recommend me any good introduction to quantum physics? I'm starting second year of physics next semester and I'd like to prepare myself a little.

>>7346654
>what's the best book on graph theory?
The one you read.

>>7351482
The first Landau book wasn't exactly rigorous.
I haven't checked out the fluids book yet though.

I meant something like Arnold or Spivak's book on mechanics

organic chem and intro chinese

>>7351837
If you cant develop measure theory as an exercise you should kill yourself.

>>7351837
Nobody asked, but I'm partial to Stein and Shakarchi's book on measure theory for a gentle introduction to the subject.

>>7346782
Marsden for a mathematical introduction and Acheson for physical intuition.

Recently I've been interested in computation, specifically computational complexity, decision problems, and reductions. I'm a babby cs undergrad so anything covering the basis for this kind of material would be pretty helpful.

>>7352939
They both look perfect, thanks anon.

>>7348935
My teacher was a bit like this, he would always stop in the middle of a proof to think whether the conditions of a theorem were optimal then redo the proof from the beginning, it wasn't the best when learning the material for the first time. Thankfully he had written excellent lecture notes so I stopped going. I have leafed through Visual Complex Analysis and it seems like a very good book for someone in your situation (and actually for everyone because an emphasis on the geometric interpretation is always interesting), new conceps are introduced with many drawings to really understand the geometric meaning of everything.

>>7348935
I really like Ablowitz

Does anyone know of a book that can take me from pre-algebra to calculus?

I don't want to use Khan academy since it's on the internet, and my connection is quite spotty.

Thanks in advanced.

>>7353999
Lang - Basic Mathematics

>>7352939
Do both/either of these deal with Ekman layers?

Any good book about research methods in physics and engineering?

>>7353999
All the way up to precalculus you should already know. It's literally just: manipulate symbols like numbers. You know what fractions are, right?

>>7346654
Introduction to mathematical proofs?

>>7352804
For ochem, I go with Wade and Klein . Wade explains it more throughly. Klein explains somewhat worst, but it focuses on you being able to being able to approach the problems. Personally I like Klein better, but both textbooks allowed me to get a 98 percentile on the ACS.

>>7355453
How to Prove it.

>>7355453
Don't read books on math proofs, just read introductory books on math.

>>7350358

Transport Phenomena by BSL

Get a strong introduction and you can directly apply it to heat and mass transfer as well.

Very basic physics
>movement, force, acceleration

Basic chemistry
>balancing equations, limiting reagents

Should have lots of exercises.

I want to build a microprocessor. What do I have to read?

>>7355872
Halliday Resnick for physics. If that's not basic enough just use Khan Academy.

>>7355887

You're going to have to go back a lot. Start with basic electric circuts, ie what you went over in your highschool physics class.

From that end, you're basically going to have to abandon /sci/ for /diy/'s /ohm/ general. Building a microprocessor is hard particularly because of the "micro" bit. To make a data processor, even a simple one you're going to have to know how electronics function. To this end, get a book like "The Art of Electronics (Horowitz) or similar and read through it. When you're done, you'll probably have a clue on how to actually make your own microprocessor. CE Shannon's "a mathematical theory "a mathematical theory of communication" will probably help too.

Just fyi, even a tiny atmega8 chip has lots of transistors, on the basis that you need eight to form a single byte (which equals one character, like a letter or number) and the overall programmable memory is 8 kb, or 8,000 bytes. Thus the total is about 64,000. Again, this is only an 8kb chip. For comparison the Zilog Z80, which is what Tandy's TRS-80 ran on with TRS-DOS, has about 8,500 and was produced in 1976. Intel's 4004, produced 1974, has about 2,300.

More likely, you're going to be making a much simpler computer, ie something that works off analog switches. The thing isn't so much the size, but the power and venting requirements. If you think your PC heats up a lot, 50+ off the shelf transistors will easily start a fire if connected to mains power. Of course, that assumes it doesn't blow the fuse first.

pic unrelated

>>7355981

I should also mention, a reason why early supercomptuers and mainframe had huge LED panels was so that a programmer could literally watch the data in his program be written into the RAM and watch ie be moved around during the program's operation.

