Hey Veeky Forums

Don't force yourself to learn, retard. And don't do it just because you expect results. Learning is supposed to be innocent curiosity and nothing more. Go into it with no expectations. No desire for production. Just sheer curiosity. That's the proper way to learn. And it's the only healthy, sustainable way to learn. And if you're truly passionate like you say, then you should have no need to micromanage because you will be learning all the time.

I have to disagree, that point of view is not sustainable. You need self discipline to learn less interesting things either to make money or get to more interesting things.

I've completed Calculus 2 with good grades. Skipping math this semester, will take Cal 3 in Fall. I'm weakest in CS of all subjects I've mentioned above. Only know barely any python, but it's the one I'm the most curious about.

Pic related my books. I've read about half of them to their entirety, some I haven't started, some 10%, some 50% etc.

most of these books are popsci and high school material. "~150 books on these topics" suddenly turns to 0~1 books on math and 0~1 books on CS when I ask you about it.

if you're curious, I recommend you take some electives in your college, the hardest you can manage. something like Real Analysis 1 for math and Algorithms for CS. calculus isn't really math, you'll need to take a real math class to know what it's like. same for CS, learning a language is hardly representative of what CS is about.

another way is, you could follow some good resources. for CS, ocw.mit.edu is really good, try 6.00SC for a good introduction to CS with enough breadth to let you understand what's there. for math I like Terence Tao's Analysis 1, because it's specially geared towards people who are beginning in math and really shows you what it's like from the get go.

I don't talk about the other topics because I've not clue, but there should be similar things that can get you started in a way that quickly shows you what the field is

Yes, because these books include the time period from when I was younger till now, so it's like all the books I've used to learn.

Anyways, that's the plan for me atm to use MIT online learning and other resources for CS. I can't take anymore workload in college, I don't want anything to affect my main degree.

Regardless, I obviously need work on all subjects to be considered top-tier. And that's what my OP talked about. Which is why the time-frame I mentioned is a longer one.

Honesty, right now your objective isn't to be considered top-tier. It's to find what you like, and to understand each of these fields enough to know if you like them or not. That's far, far more important than anything else. I dropped a major where I had a bright future (basically guaranteed placement anywhere I wanted) because I realized I liked something else better.

Bump.

1)
First learn math, calculus, lineal algebra, prob and stats, how make proof.

2)
Learn programming, Learn Math Discretes,Algoritms,Automatas, next could go to ML.
3)
Learn Physics you know programming and Math, learn electromagnetic,learn circuits.
4)
Arduino is kids game PLC, PLC is circuits digital and semiconductors, Math + Computer Science and Physics
5)
Now Hard part, Real Analysis ,Theory of Measure,Topology,Algebra(rings, field..)
6)
Economic goes gets some models and using advance math + CS + ML + programming

If finish 1) and 2) could get job, 5) is complex but open a lot doors in MS programs.

Political Science/History learn like just lecture make resumes, mostly scientific are really bad writers or reader on humanity thinks.

How can you make yourself a better human being without a social life. Makes no sense.

Your categories are too broad to achieve meaningful mastery.

Also, you are rejecting everything that says your plan is impractical, even though that was your first question.

Math

ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm

Math Discretes include free book
ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/

Classic algorithm
Charles E. Leiserson. Ronald L. Rivest. Clifford Stein. Introduction to Algorithms

Gold standard ML
The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Second Edition

You plan could work in part for Robotic.
But need social skill to begin able to sell.

Make some friend then could talk about literature or history.

Choose one. Do one thing well.
Most people couldn't even do well in one degree.

I'm not socially retarded nor anti-social. Just killing my social life to achieve a higher purpose. Doesn't mean I automatically forget how to talk to people.

Yes Does,be careful don't want to be r9k

I assume you believe empirical evidence is paramount in validating any theory correct?
here's my theory - you wouldn't last 2 months let alone 10 years.
test it.

You'll never sustain 10 years because obviously you need to work and make money kek.

All you need is one or two 90min sessions of unbroken concentration everyday to learn so long as you do it daily. Spend the rest of your time on your college studies or go pick up chicks.

To 'master' a subject you have to interact with people at the highest level within it and be constantly tested in graduate level environments to iron out corner cases in faulty logic ect.

