Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 09:32:28 UTC No. 16189228
>>16189213
>Haha I'm going to deliberately post a an anime girl reading a book she never would instead of a character who actually would read a book like that, aren't I funny?
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 15:58:54 UTC No. 16189671
>>16189267
american undergrad slop
if a book has glossy pages with gratuitous colors and images everywhere, it's junk
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 18:10:06 UTC No. 16189823
>>16189816
I'm reading this right now and getting filtered.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 18:25:21 UTC No. 16189844
>>16189823
It's very dense, and takes time to digest, but I think it's worth it if you can stomach it. His method of introducing covering spaces is quite unique compared to other books, and he goes into very through detail on his proofs where Hatcher kind of just hand waves things. It's a real algebraic topologists book, kind of like the "rudin" of alg top.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 19:44:28 UTC No. 16189984
>>16189213
A wonderful set (1-3). People either respect it or immediately start melting down seething with anger.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 19:48:13 UTC No. 16189992
>>16189984
It's definitely mad alright. The biggest problem is that it's German and German's are generally pretty terrible math teachers (even if they are often fairly competent mathematicians).
If you want a fairly rigorous approach to calculus (which is really what this series is) it's a decent alternative to something like Spivak. Just don't buy the set thinking you'll get what the rest of the world calls analysis. You won't.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 19:54:18 UTC No. 16189996
>>16189992
Wow quicker than I thought. No, it's far more comprehensive than Spivak, even if we include his book on manifolds too. Also I have looked at many "American" books on analysis and they barely cover more than Tommy 1.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:02:36 UTC No. 16190010
>>16189996
Are we talking about the same series? There's a reason nobody actually takes German education or industry seriously anymore. It's not an accident that even the Italians and the French are more relevant than you guys in STEM in the 21st century.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:07:23 UTC No. 16190016
Another good set of Analysis books is the four volume series by Roger Godement. Very amusing and opinionated (French) but very enjoyable to read, a wild ride for sure.
After working through his analysis books (I'm into book 2), I found his Algebre text, again translated into English from the original French. The French (Cours d'algèbre 1963) preface contains an amusing warning to the reader about not being racist and xenophobic by ignoring mathematics from people other than the French... because (paraphrasing) the French are only 1/14th of the White population, so only have a 1/14 chance of producing a good paper.
The book is definitely oriented towards beginners in Algebra, and I think it has some useful first chapters that students will find helpful, especially if they're meeting proofs and abstractions for the first time, but being a descendent of the Bourbaki, Godement's book is huge and quite comprehensive for most of what you need from an Undergrad algebra text.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:11:11 UTC No. 16190020
>>16190010
>Are we talking about the same series?
Well, I'm talking about the series I have shown you as plain as day. It's up to you to recognize if you've read it.
>nobody actually takes German education or industry seriously anymore.
Amann is either Austrian or Swiss, Escher is German. Both are very serious countries when it comes to mathematics. ETH Zurich is still considered a series school, and German companies such as Siemens (to name but one) are taken vary seriously industry.
You see, Amann has raped you so hard you're talking racist nonsense. I wasn't kidding when I wrote that it's either respected or rage inducing.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:13:34 UTC No. 16190029
>>16190016
Heh, exported that as a pdf by mistake. It's just the cover, not the book.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:15:23 UTC No. 16190034
Waiting for the altland schizo to show up
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:16:17 UTC No. 16190036
>>16190034
That dude has to be a bot.
Muh solutions on libgen! Pussy in bio.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 20:47:49 UTC No. 16190088
>>16190020
> You see, Amann has raped you so hard you're talking racist nonsense.
No, I had just never heard of it until it was repeatedly mentioned here. It seems like a very alright way of approaching analysis. They do a mixture of what you'd get in a typical analysis course here in the US with what you'd get in a typical "honors calculus" course and that's fine.
It suffers from the same problem that pretty much all German math texts suffer (with the notable exception of Greub's Linear Algebra and Multilinear Algebra which are both fantastic) in that it's "comprehensive" but all of an inch deep.
Yes, Spivak is less "comprehensive" in that it covers less topics, but students who use this book will actually come away with a deep understanding of the proof based approach to calculus. You could say much the same thing about the standard analysis texts used in America (it's not an accident that Rudin's PMA is the standard for upper undergrad level analysis in most of the English speaking world).
Btw, I don't just only like American books/author's. I just have found that I dislike German authors and their approach to education. You get a bunch of people with "comprehensive education" that start their proofs with inversion of non-invertible matrices because they don't actually understand and of the subjects their university covered.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:28:31 UTC No. 16190152
>>16190088
>No, I had just never heard of it until it was repeatedly mentioned here.
>It suffers from the same problem that pretty much all German math texts suffer ... it's "comprehensive" but all of an inch deep.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:45:52 UTC No. 16190175
>>16189992
>The biggest problem is that it's German
Multi-generational seething.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:55:02 UTC No. 16190185
>>16189238
Sneyd
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 21:55:41 UTC No. 16190187
>>16190152
Let's take a look at what's covered in the first 120 or so pages in Amann Analysis 1)
> 26 pages of basic set theory
> 20 pages of natural numbers and uncountability
> 6 pages of group theory
> 16 pages of rings fields and polynomials
> 4 pages on the rationals
> 9 pages on the reals
> 5 pages on complex numbers
> 13 pages on vector spaces
Instead of actually devoting real resources to a proper coverage of any of these indivual topics, they instead give a 3 second summary version of 9 separate topics (only 4 of which are actually necessary for an introduction to modern real analysis, with the rest being better relegated to their respective courses, especially the algebra topics).