>>7347442
Right, the focus of Linear Algebra should be on linear maps between finite dimension vector spaces. The matrices we use to realize those maps should only be a secondary focus.

>>7350952
Yeah, but it wouldn't hurt to dive right in if you really wanna learn. Axler builds on stuff at a nice pace, starting with vector spaces and moving on to linear maps, then to eigenvalues.

>>7355981
Thanks I'll give this a go and see how far I get this summer

>>7355453
The Book of Proof

>>7347005
Thank you finally somebody else who actually likes carothers!! I highly recommend this book for anyone who is new to real analysis. Covers so much more than baby rudin and is much much easier to follow.

>>7347156
Logan

>>7347387
Carothers

>>7352701
Libgen.info

>>7355453
Book of proof

Everything. I want to learn everything.

I wish there was an actually good guide for learning everything, in a good order.

Unfortunately people just parrot shit recommendations.

For beginning chemistry, someone recommended some Berkeley and MIT lectures, but as it turned out these were NOT entry level at all, they assumed knowledge of high school chemistry. Not to say those lectures were bad, just that they were unsuited to beginners. Someone also recommended a website called socratic, which was awful, it was incredibly repetitive (not in a good way) and in a terrible order, eg they assumed you knew about orbitals, even though the introduction to orbitals actually came later in the series.

People parroting "Khanacademy" and "PatrickJMT". Khanacademy is hit and miss. Sometimes it's really good. Other times it's just plain awful, filled with stuttering, mistakes and a failure to actually explain anything (eg fluids, differential equations). PatrickJMT is incomplete and hardly explains anything besides how to compute stuff.

Web programming must be the worst, though. w3schools is plain shit. "JavaScript: The Definitive Guide" as an intro to js, even though it is a tome and a reference, but terrible as an intro. "JavaScript: The Good Parts" as an intro to js, even though it assumes that you already know js. "Read the spec" as if it's a good way to learn. "Just start making stuff and look up as you go along" must be the worst piece of advice of all time.

>>7356400
pic related

>>7356215
YES! Great book, the fact that it has exercises spread within the chapters is brilliant!

Data mining / Machine learning ? With some concrete examples of applications if possible

Any good QFT books (the less handwavy the better; one's for 'mathematicians' are good too)?

What to read for beginners before Hatcher's Algebraic Topology?

>>7356400

if you want to learn everything then one of the first things you should learn is you aren't going to be spoonfed everything.

I know, that's how it worked in high school. You could show up to 1/2 the classes and get an A because half the class was so retarded and the teacher taught to their level. But (ohmygod) if you want to know more than 99% of people than you'e going to have to (spoiler alert) work harder than 99% of people.

Seriously fuck off blaming other people. You have a goal of LEARNING EVERYTHING which is more possible than ever with the ridiculous dissemination of information and all you have to do is go find it.

If you aren't smart enough to find it then don't worry, you aren't smart enough to learn everything.

>>7356759
I like Srednicki, contains most computations explicitly. Although, as with all physics textbooks, there's a lot of hand-waving. You're never not gonna get shitty oversimplifications and handwaving. Physicists for some reason think this is the best way to teach.
As for QFT books for so-called "mathematicians" (if that's their real name (yeah right)), the hori et al book on mirror symmetry qnd the deligne et al ias volumes are pretty decent. The hori et al one is a bit easier.

>>7356762
Don't read Hatcher. Hatcher a shit, even for a free book. I'm afraid I don't know many sources for babby tier topology (I was taught from excellent, but dutch, lecture notes). I've read parts of Munkres, and it seems to get the job done. After that, go for Rotman.

>>7356814
Don't read all of Munkres though. You don't need much to start with Rotman.

>>7356047
If you're working with finite dimensional spaces, matrices can be like diagrams in algebra. Technically you can just push around symbols without them, but they make some things completely clear to see.

