What is Veeky Forums studying over winter break? I'm in a coffee shop reading The Book of Proof

It's decent to read. It feels like a professor talking to you, not like a text book. Here's another page so you can see what I mean

More like using the book as cover for skeezin on coffee shop cuties

>garbage misinterpretation of Euclid's proof by using "contradiction" when it's not needed

Italian Veeky Forums. I just got my master in math, so I'm taking a pause.

I ended up on Veeky Forums out of nostalgia: I was thinking of those plebs who believe that Dirac's \delta is a function R->R that sends 0 to infinity and every other value to 0. Losers don't know no distribution theory
\[ \sadface \]

The Principles of Quantum Mechanics and Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Kind of easy.

>studying during my break
Maybe if I was a brianlet. I studied everything I had to during the semester, now is my time off.

>given any finite set of prime numbers, you can build a new one, so we can conclude (by induction) that there are infinite prime numbers

>if there was a finite set containing all prime numbers, you would be able to build a prime number that lies outside that set, giving a contradiction

the difference is minimal, really

how would you prove it then?

>time off
If studying is not something you do during your "time off," you're not going to make it.

>Coffee shop and 'reading'
>Coffee shop and taking a picture of what you are 'reading'
OP you're not a girl right? Your not just refreshing this thread and waiting for attention right?

Just to remind you OP this isn't your Twitter account. You are most likely trying to get more attention from people but do you mind finding it somewhere else, like reddit instead of here please.

I got 11 (you)'s. Try again.
You missed the point, anyway. What have you studied?

Primarily this

Just read the section in that pic. Are there other standard guidelines for writing clear mathematics? The only I can think of is paying attention to the reading direction and write "choose x such that P(x)" instead of "P(x) for some x" for instance.

Chapter 1 covers this

Looks nice.And it’s cheap. Thanks user.

The Book of Pussy?
You can't just whip it out like nothing mang

Got this as a recommendation from Veeky Forums

Paul Halmos wrote a pretty good essay on mathematical writting. And its pretty easy to find it on google

>book of proof
>teaches you grammar

I always, wondered. what the fuck all these Intro, to basic proofs -courses, etc, were?

lmao at americoons learning gramar in universitys

Oh look, it’s [math]\mathbb{C}[/math] for engineers.

>in a coffee shop reading The Book of Proof

thissssssssssssss

>picture of a desert on the cover

What did they mean by that? I mean, it's no secret that complex analysis is fucking pointless and a terrible waste of time, but now they're just making fun of their readers.

Instead of going through an intro to proofs book can I skip the crap and go directly to abstract algebra and learn how to do proofs that way? Otherwise I’m wasting a lot of time learning “how to do proofs” when all I want to do is learn abstract algebra

Yes. Intro to proofs is for brainlets who don't understand basic logic.

Okay thanks, I’m skipping intro to proofs junk then & diving right into algebra.

>Instead of going through an intro to proofs book can I skip the crap and go directly to abstract algebra and learn how to do proofs that way? Otherwise I’m wasting a lot of time learning “how to do proofs” when all I want to do is learn abstract algebra

Finished this up

Been screwing with an Atmel AVR ATmega328p in C now, learning PWM and stuff

Visual Complex Analysis is better IMHO

you do have to be rigurous in not assuming things when doing proofs (a very common mistake); at least make sure you thoroughly study some proofs to get the gist of it

that, or you can skim through the second (maybe third) part of Book of Proof before starting: people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/BookOfProof.pdf

I need to learn MATLAB in three days

At least she's using version control

>can I skip the crap and go directly to abstract algebra and learn how to do proofs that way?
yes

Is it doable? I've been meaning to learn MATLAB for a long time now but if it's not very complicated I'll finally do it.

For what? You can learn the basics fairly fast.

I'm finishing Genslers intro to logic and then I was planning on reading Book of Proof or How To Prove It to get a more mathematical perspective on proofs. I haven't thought too far beyond this though I just wanna get better at proofs before I take on anything else.

a period after a mathematical symbol or expression looks retarded

knowledge or get the fuck out, i'm tired of these non-sense posts rooted in the insecurities of high functioning people - man the fuck up, or get the fuck out

people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/BookOfProof.pdf

you act like I study for things

You are going to fail. Proof books are not only there to show you the idea of how to do proofs, but to actually understand the full implications of a theorem.

If you don't understand any of: logical quantifiers, how to show equivalence of sets (a really big one for beginners), how to formulate a negation of a statement, what the difference between contrapositive and contradiction is, the difference between a constructive and existence proof, what uniqueness implies and how to show it in general, then you are going to go nowhere.