This is not a good way to teach analysis. It is a "drive-by" slap and dash coverage of a mix of algebra, set theory, and the construction of the real field before getting to anything actually analysis. What is the point of the half assed coverage of algebra and linear algebra taking up so much real estate of the analysis book?
Then when they finally get to analysis in part 2 they spend all of 7 pages on convergence of sequences! The introduce the definitions, drop a few propositions without giving context or motivation and then close the section as if that's actually a way to teach the subject!
Let's compare this to one of the easier American real analysis undergrad textbooks (Ross's Elementary Analysis). Ross's book is a good bit shorter, but its main focus, real analysis, it spends far more time and does a much better job.
They give a brief coverage of the construction of the real numbers (which is really what the focus should be on starting an undergrad real analysis book), and then spend 76 pages in the sequences chapter actually motivating and developing the topic which gets 37 pages of coverage spread out over 9 subsections in Amann.
It's genuinely just a worse way to teach the topic.
>>16190175
Lol, good one.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 22:03:02 UTC No. 16190204
>>16189671
The cengage ones are the worst. These books are super popular for intro and gen ed classes. Much of the time, they're selling unbounded versions of these textbooks, so you're pay $100-$300 for a stack of loose leaf printouts that your pobably no even going to read.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:30:09 UTC No. 16190342
>>16190204
I dislike cengage, but the worst of this form is by far McGraw Hill connect. That shit is terrible beyond belief
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:36:42 UTC No. 16190350
>>16190187
You're writing paragraphs of nonsense to justify your very silly notion that you don't like the book because it's "German". All of those intro topics are necessary to teach their program, which is spread across three books. If you had read it, they do even mention that the Algebra portion is minimal to serve their purposes, but that it's not a replacement for a separate book. There's at least one proof in (2 or 3) I forget which, where they direct you to Artin's book.
> they spend all of 7 pages on convergence of sequences!
All of part 2 is on convergence!!! What's more, the story doesn't even end there. You're employing the moronic tactic of pseuds who quote-mine snippets which they think bolster their argument without employing any real understanding. You took a 3 second glance at the table of contents and think you are qualified to speak on it.
I really don't see much point trying to converse with you, as clearly not only are you incapable of arguing in good faith, you push illogical arguments such as: book bad cuz German.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:38:36 UTC No. 16190353
>>16189267
>12th edition
Oof. That's a cash cow book.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:45:22 UTC No. 16190361
>>16190350
> I really don't see much point trying to converse with you, as clearly not only are you incapable of arguing in good faith, you push illogical arguments such as: book bad cuz German.
Then don't respond. I don't dislike books because they are German. I dislike the "German style" of textbook writing which is at once overly terse and obsessed with cramming in as many tangential side topics as possible.
For what it's worth, I also dislike the "modern American style" where textbooks grow to these 1000 page monstrosities which are so hand-holdy and full of these high gloss images to justify a $200-300 price tag.
In my opinion the best approach to education on early topics in mathematics tend to be focused (meaning not every topic under the sun is given a superficial treatment), well motivated, and generally in a bit more depth on the fewer topics they cover. If you want to cover 1000 different side topics and relationships with side topics that's fine if your aim is to be a reference text. It makes for terrible pedagogy.
German college students don't help this reputation for what it's worth. Generally you tend to be very smug about how "ahead" your schools are and then you can't solve the intermediary problems from the most hand-holdy of American math textbooks because you never actually learn to build a context/meaning for the subject.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:45:57 UTC No. 16190362
>>16190187
>drop a few propositions without giving context or motivation
Holy shit. This book isn't for you, get something which holds your hand like Abbott. Better yet, stick to glossy books with lots of colours and photos of blacks playing basketball to "motivate" you.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:48:29 UTC No. 16190367
>>16190362
This is supposed to be an introductory book for early college students (read 17-18 year olds) who are mathematically immature. This is not a Springer GTM book.
Yes, for books on introductory topics intended for an audience early in their education there should be a bit more handholding if you want your audience to actually learn something (as opposed to memorizing definitions with no understanding of how any of the 1000 different disconnected topics in the book related).
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:49:35 UTC No. 16190370
>>16189267
utter dogshit
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:49:55 UTC No. 16190371
>>16190361
>Generally you tend to be very smug about how "ahead" your schools are and then you can't solve the intermediary problems from the most hand-holdy of American math textbooks
Do you have any proof of this whatsoever?
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:51:25 UTC No. 16190374
>>16190371
Yes, every single time this book is brought up on this board. Including earlier in this chain of replies. >>16189996
Come on Hans. Keep up. It's getting embarrassing.
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:55:14 UTC No. 16190384
>>16190367
Just a few posts ago you were complaining that they included introductory material in the preliminary part. I'm sorry if you had expected more basketball photos.