>>7356729
bump

so I'm starting my second year of civil engineering after the summer and I want to git gud at matlab. can somebody recommend me a good MATLAB book to read?

>>7356814
>dutch lecture notes

Jan Van Mill's? KP Hart's?

>>7356867
To me, matrices are just arrays of numbers. Picking a basis in math usually just amounts to replacing nice and intuitive geometric objects by sequencesof numbers. If you're a robot, sequences of numbers are nice, but I'm not a robot.

>>7356880
Moonen.

HOW do I read Baby Rudin? I read through the first two chapters and thought I understood what was going on, but the problem sets are wrecking me. I was only able to finish the easiest problems from each.

>>7356918
You just need higher IQ.

I'm joking, but only halfway. I read through and did all the problems from the first two chapters of Rudin before my analysis course, and they're really not so difficult. It only gets hard after that.

>>7356897
What did you study in linear algebra that did not involve discussion of bases?

Also,
>nice and intuitive geometric objects by sequencesof numbers.
Did you only use reals or something?

>>7356935
That's really impressive. Well done, anon!

>>7356899
Try a bit harder, and seek help from one of your professors or fellow students.

Statistical copulas please. I know a fair amount of machine learning, but it seems to go from 0 to 1,000 whenever I try to learn about copula formulation

>>7356918
>>7356935
cold as ice

>>7356935
my iq is 140. this should be sufficient for undergrad math i think.

>>7356941
>That's really impressive.
It's not. I did not do well in analysis, compared to those I was with. Those first two chapters, anyone should be able to get through them.

>>7356946
Apparently not.

>>7356946
>inb4 140 IQ
oh wait

>>7356947
>IQ correlates with intelligence

>>7356940
Hofmann & Kunze, Roman. Also, I was indeed talking about reals, because working with arrays of elements of your ground field is just silly in most other contexts. I figured you for a physicist, as they tend to favor algorithms over intuition and insight, so I didn't expect you to even know what the word field really means.

>>7356947
Don't be modest about it, you incredible genius you. You did a great thing, and there's no reason not to be lauded for it. Bravissimo!

>>7356953
How would a physicist know about the use of diagrams in algebra? And thanks for literally not answering my question,
>What did you study
I don't have the table of contents of every linear algebra book out there memorized, and it's common to skip around inside a book.

>>7356958
I agree. Anyone who studied the first 2 chapters of Rudin should get an honorary Mensa membership and be crowned king of /sci/ for a day at least

>>7356961
I can't believe you haven't heard of this, but there's this fantastic website called google (.com), and you can use it to find things, get this: on the internet. For example the tocs of the two books I mentioned.

My point was that proofs become more insightful without picking a basis. Like in diffy geo, you can deal with rows of numbers, or you can deal with a geometric object that in a very precise way measures the way your manifold curves. Anyway, give that google website a quick look, I think you'll like it. It's actually a really popular website.

>>7356977
>I can't believe you haven't heard of this, but there's this fantastic website called google (.com), and you can use it to find things, get this: on the internet. For example the tocs of the two books I mentioned.
When someone asks you a question about what YOU studied and you direct them to google, you have lost.

What I'd like to know, how long does it take for you guys to work through a textbook?
I mean the whole things if it really interests you.

>>7356983
So I didn't win? Ow, my feelings. :'(

>>7356991
>I mean the whole things if it really interests you.
If it really interests me, four weekends of solid work.

>>7356996
>four weekends
dis nigga

>>7356991
Depends on how big and hard the textbook is, obviously.

>>7357048
>big and hard
Mine's pretty hard, but it's not that long.

>>7357094
mines soft and flimsy :^(

I was interested in drugs from natural sources, pharmacognosy. I was interested in extraction/preparation.

>>7357127 here
To be more clear, I'm interested in something aimed at chemists/herbalist more than something in depth for doctors.

