What are some essential books on mathematics?

Goddammit he's so fucking dumb it's unreal. I knew more math than him when I was in the 8th grade.
>CH can be characterized as.... 'Do the real numbers constitute to the power set of the rational numbers'
That's not CH you dumbass. It's a theorem in ZF that |R|=2^N = 2^(Aleph_0)
>'Is c the same as 2^Aleph_0'
Yes it is, and that's not what CH says lmao.
>'Does c=Aleph_1'
Glad he finally got it! The fact that he doesn't know what CH states or the fact that he thinks these statements are all equivalent. God he's so retarded, it's unbelievable.

Attached: DFW at his best.png (850x309, 50K)

>The fact that he doesn't know what CH states or the fact that he thinks these statements are all equivalent.
Meant to say
>I don't know what's worse: the fact that he doesn't know what CH states or the fact that he thinks these statements are all equivalent.

Oh the irony...
This book is comedic gold.

Attached: dfww.png (756x137, 27K)

Come again, Mr. David Foster Wallace? You're not only not making any sense in math, you're not making any sense in... English, which was supposed to be the thing that you're good at. Why are you writing this book again?

Attached: huh.png (598x577, 87K)

Also Axiom of Choice as well as its equivalent forms mentioned in the footnote 99 are extremely elementary and not hard to understand at all (unless you're as smart as DFW). They're not at all the "high-eros concepts" that DFW tries to make them out to be.

Ok, so how do we go about this, mr. David Foster Wallace?
Also
>booklet
At least you got that right.

Attached: errors.png (574x89, 12K)

If you're getting this much enjoyment out of this garbage, you need to read IJ. It's such a flagrant offense to literature, it's one of the most entertaining things to read. That motherfucker had zero intelligent ideas in his entire life.

trying too hard mate

Start with the Greeks work just as well for Math as it doea for Philosophy

loving the posts. the story behind this book is that he was approached by norton to write a poppy intellectual biography of cantor for their series on "great discoveries," but dfw was determined to prove himself capable of writing "serious" academic work on math and shunned their advice to write something fun and accessible. of course, once dfw started researching, he found he was in over his head and had to constantly revise earlier passages where he thought he knew what he was doing but in fact was completely wrong. in the end he was able to cobble together a work that looked plausible to anyone with no knowledge of math, and was a disgusting mess for anyone even somewhat versed in set theory. norton had some inkling of how bad the book was, but it was already delayed and the amount of revisions would have required a complete rewrite, so they just said fuck it and published it. on name recognition alone the book outsold all the others in the series, and even though there have been several damning takedowns on it from seasoned mathematicians, norton makes enough money on it that they don't care.

dfw was a smart guy, but his best trick was knowing exactly what to say to make himself look smart. unfortunately, any time he encountered someone with actual knowledge on something, he quickly looked foolish (e.g. look up linguists' responses to his article on prescriptivism or read his abysmal interpretations on wittgenstein). the best way to read Everything and More is as a portrait of existential crisis. a man whose mathematical knowledge was limited to only what was sufficient to impress others without any mathematical knowledge undertakes a work to prove his ability, only to confront endlessly his own inadequacy, producing a work spilling forth with footnotes like "don't ask" in a desperate hope to throw the reader off from realizing the fraudulent nature of the work.

It's clearly the Emoji Movie 2: School Shooter
They want the incel audience

Good post.

t. Roastie

Bump

here desu

Attached: 1566740720153.jpg (3094x1800, 401K)

>Artin, Jacobson for basic algebra
why not dummit and foote?
>Bredon for basic topology
why not munkres?

Attached: 51d1TURbyTL._SX315_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (317x499, 27K)

just bite the bullet and start with Apostol (vols 1 and 2). That's what my uni used for the first course in the math sequence which has no prereqs

>ctrl+f
>not one single reference to Euclid
I'm disappointed in you guys. Read Elements.

how will he shoot up the school when there's no ammo in the gun

I made the post.
>why not dummit and foote?
Because it's too long, and both Artin and Jacobson have much better exercises than D&F. D&F is good to have as a reference, just not as a book to learn from.
>why not munkres?
Because there's a lot of general topology in that book that you will never need. General topology is a boring subject, so unless you're one of the select few who enjoy point-set topology, go for Munkres. If, on the other hand, you only need gen topology for algebraic topology or geometry, Munkres will just kill your passion and Bredon will give you all the essentials and nothing more. However, Bredon requires some mathematical maturity, so if you find it too hard, definitely try Munkres, it's written for less mature people (it even starts from basic logic).

These are the people who will call you an autistic stemfag in an argument LMAO.

Proof books are useless memes. Just pick an actual math book and you'll pick up proofs as you go along. They're not that hard.
You also don't need to learn about logic before learning math.
>the set theory books
You don't need to learn specifically about set theory when you're at the level that the chart aims at. Only learn set theory when you know some math already, and use Jech when you do, it will be a quicker, less painful experience.
The chart is a waste of time. I can only imagine how many people were thrown off by it and put off learning math. Just use khan academy to find what you don't yet know and fill in the gaps. Then move on to adult math books, such as in the list that I posted in this thread.

It's someone fucking around with the merchandise in a store that's probably a Goodwill or Salvation Army.

good points

I'm actually in a course atm that's using munkres, and from what I can tell the prof is skipping over most of the nonessential bits. Same for when I used D&F. I suppose there's a big difference in the value of math books as course supplements versus standalone texts, and in the former case verbosity is actually a good thing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Mathematical_Philosophy

I read that when I began to take my first math classes. Sort of eased the way..

If you are actually going with Euclid, I recomend mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/elements.html
It has some pretty insightful commentary.
Heartshorne's Euclid and Beyond (to read as you go through Euclid) or Wanner's Geometry by it's History (to read afterwards) can be pretty good too.

Gravity's Rainbow

"Calculus" by Zill

I've always considered GR to be more of a comedy for people that already have a solid grasp on mathematics and physics. It has some incredibly deep and complex trains of thought, but they'll only be apparent if you already have a background in shit like integral calculus.

Bump

What more do you want? I've posted the book list already.