[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 11 KB, 217x208, advanced.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8029513 No.8029513 [Reply] [Original]

Most "Intro to X" undergrad text in math seem to assume graduate level knowledge in the field.Or half-ass teach concepts and then have you do proofs that aren't self-contained and nearly impossible to do based on the techniques presented in that chapter alone.

>> No.8029536

>>8029513
Nah you're just retarded

>> No.8029563

>>8029536
Nah you've never came across an advanced textbook in actual math class. Baby rudin doesn't count.

>> No.8029573

>>8029563
I thought these were undergrad "intro to" textbooks

now they're advanced texts in actual math classes?

>> No.8029575

>>8029573
You seem to think advanced is dumb-tier shit.

>> No.8029597

>>8029513

t. brainlet

>> No.8029697

>>8029513
You'd expect an Introduction to Gauge-Gravity Duality to be pretty complicated, wouldn't you?
If the topic is hard, any good textbook will be hard.

>> No.8029706

>>8029597
When have
>t. xyz
and
>brainlet
become memes?

>> No.8029713

>>8029513
>Why are most undergrad "Intro to X" books shit?

Because assuming you have a pre-existing interest in X, you probably already know more than an "intro" can offer and can easily be bored. On the other hand, if you have no idea about X at all, you wouldn't really know to read about it.

>> No.8029714

A little bit unreleted, but a undergrad book for statistics is what I am requesting.

>> No.8029721

>>8029513
>Most "Intro to X" undergrad text in math seem to assume graduate level knowledge in the field
They imply that the author's knowledge is vastly greater than he cared to bother write about in the "Intro to..." book.

>> No.8029727

>>8029713
>you probably already know more than an "intro" can offer
Then why would you want to read an "intro" book in the first place? That argument makes no sense.

>> No.8029735

>>8029513
I don't know what books you're reading like this, unless you picked up "Introduction to Étale Cohomology" with no understanding of algerbaic geometry or homological algebra.

>> No.8030485

How do I know my math is at a sufficient level to tackle deeper topics?

>> No.8030490

>>8030485
try to tackle a deeper topic

if you can't do it, your math isn't sufficient

not that hard to figure out

>> No.8030524

>>8030490
How do I know if I know enough about "Current Topic"? Take a Uni-Course (from the Math course of study) and get an A+++++?

>> No.8032022

According to people in thread there are no bad intro math textbooks.

>> No.8032031 [DELETED] 

>>8032022
Kanes book on dynamics is pretty awful.
Not really an intro, but still one that is useful.

>> No.8032034

I like clrs, but some would say it isn't a good intro book and they like others better.