> Algorithm Design: Parallel and Sequential

Despite the title, there's not much going on for the "parallel" part.

Every single chapter is about parallelism like how divide-and-conquer strategy yields naturally parallel-solvable algorithms, operations like map/filter that operate on each element of a sequence in parallel, graph contraction ect.

N E E T

E

E

T

My bad.
Is it worth reading in your opinion?

How accurate is this sci? Seriously asking. I'll try my best to follow this path if this is actually a good one.

Up to you, it's a core CMU course taught by the guy who helped design SML cs.cmu.edu/~15210/schedule.html

Oh, that's why all of his books are SML-based.

Look up each book's author page they either give away a free draft or have lectures algorist.com/

The MIT 'book' is free too courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring16/mcs.pdf

He's the premiere expert on type theory cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/courses/hott/ is a good seminar if you like language theory.

Unfortunately, I don't.
Algorithm Design: Parallel and Sequential is interesting to me because I'm doing my high performance computing course.
Most parallel algorithm books suck.

Thank you for answering our questions.

That course site also has C++ parallel applications if you scroll to lecture notes at bottom cs.cmu.edu/~15210/pasl.html

Man, CMU just has everything.

this Having a social life is important man. I went though extreme phases too, where you obsess over things and become anti-social. But as fun as being lost in the obsessive sauce is, when you are old and on your death bed, you will regret it. The opposite is also true, where you socialize too much and don't do anything meaningful.

Normies exist for a reason. Do everything in moderation.

Also I feel you man. I so FEEL YOU

Bumping,

Check 'em.

Jack of all trades
Master of none

>How far will I reach in each of the fields if I keep up this routine for, let's say, 10 years?

Honestly, if you spread yourself between each and everyone one of these fields you will have the equivalent of an associates degree in each maybe a little more. And that is if you are absolutely committed, continuously passionate and truly keep to this schedule exactly.

Truth is, even with a lifetime on this schedule you will never be even at a Masters level in any of these subjects, maybe one or two if you drop a few interests.

>A jack of all trades is a master of none.

And dont compare yourself to Renaissance men. There was literally so little to know that some people could learn it all. Now there is far too much information for anyone to even realistically be a Renaissance man in a single field like math or physics because they are so necessarily broad.

What the fuck are you on about. He would be an expert in ALL the subjects if he did that for 10 years.

I don't know kind of world you live in where putting in 3000 hours into a single subject doesn't make you competent at it. That kind of dedication is beyond most bachelor's degree and master's degree.

First of all your math is incorrect.

Lets take Friday, 3 hours of math and 3 hours of physics.

So 3*52(weeks in a year)*10(how many years) = 1040 (way below what you flippantly said it was)

Other fields will get half that time

Also to become an expert takes FAR more than 1000 or even 3000 hours of dedication. There is a pop-culuture rule of thumb that says it takes 10000 hours minimum to be an expert at anything. But we're talking playing an instrument.

I could get behind once you are at a masters level and you pick a Phd topic or equivalent that you could become an expert in roughly 1000-3000 hours, but that is after thousands of hours have been put in so you have at least some idea what is going on.

Also there is no such thing at being an expert in physics or an expert in math. The fields are way to vast and broad for anyone ever in their lifetime to tackle even half the sub-fields.

With how much time OP intendeds to spend, yes they could be versed enough to give an intelligent thought at an undergrad conference, but they wont be on the forefront discovering anything.

>competent
see
> With how much time OP intendeds to spend, yes they could be versed enough to give an intelligent thought at an undergrad conference, but they wont be on the forefront discovering anything.

And to put it into perspective at my school purely for math.

Ignoring everything else, upper division courses were roughly 4-5 units meaning about 3 hours a week of instruction. And to get an A in the courses about 10 hours per course was needed per week give or take a few to get an A.

So, over the course of just the last two years math students ought to get

About 24 weeks of courses over two years brings it in at

24*2*26 = 1248

Again many more hours than he would be spending over 10 years, and that does not include the lower division courses. So a little more than an associates degree in each is right on the money.

Given 2 upper division classes a semester minimum, though almost everyone took more.

The Renaissance was five centuries ago, friendo.

