Has anyone ever actually been autistic enough to systematically read and work through a series of textbooks like this...

The main goal was to be a better than average scientist. I'm getting an EE undergrad, and then applying into physics PhD programs.

You underestimate how few physics/math/engineering undergrads actually learn in-depth material INSIDE their courses and manage to retain it, let alone outside. (Like maybe 12% or less of students would actually be like what you see on Veeky Forums claim to be, especially in engineering)

Self study is important because you tend to absorb and pay more attention because it's an investment, and is more enjoyable than the forced work in college courses.

It absolutely was worth it. Since doing it, I haven't been in a discussion, or seen research that I was interested in that I couldn't wrap my head around. More importantly, my level is apparent when talking to research professors, and it's nice seeing the fruits of my labor when their eyes light up at someone who knows their shit. (Think like that cal 1 pasta that gets posted, but not cringy)

You need to do it now. The unfortunate problem is once all those shitty lazy undergrads get to graduate school, quite a few of them turn out to be worth something, get competitive, and then you have fewer advantages in candidacy selection if you didn't beat them to it.
See

If you're serious about math, you have to read textbooks. In other subjects the text is a supplement, in math everything else is an accessory to the book.

The pic you posted is retarded though (7 days to learn calc but 4 months to learn multivariate calc top kek) and you should probably not take advice from Veeky Forums on just about anything.

When you dedicate time and effort into your field your professors notice and will offer you as much as they can.
I'm an example of this, I do plenty of self study for pure math and all my professors adore me, some even offer me research assistant positions. And one even offered to use their connections to get me to a good graduate school if I wanted to leave this shit hole.

Thank you both!

>cal 1 pasta
anyone have this pasta?

Couple weeks into calculus 1 now, doing well, already past the chain rule and beyond. Quotient rule was a joke. Product rule remains my specialty.
I ask my professor his thoughts on quantum mechanics and partial derivatives. He's impressed i know about the subject. We converse after class for some time, sharing mathematical insights; i can keep up. He tells me of great things ahead like series and laplacians. I tell him i already read about series on wikipedia. He is yet again impressed at my enthusiasm. What a joy it is to have your professor visibly brighten when he learns of your talents.
And now I sit here wondering what it must be like to be a brainlet, unable to engage your professor as an intellectual peer.
All of the deep conversations you people must miss out on because you aren't able to overcome the intellectual IQ barrier that stands in the way of your academic success... it's so sad.
My professor and I know each other on first name basis now, but i call him Dr. out of respect.
And yet here you brainlets sit, probably havent even made eye contact with yours out of fear that they will gauge your brainlet IQ levels.
A true shame, but just know it is because i was born special that i am special. I can't help being a genius, nor can my professor.
Two of a kind is two flocks in a bush.

thanks

>kek

did you actually read whole spivak's geometry? is it worth?

Don't look at that whole big list - just do what you need to do today.

This course helped me immensely with strategizing and managing my learning:

coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn

>Has anyone ever actually been autistic enough to systematically read and work through a series of textbooks like this?

yeah, we call them college graduates.

I start at the problems at the end of each chapter, then read what I need to solve them before going back to the problems. Rinse and repeat. Also, try looking for problems that you don't know how to solve but do know where to start. Like Project Euler problems, a lot of which can be solved by hand if you're willing to do a couple iterations and recognize mathematical patterns.

It's not hard to do. You just do it. 99% of people don't because 99% of people are too lazy and don't give a shit. If you actually did that, you'd be ahead of everyone in your class.

Well, I agree that starting with Spivak is a little bit too much (I really doubt that all the spergs here that suck Spivak's cock are able to study with his book).

My sequence for a good calc understanding is Stewart -> A regular real analysis book -> A decent calculus book (Apostol or Spivak, if you're american).

Abso-fuckinglutely

Shit was intense, but easily the best time/dollar investment I've made in my college career. It enabled me to make sense of relativity, and some other later physics, that I genuinely believe would have stumped me if I had tried to learn from the brainlet who teaches it here

>A regular real analysis book -> A decent calculus book
That seems counterintuitive to me. Isn't it redundant to go back to calculus after you've learned real analysis?

