>Finishing up pure math degree.
>taking some engineering classes because thinking about engineering.
>horribly disinterested.
Once you taste the drug that is pure mathematics, everything else feels boring.
>>7982110
That is kinda right pal.
How far in to 'taste' the drug? I'm highschool math+halfway through spivak right now. How much more until the addiction sets in?
>>7982154
A lot more senpai. However, he is memeing.
>>7982154
Until you start to build up the entirety of maths RIGOROUSLY from the very bottom.
Man. How boring do you have to be to think mathematics is the most interesting topic?
>>7982170
Boring enough to make your mom have multiple orgasms.
>>7982154
Honestly, no joke here, read Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis book and understand all the proofs in it.
And maybe Artin's Algebra and/or Munkres Topology too.
But once you've read one of these textbooks, which are like the basic starting point of math, you'll know whether you like the subject or not. If you don't, then it's probably not for you. If you get hooked, that's when it should start.
tl;dr: Read some rigorous but basic math textbooks that don't require any background knowledge. That should do it.
>>7982168
lol you don't have to go nearly that far to get addicted to math. You just have to enjoy being frustrated with a problem and letting yourself think about it and enjoy solving puzzles or looking at things from different perspectives.
>>7982110
honestly, pure math is the simplest, least complicated form of math out there and that's why it's so easy to get sucked into this lazy mindset. It's like becoming an English teacher and only loving rules of grammar, but never writing a book in your life because you're too much of a pussy to get out of your comfort zone.
>>7982177
>understand the obtuse, fucked up proofs in rudin
no thanks
>>7982191
>GIVE ME ATTENTION GUYS HURRRR LOOK AT ME I'M RETARDED
here's your (You)
>>7982177
>Honestly, no joke here, read Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis book and understand all the proofs in it.
>>7982110
What level?
Was it a design course?
I thought my graduate stochastic calculus course was interesting but thats because I'm still bad at stats
>>7982198
u mad?
>>7982196
>>7982199
I've had 2 classes that require me to practically memorize Rudin, cover to cover be able to reproduce almost any proof in there
I am not joking when I say it's a damn good book.
If you don't like it, then maybe analysis isn't for you.
Hence why I suggested a book Algebra or even Topology for you edgelords.
>>7982207
>if you don't like a book with shitty obtuse and fucked up proofs maybe analysis is not for you :^)
you're not joking, you're just retarded
why the fuck would you reproduce those proofs instead of make actually legible ones?
>>7982215
Why do you honestly think the proofs are "obtuse" or "fucked up" ? They make perfect sense.
I'm not saying it's an easy book, but its proofs are correct and clear enough.
>>7982232
the proofs are made as short as possible on purpose sacrificing a lot of readability. concepts are not given the necessary motivation: the early chapter on topology throws a retarded amount of concepts at you with absolutely no link, and unless you're a zombie who memorizes everything you won't hold much of it.
the content (topics, arrangement of them) itself is good though and so it's a pretty great book for giving lectures on though. just shitty as fuck for self study
>>7982235
I hate that I can't see it. I literally have to memorize it like you referenced for my classes.
Having taken (and failed) some higher math courses though, I can see why this stuff is so fundamental.
It just kinda sucks knowing I don't know any better, like if there's something wrong with it I can't see it because it's all I know at that level. Before that I rarely actually read the textbooks beyond a few proofs and theorems.
>>7982177
>basic starting point of math
Should I skip spivak for one of those? Is Spivak not rigorous enough? Spivak seems pretty basic.
I've spent a few months just on problems from the first chapter. I like it, but it's really hard. When I check my answersI'm usually close, but i'm missing a basic relationship or equivalence. Proofs involving the symbolic predicate logic of statements are easy, but when numbers are involved it always seems like there's something basic I'm missing.
>>7982110
>Engineering
There's your problem, mate. Take some physics classes mate. Best of both worlds. Also harder than maths.
>>7982110
Congratulations on being autistic.
thx
>>7982191
/thread
>>7982170
Then tell us which alternatives you have
>>7982191
Feels good to do applied math
>>7983230
Please answer this question.
>>7982199
Anyone lese thinks he looks a bit like Stephen Wolfram?
>>7982176
Well played
