Math books compilation

[Anonymous No.15249022]

let's say i have 0% knowledge of numbers too and the entire history to where we got, what would be the best set of books and path to follow for an absolute beginner?

i just wanna stop being dumb at math starting today.

is picrel a decent choice?

[Anonymous No.15249026]

[Anonymous No.15249028]

>>15249022
Euler's Elements of Algebra is pretty good.

[Anonymous No.15249417]

I would set up a guide on how to start with math by zero and getting up to most modern branches but seriously, nobody would actually read it and the pics posted are already utterly garbage and i doubt anyone has read all of those books anyway. Why do i think that? Just watch how Taos "Analysis" gets recommended, its a shitty real analysis book and its not Analysis as in calculus with proofs but real analysis with no measure theory but a bunch of nonsense topics like fourier analysis. You are better off ditching Taos for Escher & Amann which is a series of 3 books which is about analysis as in calculus with proofs and extended to measure theory. Same goes for Shlomos "Advanced calculus" which is a dusty and ancient garbage book, there are more modern books such as Edwards which uses differential forms for its approach and should be read instead of this bullshit. Also, what the fuck is up with those noname probability authors? Kolmogorov wrote a book on its foundation, he literally reinvented the fucking wheel, are you going to ignore that? How about ito? He wrote one too and he is the mastermind behind stochastic integration. I am fine if you argue that Kolmogorovs book has no valid exercises but nigger, its a thin book and even has a dover reprint for 8 bucks going on, you have to be literally mentally disabled to ignore that

[Anonymous No.15249443]

>>15249022
I unironically used this chart like 6 years ago. I used all the books from "a beginning" to "a journey", and then moved on to better stuff. It was pretty mediocre pedagogy, and I think you'd be better off just reading lang. Lang is the king of pedagogy.

[Anonymous No.15249475]

How about BM - BoP - Spivak+Apostol 1 - Pinter - Hubbard+Apostol 2- H&K - D&F - Apostol+Pugh

[Anonymous No.15249626]

>>15249022
Just open literally any book and if it is too hard to follow, look for its bibliography, or even better, often the author mentions pre-requisites on the preface and good references for these topics

[Anonymous No.15250005]

>>15249028
I agree. I was surprised how readable it was. I think it's a great suggestion for someone learning.

[Anonymous No.15251309]

This chart is good

[Anonymous No.15251355]

>>15249022
You will give up after 1 month, its not even worth starting unless you have access to prescription amphetamines

[Anonymous No.15251462]

>>15251355
Just because you are not disciplined and gave up, does not mean OP will. You've got this OP!

[Anonymous No.15251782]

>>15249022
If you really don't even know numbers, gelfand is going to be way to terse and hard for you. Start with The Art of Problem Solving's prealgebra book. Then if you have time do their books in this order: intro to algebra, intro to geometry, intermediate algebra, precalculus. If you don't have time, after precalculus do volumes 1 and 2. From there you can do any basic calculus (single variable), like Stewart, Larson, Anton, Keisler, or AoPS' book. Afterwards either do a proofs book (velleman/hammack) or jump in to "a second course in first year calculus" by niteki.

[Anonymous No.15252158]

>>15249417
Why larp, anon? You're not impressing anyone.
Amann's third volume that deal with measure and integration theory? That's for a separate course. That's how it works in undergraduate math curriculum.
So basically you get the same number of volumes. 3 volumes of Amann compared to 2 Tao's Analysis + Tao's Measure Theory.

[Anonymous No.15254459]

>>15249443
I heard a while ago that Lang's books are full of mistakes, is that true?

[Anonymous No.15254556]

Is there a guide like these but for physics?

[Anonymous No.15254565]

>>15249022
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5A714C94D40392AB

[Anonymous No.15254897]

Is there a minimalist guide from proofs and linear algebra to grad math? I already have some math background and I want to go through the least amount of books possible.

[Anonymous No.15255024]

>>15254556
>Is there a guide like these but for physics?
No such thing.
Just use Chicago's book list.
Perhaps https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations .

[Anonymous No.15255038]

>>15254897
>grad math
Honestly just open grad math books directly. A lot of them are self-contained and rather friendly.
Some topics with quite a few of that kind of books for idiot: graduate linear algebra, graduate abstract algebra, representation theory, Lie theory, functional analysis, differential geometry
The problem is I don't think you'd have developed the chops, the expected problem solving ability/mathematical maturity to solve the problems if you just go straight to those books. You probably can follow the text and arguments somewhat, but can't solve anything.

Or you can just read Evan Chen's Napkin.

[Anonymous No.15255081]

>>15254556
no because there's only one list that would look something like
>regurgitated undergrad math memelist
>L&L volume 1-10
>Di Francesco CFT
>Polchinski strings

[Anonymous No.15255099]

>>15249417
What the fuck is wrong with you nigger? You complain about no name authors but recommend some literally who krauts over Terrence fucking Tao. You complain about le ancient books, but recommend what's literally the first book on modern probability, which reads more like a paper than a textbook. It seems your worthless criticisms only hold valid when they don't suit your recommendations.

[Anonymous No.15255102]

>>15254897
Strange request. Why do you want to study like that?

[Anonymous No.15255419]

>>15255038
>Honestly just open grad math books directly. A lot of them are self-contained and rather friendly.
Thanks, probably the best advice I've received. I think I will brush up on my proofs, do a bit of the napkin, and jump into some journeyman texts. PhD in 5 years.

[Anonymous No.15256993]

>>15255024
>>15255081
OK, thanks, I'll check those out

[Anonymous No.15257207]

Rate my chart.

[Anonymous No.15257223]

>>15257207
Not qualified to criticise it but thank you for the effort anon. I can read it fine enough but would you be interested in making an English language version?

[Anonymous No.15258295]

>>15257207
ESL/10

[Anonymous No.15258339]

This is all you need to be good at math.