🧵 Book cover thread
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 19:58:59 UTC No. 16210298
Discuss books that you like, books that you are collecting and perhaps never going to read, shill books, the ways in which you organize your pdfs, and your study plans dependency charts etc. Argue about the correct order to study said material and develop the one true golden path through the sciences as an excuse for not just beginning and making progress, with the requisite snobbery of a 140 IQ poster.
I'll start with pic rel, because volume 1 is always shilled and this is forgotten. It's also on my shelf. It also happens to be good.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 20:55:47 UTC No. 16210417
>>16210298
I learned analysis in the standard American track (Stewart Calculus, baby Rudin for the basics of real analysis, Royden then Rudin for the rest) and I've been tempted to go through the Zorich series for some of the more topology oriented material covered. Do you think it's worth the time if I've already got a decent background in Rudin?
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:01:10 UTC No. 16210433
>>16210417
Zorich isn't really heavy on topology. Amann in 3 volumes is certainly more so, but honestly, I think you should just dive into harder material. Zorich is a good refresher if it's been a long time, but if your analysis is solid, press on. I know many like Munkres, but I'm not too familiar with it.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:17:02 UTC No. 16210463
>>16210433
I haven't read it so maybe my impression from the table of contents is wrong but it seems like Zorich II has a lot of differentiation/integration on topological manifolds stuff in it.
Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:47:18 UTC No. 16210634
I have a related question. I have done differential and integral calculus of a single variable. The course had no rigour to it — what you may call hand-wavy. Could someone in my situation just move along with rigorous calculus of several variables and pretend n = 1 when theorem and important results are proven in [math] \mathbb{R}^{n}[/math]
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:39:46 UTC No. 16211360
>>16210634
No, read Spivak / Apostol first.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:46:06 UTC No. 16212007
>>16210298
Maybe if you actually did the problems in those books you wouldve made mommy and daddy proud you fat fucking retard i hate you
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:50:36 UTC No. 16212011
My current plan is to finish Linear Algebra Done Right and Understanding Analysis to get a basic pure math foundation and then start Algebra: Chapter 0
thoughts?
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:34:15 UTC No. 16212068
>>16212007
Didn't take long for a seething brainlet to turn up.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:42:54 UTC No. 16212086
>>16212011
I would just do Algebra chapter 0 then real analysis, you're going to see some concepts from linear algebra in Algebra chapter 0. I would choose a better analysis book, Like....
Algebra Chapter 0 then The Big Book of Real Analysis, those are the only 2 books I would work through to get a great understanding of pure mathematics. Think about it this way, the PhD qualifications for a mathematics degree are simply just testing you on Algebra in general and Analysis in general, both of those books cover both material comprehensively, from that perspective it would be redundant to work through a pure linear algebra textbook.
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:09:54 UTC No. 16212117
SOMEHOW I MADE IT TO THIS THREAD... /SCI/
Anonymous at Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:59:37 UTC No. 16212191
>>16212086
>I would just do Algebra chapter 0 then real analysis
That is graduate level book, and real analysis is something you should start in undergrad. Also that book is quite bloated, talking about categories in chapter 1 which you won't need.
Read pic related and Zorich I concurrently instead. Then, if you need more advanced algebra you can pick that up later. If you are a physics student that needs to learn linear algebra and Calculus/Analysis fast... well I'll let the shill do his part but there's a good book for that.
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 03:12:15 UTC No. 16212966
>>16210298
Two books out of plenty in my collection:
Higher Algebra by Hall and Knight (1948) and
Handbook of Mathematics, 6th edition (2015, next post)
Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 03:13:30 UTC No. 16212969
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 00:40:09 UTC No. 16218515
>>16210298
Any good stats book recommendation?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 00:42:29 UTC No. 16218522
>>16218515
What kind of statistics and what level of rigor? Introductory undergrad? Introductory grad level? PhD level measure theoretic? Applied vs theoretical?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 01:19:23 UTC No. 16218567
>>16210298
top 10 books i shill as a solid state physicist
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 01:21:29 UTC No. 16218572
>>16218522
Can you recommend undergrad level? I took basic analysis (abbott) and stats before. Just looking for a book that is a bit deeper than the basic.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 01:31:10 UTC No. 16218595
>>16218572
All of Statistics by Wasserman should be good for you. If you want something a little more challenging, Statistical Inference by Casella and Berger is the standard for a reason.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 01:43:33 UTC No. 16218612
>>16218595
Thank you anon, also do you have any that might use measure theory? I just want to look ahead.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 01:49:38 UTC No. 16218624
>>16218612
Testing Statistical Hypotheses by Lehmann is the standard. It's good, but it's a beast of a book.
