/math/ general

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Email
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:21:10 No.1276

>>1275
I'm more of a finite difference man, have you ever studied that?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:21:10 No.1279

I personally find math incredibly boring, don’t care for it.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:21:12 No.1307

>>341
Linear Algebra
Probability
Calculus

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:21:42 No.1581

>>338
Everybody now some good books on that go rigorously through the math of a planned economy?, (aside from the soviet ones).

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:23:54 No.2906

Do any of you guys have an interest in a thread where we go through sections of a textbook on linear algebra together and return to the thread at least once a week to discuss what we learned. I don't think this would necessary for me to learn the material, and I intend to learn it anyway, but I do think learning would be more fun this way.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:23:54 No.2907

>>2906
Sure

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:23:54 No.2909

>>2906
I would lurk and help people out, especially if it's linear algebra!

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:23:56 No.2920

Alright I'll post a thread this sunday using the syllabus from MITs open course

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:23:56 No.2921

Is there any material for people who never took calculus in highschool? Mine's was shitty. Any online courses or books?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:23:56 No.2922

>>2921
Take a look at https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:23:56 No.2923

>>2922
Thanks, man.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:24:17 No.3068

I'm in my final year of math now (Europe), can't fucking wait to finish this shit, math is a fucking tragedy.
I'll probably do a masters in numerical analysis or just go berserk and do topology and geometry.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:24:18 No.3073

File: 1608528258665.png ( 3.68 KB , 276x64 , bessel.PNG )

this is now an applied math thread.

abstractists gtfo

Post ODEs/PDEs

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:24:18 No.3074

File: 1608528258871.png ( 160.57 KB , 1239x131 , Capture.PNG )

>>2922
many many courses on youtube.

if you want something more structured and gamified start with KhanAcademy.org

The calculus playlist is great.

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:24:18 No.3075

>>2921

for you

-→ >>3074

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:24:19 No.3076

I’m taking differential equations and my textbook is useless as fuck. is there an accessible alternative that has more example problems?

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:24:39 No.3243

>>359
Do you happen to know any good courses online or whatever on discrete math? I found it pretty interesting but my professor was NOT GOOD at explaining the material and since COVID happened we kind of rushed through the class so I left feeling like I didn't entirely understand all of it

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:26:55 No.4741

Can any mathsanon explain to me how to actually understand math? Because I just don't seem to master the tasks, that require you to truly understand the Essence of Maths. The only way I solve those Tasks, is when I look at the Solutions and this can't be the Point though, am I right?.

t.Fag who studies Chemical Engineering

>>

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:26:55 No.4742

>>4741
You do it every day and at some unknown point it just becomes an extension of your mind. The essence can only come from solving problems, usually with other people to get different perspectives, and creating a set of skills which you can call upon to solve problems.

I remember in middle school trying to desperately remember which axis is the x and the y, and how linear equations work. However these attempts are actually counterproductive IMO. At a certain points of maths you let go of trying to 'get' it, and just move on, then after solving future problems it may come to you.

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-18 (Sun) 08:58:59 No.5466

>>4741
You just do it. You want to develop a certain set of skills which are useful in the sense that, when solving problems you always ask yourself
– why am I doing this?
– what happens without this assumption?
– what happens with this assumption?
– why does method work for a finite case but an infinite?
– where have I seen similar structures as this?
and so on. It's a skill really, took me 3 years to get somewhat good at it.

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-19 (Mon) 02:58:19 No.5478

Why is math "essential" to learn? Can I get on by with my bachelor's in Aerospace Engineering? I'm not a mathematician by any means, but I don't see what other math I can learn that can really pragmatically benefit me.

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-19 (Mon) 10:16:25 No.5480

>>5478
Maths include statistics and understanding of statistics is very useful to avoid falling for propaganda.

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-22 (Thu) 12:24:41 No.5504

I’m not a mathematical type, I like things involving theory, writing, critical thinking, etc.

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-22 (Thu) 14:28:25 No.5505

Do any one of you have experience in "competitive" mathematics? Olympiads, putnams, etc? Or are most of you just Marxists who like mathematics?

>>

Anonymous 2021-04-23 (Fri) 10:01:47 No.5516

>>338
It worries how different countries teach maths and how different their methods are

IN my country we had BODMAS but apparently everybody else learn PEDMAS

>>

Anonymous 2021-05-18 (Tue) 07:27:35 No.5716

Why is the Fourier-series such a powerfull tool in applied mathematics, engineering, physics etc.?

