I want to learn maths from scratch. from where do i start?

OP read Euclid's Elements.

Euclid.

I fell for the bait and begun following this chart, got halfway through the Logic textbook before I said "fuck this", skipped to Book of Proof and realised what a redundant piece of shit the first book is.

Kek what are numbers

invent the universe

The first half is the part you should have skipped

khanacademy.org/math

>not getting a good foothold with formal logic
Never gonna make it

As long as you know what a truth table is and De Morgan's laws you'll be more than fine in most settings.

The back bone of a uni math degree is Analysis and Algebra. After Calculus you're set for Analysis; after linear algebra you're set for (abstract) algebra.

Hey OP, I'm in the same boat. I bought all the math books in the for dummies series along with the workbooks. I recommend them highly. I think I paid something like 130 dollars for 16 books.

Seconding this. Khan Academy from the fundamentals is crucial, watch the videos and do the exercises (or do a similar route with high school text books up to calculus). If you skip over that, you'll probably make silly minor mistakes that will bog you down, even if you "get" the later concepts.

The math chart in is typical unhelpful snobbery. Anyone suggesting this to a non-STEM beginner for self-learning is either trolling or extremely disconnected from the average person's math background. These are at least undergrad level texts that students normally don't get to until after the basic calc, diff eq, linear algebra that most STEM majors do in their first couple years (which isn't to say those courses are prereqs, but that the student has a strong enough familiarity with the fundamentals to move to more abstract and general math). Just imagine the retarded bickering/one-upping on Veeky Forums that lead up to this chart, all while whoever innocently asked for help got left in the dust with unhelpful books beyond their reach.

Oh, and despite Veeky Forums's idolatry of the past, do NOT start with the Greeks for mathematics. I'm putting this warning out there because there are people here who really believe this (despite not actually doing this themselves).

Greek/ancient mathematics is fascinating and different, but (translated) source texts suffer from clumsy early notation and in some cases, faulty (not false) assumptions that have been refined and clarified significantly post-Enlightenment.

sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/

Attached: JZNByIsAP4j6GTJ0Ad8ouO5E-WVwH-SM0b23mv2NWDg[1].jpg (775x768, 64K)

Take courses; it's the best way

Bullshit, you can start with Euclidean geometry, because it is not radically different in results than contemporary geometry. There are certain, immutable mathematical truths, after all.

Stephen Hawking, for instance, typically worked with Euclidean space to explain concepts. Stop trying to say you shouldn't study Euclid first, pleb.

After Euclid, you could even study some Archimedes if you were interested in more complex aspects of Euclidean space.

>khanacademy
Teaches you only about modern mathematics.

When learning mathematics, it is actually MORE important to do what you do in philosophy: you have to read the ancient texts.

>people thinking mathematics has 'progressed'

People like Fermat were studying what Diophantus asserted in Arithmetica

The people who originated calculus simply drew from concepts Archimedes had initially established.

Just curious, did you "literally" start with Euclid? Or did you have a prior math background and then go to the older texts equipped with that knowledge?

>Stephen Hawking, for instance, typically worked with Euclidean space to explain concepts. Stop trying to say you shouldn't study Euclid first, pleb.
And this is just straight up WRONG. Post-Einstein physics depends on non-Euclidean concepts that developed in the 19th Century. From Hawking himself:

>So three dimensions, seems to be the minimum for life. But just as one can think of two dimensional beings living on the surface of the Earth, so one could imagine that the three dimensional space in which we live, was the surface of a sphere, in another dimension that we don't see. If the sphere were very large, space would be nearly flat, and Euclidean geometry would be a very good approximation over small distances. But we would notice that Euclidean geometry broke down, over large distances. As an illustration of this, imagine a team of painters, adding paint to the surface of a large ball. As the thickness of the paint layer increased, the surface area would go up. If the ball were in a flat three-dimensional space, one could go on adding paint indefinitely, and the ball would get bigger and bigger. However, if the three-dimensional space, were really the surface of a sphere in another dimension, its volume would be large but finite. As one added more layers of paint, the ball would eventually fill half the space. After that, the painters would find that they were trapped in a region of ever decreasing size, and almost the whole of space, was occupied by the ball, and its layers of paint. So they would know that they were living in a curved space, and not a flat one.
(hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html)

You've quoted Hawkings denoting the uselessness of Euclidean space in describing space-time, but when he talks about concepts he will frequently utilize Euclidean space. All geometers/physicists/astronomers whathaveyou, they all do.

