You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Coscott comments on Open Thread for February 11 - 17 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Coscott 11 February 2014 06:08PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (325)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Coscott 11 February 2014 08:50:19PM *  9 points [-]

I advise that you read the first 3 books on your list, and then reevaluate. If you do not know any more math than what is generally taught before calculus, then you have no idea how difficult math will be for you or how much you will enjoy it.

It is important to ask what you want to learn math for. The last four books on your list are categorically different from the first four (or at least three of the first four). They are not a random sample of pure math, they are specifically the subset of pure math you should learn to program AI. If that is your goal, the entire calculus sequence will not be that useful.

If your goal is to learn physics or economics, you should learn calculus, statistics, analysis.

If you want to have a true understanding of the math that is built into rationality, you want probability, statistics, logic.

If you want to learn what most math PhDs learn, then you need things like algebra, analysis, topology.

Comment author: cursed 11 February 2014 08:53:34PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks, I made an edit you might not have seen, I mentioned I do have experience with calculus (differential, integral, multi-var), discrete math (basic graph theory, basic proofs), just filling in some gaps since it's been awhile since I've done 'math'. I imagine I'll get through the first two books quickly.

Can you recommend some algebra/analysis/topology books that would be a natural progression of the books I listed above?

Comment author: Nisan 11 February 2014 09:23:08PM 1 point [-]

Dummit & Foote's Abstract Algebra is a good algebra book and Munkres' Topology is a good topology book. They're pretty advanced, though. In university one normally one tackles them in late undergrad or early grad years after taking some proof-based analysis and linear algebra courses. There are gentler introductions to algebra and topology, but I haven't read them.

Comment author: cursed 11 February 2014 09:33:29PM 0 points [-]

Great, I'll look into the Topology book.

Comment author: gjm 11 February 2014 10:08:46PM 1 point [-]

A couple more topology books to consider: "Basic Topology" by Armstrong, one of the Springer UTM series; "Topology" by Hocking and Young, available quite cheap from Dover. I think I read Armstrong as a (slightly but not extravagantly precocious) first-year undergraduate at Cambridge. Hocking and Young is less fun and probably more of a shock if you've been away from "real" mathematics for a while, but goes further and is, as I say, cheap.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 11 February 2014 11:39:17PM 1 point [-]

Given how much effort it takes to study a textbook, cost shouldn't be a significant consideration (compare a typical cost per page with the amount of time per page spent studying, if you study seriously and not just cram for exams; the impression from the total price is misleading). In any case, most texts can be found online.

Comment author: gjm 12 February 2014 01:20:05AM 0 points [-]

cost shouldn't be a significant consideration

And yet, sometimes, it is. (Especially for impecunious students, though that doesn't seem to be quite cursed's situation.)

most texts can be found online

Some people may prefer to avoid breaking the law.

Comment author: Nornagest 12 February 2014 01:41:45AM *  5 points [-]

There's some absurd recency effects in textbook publishing. In well-trodden fields it's often possible to find a last-edition textbook for single-digit pennies on the dollar, and the edition change will have close to zero impact if you're doing self-study rather than working a highly exact problem set every week.

(Even if you are in a formal class, buying an edition back is often worth the trouble if you can find the diffs easily, for example by making friends with someone who does have the current edition. I did that for a couple semesters in college, and pocketed close to $500 before I started getting into textbooks obscure enough not to have frequent edition changes.)

Comment author: Coscott 11 February 2014 08:57:42PM 1 point [-]

I am not going to be able to recommend any books. I learned all my math directly from professors' lectures.

What is your goal in learning math?

If you want to learn for MIRI purposes, and youve already seen some math, then relearning calculus might not be worth your time

Comment author: cursed 11 February 2014 09:00:14PM 0 points [-]

I have a degree in computer science, looking to learn more about math to apply to a math graduate program and for fun.

Comment author: Coscott 11 February 2014 09:10:30PM 2 points [-]

My guess is that if you have an interest in computer science, you will have the most fun with logic and discrete math, and will not have much fun with the calculus.

If you are serious about getting into a math graduate program, then you have to learn the calculus stuff anyway, because it is a large part of the Math GRE.

Comment author: lmm 11 February 2014 10:36:42PM 1 point [-]

It's worth mentioning that this is a US peculiarity. If you apply to a program elsewhere there is a lot less emphasis on calculus.

Comment author: somervta 13 February 2014 05:18:11AM 0 points [-]

But you should still know rthe basics of calculus (and linear algebra) - at least the equivalent of calc 1, 2 & 3,

Comment author: Nisan 11 February 2014 09:26:19PM 0 points [-]

In my experience, "analysis" can refer to two things: (1) A proof-based calculus course; or (2) measure theory, functional analysis, advanced partial differential equations. Spivak's Calculus is a good example of (1). I don't have strong opinions about good texts for (2).