Garrote at Tue, 28 May 2024 20:32:25 UTC No. 16198169

'ven't

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 20:35:43 UTC No. 16198174

>>16198161
I would congratulate her on her transition and tell her that she's almost passing except for one small detail. Thanks to my elbow fetish I can immediately distinguish a trans woman from a cis woman.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 20:39:28 UTC No. 16198176

Sorry, but I don't care for set-theory based mathematics.

Anonymous at Tue, 28 May 2024 20:51:24 UTC No. 16198191

>>16198161
>Whomst’d’ve’ly’yaint’nt’ed’ies’s’y’es me?
>Why yes, I have.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:24:45 UTC No. 16198486

>>16198161
in the original french maybe its worth it

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:34:20 UTC No. 16198496

>>16198161

I would correct her by stating that the "books" do not refer to the physical volumes as such, which have been very confusingly re-organized and re-published at various points, but rather to the core topics, or parts of the work: set theory, algebra, general topology, and so on. I would then invite her to read the English Wikipedia article for an overview of the group's history, of which I am the principal author. I would also remind her that the group seems to be more active over the past decade or so, and seem to want to add new parts to their work. Finally, I would acknowledge that although I have not read the core mathematical work, I do in fact have the 14 print volumes of the English translation of Bourbaki, mention that I would like to get Algebra, Chapter 8 (now in English paperback) at the next yellow sale, and let her know that she's welcome to check out my collection if she wants.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:35:17 UTC No. 16198501

Considering buying algebra 1-3. Is it really worth it?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 01:51:19 UTC No. 16198516

>>16198501

Just by flipping through it, it's dense and autistic. It starts out with the most primordial object, a magma, and then goes from there to describe other objects. I have no idea what value you might get out of it.

One of the main complaints with Bourbaki is the extremely dry presentation. They intended the Elements as the strictest possible, most rigorous presentation of real math, but their methodology is to "work backwards" in an odd way that is counter-intuitive. They introduce the most abtract stuff at the top of any discussion, and then get to the more concrete details in the middle, contrary to normal human learning and cognition. The idea is to easily solve the easy stuff later while having the broadest possible foundation from the start, but in addition to the psychological hurdle of the presentation, the style of presentation also presents a problem in terms of the progression of knowledge and research. In principle you can have some new knowledge, theory, paradigm that upends your first principles, and then you have to blow it all up and start over. This is what they refused to do when Grothendieck wanted to emphasize category theory. It was just too damn hard and so they just left the set theory foundation in place, albeit that they don't actually cite the set theory stuff at all, later on.

The area of the work which has received the greatest praise is the books on Lie Groups and Lie Algebras. I don't speak from personal experience but that's the one that students seem to find the most useful. It also has fun pages of diagrams, Dynkin diagrams and so on, which are useful. Most of the rest of the work is devoid of pictures.

They didn't really intend it to be an intro to math(!), or even a normal math textbook. Originally they wanted to overhaul calculus/analysis instruction and it ballooned from there. They wanted it to be a perfectly rigorous, encyclopedic reference. This has some drawbacks.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 03:58:00 UTC No. 16198626

>>16198501
Anything autistic is inherently evil and anti-human so no. Read Arnold's Classical Mechanics or something; much better.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 12:13:48 UTC No. 16199022

No I'm basically illiterate

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 13:31:30 UTC No. 16199082

>>16198161
uh, no. Why would I?

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 14:08:30 UTC No. 16199113

rate elements of mathematics from 1-5 on rigour.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:14:23 UTC No. 16199181

>>16198516
>frogs are retarded fags
>news at 11
fuck jews and fuck Frenchmen. that goes double for Jewendieck

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:36:00 UTC No. 16199197

>>16198176
>axioms, schaxioms
>let's play fast and loose and just gloss over any paradoxes.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:42:27 UTC No. 16199209

>>16199197
I'm saying I prefer categorical foundations. Set is just one category among many.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:58:10 UTC No. 16199225

i say yes whore

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:58:40 UTC No. 16199226

>>16199209
>itt: i ignore isomorphisms.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 15:59:16 UTC No. 16199227

>>16199209
same, i wish there was bourbaki for cats

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 17:56:28 UTC No. 16199368

>>16198161
how is this about science? off-topic.

Anonymous at Wed, 29 May 2024 18:42:16 UTC No. 16199427

>>16199227
i prefer bourbaki for bourbaki myself

Anonymous at Thu, 30 May 2024 02:09:25 UTC No. 16200111

>>16199368

Yes, you're right. The board name, science and smegma, entirely omits any mention of mathematics, this thread's topic. And since math has no bearing on science, the current thread plainly does not belong on the science and smegma board.