What is more efficient for a technical/science/math book >going

>>8671320
thats the dankest press break ive ever seen

>>8671325
it's a wind tunnel

>>8671328
being shaped by a press

>>8671333
can't deny that

If not 'more efficient' then simply what do you guys usually do?

>>8671320
Burn book for heat.

I have only ever done the first option so idk.

>>8671320
it's hard to say buddy, try what works for you. "slowly doing everything" should be the default option, you will quickly understand literally nothing if you go fast through an advanced book. but there are merits for a first read where you skim over the heavier arguments in favor of the "big picture"

>>8671320
Newton did the former.

>>8671576
you're a fucking retard, fucking never post again and stop pretending to like math or science when all you do about is spout memes and famous names to seem interesting

seriously FUCK OFF

Math professor I knew discussed how he went through his grad books. Read chapter 1 casually. Then read chapter 2 casually and take notes on ch 1. Then casually read ch 3, notes on 2, all the problems on 3. And continue till finished.

>>8671576
Well guess what, so did Hitler and see where that brought him. Yeah, I thought so. He's dead, just like Newton is. Do you know who isn't dead and didn't even open the book? I'̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́'̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́¨̈́̈́¨'̈́̈́¨¨'̈́¨¨¨¨¨'̈́''̈́'̈́'''''¨̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́̈́ll give you a hint: I am.