>>16190367
>for early college students
Yes, but at top schools. And these are "German" students after all, so they are ALL 6'8" blond Aryan übermenchen with 160 IQs, (minimum) who have all solved American mathematics in pre-school....
Anonymous at Thu, 23 May 2024 23:58:03 UTC No. 16190388
>>16190374
Ok, so no proof that Germans cannot handle American hand-holdy books. I think we're done.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:01:30 UTC No. 16190395
>>16190384
I wasn't complaining about the book including introductory material. I was complaining about it including irrelevant material. Teaching about groups and rings and linear vector spaces isn't introductory material for real analysis, it's irrelevant material, and not covered to an appropriate level of depth to actually provide any real connection at that.
Also, no, these students are like 90% Turks and Albanians (if the school is lucky).
>>16190388
The almost total irrelevance of German mathematicians, engineering and science in the 21st century is plenty proof alone.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:01:59 UTC No. 16190397
>>16189213
>Post god-tier books
If it's not in here, you don't seed it. Simple as.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:03:18 UTC No. 16190399
>>16190392
Actually it's kind of cute :)
I in general like the aesthetics of the book and the general design language of the Birkhauser series generally. Perhaps my favorite measure theory book (Cohn's Measure Theory) is also Birkhauser and is very good.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:04:23 UTC No. 16190403
>>16190395
>Teaching about groups and rings and linear vector spaces isn't introductory material for real analysis
This is exactly what is meant by "modern" analysis as opposed to classical. In my opinion, a very good example of the classical approach (with lots of applications!) is the two volume series by Courant, but this is really more Calculus than Analysis in the American lingo.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:09:39 UTC No. 16190414
>>16190395
>90% Turks and Albanians (if the school is lucky).
And I'm a leaf so I have no skin in this, but the book was written in the early 2000s, I think the classes that Amann taught may have had an altogether different composition. In addition to Amann, I do recommend Godement (see above), but I don't recommend his analysis series to a "unenthusiastic beginner", it's very non-traditional and was likewise written for a different type of student.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:15:39 UTC No. 16190426
>>16190403
Its interesting that you phrase it this way. When I think "modern analysis" I think the use of topology and measure rather than algebra. Perot's Analysis book is also very algebraic (though at a beginning grad level rather than undergrad), so maybe that it a European vs. Anglosphere thing? I say Anglosphere because English textbooks tend to be much more like American textbooks.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 00:28:45 UTC No. 16190450
>>16190414
I'll take a look at Godement. I've been slowly working through Jean-Paul Penot's Analysis and it's been kind of kicking my ass. I've already technically done courses on baby Rudin and measure but I find that I'm relatively weak on the topology and functional analysis side of analysis.
>>16190426
Penot* not Perot. Oops.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 01:45:23 UTC No. 16190534
>>16190450
>I'll take a look at Godement.
Godement is a madman, enjoy. I think he makes for a very good second pass through the material, so definitely pair it with another if you're learning things for the first time. Everytime I pick up his books I end up learning something.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 12:29:45 UTC No. 16190995
>>16190361
>>16190187
>>16190490
Do you agree with this? What books fit this philosophy? If you disagree, why? And what book would you recommend for introductory ODE?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 12:35:37 UTC No. 16191001
>>16189213
Sailor Venus update as ganguro
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 17:12:53 UTC No. 16191304
>>16190995
I would say I generally agree with the author on most of his points.
Personally, I am not a mathematician, I am a systems engineer/signal processing engineer. This requires I have a very strong foundation in analysis, and a passable understanding of algebra/topology, but I am not someone who is strongly motivated by mathematics for mathematics sake unless it has some utility somewhere. This is also partially why I am not a large fan of books which spend a lot of time on "foundations" that are not actually relevant to a succinct teaching of the subject and could be better handled via a careful teaching of those tangential topics on their own.
With that said, I honestly don't have any great recommendations for introductory ODE textbooks. I'd say my personal favorite is Tenenbaum and Pollard, but that book is also not without problems (though it is very affordable and if you are willing to skip sections that are not relevant to your interests can be a good self-studying tool).
If you want to really have strong fundamental understanding of linear systems or ODE's, you really can't do much better than learning control theory, signal processes and dynamical systems theory. These require you to be comfortable with the basics of a mathematicians approach to ODEs and will give you a very strong intuition and toolkit for dealing with ODE applications in the real world.
PDE's are a bit of a different animal as, at least in my opinion, they really can't be properly approached until you are fairly comfortable with the Lebesgue theory of integration, some Lebesgue integration based Fourier analysis, and some complex function theory (and a bit of numerical analysis won't hurt either).
Best of luck with your ODE journey!
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 18:10:49 UTC No. 16191377
>>16190397
Word play Chad
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 18:31:00 UTC No. 16191399
>>16191304
>Personally, I am not a mathematician,
Explains why you're tarded.
>Best of luck with your ODE journey!
