Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 02:56:18 UTC No. 16173231

>>16173230
I read that some people recommend getting an intro to proofs book and I read through the first chapter of a few of them and the Hammack one seemed to be the easiest to read.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 04:10:49 UTC No. 16173293

>>16173231
If you don't remember high school math well, then it's kind of a loop. Becuase that books uses all kinds of high school maths for learning proofs

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 04:28:24 UTC No. 16173303

>>16173230
What are you studying?

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 04:33:27 UTC No. 16173306

>>16173230
Lang is a meme.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 04:39:45 UTC No. 16173313

> 16173303
Computer Engineering (EE and CS mixed into one degree), but math has always been my weakest subject and the entirety of my math experience in high school was
"learning" something in class and then pooping it out of my brain a few weeks later and never really internalizing anything.
I want a deep understanding on a fundamental level of math from elementary school all the way up to calculus because l plan on testing into my classes for credit since I have to pay for the classes since I failed them too many times and the test in price is only 70$ for calc 1 and 2.

I took intro to digital systems last summer and it was just Boolean algebra so I got to learn that from the ground up.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 04:45:10 UTC No. 16173316

>>16173306
What do you recommend? Like I said I read through the first chapters of velleman, zhang, hammack and jay and thought Hammack had the content ordered more logically and his prose is easier to read, but it was only a one chapter impression, but I plan on keeping that as my intro to proofs book.

Apostol/Spivak are shilled here for calculus and i read through the free samples on amazon and apostol's prose just seems better and more fun to read so I plan on keeping him for calculus.

That leaves the entire rest of math between basic logic and calculus, and lang was shilled here and on leddit as well as from some math incel youtubers so I figured it would work, I am open to any suggestions.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 05:04:06 UTC No. 16173336

>>16173231
No, it's a meme. I repeat: do not read proof books. Nobody in the history of math ever had to read a book on proving things before... reading a book on proof-based math.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 05:05:55 UTC No. 16173340

>>16173231
>easiest to read
you're never going to learn math if you're not willing to step out of your comfort zone

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 05:09:52 UTC No. 16173348

>>16173230
>twice in college
Did you have a shitty teacher or something? Usually professors give you a leg up if you’re having issues with math.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 05:10:58 UTC No. 16173351

>>16173316
read Amann Escher instead of Spivak or Apostol. Makes more sense to treat analysis and calculus simultaneously if you're serious about learning math. Not to mention, Amann Escher is entirely foundational, it expects no prior knowledge whatsoever and you get an extremely deep understanding out of it.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 05:31:43 UTC No. 16173373

>>16173230
Skip basic math and go right into godements analysis books

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 05:40:18 UTC No. 16173379

>>16173351
seconding this. These books are amazing and saved my ass in uni

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 05:50:27 UTC No. 16173385

>>16173340
I mean easiest to read as in not dogshit prose. Dogshit prose is not going to be conducive to learning math I would imagine.

>>16173348
I didn't have any discipline to work on math outside of class (I was 18) + my algebra fundamentals were so bad, I just shouldn't have been in college, I was only going because of societal expectations and parental pressure. Now I'm 24 and ready to go back.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:00:04 UTC No. 16173399

>>16173348
>>16173385
Forgot to mention they were all indian women as well, I just hated going to class lmfao.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:02:21 UTC No. 16173403

>>16173385
>I mean easiest to read as in not dogshit prose
Hamack is the definition of garbage prose. As he "introduces" induction, he feels it's necessary to write multiple pages about some analogy on dominos that makes no sense whatsoever and never gives you the actual definition. At every point he makes up some retarded analogy to relate the math to the "real world" but they're as sensical as high-school math problems ("Timmy has bought 15 watermelons...").
If you want real-world applications, read Zorich's analysis series.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:03:22 UTC No. 16173407

>>16173230
https://sheafification.com/the-fast-track/

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:09:05 UTC No. 16173419

>>16173316
I prefer https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02031
You'll want to struggle really hard or else you're learning fuck all

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:12:01 UTC No. 16173424

>>16173407
>Link just says the requirements for the list are the books I'm talking about

Guess I'm sticking with my selections then, I'll see you all in a year or two when I come back and have finished them

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:18:03 UTC No. 16173437

>>16173424
it's literally just basic mathematics that coincides

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:19:33 UTC No. 16173439

>>16173424
if you need a year or two to finish Lang it's over before it even started

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:23:46 UTC No. 16173442

>>16173385
>I didn't have any discipline to work on math outside of class
get a ritalin prescription. Works wonders trust me

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:26:25 UTC No. 16173444

>>16173437
Both volumes of apostol are linked
>>16173439
Im including apostol

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 06:42:43 UTC No. 16173453

>>16173424
Post your progress on /sci/ to inspire anons

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 08:53:59 UTC No. 16173557

Unironically just go with the Stewart cannon.

Precalculus by Stewart and Calculus Early Transcendentals by Stewart.

Every other vintage or meme book shilled on 4chan is retarded. These books (stewart) literally spoon feed you as simple as possible with colors, images, diagrams, highlighted words, etc.

Look at the introductory chapters of the precalculus book. A literal bumbling retard could understand them. Meanwhile with MUH GELFAND we are going over stupid shit like the binary system for no fucking reason at all, and in MUH LANG we are displaying badly syntaxed proofs within the first chapter.

Just follow the fucking stewart cannon and then read any intro to math logic/proofs and then a real analysis book after that, but the cannon alone is more than enough to get you through ANY college degree that isn’t a bachelors in mathematics.

btw you will need statistics in your degree

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 15:42:08 UTC No. 16174051

>>16173230
Don’t do this shit. Waste of time. Use Paul’s notes as a refresher for Algebra, Stitz for Precalc, and Apostol (or Stewart for something easier but sufficient) for Calc. You’ll be prepped and ready to go with 4 months of moderate studying.

https://www.stitz-zeager.com/szprecalculus07042013.pdf

https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/

To be honest, you could do everything (excluding Calc) in less than 8 weeks.

Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 18:00:18 UTC No. 16174223

>>16174051
>Waste of time
this. People waste way too much time on precalc. You should get into serious math asap