>>

Anonymous 2021-06-25 (Fri) 11:31:22 No.6197

>>5466
Can I apply this thinking to other sciences like physics too?

>>

Anonymous 2021-07-11 (Sun) 15:33:34 No.6396

Anyone still here?

>>

Anonymous 2021-07-12 (Mon) 19:57:55 No.6408

File: 1626119874805.jpg ( 122.01 KB , 1280x720 , E3Z_AQtUUAABrAJ.jpg )

What the best way to learn math when you suck at it ?

>>

Anonymous 2021-07-12 (Mon) 23:48:19 No.6409

>>6408
Mix it with programming IMO. Learn Mathematica or something while learning math. Mathematica actually comes bundled with tutorials that basically teach you a lot of typical math to show how to use the language. But I think it kind of gives you tools to start playing around with math for projects you might have, so the practical applications give you problems to solve that help internalize what you’re learning.

>>

Anonymous 2021-07-12 (Mon) 23:49:39 No.6410

>>6408
If there exist such magical pedagogical solution, you would have heard of it by now. The only way is plowing through. Read and write along the solution manual if you must. You can't learn anything abstract this way but familiarizing differential calculus is just a matter of grit

>>

Anonymous 2021-07-14 (Wed) 11:24:04 No.6419

>>6408
Try Basic Mathematics by Serge Lang

https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics#Precalculus

https://betterexplained.com/articles/developing-your-intuition-for-math/

>>

Anonymous 2021-07-25 (Sun) 18:34:38 No.6570

>>6408
Tons of practice. There's no way around it.

>>

Anonymous 2021-07-29 (Thu) 17:19:23 No.6632

File: 1627579163473.jpg ( 132.41 KB , 1502x1127 , Godel-Theorem-1.jpg )

What are the material implications of quantum computers on Gödel's Incompleteness theorum?

>>

Anonymous 2021-12-19 (Sun) 20:41:39 No.6902

File: 1639946499053.png ( 6.05 KB , 740x380 , proof.png )

>>390
pink = all - 4 green = red + blue

>>404
The rocket pigs version: https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-programmers-the-preface/

>>493
>differs from sets to avoid Russel's paradox?
The standard solution is based on von Neumann's work and predates category theory. Cantor's naive sets are renamed to classes. Classes are partitioned into sets and proper classes. Sets are those classes that can be built up using ZFC, which removes unrestricted comprehensions. You can no longer take "all X [with P]", you have to take "all X from S [with P]" where S is already a set. The question becomes whether the class of all sets is a set. The resolution to Russell's paradox is to provide the negative answer by becoming the proof that the class of all sets is a proper class rather than a set.

>>

Anonymous 2022-01-05 (Wed) 07:55:49 No.6906

File: 1641369349530.jpg ( 38.67 KB , 843x698 , bordigamath.jpg )

Just saying, Bordiga was an engineer. Makes sense, he was autistically literal and uncompromising like a STEMy vs the artsy-fartsy Gramsci who spawned generations of culturally obsessed navel-gazing "Marxists" with his post-hoc "theories" justifying his failed politics.

This is why I love Bordiga, he does math so I don't have to.

>>

Anonymous 2022-03-17 (Thu) 20:54:29 No.6935

>>341
I think everyone who is interested in math should study linear algebra algebraically so that they can know duality (by studying dual space), Erlangen program and the foundation of non-Euclidean geometry (by studying bilinear forms), Lie groups (by studying classical groups), representation theory (by noting that S_n is isomorphic to the group of permutation matrices so that every finite group is isomorphic to a matrix group.), etc. Of course it could be challenging but it would give them more mathematical maturity than randomly studying tons of other fields.

>>

Anonymous 2022-03-17 (Thu) 21:23:00 No.6936

>>547
I would just use Rudin's PMA but if I have to choose one of them, I would choose Tao. It reminds me Spivak's calculus.

>>

Anonymous 2022-03-17 (Thu) 21:47:58 No.6937

>>493
>Is Elements good?
It is really good for your free time. For a degree, it is useless.
Some parts of Elements are really mind blowing. For example, he understands number theory by geometry. For him, the number '1' is the same as a segment of which the length is 1, "a divides b" means one can measure a segment 'b' by a segment 'a' so that the greatest common divisor means the greatest common measure by which one can measure both 'a' and 'b', etc.