Another good one that's measure theoretic is Mathematical Statistics by Jun Shao.
Shao's book is more of a "general overview of statistics" but with measure theoretic probability and Lebesgue function spaces. Lehmann's book has a general overview of statistics with this background but is far more focused on hypothesis testing specifically.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 02:48:56 UTC No. 16218708
>>16218624
Thank you for the resources anon. I hope to get there some day.
>also book I'm working on
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 04:36:28 UTC No. 16218838
>>16210298
I thought of collecting modern graduate level physics books but I know I won't read them so I'll just hoard pdfs instead
Want to go through Zorich and Shilov and maybe even listen to the Altland schizo
Going through baby Hassani at a snail's pace right now
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:02:20 UTC No. 16218867
>>16218838
When I looked at Atland (because of the shill) I also checked out Hassani. Hassani seems more advanced, targeting the upper undergrad to graduate level student.
I haven't looked at it too thoroughly so perhaps someone else can talk about how shallow or deep it gets, I would imagine the former as it covers quite a lot of topics. This caught my eye in the preface.
>This is a book for physics students interested in the mathematics they use. It is also a book for mathematics students who wish to see some of the abstract ideas with which they are familiar come alive in an applied setting.
I definitely fit the second category. I've built up a lot of math knowledge, and need to start applying it.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 05:03:31 UTC No. 16218869
Precalculus by Stitz and Zeiger
Calculus Infinitesimal Approach by Keisler
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:19:10 UTC No. 16220230
>>16213303
Does anyone know what the diagram on this cover is?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:23:18 UTC No. 16220242
>>16218567
Why analysis II only? Or do you mean both volumes?
Why thornton instead of Goldstein or some othe graduate textbook? Why Schroeder when you've added pathria?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:12:56 UTC No. 16220342
>>16220242
The topics covered in Tao I are imo done better in other books. My undergrad taught out of Ross which I found to be a neater ramp into the material covered in Tao II.
The physics books are mainly purpose-oriented.
Thornton just about covers all the classical dynamics I’ve run into in my studies. Goldstein is the go-to graduate text, but I honestly don’t like it all that much. I prefer Calkin at that level.
Schroeder is a good intro thermo book that prepared me for Ashcroft & Mermin and subsequent CMP books, with Pathria being the natural follow-up.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:29:04 UTC No. 16220380
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:37:35 UTC No. 16220988
>>16218838
>>16218867
Who is Altland for again? What’s the target audience? I remember going through the first chapter and it felt rushed and unclear why anything is needed. I’m not sure it can replace textbooks on the various topics it covers, feels very much like a reference book.
I did a very standard one var calculus based on Stewart many years ago, along some linear algebra. Will I have trouble going through Altland? How did you find it personally?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 00:38:36 UTC No. 16220990
>>16218595
What about probabilities?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 01:10:39 UTC No. 16221024
>>16220990
Before or after it turns into measure theory?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 01:28:07 UTC No. 16221043
>>16221024
actually what brings me to probabilities is ODEs. every resource on ODE i go over never motivates the Laplace transform. and from what i read historically, Laplace was working on probabilities when he came across this method (moment generating functions?). so it would help my intuition if i learned some probability up to the central limit theorem.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 02:00:00 UTC No. 16221064
>>16220988
It's for Physics students that need to get up to speed with advanced calculus quickly, so they can focus on their studies. I found it useful coming from a pure math / com sci background just to crystalize the applied aspects that are needed, and of course the more 'down to earth' problems. It assumes a standard high school calculus background.
I haven't finished the book yet, but so far I think it's pretty decent. I'm also going to use it to give to programmers I work with who need to brush up on these topics.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 02:07:55 UTC No. 16221073
>>16221043
Ah, okay. Yeah, I understand.
What Laplace was studying were called "branching processes" and he developed what we now call the z-transform (which you can think of as a "sampled" or "discretized" Laplace transform) to develop probability generating functions.
If you can download a copy of this book (it's free on springerlink in many countries) take a look at the first chapter of this book. The rest is Lebesgue integral based which might be more than what you really need, but the section on branching processes should help build some intuition for you for generating functions.