Thanks SignalAnon GPT.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 18:32:38 UTC No. 16191402
fags
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 18:50:55 UTC No. 16191426
>>16191399
Tarded but funded and fairly productive in terms of research. It's almost as if focusing on applying mathematics to solving practical problems is more rewarded than schizoposting on arxiv about obscure sub-problems in category theory.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:00:24 UTC No. 16191449
>>16191426
As he says while schizoposting on /sci/.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:02:32 UTC No. 16191452
>>16191449
Schizoposting on /sci/ is my hobby, not my career. There's a difference. This is just for fun when I'm bored.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:03:38 UTC No. 16191455
>>16191426
>category theory
Even algebraists don't touch this "abstract nonsense", I've only seen keen interest amongst computer scientists very obsessed with programming language theory and type systems, which is somewhat amusing as it pull it into the "applied" field.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:04:52 UTC No. 16191460
>>16191452
>posting on 4chan
>not my career
ngmi.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:21:29 UTC No. 16191479
>>16191460
Not all of us can be as based as you my friend.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:51:58 UTC No. 16191526
>>16189984
This is written by someone who has absolute no craft of writing and organising information: the most soulless Analysis book ever written. I thought Indians write bad but holy hell. It's okay as a reference book, which is exactly why it's recommended by people in this board. They just see the shitload of content and rigour and assume it is good without actually reading it.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:53:49 UTC No. 16191533
>>16191526
Instead of seething (and in the process embarrassing yourself), just recommend an alternative.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 19:59:04 UTC No. 16191542
>>16191533
amazing how seething retards can completely derail a thread
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 20:27:26 UTC No. 16191589
Bates Guide to Physical Exam
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 20:48:06 UTC No. 16191614
>>16191542
Even when there is a proviso in the post warning that it will cause seething too! Personally not a fan of Rudin, but that's fine, I respect that people like it. It's not a religious war.
While we're on the topic of analysis, this book is a fun read for the historical perspective. Godement cites it quite a few times in his Analysis book.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 20:52:50 UTC No. 16191621
>>16191614
Ernst Hairer?
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 20:56:14 UTC No. 16191625
>>16191621
Yes, you know of him? I hope it's not too "German" for our Jewish friend, but according to Wikipedia he's Austrian, as is Wanner. That book is quite different to Amann/Escher in style.
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 20:56:48 UTC No. 16191626
>>16191625
Yeah, because his son is a fields medalist
Anonymous at Fri, 24 May 2024 21:06:50 UTC No. 16191635
>>16191626
Didn't know that. It should be the tagline of the book. "I raised a field medalist, you should probably read the book"
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:08:30 UTC No. 16191958
>>16191304
I haven’t found a single decent ODE book yet. The way I judge them is I go to the chapter on Laplace transforms and if the author doesn’t motivate it, I immediately discard it. So far I discarded every ODE book. The authors just say the transform turns an ODE into an algebraic equation and then proceeds with the definition. Absolute weak sauce. A quick look at wiki says Laplace himself built it in the context of probability theory (generating functions). Why isn’t it introduced this way then? Why obscure math?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:18:41 UTC No. 16191965
>>16191614
I found a calculus book that seems to have relatively the same content but explained better in certain ways and more intuitively. Compare the interpolation polynomial at the beginning of Hairer/Wanner vs. section 12.6 of https://intellectualmathematics.com
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:33:53 UTC No. 16191975
>>16191958
Hairier above has an ODE book, if his analysis style is anything to go by, you might find the motivation you need, but I haven't read it.
That said, why not just read Laplace directly?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:36:30 UTC No. 16191977
>>16189213
The book (they) don't want you to read
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:38:43 UTC No. 16191979
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:42:36 UTC No. 16191980
>>16191979
That's the wrong martin luther, buddy
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:48:10 UTC No. 16191985
>>16191975
Wait, Laplace has other books translated into English besides his celestial mechanics book?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:54:10 UTC No. 16191988
>>16191985
his french despite being centuries old is very readable lol
https://archive.org/details/thoriea
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:54:16 UTC No. 16191989
>>16191614
I don't really like Real and Complex analysis as a self-teaching book but I genuinely think Principles of Mathematical Analysis is a great book for upper undergraduate/introduction to graduate level analysis.
In Real and Complex analysis he focuses so heavily on his proofs being "elegant" that it ends up being a much less useful book to learn from than other similar measure theory and theory of integration books. It's definitely a good book to read through once you already have a good understanding of measure theory though.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 02:56:05 UTC No. 16191990
>>16191988
Unfortunately I don't speak French. French and German are both on the list but at the moment I only speak English and a little bit of Portuguese (Brazilian, not Portugal) and Italian.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 04:37:27 UTC No. 16192059
>>16189267
>>16189671
>american undergrad slop
What's a good alternative then? Mir and Springer books are not an option, I need a physical copy. It's very likely that the problem sets in whatever book I get recommended will amount to little more than simple drills--they won't offer that much of a challenge. That part I do intend to supplement with some Mir title that is explicitly a problem set book, something like Irodov or Krotov's book. I don't need a super autistic recommendation mind you--I don't have a 6-gorrilion-level IQ like most of you--so the only requirements I need it to fit are for it to serve as a proper replacement to Young and Freedman (calc-based replacement which assumes you're learning calc concurrently), and for it to not be so fucking massive; for it to get to the point of whatever's being discussed.
