Post your loved and hated ones
Are the mathematics books listed in the guide in the sticky up to date (https://sites.google.com/site/scienceandmathguide/subjects/mathematics)? I mean, obviously the content probably doesn't change much, but books that teach that content more effectively might've been released.
I took some baby calculus courses in college, but I really want to self study and get deeper into it. Not sure what books I should go with.
Literally my bible. The examples are so clear, it covers everything and it's even quite rigorous sometimes.
Quite a rigorous course, but with hard work, anyone can manage an ok GPA
This is fantastic.
You'd probably want to be familiar with algebraic geometry and homotopy theory before hand, but it goes over a lot of the prerequisites in the first half of the book.
A lot of it is available online on the various authors websites.
What's a good calculus book that can supplement Stewart? That is the book we are using in class, and we HAVE to do exercises out of that book and turn them in, but what is something I can use alongside it since it seems like Stewart's isn't that great
Stewart's is fine, you will find few books with such quality graphics, it's rigorous enough for an intro calculus text (moreso than most alternatives) which in itself is not a rigorous field and will be useful as a reference. It's a bit long which is why people complain (and because it's more popular than their favourite textbook). People who complain about lack of rigour in Stewart's have never read it, you can read everyone's favourite textbooks to compare, none of them are rigorous throughout, they all have the same sporadic proofs Stewart injects. That's just what calculus is, ie not analysis.
Here's some alternatives:
>People who complain about lack of rigour in Stewart's have never read it, you can read everyone's favourite textbooks to compare, none of them are rigorous throughout, they all have the same sporadic proofs Stewart injects. That's just what calculus is, ie not analysis.
How much retardation can you cram into one post.
First off, you should only be looking for a supplement text if you want a rigorous intro to the subject. If you're only interested in the cookbook-style (i.e. you don't want proofs of everything you read) stuff just watch some youtube videos.
That said, if you do want a rigorous supplement take a look at vol.1 of Courant if you're a physics student and Spivak if you're a maths student.
Could anyone recommend a good introduction to C++ and numerical methods?Particularly featuring a lot of linear algebra.
I'm looking to implement some common matrix algorithms (QR, LU, SV decomposition, finding eigenvalues etc.) and I'm struggling to find books.
The books I've looked at so far have been outdated, not advanced mathematically or have assumed to much programming background.
I've got experience in Matlab and Python, but not to any great degree.
Please consider just reading a book on C++ and then read a book on numerical methods.
A bit more basic than lang, but i reaaaaly like Knapp's presentation in his "Basic Algebra" and "advanced algebra." Anyone else have opinions on these?
Speaking of favorite books, I think that all of Milnor's books are great. Bott and Tu is a masterpiece. A lot of other books I find are really useful for specific areas of research/reference, but few that I really love like the above. Maybe Demailly' notes and Griffiths-Harris (find the errata!) are up there. Oh yeah, and anything by Eli Stein (his princeton lecture series are perfect for advanced undergrads...helps you really 'get' what analysis is all about, and his harmonic analysis texts are bibles, don't know TOO much in them though). I also love any well written book on distributions because they're beautiful.
Any tips on how to learn about geometric representation theory? I have basic graduate knowledge of subjects, including basic representation theory and lie theory and in depth knowledge of complex geometry --analytic techniques (Demailly style) and algebraic geometry, but from the more geometric perspective :(
I just really want to read a bit about geometric representation theory because it seems sexy. Book suggestions?
Could you elaborate a little on what you think of Knapp's books?
Is Basic Algebra too terse for a reasonably sophisticated undergrad to use as a first look? (I have a theoretical linear algebra course and a decent amount of analysis behind me)
I've seen a couple of posts saying good things about them but some of the details of the book leave me a bit unsure (categories pop up and fairly early, although I'm not sure how much they're relied on, and the pace in chapter 4 on groups seems absolutely blazing compared to other texts).
Yeah, I think it can be a little hard as a first text. It's not that the material he presents assumes you know a lot already, but his pacing in some places does (as you noticed). It goes through some details a tad quickly for someone who hasn't seen them before. For gentler introductions that aren't "easy" (like Galiian I think is way too easy), I only know of artin and dummit and foote but I don't know many others. Artin has a very unique style that some people dislike (I like it :/). Dummitt and Foote is very detailed and comprehensive yet approachable (does not introduce stuff from categorical perspective). These qualities make it a favorite for a lot but it can get kind of dull. Nice thing is if you're self studying from D&F there's solutions to many of the exercises online. I don't really know of what the "best" introduction is. A lot of people here seem to like Pinter. I've never looked at it, though.
welcome to 2016:
>Note: A second printing of the book is projected for the end of ... February, and will incorporate the errata listed here but include no other major changes.
i have this book (3rd edition) since i am 15 or 16.
still using 10 years later.
I'm going through Pinter and it gets quite tedious. The theory is well explained and motivated, but usually there's about 5-8 pages per chapter and then there's 30+ exercises, and a lot of them are somewhat trivial, so it gets annoying to do all of them or knowing which of them are harder.
Just start programming. If you are a beginner I assume that you already know all about C++'s rules. Now you have to apply them. First go read some sample code online to see the proper styles people use. Then just #include "windows.h" and try to make something useful.
Any idea of the depth of a project you would like to see in order to hire a junior cpp programmer ?like a parsing engine how deep would you need it to be? A raytracer ? I have a molecular biology degree tho so how to convince you I'm not shite
#1: Something that utilizes the standard library a lot, to show you know your away around C++
#2: Something that uses external libraries that most companies will be using. Again, windows.h is the best option for this
#3: Something that connects in one way or another to the internet. Just make a SQL database and have your program retrieve and/or send data to it.
What that could be? Many things, really. A good place to start thinking is your own degree. But if you are stuck with creativity there, then just google intermediate/advanced C++ projects and do them.
ME here, pic related is shit and my professor agrees (he prefers Shigley). The design questions are pretty much incomprehensible in what they ask for.
Have not come across another book that is so authoritative on a topic as this one is. The detail this book goes into is incredible
Of course it's worth your time, if you have the time. So is Hilbert, Tarski, many others.
This board is full of people who think they should read and idolise one book at the expense of all others.
For the last 20 years or so, I've read every mathematical book I could get my hands on.