Moment generating functions and cumulant generating functions end up being very important for convergence of random series, but you need a bit more of a sophisticated real analysis approach to make sense of this (though in truth it's basically just either monotone or dominated convergence theory in most cases, if you've been exposed to some introductory Lebesgue integration).
If you want a book that covers a bit of a broader range of probability topics without involving a lot of Lebesgue integration (including covering moment generating functions and some applications of probability to signal processing and systems of differential equations) take a look at Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes by Papoulis. You should also be able to find a PDF of that for free if you search for it.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 02:16:54 UTC No. 16221090
>>1622098
“Math techniques for physicists” books like Altland, Boas, or Arfken are targeted toward mid-undergrad physics students to act as a bridge between the math that appears in lower- and higher-level physics. Really, it’s only needed or helpful in a curriculum where students’ mathematical knowledge consistently lags behind the physics taught, which is unfortunately the case for a lot of American universities. The goal is more to improve students’ technique with a lot of different topics as opposed to the proper exploration you see in a standard math textbook, which is why they read more like reference books. If you self-study any worthwhile texts dealing with vector calc, linear algebra, differential equations, complex variables, and analysis, you could probably rewrite these books yourself, and will likely have a much deeper understanding and appreciation for math and physics. I find their popularity disappointing.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 02:18:25 UTC No. 16221092
>>16221090
For 16220988
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 03:18:30 UTC No. 16221174
>>16221090
Would a physics student have time to study say both volumes of Zorich? Zorich himself taught at the faculty of Mechanics at Moscow State, so that would appear so in a very selective top school, but this isn't typical. In the English preface to the second volume he writes:
>I was happy to learn that this book has proven to be useful, to some extent, not only to mathematicians, but also to physicists, and even to engineers from technical schools that promote a deeper study of mathematics.
Kek at "even engineers"
Altland wrote his books for Germans so his audience isn't the typical unprepared burger student who wasted HS time learning pronouns and muh slavery. There must be a more serious need to teach advanced content earlier on in the student's studies.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:58:57 UTC No. 16221884
>>16221073
very nice, thank you!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:53:50 UTC No. 16221954
>>16213303
>>16220230
The cover picture is of the electric field of an accelerated charge. Outside the "bubble" the field lines are those of a static charge, since the "information" that the charge is moving didn't reach this region yet. The "bubble" has a radius ct, and appears due to the difference between the electric field in the region <ct and the region >ct. The bubble represents radiation from an accelerating charge. When I first studied this it completely blew my mind. Marion's book Classical Electromagnetic Radiation goes deeper on the problem of the radiation by an accelerated charge - there are some special relativity puzzles in this problem.
Purcell's book is very good for an undergraduate. Then you can proceed to Griffith's book and later on to Jackson's book. Reitz's is also good. If you want a hardcore reference, Electrodynamics of continuous media by Landau&Lifishitz is the one.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:27:39 UTC No. 16222031
>>16221954
What about Melvin Schwartz’ book? It’s relativity first too.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 18:02:48 UTC No. 16222409
>>16221954
Once you have the fundamentals, can you just go straight into Landau? Skipping Griffiths and Jackson.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:39:40 UTC No. 16222631
>>16222031
I haven't seen this book anon, so Idk. Iirc, around 2002 there were some controversies about the radiation from an accelerated charge/observer accelerating relative to a charge at rest
>>16222409
Landau's book has not only the traditional EM theory but a lot on condensed matter, superconductivity, magnetohydrodynamics and statistical physics. For example, to describe the properties of dielectrics, it classifies lattice symmetries via group theory and deduces the EM properties of the material. It goes mental on EM and I love it.
You perhaps should read his "The Classical Theory of Fields" first. It introduces the EM fields in a relativistic framework. The second part explains general relativity and even gravitational waves.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:59:57 UTC No. 16222665
>>16222631
That sounds great, thanks. I'll check out his fields book soon. In fact, as that is volume 2 I might as well read his volume 1 as well.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 22:37:10 UTC No. 16223022
for understanding, rigorous explanation make learning much more slower compared to intuitive examples. with that being said, how the fuck do i learn abstract algebra?
i honestly think that all the intelligent people who write math books are not 100% sure of what they're saying and are just parroting the things they were taught.
you can see this difference in CS, a recent field where you can actually go to the very beginning of the things we're using nowadays and return all the way up, with a clear view of everything.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:53:48 UTC No. 16223179
>>16223022
>i honestly think that all the intelligent people who write math books are not 100% sure of what they're saying and are just parroting the things they were taught.