>>7357094
size does matter

>>7356400
>Just start making stuff and look up as you go along
is the best advice you can get given your goal
also
>>7356794
>Seriously fuck off blaming other people. You have a goal of LEARNING EVERYTHING which is more possible than ever with the ridiculous dissemination of information and all you have to do is go find it.
this

Differential Topology?

>>7356918
Rudin's problems are usually split into two parts for me. The first 10 are reasonable, and then the ones after that are rather difficult. If you have no trouble with say the first 10 that's a good sign you have at least a decent understanding of the material.

/thread

>>7356215
Once carothers catchea on I'm pretty sure it will replace rudin

>>7357190
>Differential Topology?
BOTT AND TU
O
T
T

A
N
D

T
U

>>7356762
Don't do hatcher. Vic is the way to go

>>7356991
I went through a logic textbook worked every problem in about two weeks did another text book on multivalued and fuzzy logic in another two weeks

>>7357252
I went through every volume of EGA, SGA in a bout a week, so a couple months total. Then I learned the prereq's for IUTeich in like 3 weeks and studied and completely understood and verified (and added too) Mochi's IUTeich papers for like a week each so about a month total + a few weeks developing my own extensions to his theory.

Then I turned 11 and grew out of the childish game known as mathematics, and started thinking about how to disprove General Relativity. Fuckin' plebians in this thread

>>7357249
Thanks bb, will give it a read

I want to build An air plane.I already finished calculus ,physics(engineers) and statics.whats the next step?
Dynamics - fluid mechanics - aerodynamics ?

If I learned Calculus 1 through some book whose only purpose was to get a high score on the AP test, and I got a 5, but would it be worth it to read Spivak for a deeper understanding?

>>7357320
You don't read Spivak to get a better understanding, you read it so you can go on to read books like babby Rudin. You gained all the understanding already. A book like Spivak is basically torture but if you want to be a serious mathematician, as in a PhD or something, it is a good choice.

>>7357325
>spivak before baby rudin

Is this why /sci/ posters pretend that Baby Rudin is easy? They actually read a baby analysis book first? That explains something.

>>7357331
This is common at my school, at least for the kids who take honors calculus.

>>7357331
A lot of /sci/ posters seem to think Spivak is a bit of a useless book for most college students; you already learned calculus in high school, so you've got a lot of the intuition and would be better off reading an intro to analysis book, or you didn't learn calculus in high school, so you'd probably struggle with Spivak as your first calculus textbook.

>>7348721
Jackson for undergrad. Holy fuck.

Are any of those econ books particularly math-y or good as an introduction?

Best computer programming books for

Java

Algorithms

Design Patterns

Does anyone know of a good introductory book on Partial Differential Equations? I dig physics I am particularly interested in texts that cover derivations (and perhaps application) of the heat equation and the wave equation.

>>7357369
Farlow (definitely this first) then consider Bleecker/Csordas or Olver (has 1, 1-star review because someone was pissed that the book doesn't have solutions, but it's a good book)

>>7357342
This is damn right. As long as you have some vague intuition for calculus, you can go into Rudin. Shit, I went into Rudin after a crummy community college which taught limits in the fashion of "small over big = 0".

Hi guys I suck at math and the highest level of math I ever done was functions and Discrete Math. I was wondering which would be the best book to learn Calculus for me in this situation?

>>7357404
depends, why do you want to learn calculus?

>>7357416
To get good at programming.

>>7356047
There isn't any reason to not learn how to switch from one to another whenever you need it. Also learning how base change works, what properties are and are not conserved by base changes, what are the different kinds of bases changes, all that is matricial and also extremely important.

>>7356794
> LEARNING EVERYTHING which is more possible than ever with the ridiculous dissemination of information

Actually, given the even more ridiculous increase in information worth learning, learning everything has never been as difficult.

Poincaré has been said to be the last mathematician to know all mathematics of his time (exaggeration, but you get the point). Nowadays even 30 Poincarés wouldn't be enough, and that's for maths alone.