>Instead of going through an intro to proofs book can I skip the crap and go directly to abstract algebra and learn how to do proofs that way?
Proof books are essentially a meme, you pick up what you need while working through actual math books anyway (and some have this material in an appendix)

I've never even met a mathematician that's actually used any of those proof books

>winter break
I am taking a winter class (english composition) and it's so shit. an essay a day, I feel actual intelligence (STEM) being sucked out of my mind and being replaced with humanities fluff.

>Kind of easy
Then challenge yourself with the Discourse on Revelations

I dunno, my algebra book taught me like half of those.

So his proof is incorrect?

You don't need to justify your lack of brains here. Not everyone needs to be spoonfed that shit.

Textbook for my linear algebra course. Some excercises are pretty hard- Motl's fixation on string theory seeped into the book.

>So his proof is incorrect?
The proof is correct, but the claim that it's Euclid's argument is incorrect.

Working on this beauty, just finished all the exercises in chapter 1, moving on to chapter 2 now.

>that disgusting handwriting

It's notes for myself, not homework to turn in

These notes
math.harvard.edu/~lurie/252x.html

>m-muh handwriting

Face it, cuck, no one gives a shit about handwriting at this point when you actually type out anything that actually matters. Your faggy handwriting is worthless and you wasted time perfecting that shit.

>faggy
Why the homophobia?

Used it as an adjective. Hope it didn't offend you.

xoxo

writing is better for taking notes
There are studies

Hey, friend, that's pretty sweet, although I fail to understand how it relates to the quality of your handwriting mattering at all. Did the studies also claim that your notes are even better if you have neat and pretty handwriting?

Yes skip it. If you really need it then you can always go back to a proof book.

Neat handwriting is neat. Stop making a fuss.

>cuck
kek. you got em good. fucking handwritingcucks. who needs that shit.

kek, try Lang

>universitys

>lumo is still using his rutgers email because he can't get a position worth shit in czechia

...

$20 cad dollat softcover so it's cheap

>Lang
Lang is a meme.

>it's no secret that complex analysis is fucking pointless and a terrible waste of time
>tfw only learned this after one whole semester-long course
fucking branch cuts man

It's okay, we all make mistakes. At least you got some arithmetic routine if nothing else.

>fucking branch cuts man

Proof by 'contradiction' is flim flam math anyway
math.andrej.com/2010/03/29/proof-of-negation-and-proof-by-contradiction/
>Proof by contradiction, or reductio ad absurdum

I've only read literature this winter. I don't give a fuck about science or math during my breaks.

>I've only read literature this winter. I don't give a fuck about science or math during my breaks.

It's just you

Machine learning and convolutional neural networks in particular for my final project (explaining DNNs).

Grinding out my research paper

>literature is for brainlets

literature is for brainlets

> I'm in a coffee shop
Fuck off you retarded hipster shit

lol

Lol, do you ask every mathematician you meet if he/she took a course dedicated to proofs in their undergrad?

Not directly, no. I just make a snarky remark about the brainlets who have to take a course like that. Every single time they join in and we have a good laugh.

>Lol, do you ask every mathematician you meet if he/she took a course dedicated to proofs in their undergrad?
No, but I've never seen a book like that anywhere in several maths department buildings, never heard a mathematician recommend one during a lecture, never seen it listed on a course website as a supplement, or even just seen anyone reading one.

Mathematicians read math books, does it really surprise you that they don't waste their time on something like that?

>Lol, do you ask every mathematician you meet if he/she took a course dedicated to proofs in their undergrad?
Also none of the universities I've studied at even offered a course dedicated to proofs

>a course dedicated to proofs
Is this actually a thing somewhere? What's the point?

You know how they've been lowering the standards everywhere (+ diversity quotas)?

That's the reason. They have to go out of their way to actually separately teach that shit so all the sub-100iq future geniuses won't drop out at calc 1.

>given any finite set of prime numbers, you can build a new one, so we can conclude (by induction) that there are infinite prime numbers
>if there was a finite set containing all prime numbers, you would be able to build a prime number that lies outside that set, giving a contradiction

you only get a new number which is relatively prime to all your primes, not a new prime

>you only get a new number which is relatively prime to all your primes, not a new prime
If the new number is relatively prime to all your primes, then you have a new prime.

proof?

>proof?
Any prime dividing the new number is your new prime.

>anti-contradiction-ist

Why does Veeky Forums attract all the loons?

It's not being "anti-contradiction", it's just pointing out that Euclid didn't use "contradiction".