they are just autistic + you are retarded
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:09:33 UTC No. 16223365
>>16221954
nice. thanks for the explanation
For a moment I thought it was something like an antenna
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:11:52 UTC No. 16223371
>>16223022
> you can see this difference in CS, a recent field where you can actually go to the very beginning of the things we're using nowadays and return all the way up, with a clear view of everything.
you can do this with math better than literally any field. you're just a retarded pseud. stfu and do your homework problems, anon.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:46:31 UTC No. 16223656
>>16223022
You can learn it by reading a book on proofs and doing as many exercises as possible from it before moving on to something like Dummit and Foote. Also, if you think you can trace the origins of CS back to the beginning you are hopelessly short-sighted. They literally call it Euclid's algorithm. On the other hand, if you have been able to track the development of CS from back then to the modern day and somehow managed to skip modern algebra completely, please let me know how you did it.
On another note, pictured is one of my favorite texts. Will be going back to it in an attempt to complete every exercise soon. Wish me luck, or not.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:10:46 UTC No. 16223701
>>16223656
Not that anon, but based and plane curve pilled.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:07:06 UTC No. 16224208
>>16210298
no geometers in here?
Elementary Differential Geometry by O'Neill
Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee
Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity by O'Neill
in that order (ideally) but last two can be read together i guess
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:09:56 UTC No. 16224213
>>16212086
>Algebra chapter 0
Category theory isn’t going to happen, just give it up already
🗑️ B4RK0N (300 IQ) 'kneel' at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:30:41 UTC No. 16224229
>>16224213
Cause your madness was to go all the way without limits, you're in this position
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:46:29 UTC No. 16224295
>>16223371
>you can do this with math better than literally any field
yeah but it takes much more longer. think about all the techniques they used for centuries for big calculations before computer arrived. if you know where you come from it's much easier to understand modern ideas. books should be INFORMAL and get to the point quickly.
>you're just a retarded pseud. stfu and do your homework problems, anon.
i'm not euler or gauss, i can't study maths on my own and also study for my useless courses to mantain a high GPA otherwise i won't go into grad school.
ugh, college is really draining all my passion for learning.
>>16223656
>Also, if you think you can trace the origins of CS back to the beginning you are hopelessly short-sighted. They literally call it Euclid's algorithm
99% of the stuff we use today was discovered in the late 20th century. von neumann architecture, operating systems, computer networks, programming languages, data structures and algorithms, AI, etc.. just because machine learning uses maths it doesn't mean it's not a modern idea.
i'm not a total midwit and i understand that CS is a very big field, but you must admit that it's simpler to have a broad knowledge in CS compared to maths.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:51 UTC No. 16224369
>>16224208
Is there a big difference between the second edition of Elementary Differential Geometry and the revised second edition? There's a cheap copy of the second edition on a site I like and I'm wondering if that version difference matters at all.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:51:26 UTC No. 16224814
>>16223656
based courant enjoyer
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:19:23 UTC No. 16225410
>>16225136
MIR books are how I learned math and physics. It's funny that when I decided to find more MaiR books, I found out they were big in India for some reason. Hat archive link, for example, is maintained by a pajeet.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:02:02 UTC No. 16225504
>>16225136
seems gemmy, any recs?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:17:09 UTC No. 16225554
>>16225410
Good relations between the Soviet Union and India at that time
allowed for the trade of technology, materials and especially books
to take place. The subsidization of the books by the state and
translation made it an appealing choice for Indians to take them up.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:26:45 UTC No. 16225585
>>16210298
From my collection, Lectures on the Theory of Elliptic Functions
by Harris Hancock (1958)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:50:21 UTC No. 16225657
>>16210298
Two of my favorites in control theory.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:59:38 UTC No. 16225683
>>16224369
not sure, I have the second.
be warned, O'Neill always has some typos in his books. they're usually pretty obvious if you're paying attention though
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:05:04 UTC No. 16225709
>>16225504
Irodov for sure. Piskunov has good calculus books. For physics students who want a calculus book that caters to them, I think this looks very good: https://archive.org/details/Zeldovi
See this also, it's the blog associated with that collection. https://mirtitles.org/
>>16225410
Then jeet is cool with me, he's doing something useful in maintaining that collection.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 01:29:30 UTC No. 16225949
>>16224295
>college is really draining all my passion for learning
It did for me. I love all the topics I study in uni and even outside uni, but God I'm so tired of uni itself I can't hardly force myself to study uni related stuff.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:25:16 UTC No. 16226036
>>16225949
The politicking was bad before the DEI era, I can only imagine how bad it is to deal with applications and grants in the midst of uppity sheboons and other unqualified quota hires.