(I haven't studied real analysis though so I don't know)

>Isn't it redundant to go back to calculus after you've learned real analysis?

Kind of. The problem is the fucking Spivak.

The book is so fucking dense it has a good amount of real analysis on it, and the exercises are challenging. Doing real analysis first will help you with this book, but I agree with you, after real analysis, I don't really see reasons to go back to calc, unless you want to learn it 10000%.

what do u recommend for the review?
khan? patrick? leonard?
math lamar?

I already read most of Stewart (except series and multivariable) I just couldnt continue, I was so bored and disgusted of reading another page or doing another excercise (prob because I am lazy)

But I was attracted by Spivaks and I want to really get into it.

However I've never gotten any training on analysis, what would you recommend?

sauce for the love of god, I've just been using a text editor with all the titles I'm currently reading listed, where I edit and update the page number I'm on / total pages

Surely they mean sections per day on step one, not chapters? Two chapters a day of approximately ~8 sections is simply too much. I'm lucky if I can work through 3 sections in 6 hours (including problems ofc)

N...n-nani?

he means a reason to learn it, something to apply it to

fucking retard

pls respond
l
s

Khan's videos are good, but it would take forever to cover all trig/alg/geo

I recommend the Opexstax free PDF textbooks.

Shit's pretty cash. Not the most rigorous setup, but it covers the necessary precalculus. You can also use Axler's precalculus if you want rigor. To be honest though, if the review is that necessary for you, or you're that far behind, the pacing of the list I gave earlier would probably burn you out.

The stamina required for that list is at least noteworthy. Anyone who has been in honors/ap should be able to handle it though. If you're back ground is weaker, I recommend a big introductory setup instead of that list.

A few months ago, I came on and posted I'd be making a bunch of guides for undergraduate self instruction, supplementary books list, guides for different STEM majors, etc.

I'm still about a month or two away from being done, as finals and other shit has my attention, but they'll be on there way so nu-Veeky Forums has something better than our shit wiki to go by.

Hang in there.

user HELP ME

Math pleb here. What's generally meant by inclusion or exclusion of rigor in a text?

Most of my profs seem to have read textbooks on their own, so it seems like you have to supplement your university education with textbooks later on if you want to be a professional.

Someone help me here.

Should I start with Stewart or do pic related?
Thanks

>A few months ago, I came on and posted I'd be making a bunch of guides for undergraduate self instruction, supplementary books list, guides for different STEM majors, etc.
I think I remember you posting that thread. I hope you actually go through with this. It would be very helpful.

Are you talking about following that whole image or just the Book of Proof?

Knowing how to write proofs won't help you much with Stewart, but you will need to know basic algebra and trigonometry either way.

I've been reading math textbooks since January. I've gone through everything from calculus to analytic combinatorics. I plan on using it to make money by either building something or getting into some serious machine learning . I don't think it's autistic

Here you go guys, thank me later.

kek, (You)

thanks /b/ro doing this right now

desu I dont think Elements is a bad introduction to geometry, I am not wrong right? right?

Nah FGA is better than EGA for an introduction.

LOL

This one is a bit better I've gone through about half of it my self and I say it is def worth.

top kek

Sorry, just came back now. I'm Brazilian, and the book I use you probably won't find there.

"Um Curso de Análise - Elon Lages de Lima".

I believe there are plenty of good books in the shelf if you search for it.

yes, you need to go methodically through textbooks like this to learn seriously
no, this is not a good guide, it's shit. PLEASE ask someone after making sure he knows what he's doing

for ALGEBRAIC geometry, no. geometry like that usually means differential geometry

Tao's Analysis I
he writes in a very nice way, oriented to people who're just getting into math, with all the nice tips that a good first professor will tell you about your math education

Sorry, saw the other user posting, thought he would answer.

Stewarts is decent only for people who don't care about the subject any deeper than basic "calculus 1-4" classes.

