Is this really all I need to do to have the equivalent of a math major?

>>16684452 (OP)
Plenty of topics are omitted: topology, functional analysis, differential geometry, algebraic topology, algebraic geometry. I also seriously doubt that that algebra book covers every structure to the appropriate level. You can write a thick tome on commutative rings alone.

>>16684465
Thanks for your opinion. I meant to say that it's the bare minimum needed for an undergrad degree in math. Meaning if I can go through those three books on my own that I can do everything else in a undergrad math major, since abstract algebra, real analysis, and complex analysis form the backbone to everything else

>>16684684
You will be able to do nothing in constructivist math. In particular, you won't be able to do computational geometry, which is like the coolest subject ever.

>>16684690
No thx bro, I'll be happy doing the bare minimum, I'm not gonna chase some endless dragon

>>16684684
Even undergraduate degrees in math tend to be specialized. I learned plenty of abstract algebra, but never did hardcore analysis (like measure theory and such) or hardcore statistics because my college emphasized branching into a specific field that you will choose in grad school/career.

>>16684684
Analysis deep dive (with measure theory and differential forms), linear algebra deep dive (with Jordan normal form and possibly tensors), abstract algebra (including basics on Galois theory) and complex analysis is like 2 years of a math major excluding the freshman year where you only do calculus.

>>16684763
Why do you niggers always lie about this on this board?

>>16684702
Okay. Enjoy your worthless knowledge of inapplicable mathematics, while I enjoy my $300k starting job as a graphics programmer at Disney Research.

C O P E
S E E T H E
&
M A L D

>>16684848
Dude, what an embarrassing rage flex.
You're not going to keep that job for long if you don't get your emotional reactions in check.

Thx for the advice, I'm buying pic related with my next paycheck, can't believe how cheap it'll be compared to going to university.

>>16684745
Meanwhile, I did Fourier analysis, numerical analysis and measure theory and never took a general topology course. They generally assumed that the bit of point-set topology we covered in baby Rudin was enough for people doing the analysis and applied math tracks. Also did probability, stochastic processes and an introduction to inference course, but the last two were electives.

>>16685136
What textbooks did you use for fourier analysis and numerical analysis?

>>16685138
In the Fourier analysis class we actually didn't have a specific textbook. It was entirely taught from lecture on a whiteboard. There were a few suggested as optional reading material (of which, I got Folland's Fourier Analysis and It's Applications, which I quite liked), but none were mandatory.

For numerical analysis we used Burden, Faires and Burden. That's basically the gold standard for an undergrad friendly numerical analysis textbook. Interestingly enough, that course was actually also shared with the EE dept.

>>16684702
Based, let the other retard tranny ACK himself. You decide what interests you after those basic courses, I would say even complex analysis is kind of too specialized, but knowing the complex exponential and some integrals is important.

I would add some differential equations

>>16685081
>>16685185
M A L D
A
L
D L A M

>>16684452 (OP)
Abbott is a great book cannot recommend it enough. Read Pugh if you want to learn measures and multivariate analysis.

>>16685316
What's a book similar to pugh that has solutions to problems

>>16684452 (OP)
>analysis of analysis
we need to go deeper

Anyone have any experience with pic related?

>>16684690
>You will be able to do nothing in constructivist math
Based. This is what OP needs.

>>16684690
What's a good comp-geo book that is accessible to someone with an EE background? It seems like comp-geo books come in two flavors, comp-sci oriented books that are focused on applications and afraid to do anything more interesting than linear transformations, and grad level abstract algebraic nonsense that doesn't even acknowledge the applied stuff exists. Any middle ground recs for people who know the basics of abstract math, but aren't looking to only have things in terms of composition diagrams and groups?

>>16685481
Don't know, I am from math background, but isn't picrel fine for your purpose? If you want go higher than that, just ask your advisor and read the relevant papers.

>>16685488
My advisor is an information theory and statistical signal processing person. I'm trying to learn computational geometry for my own personal interest after getting a lot of fulfillment out of learning diff-geo for an application paper reasonably.

Bump

>>16685481
I liked this.

>>16685136
I like those three topics. Also my experience was too that topology wasn't justified to be a full course. Maybe for people that go into algebraic topology, manifolds or whatever

>>16685367
Right, we'll run an analysis on "analysis of analysis"...

>>16684684
No, you'll need to go beyond that in certain areas. You're just getting the bare minimum for a degree from generic shit state school with that.

