Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:18:39 UTC No. 16076849

You're better off looking at simple yt videos that explain concepts quickly rather than sitting through some boring lecture that's a total waste of time. Also pick a book and look at the examples

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:21:10 UTC No. 16076859

>>16076849
The thing is that YouTube videos just explain the basic concepts. These MIT courses give you actual problems to solve and that's where I'm not able to do any of it. I can grasp most of the basics of calculus, but when it comes to actually having to use them to solve problems I don't know what the fuck I'm doing.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:22:20 UTC No. 16076865

>>16076859
Do more practice problems

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:23:54 UTC No. 16076869

>>16076865
How does that help me when I don't even know how to do them? I need to learn how to be able to do them first and these courses are too hard for me.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:26:24 UTC No. 16076886

american-style calculus should just be intuitively understood, there’s no reason to study it
pick up an analysis textbook and really get started

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:28:42 UTC No. 16076898

>>16076581
You should be learning from a textbook.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:29:27 UTC No. 16076901

>>16076869
If you're not understanding it by watching a lecture them what book are you using? A textbook will simply explain everything and build up to more complex problems. You can look up a short 5 min. Video for anything you don't understand. Stop bitching

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:32:17 UTC No. 16076911

>>16076581
>>16076581
Yeah, read through Shlomo Sternberg's Advanced Calculus

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:34:27 UTC No. 16076932

>>16076581
That other anon is right, calc by itself is a waste of time. Read through a textbook that does calc and analysis simultaneously, examples are Amann Escher or Zorich

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:40:56 UTC No. 16076969

>>16076869
Textbooks often have detailed examples which more or less show you how to solve problems. Same thing really goes for proofs

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:06:26 UTC No. 16077071

>>16076901
>>16076911
>>16076932
>>16076969
I just don't see how I'd be able to learn it from a textbook if I can't learn it from a professor explaining it in a lecture video.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:08:13 UTC No. 16077081

>>16076581
>Am I just retarded or is MIT calculus just particularly difficult?
Can you provide a problem? In general it's pretty simple, what you might be struggling with is not spending enough time on the basics.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:10:56 UTC No. 16077090

>>16077081

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:13:40 UTC No. 16077101

>>16076581
Gotta remember that lecturers and most people making videos don't have tightly prepared deliveries as you'd find in a decent textbook, where math authors tend to put in a lot of effort toward clarity and understanding.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:21:52 UTC No. 16077120

>>16076581
At what part of the problem solving do you fail?
Maybe you don't know about an important technique such as integral substitution or whatever.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:25:11 UTC No. 16077124

Textbook > Lecture. You don't understand? Read the paragraph before. Repeat until you understand.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:37:12 UTC No. 16077164

>>16077090
Are there any in there you're having particular trouble with? Like pick out 3 or 4 problems.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 16:54:54 UTC No. 16077219

>>16077071
A textbook is obviously more in-depth than a lecture

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:07:53 UTC No. 16077248

>>16077071
It's completely normal to walk out of a lecture having learned fuck all, similarly, it's absolutely common for students to not attend lectures at all and simply work through the script or a textbook. All I can say is that the delivery of the topics is honed to perfection in textbooks while the lecture's quality depends on the lecturer. From my experience, there are almost no real good lecturers and you're better off working through a textbook at your own pace, not skipping any details.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:00:33 UTC No. 16077343

>>16076911
>Shlomo Sternberg
kek, I envy those who get to learn for the first time that it's a real person.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:05:33 UTC No. 16077350

take an IQ test first

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:21:35 UTC No. 16077392

>>16076581
I don't know what study calculus means?
I mean you should probably just look into the intuition and then download a python library, most of calculus is just some cool facts I can put on a piece of paper.
If you want to actually understand what's going on you need baby level real analysis.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:23:51 UTC No. 16077401

I had this problem in my first year of uni, I was panicking for months because everyone was surging ahead of me. I then went back to the start and and methodically went through everything I had learned one step at a time, over the course of a weekend I gradually built up an impression of the mathematics in my own way.

>>16077071
With text books and your own notes you can quickly recap something you've missed or are not 100% sure of. Most people are IQ 130 because they are quicker at rote learning and forming new memories, not because they are more reasonable and logical and better at strategizing.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:49:44 UTC No. 16077458

>>16076865
as a former math tutor, this is it

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:07:21 UTC No. 16077640

ditch the lectures, get a textbook and do lots of problems

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:28:14 UTC No. 16077692

>>16076911
>>>/pol/
>>16077343
Wait what???top kek! How. Is this real

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:38:36 UTC No. 16077710

>>16076581
>wasting time learning calculus
>when you could learn2code, learn2weld basically anything productive
I am convinced math fags are retard

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:42:06 UTC No. 16077718

>>16077710
>learn2code
oversaturated market and bugman work
>learn2weld
cool thing, but you need a shitton of costly equipment I figure. For math you only need paper, pen, textbook, computer and let's go