You can't work by yourself and be an expert. You can easily get an undergraduate type base in a large field of studies no problem but graduate level is more than just classes and papers you need to know what is the current state of the art research, be around people involved in said state of the art research to learn from directly and ask questions, and have your expertise directly tested by other experts in the field so they can find errors in your work before you waste countless hours chasing faulty logic.

For example Einstein left school to work at that patent office. He still however, everyday went to a seminar with all the top math/physics minds of the day and talked theory with them. He wasn't a loner sitting in an office just mulling over the speed of light he was also passing it by fellow mathematicians on a regular basis before he made his discoveries.

Perlman, that crazy Russian math genius guy was the same he spent years as a PhD working in research before he disappeared into solitude and solved the Poincaré conjecture and directly having access to another professor who had worked on parts of said conjecture he said helped him solve it.

So yes you can rapidly level up yourself but there's a ceiling limit and you need to be around the top researchers of said field on a regular basis in order to level up from there. OP should just go to school.

seconded

OP here. My plan is to gain enough knowledge in each field to further my interests. In CS, I want to be able to write and program some actually good quality Machine Learning code.

In economics, I want to be able to understand the world's financial systems, not too much. Main purpose is to make money with my economics studies.

For physics the purpose is to be able to understand the physical world well enough that I can create my prototypes for future business.

Politics so I can debate and understand my history and how politics works, in case I ever get into it in the future.

So everything has a pragmatic goal. I'm not looking to get into research in every single one(Maybe machine learning possibly), but most of it is to complete my pragmatic desires for my life here.

>I want to excel in each department
Hard, but possible. Find the hardest of all these topics, major in it, take a double-major in something else, and then read books on the side.

t. Engineer who do philosophy and writing on the side

But this doesn't mean I want to learn the basics only. This means a level of mastery that gives me full and complete understanding of the subject matter.

Basically, I aim to reach a:
Master's level of fluency in physics and computer science.
Bachelor's level of fluency in math, politics, and economics.

Of course, this doesn't mean I will be solely studying undergrad material. I will be on par with them, but in my own direction which furthers my goals.

What is your life and schedule like? I'm curious, friendo.

A person has limited time and resources.
Chase two hares, and you'll catch none.

Feel free to follow up your fantasy.
Just keep in mind that you gotta need to graduate in time and get a job. This should take priority.

Bumperino.

>So I'm planning to divide my week into days for each passion.

You should include Market / Career research as one of those significant activities. Try to determine which set of activities could potentially bring the greatest monetary return.

That's fucking retarded. I'd recommend rather having "CRISPR" and related studies instead, as they will have huge implications soon.

That is exactly what will happen, if you do not socialise often then you will get worse at it

The responses to this thread should be hammering home that you're young and naive and incredibly delusional as to what you can achieve

Narrow down your "passions" to one, maybe 2 and be happy with that. You will never 'master' one hobby, never mind several

Because he will never put in a consistent amount of effort for 10 years you simpleton. He will put in a lot of effort for a week, maybe a couple and then the amount of effort will decrease rapidly.

Lmao I laugh at fucking losers like you that lost all motivation. I'm 26 and still going hard on my passions

>quantum physics for dummies
Kek. You must be really willing to make yourself look smart to brainlets, user

>you wouldn't last 2 months let alone 10 years.
This, unless you're autistic about these interests

Which and which?

Dude, if that's true, you'll not be on Veeky Forums.
Stop lying to yourself.
You're just a failure like the rest of us.

In a society saturated with specialist jobs, you are best off becoming a specialist. You can do the other things too, but take the thing you like the most and put that before everything else.

For example, political science/history are useless for sports, but might give you an advantage when investing. Physics and Mathematics are very interesting but useless beyond the practical basics if your profession doesn't involve them.

>Trying to put other people down to feel better
>On a fucking hypothetical thread

The OP clearly only used 10 years as an example. Not saying it can be more or less, but what's with the negativity?

>I'm 26 and still going hard on my passions
memeing on Veeky Forums?

>op says he's an expert in various topics
>mathematics, machine learning, physics
>has only taken calc 2 and doesn't even know python
Never change Veeky Forums
Never change

>Never claimed that

Learn to read ya fucking twat.