I'm curious, what books are used outside the states?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 04:48:51 UTC No. 16192069
>>16192059
>Springer books are not an option, I need a physical copy.
Eh? Mir I understand, but Springer sells both directly and through many online book sellers, Amazon for example.
I don't know of any great undergrad physics books outside the US, but for mechanics you have Morin's book (Harvard) which is full of problems (many solved) and Klepner (MIT). The older MIT books by A.P. French are very nice and readable too. For electromagtism, Purcell/Morin was good.
I'll let someone more knowledgeable about physics texts take it from here. I often see ether Griffiths and Taylor mentioned, but have never read them.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 05:38:25 UTC No. 16192147
>>16192069
Taylor is quite good for classical mech. Most of the focus is where it should be - focusing on fleshing out methods for solving problems and why they are employed where and when they are. Which is good because I think far too many physics courses once you hit the ODE level tend to just dump endless math methods material on students without getting to the heart of the matter:
>Why are we learning (insert method/technique/formalism here)?
>Because it makes this type of problem solvable.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 06:45:51 UTC No. 16192204
>>16192097
Semi-relevant and would like some advice.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 07:34:01 UTC No. 16192267
>>16189267
Is this a joke?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 13:51:37 UTC No. 16192590
>>16192057
Look into Aluffi, either "Algebra: Notes from the Underground" (undergraduate) or "Algebra: Chapter 0" (upper undergraduate/early graduate I guess?)
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 17:11:56 UTC No. 16192815
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 18:52:33 UTC No. 16192939
>>16192057
Lang, Jacobson (Basic Algebra I/II), Hungerford. One of those should do.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 19:13:22 UTC No. 16192957
>>16189816
based
>>16189984
based
>>16190029
based
>>16190451
based
>>16191614
based
And here is my favorite.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:14:16 UTC No. 16193028
What math books would you recommend for a cute blonde girl who just wants to have fun?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:15:48 UTC No. 16193031
>>16190397
Well I'm already reading a bunch of jewish books anyways might as well read the number 1 right?
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:17:34 UTC No. 16193035
>>16192216
Lmao wtf
good to see non brainrot math memes
or math memes that are just physics memes
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:18:11 UTC No. 16193038
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:23:57 UTC No. 16193047
>>16192059
The OpenStax University Physics series is good enough for the low-level stuff.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:28:21 UTC No. 16193053
>>16192069
IMO, Marion > French for class mech. Also I like Purcell a lot more but Griffiths is probably going to be most accessible.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:30:28 UTC No. 16193058
>>16193053
Upon reconsideration, if OP's calc sucks, Marion's going to be too much. Read Taylor.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 20:30:36 UTC No. 16193059
>>16193028
Visual Complex Analysis by Tristan Needham -- Lots of pretty pictures.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 21:07:50 UTC No. 16193104
>>16192204
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the beauty of Mathematics. The elegance is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of abstract algebra most of the theorems will go over a typical student’s head. There’s also Mathematics’ intrinsic nature, which is deftly woven into its framework - its principles draw heavily from ancient Greek philosophy, for instance. The aficionados understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these equations, to realize that they’re not just challenging- they say something deep about REALITY. As a consequence people who dislike Mathematics truly ARE unfortunate - of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the beauty in the existential statement “Let epsilon be less than zero,” which itself is a cryptic reference to the rigor of proofs in analysis. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Euler’s genius unfolds itself on their notebook pages. What fools… how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Mathematics tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the scholars’ eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they’re within 5 proof steps of my own (preferably fewer) beforehand.
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 21:16:16 UTC No. 16193115
>>16193028
There are a few fun Halmos boois that are around 100 pages and can be read in a day (lectures on ergodic theory, Introduction to Hilbert Space and the Theory of Spectral Multiplicity, lectures on Boolean algebra) but they require a decent mathematical background to read
Anything by John Stillwell is a good choice at any level
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 22:20:27 UTC No. 16193236
>>16193028
I unironically don't know how I should answer this
Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 22:29:55 UTC No. 16193249
>>16193236
Since that is invariably a deluded troon, perhaps category theory is to xers liking? They love excessive complexity (imagine trying to be a woman) and want zero attachment to the real world (they will never be a woman). This isn't just a sardonic comment, troons love the programming language Haskell, which has category theory roots.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 04:03:02 UTC No. 16193563
>>16192069
>>16192069
>>16192147
I think the way I should go about it is to learn the general concepts of mechanics and electromagnetism with a not-too-rigorous undergrad book, and then go through the fundamentals quickly with a more rigorous book--something that uses more complex mathematical methods that would otherwise go over my head as a mathlet (provisional). These in-particular caught my attention:
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/physi
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/physi
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/physi
On a semi-related note, It's really annoying having to sift through pop-sci slop even when explicitly selecting "textbooks". Also, it seems like there's a shortage of textbooks, or at least that they aren't as poorfag-tier cheap anymore.
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 05:59:26 UTC No. 16193635
>>16192059
Everyone has to go through freshman physics
They're perfectly fine if you're studying physics for the first time
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 06:40:59 UTC No. 16193669
>>16190729
I got PTSD from this book
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:12:50 UTC No. 16193801
>>16190342
McGraw Hill gives me nausea
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 10:17:10 UTC No. 16193900
>>16189389
Isn't this quite old already?
