Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
DharmaBum wrote:Looking for a book on differential equations that specifically describes Bernoulli's principle and Torricelli's law.
Yakk wrote:hey look, the algorithm is a FSM. Thus, by his noodly appendage, QED
stockford wrote:I'm looking for books that cover all the important subjects in maths prior to calculus. So far, that I can think of:
Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Functions and Graphs, Sequences and Sums.
So far I'm reading "Basic Mathematics", by Serge Lang. It's a horrible book because of the way he goes about things, and some of the answers are wrong, but I enjoy the application free, "proofiness" of it, and am I looking for more books with that kind of tone. Sullivan has a comprehensive "Algebra and Trigonometry" book but I'm worried it's going to be chock full of word problems and applied problems. I want to get good at pure maths, applications don't interest me. Another set of books is the Gelfand books (Algebra, Trigonometry, Functions and Graphs and Method of Coordinates). The Trig book looks good, but Functions and Graphs didn't look so good.
So yeah, any treatments of pre-calculus topics would be much appreciated, I want to be very comfortable with all kinds of functions, sequences, series, etc. For instance, I have no idea how to solve something like \frac{1}{x-a} + \frac{2}{2x-a} + \frac{5}{x+3a} = \frac{4}{x+a}. That's how good I want my algebra to be. Or how to work with sequences and sums- I know nothing about them, really.
oliver_ wrote:I'm looking at some books for the semester break and wanted to ask if anyone could share some thoughts on Michael Atiyah's "Introduction to commutative Algebra".
Paper Bird wrote:I agree with auteur52. While that book is excellent, if you've not seen any algebra other than linear algebra that book probably isn't the best place to start. The excercises in particular are not really suitable for someone seeing rings for the first time and it has no real coverage of the topics of basic group theory. I would recommend you start with a lower level book and perhaps look at Atiyah for a more advanced perspective when you are comfortable with the basic notions. Your university library should have a copy.
oliver_ wrote:I actually do have a basic knowledge of rings (polynomial rings for the most part) and groups from my linear algebra course and a seminar talk on characters that I held last semester. But nevertheless, I got myself a copy of Micheal Artin's Algebra after I had a look at Atiyahs book in the libraryAnd while my original plan was to simply do the chapters on rings and modules, I've started at the beginning again, skipping the parts I know.
11-73-3-33 wrote:I'm looking for recommendations on introductory books on Knot Theory, at undergraduate (or not advanced graduate) level.
Thanks in advance!
elucipher wrote:I've found I have a strong interest in mathematical logic (i.e. set theory, proof theory, model theory, etc). As a first step, is there a good introductory book (or even a standard book) to the field that covers the basics of formal logics and, at a minimum, explains the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem and Lindström's theorem?
...she reminds you of the invisible form of the soul; she gives life to her own discoveries; she awakens the mind and purifies the intellect; she brings light to our intrinsic ideas; she abolishes oblivion and ignorance which are ours by birth...
doogly wrote:What exact purpose do you want these books for?
For technical details, your course books are probably quite fine. Spivak has a very rigorous calc / intro analysis book, that might be a great one to pick up. I do quite like his style. And if you want a good overview, I've heard the Princeton Companion to Mathematics highly recommended.
doogly wrote:Just make sure to actually pound out the problems, don't just leaf through the statements of theorems!
I don't really know a good fractals book. I think until you have some heavy analysis under your belt, the books on it are mostly of the "they're pretty and neat" variety.
Complex analysis also, sadly, no. I can tell you that Churchill's is boring and uninsightful, that was the one we used in our undergrad course.
FFS.534n wrote:I understand these topics and can integrate andderivatedifferentiate, [...]
Users browsing this forum: Slageammalymn and 14 guests