Yes I started with Euclid. Then moved on to Archimedes, Apollonius, learned the synthetical method with Ibn Al-Haytham.

No offense, but you are coming off as a pleb here. I have prior knowledge of mathematics, as everyone who went to school did. But when I get up to the contemporary mathematics, I will NOT be reading textbooks or using Khanacademy like a fucking retard, I'll be reading books by the authors themselves, like I would with economics or philosophy.

St Johns College has a nice math curriculum based on reading great books. You could learn the theory that way, the apply it in practice by doing exercises on Khan Academy or something.

The difference is the later mathematicians FORMALLY PROVED earlier conjectures. And even the development of calculus in the Enlightenment (a huge advance in formal precision over Greek exhaustion techniques) had discrepancies that took a couple hundred years until Weierstrass developed modern analysis techniques.

The equivalence you're making between conjecture/"proof by observation" is like saying Fermat's Last Theorem and his "I have a proof but I'm not gonna write it lol" scribble is just as valid as Wiles' formal proof and the hundreds of years of research that got to that point, which also brought forth an incredible amount of new understanding about other areas of mathematics in the process, just because they both made the same conclusion. If you believe that, you're really missing the point.

Let me understand, do you think that mathematics has a linear timeline? There are different ways to study mathematics. For instance, I could make the assertion that modern mathematics loses by way of the Synthetical-Analytical method employed early in the 2nd millenium, some amount of specificity and clarity regarding direction. You cannot make any equivalent arguments as I don't think you've studied anything older than the last century for mathematics.

So shut the fuck up kid, you have no clue what constitutes proper mathematics. I have even observed that those medieval-Islamic golden age mathematicians who did utilize the synthetical-analytical method in mathematics have actually suffered from a further lack of clarity in comparison to the earlier Greek mathematicians. Lo and behold you have even misinterpreted what I wrote regarding Fermat. I wasn't even referencing his last theorem. You are a retard. Talking to you is like talking to a fucking brick wall.

Mathematics does not all the times 'progress' sometimes it is 'regressive' in certain areas.

That's because on a micro-scale, Euclidean geometry's behavior is simpler and physicists can handle approximations if they consider the error negligible. Don't excuse their approximation laziness to claim "the greek were always right bro."

>I have prior knowledge of mathematics, as everyone who went to school did.
Thanks for confirming that you DID NOT START WITH THE GREEKS. I'd like to know your reasons for dismissing modern books/resources (other than "read the original works" -- which BTW unless you're reading them in the original language and notation, you're still not doing). Honestly, it just sounds like tryhard snobbery to be different for the sake of being different. I enjoy early mathematics, but what you're promoting is putting the cart before the horse.

Clearly I am not dismissing modern mathematics, I'm just studying earlier mathematics, so I can make valid points like this
Nothing has a completely 'linear progressive' timeline. There are aspects of certain areas no matter where you go that could be improved.

Every student starts with Euclid when they are taught modern Geometry, these days. Even if they aren't reading Euclid's Elements.

Sorry, but you're getting really unbearable with the childish insults and gross simplifications. If you want to take this as a "win" on your scoreboard, go for it. I checked out when my basic FLT/Wiles example was completely misread (not a direct response to your mention of Fermat/Diophantus, btw, just an apt example given your reference). Maybe you really do accept the flawed assumptions of early mathematics and "good enough" proofs over modern rigor. I guess you'll get there in a thousand years or so. Later hater :)

I just stumbled upon this online ressource

undergroundmathematics.org/

which might be helpful to supplement any self learning efforts in mathematics.