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 11:42:02 UTC No. 16194012
>>16190451
Redpill me on this
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 11:59:26 UTC No. 16194023
>>16190729
>metric version
DISGUSTING
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 19:48:12 UTC No. 16194615
>>16190342
>McGraw Hill
>Pearson
Both quite annoying.
What decent ones are left? Springer forgot how to bind books properly as soon as Print on demand arrived.
Springer
Oxford University Press
Cambridge University Press
Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 19:56:17 UTC No. 16194625
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 09:32:58 UTC No. 16195509
>>16194625
Do you think this is a ylyl thread?
Anonymous at Mon, 27 May 2024 21:59:39 UTC No. 16196614
>>16196071
meme
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 02:27:30 UTC No. 16196976
>>16193031
>jewish
Clearly you've never read the fucking thing, you clueless retard.
>But I'm just sure Moses was a Jew
No, he wasn't, and neither are the modern mixed people who CLAIM to be Jews to steal the land that was properly Palestine.
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 02:29:01 UTC No. 16196980
>>16196976
Are you black-israelite posting in this thread right now? Nigga are you serious?
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 02:42:47 UTC No. 16196992
>>16189213
>Element of Statistical Learning theory
Yeah, I need to finish this book. read it halfway thru a few years ago.
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 08:40:27 UTC No. 16197397
>>16196976
Jesus was a jew
Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 18:11:08 UTC No. 16197983
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:41:36 UTC No. 16198508
>>16189213
What are the pre-reqs for this book?
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 04:05:17 UTC No. 16198633
>>16198508
common sense
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 04:21:22 UTC No. 16198648
>>16198508
it's not that hard, I'd say if you can pass 4.0 an introductory undergrad statistic course you can read it easily.
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 06:00:18 UTC No. 16198741
>>16198508
Basic calculus, linear algebra, and a bit of introductory undergrad probability theory. Some familiarity with optimization and Lagrange multipliers also won't hurt.
Of the "big three" for statistical learning at that time (Bishop, ESL and Murphy) ESL is the easiest by a good bit and has far more emphasis on frequentist approaches to statistical learning.
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:35:02 UTC No. 16199419
>>16198310
incredibased organometallic chemist
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:49:20 UTC No. 16199433
It was mentioned in another thread, but this list is remiss without Zorich Analysis. Great book (two volumes) that starts from basically zero and takes you through advanced calculus and introduces you to upper level analysis. Originally Russian, translated into quite a few languages
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 20:22:28 UTC No. 16199573
>>16199433
Do you think this is worth going through for practice/exercises even if you've already acquired some basic background in analysis (e.g., baby Rudin and some measure theory)?
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:08:50 UTC No. 16199673
>>16199573
I always think 'good' Analysis books are worth reading, but there are no solution manuals to the exercises, unless you can find some q/a from math.stackexchange.
I'd say if you're interested in some of the applications to physics then definitely do so. If you want a more esoteric journey through analysis, Godement (he doesn't even include exercises). If it's just for problems, I think a dedicated problem book is the way to go since they have solutions.
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:16:38 UTC No. 16199683
>>16199673
I would say I'm not particularly interested in applications to physics. Physics often manages to be as tedious as pure mathematics while having as little honesty about the inherent limitations of their approach as theoretical statistics.
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 21:47:16 UTC No. 16199750
>>16193028
"girl" yeah right trannie
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 22:09:11 UTC No. 16199786
>>16199683
biggest pseud take of the thread kek
Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 22:23:52 UTC No. 16199803
>>16199786
Physics is an inferential modeling discipline. It's fine to study if you understand it as such.
What you aren't doing when you learn physics is studying something like "the source code of the universe" or something like this. Any honest physicist will tell you such.
All models are wrong but some models are useful.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 00:47:20 UTC No. 16200022
>>16189238
The name's Sneyd, James Snyed.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 03:10:36 UTC No. 16200158
>>16199673
What are some applications of analysis to physics?
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 03:24:05 UTC No. 16200177
>>16200133
From the looks of it, I'd guess you are in for linear algebra problems.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 04:32:17 UTC No. 16200222
>>16200177
what do you mean?
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 07:53:41 UTC No. 16200439
>>16200222
Wasted trips
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 08:36:51 UTC No. 16200471
>>16200158
Literally the entire thing.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 08:45:15 UTC No. 16200480
>>16190397
Okay, then get off your computer and go fend for yourself in the wild from now on.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 08:47:44 UTC No. 16200484
>>16193104
>math tattoo
Cringe. All tats are cringe, but especially ones meant to virtue signal.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 08:48:36 UTC No. 16200486
>>16189213
Pythagoras' golden mean/laws it's not quite a book more like a philosophical intake on spirit
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 08:49:26 UTC No. 16200488
>>16196976
Yes, Moses was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew. Most heroes in Scripture are Jews. The writers of Scripture are Jews. Your historical revisionisms are pointless.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:00:24 UTC No. 16201377
>>16200491
bad
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:07:36 UTC No. 16201397
>>16200471
Hey, that's not entirely fair. There's a lot of physicists who concern themselves with professional schizoposting about gravitational silly string rather than using analysis/differential geometry to make axiomatic statements about material processes.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:44:20 UTC No. 16201480
>>16200471
Mathematicians will never tell you this, but the entire enterprise is driven by Physics. Basically a physics problem emerges, and the mathematicians derive useful applied equations to model the observations and attempt to predict future events from said models. Then the physicist goes off and does more experiments but the mathematicians take the problem and hide themselves away and continue to torture the original problem by asking "what if what if what if what if...???" until they can pretend it was never even a physics issue to begin with. Some of the looniest treat the idea of having any applicable real-world use to their mathematics with scorn and derision. This is a cope though, if you look back at the most prominent decisions, you will find their work rooted in something to do with physics, or day I say... engineering.