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:58:30 UTC No. 16078759

>>16077710
Gonna be replaced by AI soon

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:04:13 UTC No. 16078763

>>16076581
this might not be a popular suggestion, but perhaps consider studying analysis instead so you can acquire a deep understanding of the mechanisms behind calculus

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:33:46 UTC No. 16078784

>>16076581
As others suggested, you should probably skip calc and go straight into real analysis

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:21:28 UTC No. 16078839

I've used Introduction to Calculus and Analysis I-II by Courant for my Calculus II-III and I could handle MIT problems easily back then. Don't even remember by school's textbook. Probably Howard Anton.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:23:48 UTC No. 16078841

>>16076581
Nope, MIT calculus is just not particularly harder. It is the same calculus that people learn all around the world. So I am afraid that you are the problem here.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:35:53 UTC No. 16078854

Here's the truth. Watching videos don't help very much. Because watching videos is passive.
You need to grab a textbook and try to solve the problems by yourself before looking at the solution. This is called active learning. Hope this helps!

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:47:50 UTC No. 16078863

>>16076581
MIT uses annoying terminology so it's not really your fault but you should be able to understand the problems.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:43:28 UTC No. 16078905

>>16076869
Your issue is most likely with more fundamental forms of mathematics. You may have built errors into your thought process when you work with algebra. Go back and work towards 100% mastery in those subjects first.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:02:44 UTC No. 16079236

>>16078905
Everything I did before calc has been easy to understand. Calculus feels like it's not even in the same realm as any math I've done before.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:05:40 UTC No. 16079239

>>16079236
Probably because you skipped some math inbetween

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:06:55 UTC No. 16079241

>>16079239
I didn't skip anything. I even did a whole precalc course before this and I didn't have any trouble with it.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:07:24 UTC No. 16079244

>>16078863
This is true. I only really ever learned math once I tackled my lecture notes and worked through it

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:08:38 UTC No. 16079248

>>16079241
So do you have issues understanding the theory or just doing problems?

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:14:43 UTC No. 16079265

>>16079248
I can understand the concepts pretty well and do most of the simple kinds of problems that they show in the lectures, but any time I'm given something more complex I don't know what the fuck I'm doing.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:33:36 UTC No. 16079297

>>16079265
problem solving isn't easy to learn and I'm guessing MIT's PSets assume some prior olympiad experience. In any case, if you want to get good at solving those, I recommend you read books on proof-based math. Start by solving basic set theory and logic problems and slowly move over to calc stuff. Should help you formulate mathematical arguments and see meaning in those problems. Might as well skip calc for analysis at that point, though

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:47:52 UTC No. 16079888

>>16077350
This

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:04:34 UTC No. 16079934

>>16079265
you still haven't posted a single example of a problem you cannot even start to tackle

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:05:39 UTC No. 16079937

Too much 4chan has left you unable to concentrate and learn.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:01:01 UTC No. 16080047

>>16076581
The MIT lectures do not translate well to YouTube. Do Khan academy instead, you will learn much faster

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:25:25 UTC No. 16080180

>>16077071
lectures are shit buddy, and any lecture-based textbook

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:43:18 UTC No. 16080515

>>16076581

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:05:39 UTC No. 16080547

>>16076869
Jesus you need to be handheld.
Listen, try to solve problems, fail, then look at the solutions.Try to understand the solutions. Reconstruct the solutions.
Reverse engineer the process and solutions.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:18:57 UTC No. 16080561

I haven't had to integrate a function since graduating like 5 years ago. The other side is so good bros.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:48:02 UTC No. 16081195

>>16080561
Yeah because we have computers now

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:54:10 UTC No. 16081204

>>16081195
Go check most impossible integrals and you’ll find computers are too dumb for those

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:48:46 UTC No. 16081671

>>16076581
>Am I just retarded or is MIT calculus just particularly difficult?
It's academica, so a scam to earn way more money than worth. You fall for a brand that only gives you harm. There are tons of sources to get comfy with that "tool". It is more a crutch but math idiots do not have something better. So they hide it when real - non ivory tower- duties comes with the usual wording salad.

Once you understand that "concept" calculus is way more easy to "comprehend".