Apostols is a much better text in regard to teaching you how things are derived, although it is a bit dry.

Spivaks is brilliant and witty, but he takes most people offgard, with jokes in the middle of an almost narrative style method of exposition. His "calculus" is also more of an analysis text, including bounds, fields, construction of reals, etc.

I bought both, and used both, and I think it was a good decision to get multiple perspectives. Isolating your growth leads to fewer chances to expand your understanding and capability.

Again, poorfags should use bookfinder.

Essentially, in a non rigorous text, like Stewarts or any other normal undergrad cal 1-4 book, they show you the basic tools like integration and differentiation, they show you how the different cases with transcendental functions, and they show you how to solve problems with them.

However, they never show you why the math works, they never say why. They just tell you it does, with maybe a few appendices covering basic proofs or derivations.

Calculus isn't a "real" field of math. It is an old construction newton and Leibnitz worked on. People came after him and expanded the field into analysis. They took basic axioms from algebra and newtons work, and made it follow set theory, which gave it "rigor". You can construct why a derivative works from just a few theorems.

Just so everyone here is clear, this list is bait. None of these should be attempted unless you're bored in your modern algebra or harmonics classes. All of those books are intended for graduates or very bright upperclassmen.

Yeah they're coming along, I'm just very busy. The summer will easily give me enough time though, should be done by mid-June.

If I go through Treil's book should I also go through an intro to proofs book like how to prove it?

That would be a good idea whether or not you go through trail.

>phone poster
Honestly there should be a culling...

The user in the pic said that it was supposed to introduce a student to proofs as well as matrix algebra, and I was planning on going through books on the foundations of mathematics and jech's intro to set theory before I get into anything too advanced, so I'm not sure if an intro to proofs book is that necessary.

Does anyone here recommend shlomo sternberg's advanced calculus?

Then yeah you may not need it, it all depends on how fast you pick shit up. Some people on this board are quite capable, they may have just not had the proper exposure, and their confidence reading what would be considered by brainlets as impossible, may be lower in the beginning

>i thought this was a /pol/ post till i looked it up...

Looks hard if you've never seen analysis before, but should be doable if you're not a brainlet.

It also looks like an excellent choice if you're physics oriented.

I honestly don't think I've heard a more jewish name.

>there is someone actually named shlomo
oy vey

Did you think /pol/ was just memeing this whole time? /pol/, for better of for worse, is not satire

I feel super uncomfortable whenever I'm not working my way through some textbook in my spare time. But also I have no friends and my family has essentially cut all contact with me, so there's not much else I can do.

>TAKE LE RED PILL BRO XDXD

Fuck off fellow pol cuck

It's actually great, but not for the faint of heart.

/pol/ isn't memeing, they're just wrong

>Or is there a better way to go about this?

Standard Arithmetic - William J. Milne
Higher Arithmetic - James B. Thomson
Elements of Algebra - Leonhard Euler

Euclid's Elements (Heath's translation)
Kiselev's Geometry, Book I. Planimetry
Kiselev's Geometry Book II. Stereometry
Plane and Solid Geometry - William J. Milne
Geometry Revisited - H. S. M. Coxeter, S. L. Greitzer

Graph Theory - Reinhard Diestel
Graph Theory With Applicaitons - J. A. Bondy, U. S. R. Murty

Introduction to Probability - D. P. Bertsekas, J. N. Tsitsiklis

250 Problems in Elementary Number Theory - Waclaw Sierpinski
Induction and Analogy in Mathematics - George Pólya

>/pol/ isn't satire

Hi tourist.

Retard here who actually went through this list, thinking I would come out the other end enlightened, having no background in math to start, not even calc 1.

It taught me more about semantics than math. I'm still very jaded about the experience as I spent about six months in the library without any contact from the outside world. I literally slept with these books. I spent an inordinate amount of time applying definitions only to come out the other end with zero geometric insight and even less of an understanding of math than when I started.

It is a troll list. Don't fall for it.

You went through every single book on that list? And did all the problems?

Yes, they'll complement each other.

kek, "Precalc"

The image is less than 2 months old newfag.

