STOP READING FICTION

>friction books
Are they for rubbing one out? Nice.

this is why people increasingly mistrust science.

based void enjoyer

You forgot to put one after nice. Your actions do not align with your words. You are a filthy liar.

I actually did a math PhD, /sci/ is full of losers who promote their fantasy ideal education as if it were actually attainable for your average person.

Cohomology for a sophomore? "Rings, fields, Galois theory" as a general concept for a high schooler? Get fucking real.

/sci/ is the most pseud board on Yea Forums, images like these are just meant to reinforce an inferiority complex amongst people.

>images like these are just meant to reinforce an inferiority complex amongst people
That‘s exactly what i expected.

Fuck off, can't stop me.

if you really think i should have put one after nice:
sorry, my friend,
but you dont know
how to use them

The point of wanting to get colon cancer from abusing the colon is to put one everywhere even if it makes no sense. Just scatter it like diarrhea will from your perforated intestines.

no bro, that's cringe: beautifulness of style is above the desire to die

This is soulless anti-aesthetics autism. Like those guys you meet who have zero interest in music. Absolutely unhuman.

The desire to die is: the epitome of the beauty of style.

Most of the content in this list past "first year" is graduate level at most major US universities. It's just meant to make /sci/ posters who derive their self-worth from their achievements in math class insecure

in der Tat

Der grosse Tod, den jeder in sich hat,
das ist die Frucht, um die sich alles dreht.

i wonder what'll give more value to your life
>reading the entirety of plato
or
>reading elliptic curves j-invariant and taniyama-weil conjecture and its applications to number theory

>reading elliptic curves j-invariant and taniyama-weil conjecture and its applications to number theory
Unironically this

вы пpoпycтили oднy cтpoчкy, этo дeйcтвитeльнo

Denn wir sind nur die Schale und das Blatt.
Der große Tod, den jeder in sich hat,
das ist die Frucht, um die sich alles dreht.

elaborate

>pseudoholomorphic curves on a symplectic manifold
This dry esoteric STEM shit makes even analytic philosophy look like flowery prose

Attached: 1616715905165.png (640x480, 147.65K)

By the time you get to the pint where you can understand the proof of the Taniyama-Weil conjecture, you'll have learned a ton of other stuff in pure mathematics. By the time you read Plato, you'll simply know what a Greek philosopher thought a few thousand years ago. Plenty of coherent arguments against Platonism have been made, not so much for Taniyama-Weil.

Attached: math.jpg (736x736, 105.48K)

Unironically the reason there is so much "esoteric" terminology used in pure math is to make the material easier to read and understand.

yeah but, what does grant you knowing a lot of pure mathematics? You'll a specialist. Reading plato you've read literally the best philosopher of all time

>unironically asking what you get out of the pursuit of pure knowledge

I've always wondered, like, math is supposed to be based on pure universal rules right? So is all of this stuff theoretically derivable from the basics for someone who is a Will Hunting-tier math genius? And/or how do there continue to be new developments in math when you don't have the option of doing any kind of "empirical research"? I'm fucking retarded, I just want to know, how does this stuff work?

see youtu.be/zLEyIT_BCgk
bridged two huge, thought to be very distinct parts of mathematics
>what does grant you knowing a lot of pure mathematics?
Pure knowledge as long as you're of the same belief as most mathematicians and think you are discovering truths and not inventing anything, which clearly is the case.

Nah i left it out on purpose. I only wanted the part about the death. Do not assume i forget stuff pls.
:
:
:

>So is all of this stuff theoretically derivable from the basics for someone who is a Will Hunting-tier math genius?
Given you have infinite time, sure. But most people don't have that, so they study books.
>how do there continue to be new developments in math when you don't have the option of doing any kind of "empirical research"?
Attempting to bridge various parts of math, which often happens by solving complex problems rigorously. Such proofs often are hundreds of pages long. Rigor is the reason progress is possible in the first place. It's still theoretically impossible to prove everything that is true, however.

A lot of the work is in trying to come up with the right new concepts that generalize old concepts.

you need to learn high-level math to understand hegel, though ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science of Logic

>Do not assume i forget stuff pls
sorry, my respects to you

I think this should be considered a suspect interpretation as Lawvere was a committed Maoist.

>isildor saying no.png

>ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science of Logic
do you understand it?

>STOP READING FICTION
That's okay, we don't read at all.

>stop reading fiction
>recommends fiction

Attached: 1650115002644.png (300x314, 65.49K)

Those were cool.

>Dedicate your life to learning to do something a computer could do many times more easily

No thanks Mr Antichrist. Take your Maya and fuck off.

>math phd
Must have been an American school, this stuff is standard in France.
Also, I wouldn't go around calling people pseuds while Reddit spacing that hard.

Lying out your ass. You polytechnique fags are dumber than Indians and twice as lazy.

Uh oh, Hegel got his sums wrong. Turns out the dialectic is going backwards and we're actually moving away from the absolute. Source: maths.

what language is that, op?

Attached: Screenshot from 2022-04-25 16-08-08.png (1366x768, 431.17K)

Math is based off of rules and axioms, in theory working from any set of axioms you cannot prove all mathematical statements true or false. Which is why different types of mathematics (euclidean vs modern geometry)exist, there is also disagreement on which axioms make sense, which is another reason why different types of mathematics exist (see Ultrafinitism) or even just rebasing on a topos instead of a set (see Constructivists).

inb4 some /sci/ fag says you have no idea what you're talking about bcuz you haven't invested X years of your life studying something that will never on its own constitute a statement about empirical reality and is always subject to varying interpretation.

>not reading fiction and non-fiction

The novel is an extremely powerful mind-warpng device. It's more powerful than any drug. If you showed a novel to a Neolithic farmer, they'd probably die, or hide in fear like the people who thought that a film of a train was going to run them over. It's obvious why people can't kick this shit. Fiction is the most powerful mind-warping substance ever invented by man.

Math is equally made up, but it requires more intelligence and is more boring.

but I've already spent my whole life being a STEM bug. why would I want to only spend my time on that?

>This is what STEMfags want you to do

Attached: Smiling Draper.jpg (413x395, 37.74K)

>he thinks this is a troll image
Found the mathlet. Let me guess, American?

My hypothesis: op can take 10 dicks up his ass at once

>Sophmore: Euler
The fact is that too simply solve every (solved) problem and prove every theorem in any of the books listed in OP would take the better part of a year if that's all you do. In America, if you were to do this with your calculus and linear algebra book, you would already be in the top 1% percent of students.