I realize that the math community on /sci/ is pretty contemptuous

There are a bunch of Springer books with "Stochastic Processes" in the titles,
however, looking e.g. at quant sites on the web it's soon clear that all the fine machinery developed in math departments is not what's used and what is implemented is are "common sense" (for a broad reading of that term) math. I say in case you think "that's something where I can do interesting math and still get $$$". The practical side of this field isn't very mathy, I think. Not as mathy as you may thing.

>>8063822
Not him.

I have read a lot about the quant job and what i have concluded so far is that people with VERY STRONG computational background and advanced knowledge in diff. eq. probs/stats if not just don't even try.

>>8063906
I can't parse your sentence

You have concluded that people (with VERY STRONG computational background and advanced knowledge in differential equation) do what?

>>8063914
do work as quants

>>8062721
That's because most of /sci/ doesn't know maths. It's mostly agreed that you can't divide maths into "pure" and "applied" because at some point it becomes very very hard to draw a distinction.
Stochastic processes for example requires measure theory, analysis, linear algebra, calculus and plenty of other "pure" knowledge.
Recommendations:
>[Geoffrey R. Grimmett, David R. Stirzaker] Probability and Random Processes
>[J. R. Norris] Markov Chains (Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics) (2009)

>>8064337
at bachelor level there is a significant diference.
also it is more project oriented at my uni

>>8064784
>at bachelor level there is a significant diference.
Sorry, but what does?

>>8064337
OP here

finally thx for a sincere response

>>8064955
You're welcome OP - going through those books myself so if you need any help just say so.

>>8064337
Is that the same measure theory that's needed for lebesgue?

>>8066257
Yes it is.

>>8064955
I find it pretty offensive that you call my earlier response insincere. I also don't get why you'd conclude that.
Further, I think you already know what you want to hear. I stand by my claim: the actual quant work is more hands on and you don't need measure theory at all, in actuality. Yes, you need to know sigma algebras and so on because you want to read those books which speak about stochastic processes in terms of it. They use those notions. But if you are doing a non-academic job, maybe implementing some algorithms, the tasks (sadly) dob't bring you back to this book math at all.