Attached: amr33mo_700b.jpg (387x395, 48K)

There is literally no reason to learn math from Euclid beyond historical curiosity you retarded autist

prove that every number is either even or odd

>but when he talks about concepts
do you mean when he's trying to communicate his work to amateurs?

This was fun to imagine, thank you user.

This is just plain wrong. Euclidean properties are still true.

>Euclidean properties are still true.
Who claimed otherwise?

Start with logic and pre-calc, which is by far the hardest part.

Depends on what you want to do.

I will never understand why Khan Academy is so highly praised.
There's hardly anything interactive. Just watch the videos, answer the questions. Whoop de doo.
It also is way too time consuming and repetitive. If you understand a concept, you shouldn't need to do prove it by doing 5 extremely long word problems in a row, or you can't progress to the next lesson.
Also it focuses a lot on repetition to get you to learn something, when they should instead be giving you exercises that make sure you grasp the concept itself, and not just learn to plug stuff in without understanding how or why you are doing it. This method may work for math in the short term, but in the long term this will not help you at all.
It's basically all of the wrong ways of how to learn rolled into one basket.

Go to this site instead:
schoolyourself.org

This site is superior in every way. It's interactive, actually walks you through formulas and tells you why they are the way are, walks you through famous theorems, etc.
The only downside is that it's still a work in progress. But you can still get up through pre-calculus.

Can you truly start with all the logic books before reading Basic Mathematics? Something tells me this chart is grade A bullshit.

\
I have no allegiance to Khan Academy, it's just the most well-known and was pretty groundbreaking when it came out. It sounds like you're taking what it did for granted. I've never had the issues you're claiming like "extremely long word problems" you "have to do." Maybe that's a part of the site I haven't run into or a recent change (I haven't spent much time with its K-12 math sections). The repetitive nature over conceptual focus reflects a problem in overall educational approaches in mathematics. Repetition is the norm for burger students, and is KA's biggest source of users.

Thanks for sharing the other site, it looks interesting and has the potential to be better. But right now, Khan Academy offers broader range of math courses and many other subjects, and I haven't found anything problematic so far that gives me a reason to suggest anything else.

how has no one mentioned this i thought this was a books board
this book will teach you math absolutely from scratch
here's a numberphile interview with the author from

Attached: 419WCKFCYEL._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (314x474, 29K)

oops, here
youtube.com/watch?v=mPn2AdMH7UQ

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-17 at 4.16.42 PM.png (1006x1118, 1.24M)

Lang's Algebra and baby Rudin

He's not saying don't learn Euclidean geometry he's saying no mathematician nowadays learns it by reading Euclid you pillock

I had the same problem OP, I was "that kid", the one that thought couldn't be useful for anything, i thought it was too complex, and it made my head hurt.

Anyhow I know better now, they don't call math the Cinderella science for nothing.

Start with step by step instructions on the basic, go through the elementary again just as a refresher, even if it feels condescending, just do it, if you can grasp the basics, it will help you understand what you need.

Just take it one step at a time, don't race through it, I know this is a cliché, but you need to take your time, or else it will come back to bite you man.

Khan academy is a fantastic resource, their website is a lot better than their videos, and if you're a phone poster they have an app.

I also suggest Arthur Benjamin's the secrets of mental math if you want shortcuts to arithmetic.

Anyhow, Godspeed OP you glorious faggot.

Also, the Trachtenberg system is lit too.

Repetition is necessary to becoming proficient at math. Understanding concepts is all fine and good, however when you're solving harder problems you want to make sure you're quick and don't make so make accidental mistakes in your algebra/arithmetic, so then you can focus on the actual problem.

>you should not read the foundational math chart if you don't have an interest in foundations of mathematics
duh

khan academy or
openstax.org/subjects/
www-math.mit.edu/~djk/calculus_beginners/
encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Main_Page
ocw.mit.edu/courses/#mathematics
aimath.org/textbooks/approved-textbooks/

Attached: destiny.png (345x528, 248K)

t. creator of that shit

from scratch