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:50:09 UTC No. 16082618

>>16081204
Imo there are more interesting unsolved problems than just some integral

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:55:15 UTC No. 16082626

>>16076581
MIT undergraduate admission is the only true meritocracy exists today.
You and other people will not like what I gonna tell you. Because it's really time-consuming and you retards just want instant shortcut. Not realizing MIT students have spent their childhood grinding olympiad problems.
Anyways, my advice is to do the whole AOPS curriculum from the start. The first book is "Prealgebra". Yes, you're not even good enough for algebra yet. Supplement with Paul Zeitz's problem solving books and videos.
It's not "mathematical maturity" or bullshit like that. You lack problem solving and algebra skills. Simple as that.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:15:31 UTC No. 16082641

>>16082626
trash bait

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:20:41 UTC No. 16082642

>>16082626
olympiad training is completely optional and mostly just a waste of time. OP should just start with real proof-based math now and learn problem-solving simultaneously.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:33:34 UTC No. 16082644

>>16076581
You should go through the book "Calculus and applications" by peter d lax, and after that get the book "understanding analysis" by abbot.

the first option only has a total of 400 problems, if you have a day job this book can take you easily 3 to 6 months to do, the real analysis book can take the same amount of time.

after you go through these books try out "ordinary differential equations by Braun", then go through multivariable calculus by peter d lax. once you get through these books in the order i listed... you will have essentially gotten the equivalent undergraduate mathematics education that any physicist or mechanical engineer gets in the united states.

if you need help checking your answer use "symbolab ordinary differential equaitions solver" or "mathematica"

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:19:07 UTC No. 16082687

>>16077071
>make a thread asking for advice
>be a faggot about it when given advice
Fuck, I hate you undergrads so much

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:46:22 UTC No. 16082704

>>16082687
Have some empathy. And OP sounds like an older guy who tries to self-teach himself calculus.
>>16082626
>algebra skills
When I first took proof-based calculus, I struggled a lot with manipulating series, sequences, and inequalities. I'm not sure if this falls under "algebra", but a lot of it comes down to experience imo. I have no idea if there's a good book to learn these skills.

Barkon at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:49:34 UTC No. 16082708

>>16082704
In Russia, calculus learns you

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:58:44 UTC No. 16082807

>>16082704
>I have no idea if there's a good book to learn these skills.
Spivak.
RP Burn's Numbers and Functions.
Tao's Analysis.
I think any rigorous calculus or intro analysis will devote a chapter or two on the topic. With ample exercises.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:07:51 UTC No. 16082942

>>16076581
Stop masturbating. Stop using dating apps. Stop going after women. Don't allow sexual thoughts to arise in the mind.
Get RX for dextroamphetamine 5mg twice a day.
Coffee or 100mg of caffeine in the morning.
Nicotine throughout the day either as a patch or pouch.
Study all day.

You're a product of what you do. You didn't make it probably because you're too busy obsessing over sex and masturbation and do other time sinks like gaming and scrolling.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:20:49 UTC No. 16082954

>>16082704
Some Algebra books, like Gorodentsev's, have chapters on formal power series and treat them rather algebraically too.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:13:37 UTC No. 16082987

>>16076581
You're retarded.
Now kys.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:15:32 UTC No. 16083052

>>16082641
What bait? Literally just telling OP to learn algebra and problem solving techniques before tackling calculus.
>>16082642
What olympic training. Learn English. No one is telling OP to do constest math. Just algebra and problem solving books.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:02:13 UTC No. 16083091

>>16083052
stop shitposting. There's no reason whatsoever to read a book on prealgebra (especially at OP's level) or proof books (which are specifically made to scam highschool students). You'll pick up all those problem-solving techniques once you tackle more serious math. Fucking Hammack covers very basic discrete math and topics covered in most introductory analysis books anyway, like ordinal induction or series, while shitting on formalism. Constructing the natural numbers or even doing something as simple as postulating their existence by introducing the Peano Axioms, helping the reader understand induction's mathematical context better, is completely foreign to him. Instead, he wards the reader from any actual math and introduces these concepts using memetic diagrams and muh real-world analogies. Even going as far as insulting the reader's intelligence with these boring, uninspired, copy-pasted exercises. Just a massive waste of time

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:33:49 UTC No. 16083115

>>16083091
Who has a good logic book? I read one about 10 years ago, but it was dusty in a library.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:46:55 UTC No. 16083182

>>16076581
MIT presumes you know calculus or are very good at subject x before taking subject x itself lmao (not really but kind of)
Go Spivak Calculus route or,
Stewart Calculus then Spivak Calculus route or,
Watch Professor leonard, rootmath and alike route

Choice is yours. ||I recommend 1st||

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:41:41 UTC No. 16083248

OP never mentioned his IQ which I suspect is the problem here

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:53:46 UTC No. 16083421

Skip the problems, easy

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:08:19 UTC No. 16083736

>>16083091
Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:20:50 UTC No. 16083833

>>16076581
What part of calculus is this? Have you taken the prerequisites already?

Learning all of undergraduate calculus could take months, even if it were your only coursework

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:50:54 UTC No. 16083968

>>16076581
the lecture is paired with textbooks. one supplements the other. well that's the ideal, it depends on the quality of school you're going

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:57:08 UTC No. 16083980

>>16076932
>>16076886
that's a waste of time and effort if you're learning it to apply it. usually when applying it you just need to understand it in a non esoteric way. if you go and ask an engineer to prove some shit in real analysis, they'll have no idea