Yes. Unfortunately. I'm not proud of it, but I did it by abusing substitution rules for all the terms I encountered. I knew I wasn't going to be understand any of it, so I just wrote out what the definition of every single term was until I could define everything from a finite list of primitives that I still didn't understand, and then mechanically replaced terms with their primitive definitions in sentences until I arrived at the answers to the problems. It was all just symbols and symbol replacement the whole time. I didn't really "invent" anything it was all a very boring mechanical process. I more or less did sentence generation but by hand. I wanted to jump off a cliff because it was so tedious and mind numbing. I didn't really "think" about any of the problems which is why it was such a waste of time even though I got all the answers right which is why I'm so bitter and embarrassed about the whole ordeal.

that image has been floating around for years what are you talking about?

This is a good meme and I'm impressed you've bothered to type that out.

if you couldn't identify that it was a troll list to begin with, than you were aptly punished for your gullibility

newfag detected

Wait, is this a copypasta I've somehow not seen before?

>This is a good meme

Not a meme...? Why are you saying this.

I know. Like I said I feel like a retard for doing it. I hope others don't fall for it either unless they actually understand what they are doing and how to use the books properly. If you don't understand the material, even if you get the right answers you'll end up just more confused like me.

Just do pic related. Those are 3 solid texts and 2 are free ones that can be DLed immediately.

Hell, you can substitute the first book in that pic with Khan Academy's lessons on algebra and trig.

>first introduction to calculus was Papa Rudin
>took that list seriously, despite it clearly being a meme (random signals and noise under women's studies; homology under queer studies)
>not a meme

>women's studies
>queer studies

I'm sorry, the picture I have which I thought I recognized from the thumbnail did not contain either of those, which I obviously would have recognized it as a meme.

>first introduction to calculus was Papa Rudin

Like I said, I just used definitions and substitution rules and didn't bother trying to "understand" the concepts since I knew I wouldn't be able to. Most people see a big scary new word and give up on the first page. I just scanned the page for sentence structures that corresponded to definitions, i.e. I "hunted and pecked" for "is"-statements. Honestly it is surprising how far you can get with just substitution rules. Painful and mind-numbing, but surprising. Made me wonder part way through how many other people also do not understand the texts and are also just using substitution rules...

>all this discrete shit with one book on algebra

I want CSfags to leave Veeky Forums

To clarify, I studied English and Philosophy before I cracked open these books so applying methods I learned from analyzing dense, convoluted, crumbling, and often incomplete texts in old and middle english (and often other languages) came in handy.

I figured, "Hey, if language is general, I should be able to apply the same rules to any subject."

I was right... but I paid for it. Not recommended.

So you actually did all the problems?

fuck are you talking about?
I know

I already responded to you.

Actually it's less than a few weeks old, I edited it to make it better

Do you reckon a reasonably intelligent student could tackle it after going through Apostol's Calculus 1?

You would need to probably do both Apostols just for perspective but yeah go for it

Read Archimedes in the original Greek first and Sternberg will be a fucking breeze.

Probably. Look over the contents in detail before committing, the first half is calculus on normed vector spaces and the second half treats calculus on manifolds, culminating in differential forms and the generalized stokes' theorem.
If you want something closer to your standard suite of 200-level classes but with respectable rigor and a focus on theory over computation, go for Apostol 2. No reason you can't read Apostol and come back to Shekelberg, either.

>tfw rereading thread
>laughing at this idiot
>tfw remember I'm that idiot

Here's an improved version

what a horrible list, fucking full of memes

you and the guy in the OP image are fucking garbage and should stop talking about math

this is worse
your text is shit and your new books are not even math

Engineering is just applied physics which is just applied math, math is just applied philosophy

>Zizek - Various Kinds of Anal Penetration and how they Relate to Hegel
GOLD

II was just wondering if Stewart would be better than Beecher. It seems to be more concise from skimming through them both

I don't understand. Would'nt you need to truly understand a few key concept and thus everything else would suddenly make sense ?