Even as a student, dealing with the administration of my math department was annoying.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:03:03 UTC No. 16227224
This has sat on my self for a while. I should probably read it this summer. It came well recommended, which is why I bought it, but of course there's always something else to read or steal your attention.
Numerical Linear Algebra by Trefethen.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:04:22 UTC No. 16227227
>>16227224
Better image
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:24:01 UTC No. 16227358
>>16226969
When should one read this?
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:35:29 UTC No. 16227377
>>16227358
After high school if you're smart.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:39:17 UTC No. 16227384
>>16227358
>>16227377 (me)
Also this is the same for Zorich. Amann/Escher may start off more abstract but the level of difficulty is the same for both books. Both essentially start from scratch.
Consulting both is a good idea. One approach will appeal to you more than the other, and you may even like to bounce back and forth.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:48:08 UTC No. 16227405
>>16210298
>Discuss books that you like, books that you are collecting and perhaps never going to read, shill books, the ways in which you organize your pdfs, and your study plans dependency charts etc. Argue about the correct order to study said material and develop the one true golden path through the sciences as an excuse for not just beginning and making progress, with the requisite snobbery of a 140 IQ poster.
first off...ACHCHUALLY...
second I studied the retard tier engineering, Civil Engineering.
i didnt become a designer but where I studied we do bachelors plus one year called a licesure in Costa Rica
in the US they just take a test and you spend 5 years with a Professional Engineer and then you take another 8 hr test and you can over engineer all your projects to avoid getting sued in court for premature or catastrophic failure and miscalculations or killing a nigga in his sleep with a roof collapse.
lol ok so as per your questions well i find the best way to study PAST university is projects.
you basically are going to be thrown a progression of projects or aspects of projects and it is in that moment where you study specific books.
basically project oriented technique thats used in software engineering
so as per the best way well someone should help discuss an excellent "finishing school" for all ENGRs in lieu of working for a P.E. or concurrent to working for one to make a procedural set of projects given information and mark each step of how to design things and then attach the proper books or even just chapters of books you should reference.
i think if you fully understand that most if not all engineering after uni is whatever is paying the moment you are in in a company that is what you learn. so there is a LOT of jumps and starts and unfinished quandries of how things were carried out at all.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:48:09 UTC No. 16227406
>>16227358
Depends on your background and how fast you want to go. I'd recommend going through an easier more "old school" proof based calculus book first.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:00:41 UTC No. 16227420
>>16210298
i have never been in an as built meeting or as built plans making with any explanation as to changes that could originate from basic "the owner changed his/her mind" to the exotic new tech we stumbled upon and we used that in the project. so the social/technological process is usually high level meetings and if you assist early in the carrer it is usually because you are part of an administrative construction firm and not an engineering design firm. since in the design firm you would be doing monkey work instead of understanding why you did the monkey work that equated to 1.244/19,000 importance to the project ie. you designed a headlight on a new car.
all in all i think many of the excellent engineering-wonder or ENGR-how-to's are great but again disjointed.
i had one class in uni in costa rica where we designed a fictional urbanization with topo map and thats it but we didnt have guidance.
i think those type of classes should be the way any ENGR is taught you deal with concepts as you attack the meat and potatoes so in Civil ENGR the absolute clusterfuck for me is all the math classes and the crazy disjointed shit we did at the end to be faced last (5th year) with the most "complex" calculation using math at a pre-cal level at best to calculate even soil bearing under a trapezoidal foundation...when in real life you skip all that and make the whole damn thing a raft foundation and be done faster and even cheaper (if engr time is expensive in your country) why complicate yourself?