t. amateur mathfag.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:45:21 UTC No. 16201483
>>16201480
>most prominent decisions
Weird autocorrect: most prominent mathematicians.
Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 21:47:35 UTC No. 16201488
>>16201480
It's kind of interesting the way it goes back and forth. I'd say in the last 100 years or so it has swung very much in the other direction. Most of the recent developments in theoretical physics have emerged from some mathematical framework suggesting something to be the case and then it is both theoretically and empirically interrogated.
Physics, economics, engineering etc. all clearly inspire mathematics, which then develops the axiomatic frameworks the applied disciplines use to approach their next round of problems.
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 02:27:26 UTC No. 16201850
>>16199433
Blessed book
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 05:42:30 UTC No. 16202080
>>16199433
The first edition cover had much more SOVL.
Anonymous at Fri, 31 May 2024 18:44:02 UTC No. 16202822
>>16189238
This book looks interesting
t. mathfag
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 01:56:36 UTC No. 16203406
>>16203401
Easy math by the looks of it.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 02:00:47 UTC No. 16203411
>>16203406
Well yes, I'm wondering if it's any good.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 02:02:45 UTC No. 16203416
>>16203411
The author seems highly competent, it probably is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 04:10:52 UTC No. 16203564
>>16203401
Proficiency in calculus prerequisites
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 04:23:13 UTC No. 16203582
>>16200491
Nice, these retards could benefit from them books
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:27:10 UTC No. 16204925
>>16197983
Used to be a top-tier math student but haven't utilized those skills since high school. I've been thinking of refreshing my memory on it though because I've recently taken an interest in coding. Are there any recommended prerequisites for this book? Or books that make good accompanying material to this one?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:33:32 UTC No. 16204927
>>16204925
The only prerequisite this book assumes is a decent understanding of symbolic logic and inference rules. I'm supplementing it with How to Prove It.
Other than that, the rest should be fine.
You should join the discord, we have a group that's going through the book.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:36:20 UTC No. 16205025
>>16204927
Sorry, but not interested personally. I'm very much all over the place in regards to my readings on other subject matter and my schedule is currently unpredictable. Whenever I join Discord servers I just end up lurking and never engaging with anyone anyway. However, I do appreciate the additional details you have provided me.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:13:04 UTC No. 16205098
>>16197983
Man I wish the math relevant to physics was useful in cs
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:17:59 UTC No. 16205102
>>16189267
>>16189267
I just got hired in in a pretty mid/high tier physics lab. I think this book is great. If you can solve any problem in this book without google you are in a good spot for grad level physics books. Also it has a ton of good diagrams.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:20:06 UTC No. 16205106
so many springer books. lads bring out the fucking ancient publishers....
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:35:58 UTC No. 16205131
>>16205106
Not ancient in real terms but the Athena Scientific publisher makes me laugh. Most if not all of the authors are Greeks in the orbit of MIT who seem to have taken over the fields of Optimization, Control theory, Reinforcement learning etc. All very good books too.
Did the jews try to block these few Greek guys from positions so hard that they formed a clique against them? These odds make me think of Sparta, but... they went with Athens.
http://www.athenasc.com/
Their probability book and the one on Linear Optimization were very good reads.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:45:58 UTC No. 16205151
>>16205106
Undergrad is admiring Springer, Grad is realizing Dover was the patricians choice all along.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:53:58 UTC No. 16205158
>>16189970
>edited by Probstein
shit tier jew book
>>16196071
>Yaqub
higher education is so much worse with jews
>>16197983
>Lehman
>Meyer
algorithms stolen by the jews
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:53:10 UTC No. 16205205
>>16205098
What's the math thats relevant to physics? Calculus?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:56:40 UTC No. 16205210
>>16202080
>The first edition cover had much more SOVL
many such cases
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:40:50 UTC No. 16205277
>>16205205
That and pretty much anything that has it and linear algebra as prerequisites. "Continuous math"
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:47:37 UTC No. 16205291
>>16205205
All of the useful parts, and even some of the not so useful parts.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:49:45 UTC No. 16205297
>>16205158
>>Yaqub
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:50:57 UTC No. 16205299
>>16199463
Tldr on this?