>This means a level of mastery that gives me full and complete understanding of the subject matter.
there's no such thing as full and complete understanding for broad subjects like economics, physics, CS and sports

>and IMO, I'm the most well-read person I've met of my age.

Hey, cunt, look up "illusory superiority." You're literally above average effect personified.

there are such things known as "half-truths"

both of these viewpoints are true to a degree. apply contrasting principles and see how well it'll help your life.

you would be burnt out after two months with a routine like that. learning and understanding new information is very exhausting for the brain. there is a reason universal geniuses don't exist anymore.

I know where you are comming from , OP. The truth is that it would take more than a life time to master all those things.

Physics and math by themselves are hard topics to excell in, the ones who do excell are the ones who have been studying them for years, often decades of just math or physics and hardly nothing else.

It's cool that you want to learn a lot, but you need to know your limitations. You will need a lot of extra time to truly get an idea from most of those fields. For example, one does not learn math/physics from just reading a book, you need to practice by doing problems. You'll get stuck on them and will find out that 6hrs a week is not enough to complete them, you'll need to go back, re-read, etc. until you fully grasp concepts.

My advice will be to take one step at a time, start by just 1 or 2 topics in a week, make a plan for them and stick to it for a month, if you are having no problem with them then add one more and so on.

Good luck, OP

I could study for 3 weeks, take 1 week off and continue the cycle. Seems reasonable.

>ITT sci shits on some kid dreams

Nice.

sure, but you should be aware of "warning signs" of a burnout. if you go too far you will end up a mess and not move forward at all for a couple of years. you will still sit in front of your books, but you will simply make no progress. talking out of experience here.

CS into math

To be honest I've also tried to be a polymath (still trying), now all I have is frustration and reality hit hard. So I assume a lot of people on Veeky Forums are trying to warn him of the dangers of such ambitions.
I wanted to get really well versed in history, mythology, engineering/technology (too broad I know), music and martial arts.
I'm only good at martial arts and that's only because of huge sacrifices. I couldn't even be considered good on any of the other subjects, and my motivation to continue studying engineering is only supported by dedication. I'll get my motivation back, but it's no easy path.

What I'm trying to tell OP is that you need to lower your expectations, the ocean is much bigger than what you think. I don't think people are being rude, just realistic.
Is the answer.

...

>ywn create an app, become a billionaire, go to space, become president

why even live?

I don't know about you, but I am becoming a billionaire.

Sure you are. Is it gonna happen before or after your McDonald's shift?

>Basically, I aim to reach a:
Master's level of fluency in physics and computer science.
Bachelor's level of fluency in math, politics, and economics.

totally reasonable within a lifetime

But realize that a masters level means understanding roughly 0.0001% of an entire field. At a masters and even a phd level the knowledge is incredibly narrow.

>In economics, I want to be able to understand the world's financial systems, not too much. Main purpose is to make money with my economics studies.
>For physics the purpose is to be able to understand the physical world well enough that I can create my prototypes for future business.
>Politics so I can debate and understand my history and how politics works, in case I ever get into it in the future.

It is very obvious you dont understand what any of this means or entails, as many of these statements are plainly naive. Broadly search for an interest, find it, and stick with it.

> I don't think people are being rude, just realistic.

Seconded,

But i definitely meant to be rude and realistic at the same time.

>0.0001%

You sure that's correct you illiterate imbecile?

>You sure that's correct you illiterate imbecile?
I did my phd dissertation on it specifically. Ffs ill link a page if you really dont believe me.

he's young and stupid
think highly of himself
he needs a little balance

especially true for physics

This. He shouldn't cram all these fucking subjects into a week. He'll burn himself out

Instead he should study one or two topics at a time

Even if the dude is saying 1 day a week?

What hes trying to do doesn't sound like something a person would burn out of.

If anything the whole thing will go so slow he probably will take a while before it amounts to whatever he wants to do.

Bumping with advice.

That album is based, I watched him perform a few weeks ago. He played Stranger on a church organ, it was amazing

capitalism is not your friend OP

But you gotta be friends with it

>implying I'm not doing something to actually achieve that now
Not everyone here is a NEET loser or working in a subhuman job, user

>Sports

I get that you want to exercise, and it is very healthy for you, but you have a pretty tight schedule. I would do about an hour of activity and keep working on stuff that you are struggling in.