>>7796797
Bumping thread

>>7796797
>Combinatorics, Graph Theory, Number Theory, Num Analysis, DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY, PROBABILITY, ALL BEFORE ANALYSIS THIS IS RETARDED HOLY SHIT

First intro to proofs (How to Prove it, a Structured Approach), Linear Algebra (Hoffman&Kunze) and Real Analysis (Terence Tao I & II) together are core. Then abstract algebra (Rotman's first course or Artin's classic), then post again asking for advice.

File: 1453125112905.jpg (232 KB, 1113x1630) Image search: [Google]

232 KB, 1113x1630

>>7796821
>How to Prove It
>not pic related

kill urself my man

Also, you can do combinatorics right after proofs. Otherwise, I agree. Calculus is a half-asses substitute for the full thing.

>>7796856
what kind of combinatorics? not algebraic combinatorics or analytic combinatorics definitely

>>7796856
Book of Proof is garbage

>>7796870
classical enumerative combinatorics takes nothing other than a basic knowledge of high school algebra to do

stuff based on arrangements/permutations, that sort of thing

>>7796821
>DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY, PROBABILITY, ALL BEFORE ANALYSIS THIS IS RETARDED HOLY SHIT

Elementary Differential Geometry in 2D/3D (curves and surfaces) requires next to no analysis and it's good for learning intuition when you get to the more abstract general stuff.
There is a level of probability above the worthless business major shit and below measure theory of total measure 1 called "undergrad probability".

>>7796904
Bum

>>7796876
I thought it was great. What didn't you like about it?
>>7796870
The fact that you immediately assume we're talking about algebraic/analytic combinatorics instead of enumerative is very disconcerting.