/brainlet/ here, how do I git gud at self-learning from textbooks?

File: Ambam gorilla.jpg (113KB, 634x717px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 634x717px

Study the basis.

Guess what, most brainlets don't know how to read a math book too.

And most will ignore this advice because they want a magic method or magic pill so they become Gauss in less than a week.

Go master arithmetics and learn the notation from the basis. Then you can start to relearn algebra.

If you don't read novels for fun already, don't expect to pick up reading textbooks and actually have fun doing it. You realize how silly it sounds once you say it out loud.

>>8447529
You first need to have a consistent study schedule.
Do at least one hour every day.
Write things down while you read the book and rearrange them creating your own style.
It comes naturally with time.
If you want to learn mathematics pick a book like:
Halmos. Naive Set Theory.
Study it then rehearse it a lot of times.
Brainlets think memorizing is bad.
That's because they have shit memories.
Move to a different book like:
Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy.
You need to go through a lot of books about the same subject to get good.

>>8447620
when you cover a topic, say linear algebra, do i start with a introduction book, get down the basic concepts and then move onto a more advanced/rigourous book?

how do you know that you've covered a topic to a good enough standard? Do you just keep learning about that subject until nothing is new to you anymore? Do i learn abit of discrete math, linear algebra,..., or do I study them sequentially?

what's your study schedule like at the moment?

>>8447628
>when you cover a topic, say linear algebra, do i start with a introduction book, get down the basic concepts and then move onto a more advanced/rigourous book?
The problem is that there are bad books, and bad introductory books.
Even with good textbooks, there's still room for misunderstanding.
Then, you may need to know something from a different subject before going on with the current one.
You should always study from different books at any level of difficulty.
You may want to start with a good reference book along with an introductory one.
There's no definitive answer. experiment and see what works best for you.

>>8447620
>>8447639
Not OP but thank you for this, anon. Do you have any other nice suggestions and advice?

>>8447628
>how do you know that you've covered a topic to a good enough standard?
It depends on your interests and what you want to do next. Do you just keep learning about that subject until nothing is new to you anymore?
If you go though a few reference textbooks and do a lot of exercises then you're good enough.
You don't get good about everything though.

>Do i learn abit of discrete math, linear algebra,..., or do I study them sequentially?
Do what works best for you.

>what's your study schedule like at the moment?
Basically mathematics for most of the day.
When I'm finished writing down something difficult in a nice enough way I rewrite it in latex for reference.

>>8447628
I'd recommend you pick out any more or less reputable book that covers all the topics you need, some online research should give you an idea. If you later continue your studies on another book or subject that is supposed to build on that as previous knowledge, learn to notice when you have trouble understanding a basic concept, and go back to check whether it was covered sufficiently, or else supplement your study with another source to fix the difficulties you're having.

>>8447647
>Not OP but thank you for this, anon. Do you have any other nice suggestions and advice?
Yes, a few points I can think of now.
If you don't understand something there's no easy route.
You have to take a step back and do some boring work until you can get there from the basics.
Then you can proceed with what you were doing.
Say you're studying measure theory and a theorem assumes you know about the decimal representation of real numbers.
You pick up an analysis textbook and go though the first chapter until you understand what's needed.
It can be really boring but you become real stronk if you do that.
Then, doing exercises at then end of the chapter is paramount when you're a beginner.
Sometimes they're extra theorems. Sometimes more down to earth applications of very abstract material.
Rehearsal is very important as well.
If you don't go though a subject often, you're bound to forget some of it.

>>8447649
I just did a course a discrete math, covered logic, graphs and trees, applying semigroups to cryptography. When i posted here before people told me alot of what i covered was related to comp sci but i don't know much comp sci, i just now know how to to tree traversals and some polish/reverse polish notation, some recursion and induction, and graph theory

if i read a book about comp sci would i start with reading more on what i already know first or do I wait until I hit that chapter?

do you have a particular discrete math textbook that you would recommend?

>>8447675
I don't know about comp sci.
If that's your interest, then start reading about it until you get stuck and need more mathematics.
There's no need to *waste* time.
This seems a cool book though:
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540664222.

>do you have a particular discrete math textbook that you would recommend?
I think that this has been suggested before:
http://www.springer.com/la/book/9781441980465.

You can find these books online for free.

are there really brainlets on /sci/ who are still reading textbooks instead of journal papers?