Hey guys i hope that we can compile a comprehensive crowd-sourced logically ordered semi-historically accurate list of...

Bumping for a great cause.

That's a pretty niche meme, user, I like it.

I've got a few... Nothing else bashing palaeontology, though.

I got pretty bored and i made my own.
Should I change or include something else?

>groups are so far away from differential geometry
This land of mathematics must be a compact manifold, yes?

Currently an undergrad and was wondering how useful Lang's "Basic Mathematics" is? Downloaded the pdf and checking through it now. What about Naive set theory? And should I go through "How to prove it" if I've done real analysis with Rudin (and did fine)?

Arigato, you fucking nerd.

Nevermind, it seems to be super useless. Like, all the topics covered in that book you will meet sometime during high school or your first semester at uni.

>implying hartshorne is good
>implying bourbaki is anything more than a meme
>homotopy type theory

All subfields of mathematics are listed here

ams.org/msc/pdfs/classifications2010.pdf

A comprehensive modern list and review of introduction to logic (including set theory and such) is covered in

logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/TeachYourselfLogic2017.pdf

I have a project where I try to map out the relationships between different topics in math, and graph it, here

graph.axiomsofchoice.org/?to=set_theory

but I update it rarely.

It is useful for your time but I hope you don't claim to have really mastered the "basics" if so you should be able to solve IMO problems which are only constructed using elementary mathematics. In particular geometry is tremendously overlooked in general education these days

>It is useful for your time but I hope you don't claim to have really mastered the "basics" if so you should be able to solve IMO problems which are only constructed using elementary mathematics.
you're fucking retarded
this is like saying you don't deserve a bachelor's in math unless you can do a Putnam

nobody (not even brilliant individuals) consistently solves high-level contest problems without a pretty significant amount of contest-specific practice

So if mastering the basics consists of solving IMO problems, I should be solving IMO problems, not reading theory I have already read before.

>tfw I think I've seen you post ever since I first started learning what a derivative was early in high school to now where I've completed a first semester course in topology

I'm coming for you, boi.

>my equivalence of categories
does every mathematician have one of these

This isn't really a "progression" because going from left to right down the chart is many times out of order and also would be repeating a ton of material.

as a collection it's not bad (especially by Veeky Forums standards where most reading list posts are this kind of retardation ), although I'd still change a few things
Tao is a meme text that nobody would read if Tao himself wasn't a meme, Hoffman/Kunze ought to be mentioned, Ahlfors is terrible, Hartshorne is going to put 99% of people that try to study it outside of a support network into an asylum, and geometry (or geometry/topology) needs its own heading; it's not really analysis.

The sheer volume of books on here and the scope of them (especially the graduate level scope) says to me this is almost certainly another instance of "spent way too much time window-shopping textbooks on Amazon", although if you're actually qualified to talk about all of these good for you.

It's quite hard to make up a progression, seeing how all the topics interweave. To be honest, it's more of a 'topics I'd expect an advanced undergrad to know' or whatever