/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11279341]

What are you studying during vacations? (With pics)

I'm going through pic related, still in chapter 1 of How to Prove It after a week, tough book, but very good. My first steps into becoming one of the gods of math.

[Anonymous No.11279383]

This is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11279384]

>>11279341
For the love of God finish those books.
If you manage to do this you will already be a minor God.

[Anonymous No.11279391]

>>11279341
Prove it

[Anonymous No.11279396]

>>11279383
What? Why?
>>11279384
I will sure, I spent a lot on them, this is the turning point for me, after those I'll start Aluffi's Algebra.

[Anonymous No.11279645]

>>11279341
>third edition of htpi
What's the difference from the 2nd? Also how do you like those Springer books

[Anonymous No.11279670]

>>11279341
>OP getting rape after How to prove it
Read this order
Read How to prove it -> real analysis -> Linear Algebra Done

Maybe you hear Linear algebra is easy and Real Analysis is hard but:
Pugh book is calculus + soft analysis
Linear Algebra book is pure math version of linear algebra.

[Anonymous No.11279676]

>>11279670
no it isnt

[Anonymous No.11279681]

>>11279645
Featuring over 150 new exercises and a new chapter on number theory, this new edition introduces students to the world of advanced mathematics through the mastery of proofs.
https://www.cambridge.org/br/academic/subjects/mathematics/logic-categories-and-sets/how-prove-it-structured-approach-3rd-edition?format=PB

Both have similarly excellent content, Axler is probably the most divisive math book because of the whole determinant thing, but it's really an amazing book.

But when it comes to other qualities they are quite different. Axler's has a very good binding, the paper is of an excellent quality, there are colored pics inside and the printing is great. But Pugh's book is the exact opposite, it has rather poor binding (I think it's glued to the hardcover), the paper quality is bad, like really bad when compared to Axler's and the printing is terrible, the images are all low quality, still it's readable. It's quite strange that Axler's is so high quality in everything from the content to the binding while Pugh's, which is from the same collection, only has its content as a good aspect.

[Anonymous No.11279686]

>>11279670
>Read How to prove it -> real analysis -> Linear Algebra Done
That's what I was going to do. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11279689]

>>11279681
Thanks. I have the second edition but I've never finished it due to time constraints. Might pick it up again. Will probably look into those other books as well

[Anonymous No.11279717]

cringe

[Anonymous No.11279724]

>>11279717
fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11279733]

Currently studying this.

[Anonymous No.11279742]

>>11279686
Hsveyou ever had calculus,? Do you know it?

[Anonymous No.11279781]

Is Shakarchi analysis books any good?

[Anonymous No.11279791]

>>11279341
Your a fucking delusional faggot. Die.

[Anonymous No.11279816]

>>11279791
Why all the hate to the OP? i don't get it.

[Anonymous No.11279819]

[Anonymous No.11279821]

>>11279816

[Anonymous No.11279831]

>>11279821
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.11279832]

>>11279816
Learning curve is very high if he don't took High school mathematics and calculus

[Anonymous No.11279834]

>>11279831
how bout that?

[Anonymous No.11279842]

>>11279341
Preparing for my real analysis and Topology master's quals, going off Stein and Shakarchi volume 3 and Munkres Topology. I'm starting evil tomorrow, independent work with a local professor, hopefully doing some harmonic analysis

[Anonymous No.11279847]

>>11279742
I do, but I failed Calculus III, I'll have to redo it this semester.

[Anonymous No.11279852]

>>11279832
What the? I'm doing a math degree, lad, I already had Calculus I and II, Linear Algebra (although it wasn't proof based), ODE's and Number Theory. This semester I'm gonna study Calculus III, Analysis and Abstract Algebra.

[Anonymous No.11279861]

>>11279816
He's a newfag and this is 4chan, what did you honestly expect?

[Anonymous No.11279863]

>>11279832
>High school mathematics and calculus
Calculus, assuming you mean differential and integral calculus, IS high school mathematics. OP is fine.

[Anonymous No.11279872]

>>11279842
Damn, nice, I heard masters is the hardest part, even harder than a PhD, hope I can get there someday, it'll probably take me another 3 years to finish my degree.

[Anonymous No.11279880]

I opened pugh to a proof I remember in my analysis class and it felt like it was full of errors and he worked so hard for such a simple result. Guess I'm just a brain let lol.

[Anonymous No.11279882]

>>11279396
In case this is not bait, Aluffi will be a bit beyond your reach if you are only starting to read a proof book. Munkres topology might be better.