>>7356899
I had a prof called Laurent Moonens. Was from French-speaking Belgium, but it's probable he also knew Dutch. His advisor is Jean Mahwin iirc. Specialised in geometric measure theory and integration. Is he the same guy ? I heard he got he defended his thesis before turning 23, so there mustn't be that many guys like him.

Was an excellent teacher, by the way.

>>7356946
I'm doing ok in math gradschool at a good uni and my IQ is probably not even 120, so yes. You gotta use your smarts smartly though, which isn't so trivial as it sounds.

>>7356897
> If you're a robot, sequences of numbers are nice, but I'm not a robot.

You're coming accross as a moron. Bases are sets of vector, they're as geommetric as anything. If you're talking about their representation as an array of numbers, those are generally dealt with as algebraic objects anyway, most of the time you don't even write out the coefficients explicitly.

>>7357305
Tinkering, learning to build a miniature airplane.

>>7357375
While I love Farlow it doesn't actually derive the equations?

It's great for categorization and analytical solutions (numerical 'lessons' weren't comprehensive enough imo), a transfer processes text is more likely to have the full heat equation derivation and maybe classical mechanics for the wave equation.

>>7356991
This. How long does it take you guys to read through a 300 - 400 page technical math/physics book?

>>7357439
Are you in a PhD program? You give me hope.

>>7357462
I don't remember. Well, I do remember that he does derive the heat equation (from first principles). But I really think it is the best start, also the solutions manual for the book is available for free on the Dover site.

>>7357465
Really depend on the text book. Some are only 200 pages but so dense they cover in depth two semester worth of material with complements. Other are 400 pages and simply give you the basis + simple exercises.

Neither of those two types is good, although the former makes for a good "advanced reader" reference. A good entry textbook actually gets you to the important/difficult stuff while not handwaving the required basis. But good entry textbooks are rare.

>>7357469
Unfortunately not. If everything go smooth (probably will) I'll be in second year of master next year, with a focus on preparation for research. Don't know how likely getting an advisor is from there, will probably depends on wether I work my ass off. I'll be in regular contact with proeminent researchers, however.

As for the IQ thing, I'm probably 120-125 acually, but it's meh anyway. Point is, as long as you get your standard deviation above the average, pattern recognition should be easy enough that maths sounds fun to you. From there it's only work, thinking, and making the concepts and techniques your own.

>>7357471
My mistake he does derive the 1D, the wave equation I just checked, I just really don't like his method/notation, the way transfer texts do it has more generality before they reduce it to the 1D one without energy generation terms etc.

>>7357485
But on average, how long does it take you? Five days? Two weeks? Three months?

Nuclear fundamentals and Engineering?

>>7357418
either spivak or stewart. spivak would probably appeal to you more if you're a programmer.

>>7357488
>Master's program in math

>>7357512
There are problems in answering your question, besides differences in length and styles. Simply put :

1. As a student, most of my coursework is lecture and practice-based (I take notes during class, then work on them, then work on the assignements, etc.). This takes a lot of my class time and free time. To answer you I'd need to have worked on a textbook in class-free periods, typically summer.

2. I have done that (read textbooks during summer), but summer working rate isn't really optimal.

3. I rarely finish a textbook cover to cover. Most good textbooks will cover much more than what you need, so even if you're curious about the parts you don't need you won't spend 3/4 th of your time learning extra material.

4. Related to 3. above: in a typical textbooks, there are the chapters I won't read (very advanced complements), the chapters I will read or skim once (complements), and the chapters I will read at least three times (what I need). Here, "reading" means redoiong the proofs, trying the exercises, perhaps rephrasing the definition or mentally revamping the organisation of the book so as to grasp the content more fully. Reading a textbook is more about grasping well what you read, and remembering it (not that easy) than about having read it once cover to cover.

5. Very often the optimal treatment of a given topic is not in any single book, but scattered accross 4 or 5 books, ie Anonovitch does real and complex analysis well but is pretty poor on metric topology, so better use Anonson for that, Anonsky is good but only up to chapter 3, after that it's better to move on to Anonikov, etc.


