Do you have any math books in your personal library?

Ah. The first six books of Euclid sounds like a great idea. A few propositions in Book II are essentially responsible for Algebra. III.36 is used extensively in mathematical proofs by Pappus or Ptolemy or Alhazen or any synthetical mathematician. Book V is arithmetic, and as such is referenced by Nicomachus and Diophantus in Introduction to Arithmetic and Arithmetica, respectively.

There’s a Quod Erat faciendum in Book VI which is responsible for nearly the entirety of constructions made by any mathematician. Finally, it’s just an interesting book to think about, and how it was constructed. A couple books to think about:

- Proclus wrote a commentary on the First Book. It would help you understand more about Neoplatonic Metaphysics.

- Charles Dodgson, the author of Alice In Wonderland, was a math teacher. He wrote pedagogical works on he first couple books of Euclid which is worth your time to read. It’s called ‘Euclid and His Modern Rivals’.

It’s not outdated, don’t listen to the morons. It will help you with logic. It is absolutely amazing how incredibly dense and challenging this book can be. Tremendously, even. The work itself is a masterpiece.

Contemporary mathematicians use Euclidean space as well. John Von Neumann uses Euclidean properties to prove certain concepts within hyperspace in Theory of Games.

It’s good for logic and philosophy as well. Euclid will teach you why starting from knowns is important. Again, Proclus Commentary on the First Book is a tremendous help in this regard. Pappus wrote an extensive amount of commentary on Euclid’s Elements, he actually dwelt a lot on the transitive properties of ratios and III.36. The whole thing is just fascinating to think about, it’s good for your brain, and you won’t even grasp all of it.

Now be careful, you don’t read these books at the same speed you read a normal book. Propositional logic should take you a little longer than set theory, even though there are less symbols and numbers. It’s complex to think about where the next move should be ‘logically’. Hard to think why certain things are proven the way they are as well. :3

It’s thinking about objective things and relations that matter. Where possible, perhaps it drifts into the moral sphere, but when it does, it should touch upon Metaphysics, something objective and real.

This is what our leaders used to study :/

:3

>Propositional logic should take you a little longer than set theory
In my experience it was easier to gain a working understanding of PL than to get a good handle on set theory

Well then you’re stupid in one area and not thinking hard enough in another

Lmao :3

He probably thinks The Elements is learned in Elementary school so it must be simple.

When you grow up and re-study the Elements you realize how much thought and care is put into the ordering and thought processes.

this is the only math book I have that's not an assigned textbook from college, instead having got it on my own since I saw it in a used bookstore and thought it looked fun

Attached: Morash.jpg (638x898, 117K)

I have some about functions, calculus, linear algebra, set theory and topology. The only one I read was the set theory one because the others were too damn hard to my stupid midwit brain to understand without tutorship.

How is propositional logic harder than set theory? Jesus Christ, have you ever got advanced enough into axiomatic set theory? Somehow I doubt it. Propositional logic is a breeze, even if you spend time with some metatheory and proof methods such as sequent calculus, natural deduction and the (heavily outdated) axiomatic method. Heck, you can even add tableaux to that list and shit will be mostly easy. I really think you're out of your element here, buddy.

Set theory is not easier than functional calculus or linear algebra, as set theory utilizes both of those within.

Algèbre et théories galoisienne by Adrizn Douady. Douady is a based oldfag who would deliver his lectures without shoes. Sadly he passed away like 4 years ago.

The book is good but I dont know if it has been translated. Also only the last chapter is about children's drawings, and the exercises are rather difficult and no solution provided. Still a great read.

why don't the 4's do like the 1,2,3,and 5 do?

Haha, not even tackling this. Everyone knows I won already :3

FUCK OFF /sci/ WITH YOUR OFF TOPIC SHIT POSTING. IT ISN’T LIKE MATHEMATICS IS ONE OF THE CORE HUMANITIES.

Please. Holy fucking shit you sound retarded.

I’m with :3face for once.

See
For the applications.

Regardless, he could be posting mathematical literature all day. That’s how many approach it :3

This, set theory goes way deeper. Even in a more advanced setting, PL is not that complex. Even regardless of the difficulty of each subject, it would behoove a mathematician-in-training to study set theory more than PL because it's more important to the working mathematician.

There is no certain area of mathematics that is important retard. That’s like saying there’s a certain area of philosophy that’s important. God you morons are fucking ridiculous

Wrong :3

Thank you for the info. My French isn't great but I will look into this book.

you seem smart. please see why don't the 4's do like the 1,2,3 and 5 do in OPs pic related?

Learn how read for irony.