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:12:24 UTC No. 16205342
>>16205131
I'm pretty sure Athena scientific was started by Bertsekas. I like Bertsekas in some ways. His nonlinear programming book is kind of hot trash unless you are already fairly comfortable with convex analysis. It's weird because in some ways it's very practical, but the exercises have very little to do with the material in the sections and often are relying on a fairly deep real analysis background that the typical engineering student who uses his book won't have.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:37:11 UTC No. 16205392
>>16205342
For a while I had assumed Bertsekas and Bertsimas were the same person, having read two of their respective books some years apart. They also shared the same co-author too to add to my confusion.
Convex Analysis is definitely something I need to revisit. This giga-brain Bertsekas has a book on that too (naturally). I also noticed that a few of the new Bertsekas books are actually gratis.
Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:41:36 UTC No. 16205395
>>16205392
I have all three of the "classic" books on Convex Analysis (Rockefeller, Boyd and Bertsekas) and they all are so different it's surprising at times.
I like his convex analysis book and find it more elegant in its presentation than the convex analysis portions of the nonlinear programming book. It's also great that the complete solutions to that book are available for free on his website so if you aren't certain about a difficult proof you can find an answer.
If I'm being honest though, his Probability book is not my favorite in the "engineering" or "applied math" side of probability. It's good for a slightly more serious coverage of the typical undergrad material but it is "incomplete" feeling.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:06:32 UTC No. 16205583
>>16205205
https://eprints.ukh.ac.id/id/eprint
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 08:33:18 UTC No. 16205930
>>16205395
Thanks for the rec, I'll definitely take a look at his Convex book.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:15:03 UTC No. 16206176
>>16205395
>If I'm being honest though, his Probability book is not my favorite in the "engineering" or "applied math" side of probability. It's good for a slightly more serious coverage of the typical undergrad material but it is "incomplete" feeling.
Have you read a book that felt more complete for probability?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:20:34 UTC No. 16206184
>>16206176
Yes, a few actually.
If you're looking at the Riemann integral side of probability, Papoulis' Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes is much more thorough in both depth and breadth. A bit more challenging, but much better.
If you're willing to give your hand at measure theoretic probability >>16196919 has a lot of focus on practical applied probability as well.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:18:31 UTC No. 16206271
>>16205395
Boyd's book is good, and it makes me surprised that in his in-person class he teaches like he's embarrassed to teach his own subject when he's exceptionally good at it - it's almost as if he prefaces everything he says with an apology.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:33:14 UTC No. 16206299
>>16205131
>These odds make me think of Sparta, but... they went with Athens
Obviously because Athena is the goddess of wisdom...
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:38:00 UTC No. 16206506
>>16206271
Are there online recordings of his lectures or were you fortunate enough to have attended one of his in person lectures?
I'm very much in the "east coast" world of systems EE so I've never had the opportunity to attend any of the courses in the Stanford/UC world.
That might also be somewhat of a Stanford thing because the few times I've seen Bob Gray teach a seminar on Information Theory he is extraordinarily reserved about citing his own textbook despite having written probably the best book on measure theoretic information theory out there.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 18:53:20 UTC No. 16206519
>>16205583
NTA but thanks for the reference
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:21:27 UTC No. 16206556
>>16205395
Was pic rel the book you read?
http://www.athenasc.com/convexity.h
He also has another called "Convex Theory" which is available free of charge, which I assume is more of an easier introduction to the above.
https://web.mit.edu/dimitrib/www/Co
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:42:26 UTC No. 16206591
>>16206556
Yes, that is the book I'm talking about.
The convex optimization theory book is a shorter book with less detail but covers some of the same material to a lesser difficulty/depth. The Convex Analysis and Optimization book also covers Lagrange Multiplier theory (Fritz-John conditions, sensitivity analysis, exact penalty methods and extensions), Langrangian Duality (Geometric multipliers, existence and sufficiency of said multipliers, Langrangian duality theorems and Fritz John conditions when there is a duality gap), Conjugate duality (Fenchel and conic) and some computational methods for dual optimization.
If you want a more theoretical and analytical approach the convex analysis book is good. If you don't want/need that you can probably get away with the free book.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:49:54 UTC No. 16206690
Are there any mathematical analysis books that don’t overwhelm the reader with 1000 exercices?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:25:49 UTC No. 16206870
>>16206591
I'm too autistic not to want both. I'll order the lager text to work through later this summer.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:29:06 UTC No. 16206879
>>16206690
Why the hell would you want that?
Just ignore them?
If you mean you want things spelled out for you you could look for solutions manuals
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:30:15 UTC No. 16206880
>>16205131
You'd be pretty big brained to have even read all of these textbooks, let alone author them. How does one manage to do this while still looking so happy?
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 22:58:31 UTC No. 16206909
>>16206870
It's a good book imo, but it definitely has that Bertsekas style where it's "proof based" but in a very "engineering/applied math" way. However, unlike the NLP book, the exercises in this one seem to actually make sense and be relevant to the material. I've loosely read all of the chapters but haven't done all of the exercises yet. Slowly working through that piece by piece.
Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 23:46:03 UTC No. 16206970
>>16206909
I've read enough rigorous mathematics lately that applied mathematics has developed a charm.
Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 14:27:39 UTC No. 16207851
>>16189213
What are some good algebraic geometry textbooks?