The best I can give you is that one time when I read the integration part of an integration, probabilities, and random processes course over the summer. It was perhaps the third time I read it, but I took time to redo all proofs. Took me about a whole summer to redo the 80 pages of it. But those 80 pages were worth 120 easily, and that was summer, ie wanking time.

>>7357599
Yes, math students can also have masters program. People don't jump from HS to PhD you know.

>>7357625
In America they usually do. A masters is usually a consolation medal for dropping out of a PHD. You usually go bachelors or PHD in America.
In Canada and many other places, a master is a prerequisite to a PHD degree. As in, you're required to go to graduate school twice. Once for the master separately, and then again for the PhD.

>>7357631
>mfw reading your fucking post
Is this what non-Americans say about us? Our colleges are the fucking best in the world, albeit expensive. Gotta talk shit somehow or another, amirite?

>>7357649
How is he talking shit?

We in the US, for math at least, go straight from bachelor to phd program, except for a few people who do masters. The people who do masters have to pay, whereas in the phd program you get payed + if you do enough work you can quit and get a masters w/out completing phd.

>>7357661
Not at all. I know plenty of people that went Bachelor > Masters >PhD

>>7357631
>You usually go bachelors or PHD in America.
You mean Bachelors then PhD.

>>7357698
Sorry for your loss, maybe someday your children will be able to attend a better university, if you have any.

>>7357698
"Not at all" what? Obviously there are dumb shmuks that pay for masters before doing phd's. Again: most people, at least in math, go from bachelors --> phd

>>7352961
>>7352961
>>7352961
bump

>>7352961
Sipser's Introduction to the Theory of Computation

>>7346684
The only people I've ever met who don't like Rudin aren't analysts. Never met a single analyst who has hate for Rudin (they recognize its shortcomings, but all love the book).

>>7347005
No need for any of that "move onto" stuff. After you know analysis, analysis on manifolds, you can move on to Folland for more analysis, which is infinitely better than Royden.

>>7347373
Lang, Hoffman & Kunze, Lax (my favorite, really good linear algebra for analysts. For algebraists and geometers you probably won't learn most of the lin alg you need in an intro class anyway). I've looked through and read much of most of the other lin alg books mentioned here. These are my favorites (besides hard to find Russia books :) )

>>7347394
I don't think this is generally good advice. Most dover books are slow and outdated. Go on their website--there are SO many dover books. A couple of the famous ones are good, but I definitely don't recommend the dover classics line as a whole. Not any more than I would tell someone to go look at springer GTMs as a recommendation.

>>7347501
For a mathmatically inclined person,, Spivak's book on Classical mechanics (starts with newtonian and builds up) is one of the best books ever written, imo.

>>7347557
I like that Pugh is gaining traction on these boards. I've been recommending it for ages.

>>7348059
Ok, for this i have a lot of recommendations. Ahlfors is the classic but it's style is really annoying to many. Stein & Shakarchi by contrast has some different choice of materials but is STUNNINGLY written (as are all of eli steins books). There are many other good books, all with different styles - Lang, Conway, Berenstein & Gay. For fast treatment with a viewpoint toward several complex variables and modern complex analytic geometry, I would look at Narasimhans book or these notes: http://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~dror/542-s15.html

That covers all the books I like on complex analysis in one variable.

>>7348478
> Every system is amurikan

An 82% is considered great in most European universities.

>>7357811
(cont) Markushevich is also nice but SO LONG.

>>7348088
The princeton companion is fantastic.

>>7348613
It's a very nice book. Don't think it makes a good reference, like the other guy mentioned. I think it's very good to learn from. PLenty of worked out examples.

>>7348651
Hormander is so good. I never understood why so many people don't like the way he writes.

>>7348848
Its hard to come up with a brief overview of differential geomtry. When I think differential geometry, I'm thinking smooth manifolds with additional geometric structure. Which implies knowledge of basic topology, smooth manifolds, and then some course on something like Riemannian Geometry. SO I'd really need to know your background here before making recommendations.

