Is it just me or this book is really really dense to understand

are you a fresh man? i marathoned that book in a few hours

>>8946289

What? no I am not studying math, but came across it and decided to give it a look

it's a halmos book so he expects that you have an iq of at least 150

>>8946292

W-wow so my IQ will get bigger if I manage to understand half the stuff hes telling me in this book?

NICE!

>>8946306
yeah for sure, but don't just read the book, do at least half the exercises from each chapter.

>>8946325

The man only puts like one or two ex's every chapter.

But... they seem a little bit too complex. I dont know honestly, I try tho, sometimes.

>>8946287
>>8946291
It's an easy book. You're just not in the target audience, people who are studying math. It might be a good idea to look up math proofs. Though I recommend not reading it at all since naive set theory is mostly useless, even for math.

If you want something abstract and useful try reading https://usamo.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/napkin-2017-02-15.pdf

File: 1491082922674.jpg (161KB, 747x1120px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 747x1120px

>>8946291
>What? no I am not studying math, but came across it and decided to give it a look
Daft cunt you're not supposed to get mathematics right away.
For some it may be like trying paint van Eyck with your feet, like it was for me.
When you do enough math you start to become better at and be more independent.
I suggest you stick to it and ask someone or somewhere for help, even here.

>>8947462

that's a big head.

>>8947467
>that's a big head.
4(You)

>>8947472
>not 3+1

>>8946483
>https://usamo.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/napkin-2017-02-15.pdf
looks good for a brainlet like me
thanks

It's a terrible book and is only good as a reference if you already know the stuff. It's awful for beginners because as you said, it's incredibly dense. Halmos goes into as little explanation as possible and compacts the information in as few pages as he can like an autist. If you're a beginner wanting to learn naive set theory, I recommend The Foundations of Mathematics by Ian Stewart and David Tall.

>>8946287
Yes, you can quickly get lost in all the notation/abstractions.

You just keep doing it and it then becomes second nature to figuring out the notation on the fly. I had to reread a few lines over and over when I first started reading it to keep up then by the end of the book I was on cruise control.

File: 1465205102930.jpg (12KB, 250x160px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x160px

>>8946483
just had a look at that dudes website
>mfw when youre not studying grad classes in high school

>>8946287
I found it very easy, but this was after a semester in set theory and propositional/FOL, so my opinion is probably worthless here.

Any other good short introductory math books like this one?

>>8949200
Elements of integration by Bartle is a great place to learn the Lebesgue integral. Assuming basic analysis.

You can't start with such a difficult book, I suggest to start here for easier reads:

http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/papers-english.html

>>8950013
Chuckled.

>>8949972
ThanKs!