>>16686028
Topology is absolutely justified. The problem is that the standard curriculum focuses on point-set topology rather than category-theoretic sheave-scheme business. The more you learn about topology, the more you understand how the whole subset-of-a-power-set axiomatic framework is useless. You only start appreciating topology when you abstract away from sets and start treating it as an algebraic theory.

Take differential geometry as an example. All this Haussdorff-second countable-atlas business seems like a bunch of machinery that just exists in the background in a sense. It’s only when you get to the Serre-Swan duality you start realizing that the core of diff geo lies in its algebraic/category theoretic origins. You can always abstract away from the manifold business and talk about derivation algebras etc without any reference to topological objects. This is the ultimate Grothendieck pill you take to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

>>16688754
>how deep the rabbit hole goes.
So you're accepting it's a total waste of time. Like 80% of math majors do not pursue academia. You can do numerical analysis, statistics, PDEs, etc, without any of that shit

>>16688754
You're stupid and crazy. Everybody is better off doing something practical such as numerical analysis or cryptography

>>16690131
>>16690351
You may as well just do enginiggering with this attitude. Don't pollute the air with your philistine mindset.

>>16690374
The pride you have for yourself for thinking you are better than others for focusing on something so abstractvis null and void.

If you truly are that intelligent then make a breakthrough in something practical. Go solve the navier stokes equations.

>>16690385
I don't have pride. I have an understanding that I do something for the sake of it. You don't. Therefore you do not belong in the math department. There is no harm in you doing engineering because your priorities are clear. You do not care for mathematics one bit.

>>16684452 (OP)
use algebra chapter 0 instead

>>16684452 (OP)
you 100% need a linear algebra textbook too.
and one for topology as well, up to manifolds.
and one for basic number theory.

Linear Algebra, Abstract Algebra, Real Analysis, Complex Analysis, Topology, Number Theory is a perfect 6 course undergrad math program

>>16690388
That is stupid

>>16690950
No, you are stupid. Your enginigger pea brain cannot go beyond brutish utilitarianism. You are the type of nigger to go to an art gallery and utter “What are the applications?”

this is all you need for undergrad

>>16691430
books are here

>>16691430
This is extremely difficult geo specialized. I know it’s a meme, but there’s more to math than that.

>>16691432
*diff geo
fucking autocorrect

>>16691431
other books

One can also swap out Basic Mathematics for Precalculus, Stewart. But you will need to study logic/proof separately then
>>16691434
i fucked my upload anyway doesnt matter those books are a good schema
>>16691432
Geometry is good for starters as it trains the intuition more gently by examples. E.g. base*height = 2d area is easily recognized as correct by our vision

>>16691435
Ah, yes, base*height = area. About as easy to visualize as spinor bundles.

>>16691439
I mean that the spatial-temporal representation allows for easier checking that the statements in fact do correspond as to what it is by intuition. Logical formalism does not give pedagogically give insight into the realm of mathematics by its obscure form.

>>16691444
Tell that to diff geo people working with exotic atlases on R^4.

>>16690351
Topology is very practical. Not the point set things but algebraic. Computational topology can open pathways to graphics programming or scientific visualisation. Either way, you'll smell a lot of money.

>>16691445
we are talking for undergrads

>>16692494
Undergrads can’t handle spicy abstractions like Galois theory? Sounds like you attended a shit school, anon.

>>16684772
I'm sorry but what exactly is the problem with that anon's assertion? I finished my bachelor's last year and did literally exactly these things with an additional small introduction to algebraic topology course. This is not your "average" math student, who just does easy credit courses and avoids diff geo, but these are all literally undergraduate courses. I think you might be overestimating the depth a bit when these topics are mentioned.

>>16684452 (OP)
Maybe more than that?

>>16691430
>>16691431

Not trying sound contrarian but what use would this be for someone who wouldn't be using this specifically for professionally purposes? Woodworking? I just can't think of any practical application but I'm also retarded.

>>16693614
>I think you might be overestimating the depth a bit when these topics are mentioned.
So it sounds like a bunch of scattered shallow introductions to these topics. Idk, my college emphasized specialization. You pick the route you want to pursue by your junior year and do it. If you pick analysis, you're expected to understand funcan on a decent level, but there are no requirements for algebra beyond linear. If you pick the algebra route, you don't bother with measure theory, but get a good look at commutative algebra, Galois theory, maybe non-commutative algebra like exterior and Clifford algebras. And so on.

>>16685434
Haven't seen those before

>>16684690
groomer