[Anonymous No.11279909]

>>11279882
I won't read Aluffi's book entirely, just the first half which is about group and ring theory, I tried studying algebra before and took a look at some books. Didn't like Herstein, it's notation is terrible and outdated, the other one was Artin, but it was too geometrical for my tastes, the classes weren't like that and then I tried the recommended textbook Jacobson, and holy shit it was hard. Then I gave up on learning algebra that semester since no books were that good and I didn't have a strong proof-basis. But then I started reading a little of Aluffi and it had everything I wanted from an algebra book, his explanations and proofs are very clear, his notation is modern, his exercises are very varied (some easy, some really hard), I really liked it, but decided to continue after I manage to become stronger in proofs. I'm aware that the second part of the book is graduate-level and all, but the first part seemed very undergrad-level, am I wrong?

I already knew about munkres, but wasn't expecting to study it right now, but since you recommended it, I'll try.

[Anonymous No.11279935]

Why does /sci/ hate proof books?

[Anonymous No.11279940]

>>11279909
The first part is easy, but will be unmotivated since he starts category theory very early on. The latter parts of munkres on algebraic topology provides motivation. Also, Aluffi is an algebraic geometer, and the book definitely reflects this. I think Dummit and Foote probably gives a more general exposition. You could probably combine it with Rotman’s advanced modern algebra, but Rotman is encyclopedic, so I would use it more for reference. Lang is best for Galois theory. Anyway, before buying the books, I’d suggest checking them out in the library.

[Anonymous No.11279949]

>>11279940
Oh, I see, thanks for the recommendations.

[Anonymous No.11279969]

>>11279935
Only around 10% of /sci/ are mathematicians, the rest are physishits, engineerings, comp. scientists, pop-sci people and chemishits or mediciners.

[Anonymous No.11280011]

>>11279341
Also about to finish Coursera's Machine Learning (by Andrew Ng)

[Anonymous No.11280019]

>>11279935
You can spend that time learning actual math, the problems in low level texts like Spivak or Apostol’s Calculus, H&K or Axler’s Lin Alg are simple enough that they will give you all the preliminary training you need to handle proofs. Even just solving problems from a book on set theory would be a better use of time. They exist for people who lack the courage to fail at real math and for people not intelligent enough to do real math.

[Anonymous No.11280049]

>>11280019
I never understood this sentiment. Why do you care how someone decides to learn something? Why do you care about how they decide to use their time? If both of you will reach the same level of knowledge at some point then who cares?

[Anonymous No.11280053]

>>11279717
Kys.

[Anonymous No.11280061]

>>11280049
I don’t care its just objectively a waste of time, and I don’t believe given limited resources and unequal natural talents that someone who starts with How to Prove It will end up as advanced as a 16 year old breaking into proof based math with Rudin or Spivak. The difference in utility and difficulty is vast, but that won’t be apparent until the use of definitions, theorems and creative problem solving is smashed over the skull of the reader when they do build up the confidence to learn proper math. The question you should ask is why would you not want to immediately begin the trials of mathematical training if you genuinely enjoy the subject? When I found an appreciation for math the first thing on my mind was to get my hands on a good real analysis text and to do proofs.

[Anonymous No.11280067]

>>11279969
But comp. scientist should love proofs too.

[Anonymous No.11280069]

>>11280067
>But comp. scientist should love proofs too.
Theoretical comp. scientists*
Average comp. scientists don't give a fuck

[Anonymous No.11280146]

>>11279341
you actually fell for all the memes. axler isnt actually all that good. Lin alg done wrong is much better. pugh is good though

[Anonymous No.11280162]

>>11279852
keep at it anon, one day you will be able to look down on us and call us the newfags :)

[Anonymous No.11280167]

>>11280146
Pugh's treatment of the "rigorous" analysis portion of differential and integral calc is piss poor, otherwise I think its a good text. The Topology is very nicely done, and useful even at that early stage. I like how much time he spends on function spaces and the treatment of measure theory. Axler does fucking suck secretly though, however he gets far enough with basic spectral theory that if you are clever you will extract quite a lot from the exercises and his proofs. I also really like how he emphasizes the basis free definitions for so many objects which would disabuse you of stupid beliefs you might pick up from a book like Strang's Linear Algebra. Also the god tier text is Lax but Lax also doesn't give a fuck if you know how to do computations and assumes you've already taken Analysis so its not good for a green undergrad.

[Anonymous No.11280175]

im learning how to program in java

[Anonymous No.11280184]

>>11280175
haskell>