How far can you go down?

How far can you go down?

Riemann surfaces?

You misspelled stoke's theorem

Optimization
awesome, i feel really dumb

>game theory
>not bullshit
>not trivial made up "math" for econ majors who want to feel smart
>desespera than counting

deeper than counting*

Statistics is that low? I'm not a math person at all. I had to take a statistics course (my first math course in like 13 years) for college last summer. I took a condensed course online and got an A - it's not hard to understand at all.

I figured it would be higher up.

>thinking that the OP made this graphic
>correcting something that is itself also incorrect

I verify strokes' theorem everyday.

I have a Bachelors. Current knowledge places me between Serious and Genius.

>tfw barely even serious
I'm a senior (18) in HS though, is there hope for me? also I've studied some number theory stuff like RSA encryption, with the modulo and totient functions and stuff. I've actually been exposed to some of the deeper stuff, at least on a theoretic level, by watching those Great Courses things. this shit is really interesting but i feel like I'll never understand it.

>tfw working on a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis right now

Dude, some of the serious stuff you'll cover in undergrad. That picture overall isn't something you should base your shit on. Some topics are so vast as to be meaningless on that chart, yet some s specific its clear what it means to say you are competent in it. Just study what you enjoy and pursue what you find most interesting.

very nice user, I'm really interested in this stuff. do you mind giving me a synopsis? even though i could use google i prefer talking to Anons.
thanks man. this summer I'm going to try to really improve myself, I'm gonna be studying aerodynamics as much as i can.

How are you in one dimensional calculus? If you have a solid understanding, you should start studying vector calculus. If you feel frisky, you can jump directly into the generalized form and just start with calculus on manifolds.

>do you mind giving me a synopsis?
not until i get the BIG BUCKS
then you can read it online

As if some faggot on Veeky Forums knows better than von Neumann.

>tfw working on a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis right now

Right, and I'm not an autistic virgin shitposting on Tajikistani skateboarding boards.

As someone with a few published papers (actual, reputable journals, inb4 Vixra) on "Serious" and "Genius Level" topics, this classification system is dildos. But lol at "Advanced AI required after this point" and 'harder' being mistaken for 'more specific.'

>he thinks it's a typo

Continuing from lol at meromorphic functions being an entire level away from holomorphic functions and the literally made-up topics in the last category. Who even made this?

It's been around for years, since 2012??? Hello new fag.

Whoops sorry I've been doing science and publishing papers instead of lurking since 2012

Congratulations on publishing things that will be read by 10 people at most.

I've been cited 30 times since my first paper 2 years ago, I've got no worries

I stop at around adding and subtracting. There's no need to go further. And, I only use adding while I'm in the store buying groceries, but I have to say the new number out loud as I pick up the next grocery. so, if someone talks to me I'm like "$15.95! yes? $15.95! oh ok $15.95!" over and over so I don't lose track of how much I've got in the cart. I don't use subtracting much.

I mean shit, man, who cares when you have a calculator?

damn manifold calculus sounds cool
kek

Basically only to where "serious math" begins. I mean, I've done some work with some of the topics in that category (I took classes on abstract algebra, real analysis, calculus of variations (very little, so I hesitate to count it), number theory, and hairy ball theory. I took a class that talked a bit about knot theory, but I don't really understand it enough to count it.

Also, I'm pretty sure that all the things in the bottom group aren't things (or are impossible).

It's really out of order to be honest.

For example, I have studied and used Galois Theory, etc., but not differential geometry or groupoids. And I've certainly used Grobner Bases but never learned knot theory and I've touched on Lie Algebras in some courses but could not even define a clifford algebra.

So I'm not sure what to say OP. Putting me "Grobner Basis" would be completely inaccurate given that there are plenty of things before that I haven't studied yet and yet sticking me at Galois Theory is also not quite true given that I've dealt plenty with smooth manifolds in analysis.

Also, why the hell is "Number Theory" actually below Galois Theory?

It's really out of order..

infinitesimal transformations

but i could probably solve some millennial problems if i applied myself

oh, the curse of genius... i am all talent and no motivation.

such is life

Why is all of combinatorics listed as a single fucking point while tiny topics of other things like fractions, unit circle, triple integrals, etc have their own thing?

I go about halfway between serious and genius though, with some things missing between the start of serious and the middle of serious.

Trig Functions

I dip down just into serious math with Complex functions and complex analysis.

Game theory and will take stochastic next year

3rd year EE student. I can only get to the beginning of the serious math marker. I feel like a fucking moron. Oh well, i just need to keep going.

linear algebra

I'm at my limit with Tensors

Is it bad if I don't know tensors, but know like 1/4 of the stuff in serious math? LIke, should I learn tensors?

Are tensor products the same as tensors?

>one-time pad decryption
>random sequence extrapolation

kek