>>7350304
>>7350322
Exactly this. Gelfand was a math god and he wrote hs level books.

>>7350671
I see more and more Aluffi rcommendations these days. Question: for someone who's already worked through most of D&F and a lot of Lang, as well as many specialized books, would Aluffi still be an interesting read with cool perspectives and ideas? PhD/professional algebraists' views please.

>>7350952
Definitely. Again, I wouldn't recommend Axler over the books in my post above, though.

>>7350997
Oh damn this is hard because threre are a lot of books on Ricci flow but most of them aren't THAT great. Maybe check out Chow's book. though if you don't even know Ricci curvature yet I wouldn't go anywhere near ricci flow. I would go and get good at Riemannian Goemetry first (canonical references are Do Carmo, Petersen, and Gallot-hulin-lafontaine). You should also know PDEs well before getting into Ricci flow material.

>>7351055
I think its just a good, easy source to learn from. A lot of easier books take forever to get places and don't seem as deep as you'd like. I don't think anyone really considers D&F to be the be all and end all of algebra texts.

>>7346654
book(s) for: nonlinear differential equations, duffing equation ???

let me know if there's a more appropriate board for this. where can I download more popular non-textbooks? for example i want to read 'Energy for Future Presidents' but too stingy to buy it.

>>7351830
This is a really, really fantastic text for learning how to use analysis. As a result, though, there is a lot left out or not shown in it's full power. For that, have Folland on hand for reference or something.

>>7355453
dont read an entire book on this stuff. Takes too long. Just learn basic logic, look up some examples of basic proof techniques, and then begin working through an easy proofs-based book.

>>7356762
If you know general topology (Munkres, Munkres, Munkres. If you really care about the general topology then Kelley or Dugundji, but that's unnecessary for your goals).

>>7356814
How the fuck could you possibly think Rotman is better than Hatcher? I don't think there's a single topic that he covers better than hatcher. At least a book like JP may offers something better that's more concsie and sophisticated, or Bott & Tu offers introductions to different topics in a different perspective, but I honestly don't think there's anything Rotman does better than Hatcher. Even his writing is poorer.

>>7356991
I worked through a book on Riemann Surfaces in about a month when I was a grad student because I wanted to do algebraic geometry and was panicked that I never properly learned this material. I did all of the exercises, as well. This really burned me out though and I'll never work through a textbook like that again.

>>7357190
Depends on what you mean by differential topology. smooth manifolds to learn geometry? Or more advanced differential topology? for the former, Lee. For the latter, Hirsch. If you haven't read it already, Milnor's book is also just important reading and an important part of math culture, and will make you a better mathematician.

>>7357249
My number one book of all time.

>>7357369
Evans!

>>7357880
How fast do you read through a math text?

>>7357811
>>7357837
>>7357880
Sweet baby autism.

>>7357811
>>7357837
>>7357880

>>7357880
>>7357837
>>7357811

Am going to guess that you're an analyst along the lines of...something with multiple complex variables...?...or geometry...differential geometry? Ok my final guess is some kind of geometry on complex manifolds.

amirite? What do you do?

>>7352961
Sipser is great. Go for the 2nd rather than 3rd edition

>>7357905
nigga u just gonna come in and drive-by review every recommendation in this thread and not even stay to chat?

any good wikipedia articles? kinda wanna make a pdf using the wiki book creator and read on a roadtrip

>>7357981
>any good wikipedia articles?
not really no

>>7357726
This is a bit upsetting to me.

After I acquired my BSc in Mathematics, I went for my MS because I was unsure if I wanted to dedicate myself to a PhD program. In addition, I didn't know what I wanted to study; I didn't want to just get into a PhD program, flounder about and never find my research interest.

I was given a scholarship to pursue my Master's degree and I was also able to figure out what I wanted to do. I didn't know what I liked or loved, and I was considering several sub fields in math (i.e., finance, stats/stochastic processes, software development, etc.). It also gave me an opportunity to pursue classes outside of my home university and that was a wonderful experience.