well uni or some sort of new way of teaching by example with proper organizing and choosing projects correctly to fine tune you for whatever may come your way.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:14:39 UTC No. 16227445
>>16227420
do you think this has to do with uni's role changing from being the bridge to academia to being pre-industrial on-site training? i feel like, for engineering at least, it tries to split itself between the two and ultimately a lot of students come out feeling as though they've had an unideal experience either way. that said, i'm saying this as a p-chemist who works with a lot of people who got their bachs in chem eng and felt somewhat unprepared by their coursework for the research environment yet also like their education was so far divorced from industry that they really didn't know what they were getting into by the time they graduated.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:02:09 UTC No. 16227508
>>16227445
i have rewritten this 5 times now lol
there are problems in the world thats why we study
but enough studying has been done to solve a lot of things and even with off the shelf stuff
the problem lies in ...you cant make money if everything is solved
so it is a people problem, people purposely stop or slow down progress in order to create a gap between supply and demand inflating prices
the efficient way to mass produce is solved but who is going to buy it isnt
we have a lot of tech figuring out what we want to buy but to create demand with little supply no one is going to identify the best SOLUTIONS to get rid of the demand they are going to make that gap as wide as possible.
and thats where we are now, we are discussing how to become incredible problem solvers in a world that want to arrest problem solving
we are discussing PEOPLE who deliberately make it their life goal to RUIN solutions.
because of money.
thes world would be a utopia and the control freaks and power hungry would be the revolutionaries... if not already? man this is cray cray
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:11:53 UTC No. 16227526
look i am retired but i was looking at AI algithm that makes wireframe structures its hard to explain.
well i bet you anything you can make a house structure with $2000 and use some bending robot that travels the length of say square rebar lengths and just bends and coil wraps bundles them and not just one but hundreds could make the structure of a house in days.
you house will cost very little, but that would collapse 50% of the world GDP...
so what are we doing here gents?
https://vimeo.com/140768495
picrel are stairs prolly 300 pounds of bent rebar and thats it
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 22:15:23 UTC No. 16227537
>>16227227
Enjoy it, I always do.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:41:04 UTC No. 16227661
Are we being botted?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:32:52 UTC No. 16227713
>>16227661
Probably. I mean, there's also Germans in the thread and they are pretty close to bots also.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:49:12 UTC No. 16227901
>>16227713
"Germans could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this epsilon-neighborhood before. There could be Germans anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his bare chest. "I HATE GERMANS" he thought. Гocyдapcтвeнный гимн CCCP reverberated his entire car, making it pulsate even as the words of a $9 Mir text circulated through his Russian mind and washed away his (merited) fear of Amann/Escher after dark. "With a car, you can go anywhere you want" he said to himself, out loud.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:43:55 UTC No. 16228239
>>16227901
That's funny as fuck. I am ethnically Belarusian so maybe I can't help but hate them on some blood level.
I think the thing that really pushed my dislike of Germans into high gear was the last time I went through the Frankfurt airport. I don't know what is happening there but God damn man, get your shit together.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:00:53 UTC No. 16228584
For whatever reason, Apostol is filtering me harder than Zorich
I'm on chapter 3 of zorich and while the proofs are difficult, I actually want to go through them
haven't budged on ch2 of apostol
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:01:55 UTC No. 16228586
>>16228584
and by I apostol I mean his calculus book, not even his anal lmao
no idea why I bounce off of it so hard
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:16:49 UTC No. 16228895
>>16228584
I read a lot of Apostol during my last year of high school the only thing that kept me going through it was that I *thought* that if I considered it difficult it meant there was something wrong with me. Is chapter 2 the one where he goes over all the trig identities? I remember that part being quite a slog.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:26:18 UTC No. 16228919
>>16228586
>>16228895
Also forgot to add, that while I probably benefited from having read Apostol first, I much prefer Zorich's book overall. That said, Apostol has the advantage in questions being more appropriate to the beginner (even though they are too calculation heavy) and he also covers some analytic geometry and topics in linear algebra which Zorich leaves out.
>>16228239
The German is self-deleting himself faster than anyone else, excepting perhaps the French. Two great powers in mathematics soon to see their national outputs drop to zero.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:02:11 UTC No. 16229665
>>16210417
Zorich is great, I used both it and Rudin when i did analysis the first time. However, if you’ve done this much analysis it’s more worth your time to graduate to Folland, and do some adult analysis
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:15:14 UTC No. 16229680
>>16229665
My "analysis" in the classical sense (up to measure theory and the basics of linear operator functional analysis) is fairly strong. Where I have more weakeness is in the parts of analysis that rely on either geometry or modern algebra (as I am not an actual mathematician and was never required to take algebra or topology/geometry courses in undergrad). My hope was that Zorich (and possibly Amann/Escher) would help me patch up those areas where I am weak that the standard American track doesn't really cover (as they assume you are taking algebra and geometry/topology in dedicated courses so you don't need it in their analysis book).
