Basic Mathematics by Serge Lang

>>8205282
It's the best book for an adult wanting to (re?)learn school math

File: S60715-135206.jpg (252KB, 800x1280px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 800x1280px

not OP, but i saw the thread where this book was recommended.

What subject covers pic related? And what path from high school maths will have me understand this notation and statments?

>>8205370
Bump for interest.

>>8205370
If you don't already know high school math, read Basic Mathematics. If you just want to learn the notation, it's just basic set theory stuff, you can find it in the open chapter of a lot of introductory level books for undergraduates. If you want to start learning proof based math, pick up Calculus by Spivak.

By the way, what book is that, their proof for symmetry is garbage.

>>8205445
It was an answer i foind googling for proof of transitive property, from some forum. Spivaks calc is on my list. That defines all that notation then and those proofs?

so basic mathematics isnt basic at all but has set theory shit?

>>8205738
No, it's all the basic math you should know before calculus.

File: 618jHv5RVWL._SX339_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (65KB, 341x499px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 341x499px

how does it compare to pic related?

>>8205282
It's the best book if you want to learn everything up to Calculus.

>>8205654
Spivak doesn't do set notation, but he doesn't assume you have it either. He starts with talking about naturals and reals, which you should have some exposure to.
Pugh does open with sets nice and visually

I think Courant was the one I used to get sets

>>8205753

Fun fact: I haven't read that book, but the background image is of problems ~50-55 of the Rhind papyrus, an ancient Egyptian mathematical document. This section of the document is often shown to give a picture of "ancient math", because it has a few diagrams and "looks cool", but in fact the author makes many numerical and serious mathematical mistakes in this part of the text.

>>8205800
We all have to start somewhere.

>>8205370
Get familiar with some very basic logic and quite a bit of set theory.

For instance, that 2nd axiom just states that in (a, b), a and b are related to each other. ie: if a is related to b, then b is related to a.

>>8205800
I mean it is one of the oldest documents containing math which we have. Further, standards were pretty different, there were no proofs, only demonstrations on how to solve basic mathematical problems.