Yes, but mostly stuff related to my work. I gave some basic works from college on Fourier Series/Transformations, applied Numerical Analysis for Engineering, and a couple textbooks on Probabilty theory and stochastic calculus

>There is no certain area of mathematics that is important retard
No one said this. Neither PL nor set theory is an area of mathematics, dumbshit. Both lie in the realm of philosophy and while they are foundational to math, the working mathematician is going to use concepts from set theory far more frequently than PL.

Another thread that had potential, ruined by :3 fag

Propositional logic is going to be involved in what lever you read. You actually do seem like a moron. Only a moron would think things are ‘in a league’ or something.

Academia is overrated for this sort of thing. Autodidacts are superior

No he's right. The essentials of propositionnal calculus can be covered in ubder 15 pages. Set theory offers unsolved challenges for the mathematical community to this day.

Not at all, you see that someone is agreeing with me right there.

That’s calculus, not geometry. The first book of Euclid’s Elements is infinitely thought provoking. :3

Natural langage is also going to be involved no matter what you read, yet a highschool grasp of it is sufficient to read most mathematical texts.

Irrelevant to my point but whatever mr. Schizoface.

>Propositional logic is going to be involved in what lever you read.
Again, no one fucking claimed otherwise. You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension so I'll just restate my argument. The amount of PL required to read mathematics is small and can be learned easily. Set theory is more nuanced and often counterintuitive, and a deeper understanding of set theory is necessary for topology and other fields, so it makes sense that a budding mathematician should focus more attention on set theory than PL.

Propositional calculus is not calculus the branch of mathematics, you fucking idiot

Stick to trying to impress women in Yea Forums, m8. She'll send you nudes

The mathemeatical basis of the arts is pretty fun to have around

couple Serge Lang books. /sci/ insists I got meme'd, but they're pretty good

Lang is fine, /sci/ is mostly arrogant undergrads and high schoolers

I have a calculus book from my failed attempt at studying engineering. I wish I had the brains and attention span to study math.

>stewart calculus 5e
lmaooo fucking single variable cal
honestly in my degree the hardest class was prob cal 2 with integration and series, fucking profs would come up with the fucking hardest integrals they could make solvable, even wolfram couldnt fucking help us

cal 3 and 4 were a hell of a lot easier since after cal 2 its mostly theory

I wish maths didn't have such a shit fanbase in america. I guess they just don't have to bash people over the head with whatever estimation of how important their interest seems to them.

just when you think your theory is safe from the geometrytards, some fucking algebraic topologist comes along and computes homology groups of your structures, for absolutely no fucking reason, and then an entire field of study is based off of that guys 'work', and he wins a fields medal, and everyone forgets about your work

next thing you know, this structure you described to represent an abstract number theoretical concept with no relation to geometry WHATSOEVER is being mutated and eventually it's remembered as some perversion of the original concept with n-dimensional holes for n>27 in some weird n+1 dimensional space

I MEAN IT'S FUCKING NUMBER THEORY, THAT THING WAS INVENTED JUST TO MONITOR IDEALS IN SPECIFIC INTEGRAL RINGS
I FUCKING HATE TOPOLOGISTS

Attached: 91F60F55-76CC-48D5-9BAE-62F520708C7B.gif (464x416, 1.21M)

>Mathematics for non mathematicians
Kek. Stop feeling the water with your toe and jump in.

>Matamagical themas
Is that good desu?

it's pretty damn good book if you want to start gaining a strong interest in math in general

lots of good shit & bits of historical info in it as well

bible and plato's republic has all the math i need, ma'am.

Attached: 216.png (220x220, 35K)

I love this pasta

I have a lot (but I pirate them with libgen because fuck spending $$$)

Also, this needs to be mentioned:
>usamo.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/napkin-2016-07-19.pdf

Quillet

>doesn't need calculus
what a pleb

Attached: plebs.jpg (400x402, 40K)

>What do you do if you’re a talented high school student who wants to learn higher math?

I have a master in pure mathemathics and I have only a superficial understanding of half of these topics. Besides, when I was a talented high school student, I was too depressed to study higher math or anything else on my own. I feel like I've wasted my youth.

Attached: 3E3e9X0.gif (400x202, 1.99M)

You can safely replace calculus with discrete arithmetics. There's no need for an infinite set of numbers when your finite ass is only able to use a finite subset of it.

Seriously I'm a freshman and I'm in calc 2 right now and some of the integrals we have to do are a real ass kick. We're doing multivariable stuff now though and that has so far been much easier.

>>Secrets Of Metal Math
This sounded good until I googled it and realized it was just a typo

No. Learning math is for poor people.