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:18:35 UTC No. 16229683
>>16228919
It would be quite sad if the modern German were not so frustrating to deal with. I would actually quite like it if they were to return to actually being worth paying attention to again, if this would also come with dropping their insufferable smugness.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:47:58 UTC No. 16229930
>>16229683
>Make up absolute certified bullshit
>Admit it
>You vill pay us anyway
I vill not.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:07:07 UTC No. 16230904
I have 2 terabytes of pdf books that I am never going to read
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:22:47 UTC No. 16231002
>>16230904
Post a list
I don't think I've gone past 200 gb
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:43:23 UTC No. 16231512
>>16229680
Tbh I’d still choose Folland. It covers more of the material you ask for, and you will be comfortable with the harder pace.
However, for algebra I do recommend a dedicated algebra text. Lang if you’ve seen some algebra before, Dummit and Foote if not.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:53:34 UTC No. 16231524
>>16231512
I am a complete novice when it comes to both algebra and topology (outside of the very small about of point-set topology I've been exposed to in the course of baby Rudin/Royden/Rudin and the little bit in the convex analysis book we used).
I'll take a look at Dummit and Foote. It seems like the standard recommendation but it's expensive so I've never gotten around to it. I have a used copy of Munkres that's been sitting on my shelf for a year or so but I've never really bothered to get beyond the review material I more or less already know from basic topology in the context of analysis because it was so boring the few times I've tried.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 02:12:29 UTC No. 16231561
>>16231524
Zorich is certainly intro topology (and perhaps all you need), but at least it won't be at all boring.
I'm not an Algebra expert, but Gorodentsev (2 volumes) has been recommended to me. It's a bit older, but Godement's Algebra is good for undergrad. Originally French, and translated into English.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 02:13:32 UTC No. 16231562
>>16231561
I should include a cover, to keep with the thread theme.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:44:42 UTC No. 16232700
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:26:50 UTC No. 16232922
I was a math major in college who wants to learn some physics. In particular I would like to learn some classical mechanics (lagrangian, hamiltonian) and noether's theorem. What books should I look into?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 18:54:46 UTC No. 16233076
>>16232922
Landau / Lifshitz.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 19:51:29 UTC No. 16233164
>>16227508
>still believes in supply and demand
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 23:44:18 UTC No. 16233508
>>16213303
good book, better than gayass griffiths
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 02:57:06 UTC No. 16233764
>>16233733
I use this along with a book of logarithm values to do calculations on my difference engine.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:01:40 UTC No. 16234924
>>16233076
Meme book
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 23:28:13 UTC No. 16235384
>>16234924
rec something that isn't a meme
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Jun 2024 23:45:55 UTC No. 16235404
>>16231561
>It's a bit older, but Godement's Algebra is good for undergrad. Originally French, and translated into English.
seconding this
especially because it's a genuinely entertaining read
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 02:52:58 UTC No. 16235602
>>16234924
Just because it's too difficult for you, doesn't make it a meme.
>>16235404
Not only is it a high quality series, it's a gold mine for hilarious quotes and musings. Look at this example he uses for no reason at all.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 16:41:33 UTC No. 16236475
>>16232922
Taylor, Calkin, Lemos
Rasband?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:05:03 UTC No. 16236662
>>16234924
That's an interesting midwit survival mechanism. Anything you cannot comprehend can just be dismissed as "meme" and therefore you're absolved from having to look at it. Notice our midwit friend didn't promote an alternative? I would honestly appreciate such a thing, provided it is truly equivalent.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 03:34:23 UTC No. 16237304
>>16236662
By all means, waste your time with those books. The less competition, the better.
>Notice our midwit friend didn't promote an alternative? I would honestly appreciate such a thing
I don't appreciate you. Get the fuck out of my field and flip burgers.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:18:26 UTC No. 16238251
>>16236662
It is just written plain boringly
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 02:27:38 UTC No. 16238813
>>16232922
Arnold's classical mechanics & you should read all his math books too since they all contain lots of physical insights.
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 05:34:20 UTC No. 16239023
>>16212966
>Higher Algebra by Hall and Knight
Sirs...
Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:19:25 UTC No. 16240148
>>16239961
Is it? What makes it better than the rest? I thought engineers loved Zill
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:23:51 UTC No. 16240223
>>16210298
I'm on track to finish it in a few days
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:29:34 UTC No. 16240228
>>16240223
is it possible to buy a physical copy with this cover?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:32:22 UTC No. 16240231
>>16240228
I saw it on Amazon for 30$, I'm just using a PDF though
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:35:19 UTC No. 16240237
>>16240231
>>16240228
Actually nvm IDK, when I look it up online it has a weird red cover https://bookstore.ams.org/hin-82
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:44:50 UTC No. 16240251
>>16240237
yea that's the only one i've been able to find too
Springer has that cover but only as ebook:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:00:55 UTC No. 16241003
>>16210634
just do it
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:15:29 UTC No. 16241024
>>16239023
kek
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 14:28:56 UTC No. 16241050
>>16213303
Used it for a freshman E+M class, pretty great and easy to read, doesn't feel too inferior to Griffiths
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:39:57 UTC No. 16241651
>>16237304
>Get the fuck out of my field
>my field
HAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAH.... yeah, I'm thinking filtered.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:40:16 UTC No. 16243409
>>16240231
I'll check that one out.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:55:55 UTC No. 16244167
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:39:54 UTC No. 16245330
>>16224295
>much more longer
dude your retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:58:39 UTC No. 16245397
Have you ever said to yourself "man I wish the author included all the proofs to the theorems in complete detail without leaving it as exercises or as gaps to fill in". Then this is the book for you.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:27:58 UTC No. 16246430
>>16245397
What the hell is that topic though? Does it have any prerequisites?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 16:10:56 UTC No. 16247611
>>16246430
The first part is basically Atiyah-Macdonald's Commutative Algebra (without the 'topics' and with some homological algebra) and the second is an introduction to schemes using said algebra. Prerequisites would be basically just some contact with abstract algebra (ie groups, rings, fields, etc), basic topology to define the Zariski topology (open sets, continuity, properties like compactness. It deals with some relatively advanced topics and some contact with the variety-type algebraic geometry helps, so it would be a hard read straight out of 2nd year math degree but it is very clear otherwise
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:28:44 UTC No. 16248506
>>16224169
Seconding this. Assumes almost no background beyond high school algebra and explores some really cool topics in analysis and number theory from scratch. Great prose as well.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 02:32:16 UTC No. 16248638
>>16248506
Glad to see someone else has read it, I rarely ever see it mentioned.
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:17:53 UTC No. 16249273
>>16248506
>>16248638
>>16224169
Any books that share his style? In particular books from other fields of math, or even physics.
What are your thoughts on going over old texts from original authors like Euler, Cauchy, Laplace, etc. Are they still readable today? On the 4chan science site I’ve seen Euler’s Elements of Algebra suggested
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:45:32 UTC No. 16249307
>>16240148
Lots of examples, but lacks the mathematical rigor needed if you actually intent on developing something new on the same mathematical principles.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:30:27 UTC No. 16250625
Are Springer books a meme or are they really worth it?
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:05:19 UTC No. 16251279
>>16250625
Springer Nature is one of the largest math publishers in the world, in what way does that make them a "meme"? Obviously the quality
varies since there are so many authors. The only real complaint about Springer is that their hard backs are Print on Demand and fall apart too easily. Springer does have good sales from time to time so look out for that. Last year for instance they had 50% off all books and free global shipping. PDFs are of course are always free in the usual places. They make most of their money selling access to their Journals and books to major institutions.
In terms of publishing quality (for academic material), my personal favourite is Cambridge University Press, but most of my bookshelf is Springer.
>>16249273
Well of course you have all of Shafarevich's other books, but I do not know if he has any elementary books like Discourses on Algebra. Shafarevich's main interest is on advanced topics like Algebraic Geometry, but his Linear Algebra text is quite enjoyable to read. It was taken from his lecture notes and turned into a book so it's perhaps more "chatty" than the usual presentation.
>>16249273
>going over old texts from original authors
I'm sure you'll learn a lot in doing so, but it's probably more fruitful once you understand the material through from a modern perspective.
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:14:29 UTC No. 16251308
>>16235384
nta, but have heard joos' theoretical physics is gud
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:23:59 UTC No. 16251340
>>16251308
It's always good to get physics from Joos.
>Perform early life check
>Intriguing... and brave of him to oppose Deutsche Physik.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 05:16:36 UTC No. 16252193
>>16227901
kek