←back to thread

95 points atomicnature | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
seanhunter ◴[] No.45083039[source]
There is no royal road to mathematics[1], and it's incredibly arrogant to think that any person can provide a single optimal path. For me for example the next steps are Axler, Abbott and Herstein[2]. That's where I am at the moment, and it's way earlier than the books listed here. It would be far from optimal for me to try to bang my head stubbornly on this list. Mathematics demands you put in the work to build a foundation - you cant just skip steps. For some people those books I listed are very rudimentary. For others they are definitely too advanced for where they are and they'll need something else.

Even more so is the idea that you can actually cover the material listed in that page in 3 years. If you were to blast through it in that time you would only be skimming the very surface of the topics. There's simply no way you could possibly do all of those subjects justice in that time.

[1] As Euclid is supposed to have said about geometry to the Pharoah Ptolemy when Ptolemy said he wanted to learn geometry but because of all the concerns of his kingdom he didn't have time to read the Elements.

[2] "Linear Algebra done Right" by Sheldon Axler

"Understanding Analysis" by Stephen Abbott

"Topics in Algebra" by Herstein. this is a lovely book and beautifully written but some of the notation is a bit dated. I have two more recent algebra books but they are a bit advanced for me until I work through Herstein. They are Aluffi "Algebra Chapter 0" which is a good modern algebra book which introduces category theory at the start and Hien I forget the title but it's a springer one that he claims is good for an introduction but it's definitely not. It assumes you know a lot. It's very good though.

replies(3): >>45085578 #>>45089775 #>>45090310 #
gsf_emergency_2 ◴[] No.45089775[source]
Have an apoplectism

https://agorism.dev/book/math/ag/royal-road-algebraic-geomet...

Also iirc, various books titled Royal Road to Geometry, which might make more sense given that IMO geom was the first to get crushed by chatbots

Ymmv, but denying existence of royal road to math seems like a narcissism limited to the most elite layity

replies(1): >>45104238 #
1. seanhunter ◴[] No.45104238[source]
Thanks for the recommendation. That book looks very interesting although I'll need a bit more algebra before I can really tackle it properly.

Not sure I fully understand your point about narcissism and laity. If Euclid and I are laity then I think I'm happy to be called that though. For me the "royal road" refers to the idea that you can take shortcuts and understand things without putting in the work. That just does not ring at all true to my experience with maths anyway.