>>

Anonymous 2022-03-17 (Thu) 22:22:19 No.6938

>>489
Category theory is a must if you are into some fields like algebraic geometry, number theory, topology, etc. In those fields, people use it more than set theory.
The power of category theory comes from its relativism, generality, intertwining many fields into one. Unlike set theory, you can map topological spaces to groups, their homeomorphisms to homomorphisms in category theory. Of course you can do like that with any other mathematical objects. And you can build a category theory without objects (in fact, the identity morphisms are sufficient to replace all the objects) so you can get all the property of objects not from the objects themselves but only from their relations. Thus you can get result by only drawing some diagrams. This is called "Abstract nonsense" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_nonsense).

>>

Paradoxes And Proofs Anonymous 2022-10-05 (Wed) 23:11:34 No.7018

File: 1665011491488.pdf ( 1.23 MB , 197x300 , An Introduction to Formal ….pdf )

I want to learn why, when logical paradoxes exist, we can be certain proven facts are true and not logical paradoxes. I have An Introduction To Formal Logic (attached) and A Modern Formal Logic Primer (https://tellerprimer.ucdavis.edu/); will these help me? If not, what can help me?

>>

Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:26:17 No.7300

Anyone still here?

>>

Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:22:45 No.7301

>>7300
yup still here

>>

Anonymous 2023-08-20 (Sun) 04:04:18 No.7388

Anybody still here? >>7018 is still waiting for an answer so if anybody can answer, please do.

>>

Anonymous 2023-08-20 (Sun) 04:40:43 No.7389

>>7388
>Anybody still here?
Yes

>is still waiting for an answer so if anybody can answer, please do.
You want an explanation why paradoxes exist ?
That's a really big ask.

Maybe there's a philosophical error in symbolic languages.

>>

Anonymous 2023-09-10 (Sun) 23:33:12 No.7395

>>7389
No, I want an explanation of why we can use logic to determine what is true and what is not given that paradoxes exist. Logically there shouldn't be paradoxes and everything should either be true, false or meaningless but this isn't the case (Liar's paradox for example, http://tdx37ew3oke5rxn3yi5r5665ka7ozvehnd4xmnjxxdvqorias2nyl4qd.onion/wiki/List_of_paradoxes?lang=en#Logic for more) so how and why can we use logic to prove things when it clearly fails at some points? I also asked if the books I have will help me answer these questions. I asked nothing about why paradoxes exist but asked about their implications on the validity of logical deductions and if the books I have will help me answer this question or give me some required knowledge before it can be and if these books do neither then I asked for some books that will.

>>

Anonymous 2023-09-11 (Mon) 01:43:08 No.7396

>>7395
>Liar's paradox

<This statement is false
is self referencing, if you feed it into a logic interpreter it will cause an infinite statement expansion, and the interpreter will never actually get to the point where it can perform any logic operations.

If you want to know about this, read about Godel's incompleteness theorem or in computer science the halting problem.

>>

Anonymous 2023-09-11 (Mon) 06:14:57 No.7397

File: 1694412897458.jpeg ( 87.81 KB , 1080x1081 , 1693823200164-1.jpeg )

>>7395
Because everything we know revolves around a series of assumptions apriori: Things like laws of physics, fields, assumptions about foundational asthmatic. There are things that are true simple because they appear to be the most reasonable explanations for what we observe. Even though our methods do not appear to be perfect they have repeatedly delivered the most reasonable and logical explanations for our observations for centuries and thus demand the benefit of the doubt in the continued use.
The only way this could be challenged is if there was a system of logic superior to the one we currently have today, which, is completely possible, so, if you have a methodology of logic greater than what we currently have, or, a scientific methodology better than the methodology we currently have then explain it….

It's kind of like democracy: It isn't perfect but it's the best we have.

>>

Anonymous 2023-09-11 (Mon) 09:56:38 No.7398

>>7397
that's a ridiculous amount of the best girls on the m²

>>

Anonymous 2023-09-11 (Mon) 10:03:27 No.7399

>>7395
>Logically there shouldn't be paradoxes
Formal logic is a human invention that approximates something in the real world. It's not ideal. That this instrument can lead to paradoxes only tells you that this tool is flawed and you should be careful with your recursions.