How to learn advanced math by myself? I'm really interested in it but in school, I have only taken pre calculus
>>9070140
Books (pick any in each category)
Calc:
MIT OCW 18.01
Spivak
Lin Alg:
Axler
Halmos Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces
Abstract Algebra:
Jacobson
Artin
Emil Artin
Dummit Foote
Analysis:
Rudin
Tao
Advanced Real Analysis:
Stein Shakarchi
Rudin Real and Complex Analysis
Royden
Folland
Complex Analysis:
Ahlfors
Combinatorics:
van Lindt and Wilson
Lovasz Combinatorial Problems and Exercises
Junka Extermal Combinatorics
Bollobas
Concrete Mathematics by Knuth
Logic:
Ebbinghaus Flum Thomas
Schoenfield
Advanced Logic:
Recursion Theory:
Soare
Rogers
Set Theory:
Kunen
Model Theory:
Chang and Keisler
>>9070140
In my humble opinion you don't jump to advanced mathematics without feeling great pleasure in studying and solving basic problems.
khanacademy
Why dont we just fill the Yellowstone supervolcano with water until it is cold?
Water expands when it gets hot so it would just make everything explode
>>9070088
Why dont we just use ice water then?
>>9070092
That would work.
Go get a bucket and start working, OP. We'll leave this project in your hands.
Really makes you think
Aubrey + Pizza = ∞/10
>>9073589
Sometimes I sit awake on long hot nights, while sweating myself to sleep, and I think about what he looks like without that beard. I imagine it is the only thing that is keeping him immortal and underneath it is pure bone, no skin left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_circle
Why does odd number of discs has higher desity than even? (2n, 2n+1)
>>9069564
ups
I meant, is it a probability of those cases 1?
>>9069564
>Why does odd number of discs has higher desity than even
it doesnt?
>>9069564
Because they have to increase the radius to fit more circles of the same size. Did you even read the article?
M=body where (m)=mind
I just made this up, what think about it am I a brainlet yet
Can someone give me a serious quick-rundown on the Bogdanoff Affair? Is what they say bullshit or are they right?
They have a decent culture, but a lot of what they say is postmodern philosophy.
if only you knew the half of it...
What do they say?
> tfw when a goat is smarter than you
http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2014/03/26/goats-the-boffins-of-the-farmyard/
Hi /sci/. Time traveler. Are you ready to believe yet?
>Will teens use particle accelerators for sex?
>Yes
Would you happen to have further information which may quench this curiosity of mine?
>>9069263
It looks like LHC-tan is about as far as that goes, but you're always welcome to try to change my memories just in case.
>>9069263
what is the penis but a shitty particle accelerator
What are some good scientific/debunking channels you recommend ?
1.King Crocoduck)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AX7QN68bw
2.St. Rawman)
https://www.youtube.com/user/SaintRawman/videos
>debunking channels
You're on the wrong site kiddo
>>9069194
Follow a real scientist in youtube. All the other channels are pop science or junk science.
>science videos with memes and swearing
>actually liking this stuff
holy shit off yourself OP
Books only ever teach you the absolute minimal as anyone who has ever attempted the questions at the end of a chapter will find that the topics being questioned are rarely covered in the preceding chapters.
Say for example, a chapter teaches you all about the addition operator and that 2 + 2 = 4. But then in the questions, they ask you to take the leap of faith to solve what 2*2 is without ever introducing you to the * sign.
Simply put, the smug author always wants you to telepathically arrive at the right answer for their "trivial" questions, and then blames you as the "lazy" student for not trying "hard enough" to solve a question with information you never had access to begin with.
You are supposed to use your brain to figure some things out yourself. It's part of the learning process. You can't expect to be spoon-fed every single thing.
>a chapter teaches you all about the addition operator and that 2 + 2 = 4. But then in the questions, they ask you to take the leap of faith to solve what 2*2 is without ever introducing you to the * sign.
Nothing like this ever happens. You're just dumb.
>>9069201
>Nothing like this ever happens. You're just dumb.
going to have to agree with this assessment
>>9069202
I concur.
The matter is settled. OP is dumb.
>Absolute pitch might be achievable by any human being during a critical period of auditory development,[56][57] after which period cognitive strategies favor global and relational processing.
>There may be a genetic locus for absolute pitch ability,[64][65] which locus would suggest a genetic basis for its presence or absence.
>However, no adult has ever been documented to have acquired absolute listening ability, [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_pitch#Nature_vs._nurture
What are the chances that a similar phenomenon might occur with mathematics?
Am I forever stuck in brainletism?
The existence of a genius gene seems like science fiction. In reality you may encounter gifted individuals with an acute ability for the abstract or mental computations just like there are children born each year who can draw like a master at the age of 5 or reach the strength of an adult at the age of 12. A more objective though snooty way to quantify abstract reasoning is their success in mathematics, but relatively speaking then all working mathematicians would be said to have this "genius gene" if it existed. You are forced to take one of three conclusions, realize your perception of this phenomenon has wholly been influenced by what talented individual happens to be famous and cannot be measured normally, realize the quantity of modern mathematicians at the research level suggests it is possible, even probably for a student that is accomodated to learning abstractions at an introductory level to continue his career, or understand your potential obsession with brainletism is not ironically all in your head and you are faced with insecurities of your own failure due to constantly comparing yourself to those with more gimmicks
>>9069171
Please use paragraphs and write shorter periods.
>The existence of a genius gene seems like science fiction.
Movies cannot show what is going on inside the head of the mathematician or how his brain is arranged.
Normal people can listen to notes but cannot label them; there's no pathway between the collections of cells that listen to the note and the label.
Similarly, the Genius might have unique but more subtle abilities.
>>9069154
Pretty sure Sheldon has absolute pitch. Their show employs the smartest science advisors available so.... fuck off.
/sci/ why are there no galaxies made of galaxies?
>>9069150
Is that Arya Stark?
is that not just what a giant cluster of galaxies is? but if you mean why there isn't a giant sun and galaxies orbiting it, probably because those bodies would have to be bigger than anything we've ever seen.
>>9069150
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_groups_and_clusters
how the fuck we cheat on electricity?
ive hears theres some kind of device that when connected can generate reverse impulses to cheat the counter. I mean Tesla would surely come upon something just to fuck up with Edison.
Help me sci
You snip the wires just before the electricity counter and connect them to the wires above. Simple as.
>>9069149
simple ? maybe
scientific?
not really
>reverse impulses to cheat the counter.
This guy created reverse electricity. It makes wires cool down instead of heat up, and makes batteries charge instead of drain.
Preview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHiad18ZwcY
Please /sci/ help me out here. Why is this bullshit OR why is this not more popular?
Alan claims to have rediscovered the "universal unit of measure" connecting "foot", "cubit", and "meter" as well as claiming there are encoded constants on this page that haven't been discovered in 1609...
"Maths" are on his website here: http://www.tobeornottobe.org/math
>>9069029
>13 minute video
can I get a quick rundown?
>>9069031
I did - the attached picture and my description.
The main point being things like the constant "e" weren't discovered until Bernoulli is credited for it's discovery in 1683
Brun's constant is 1919
>>9069045
e is dimensionless, length is not.
This sounds dodgy.