In the last year of my MS, I took a class randomly in the MechE dept in control theory. It turns out that this was the single best decision I had ever made -- I ended up not only getting an A in that course, but I also went on to take three more control theory courses in EE/MechE. I learned that my research interests are primarily within dynamical systems with a specific eye on control systems/theory. I learned how to program, use MATLAB more efficiently and build basic control systems.

I'm entering a PhD program now at a top 15 uni in Applied Mathematics with my adviser in the MechE dept. Although I must take the prereq courses for math and the qualifiers, my entire research/course listing will be in EE/MechE. I'll even work in the labs with them.

Don't shit on people who decide to go for the MS before PhD. Some are unsure of where they're headed, others want to try shit out. Three friends of mine that went that route went on for actuarial work, wall street/finance and the last one went into a quant role. Some took out loans/paid out of pocket, but are now in positions where they make 70K+, even more.

>>7358105
>I was given a scholarship to pursue my Master's degree and I was also able to figure out what I wanted to do.
nigga if you got a scholarship you didn't pay for it then it doesn't really matter. Although it's probably annoying to get a masters and then have to take qualifying exams all over

>I didn't know what I liked or loved, and I was considering several sub fields in math (i.e., finance, stats/stochastic processes, software development, etc.)
How is this particular to an MS? The first couple years or phd and MS are more or less the same, except the phd goes to take quals and then starts research and the MS writes an MS thesis. You can "go figure out what you want to do" during a phd program, not everyone knows what they are going to do research in.

The only advantage of a masters is you can apply to new schools. If you wanted to do that with a phd you would have to pass quals, drop out with a phd and then get letters of rec to reapply lel. So yea. In my opinions not worth thousands.

I'm not shitting on them it's practically a scam to have people pay thousands

>>7356400
http://1drv.ms/1HsCSP9

have my very shallow collection of textbooks compiled from the recommendations on /sci/ for the past year I've browsed

i have the lower division stuff covered well, (mostly because of repeats), and will collect the upper division books if libgen ever resurrects itself

>>7356794
> you aren't going to be spoonfed everything.
The post wasn't about just the absence of good recommendations
The post was about the huge amount of bad recommendations

>>7358105
>Some took out loans/paid out of pocket, but are now in positions where they make 70K+, even more.
That's nothing. I went straight from bachelor's to pure math PhD, and after graduating I got 300K starting, any job I wanted.

>>7347642
Is there a major difference between
>Physics by Halliday, Resnick, Krane
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-1-David-Halliday/dp/0471320579/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435487211&sr=1-2&keywords=pHYSICS+halliday

and the newer editions

>Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, Walker
or
>Principles of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, Walker which seems to be the IE of the same text?

My local bookstore only stocks Principles of Physics, but according to it's amazon page it seems to be aimed at engineering students?

>>7358491
*Didn't mean to quote anyone.

>>7357465
About 3-10 days if I haven't been exposed to the material before, 1 day of full study if I already have.

>>7357837
>Its hard to come up with a brief overview of differential geomtry. When I think differential geometry, I'm thinking smooth manifolds with additional geometric structure. Which implies knowledge of basic topology, smooth manifolds, and then some course on something like Riemannian Geometry. SO I'd really need to know your background here before making recommendations.

I figured it would be, and I plan to supplement things with a more in-depth study when I finish up with my current projects. I know some basic topology and took a class on low dimensional manifolds (mostly the study of surfaces and some basic ideas of 3-manifolds, so nothing in much generality).

>>7356400

>>7357551

>>7359500
Ignore him, he's retarded, khanacademy etc. is almost never recommended on /sci/; who generally believe in conventional approaches such as college textbooks over internet fuckery.

>>7358197
Not the dude you were responding to, but this is a great collection, thanks for sharing it.

>>7358197
thanks for sharing man

>>7359601
Khan academy is recommended here, but only for babby math (i.e. engineering an physics students)