>>14285899>Math books are mostly written by autistic formalists who can't into intuitiondepends on the level at which you are studying the topic. at an introductory level, there will be many examples, exercises and motivations/intuition (although a non-expert will fail at this; only trust the word of a miner who has gone all the way to the bottom of the mine) At a higher level, you have no need for the pedantic nature of introductory books, so logical steps are glossed over while the axioms and definitions are stated so that all other results come naturally through theorems.
>>14285787The best thing you can do to learn mathematics is actually do it. Find an interesting problem, and try it. You will fail but you will have the motivation to seek out an answer, whether it be some mathematical theory developed by some german 200 years ago, or simply a "trick" or something of this sort. The worst thing you could ever do is open a book and read it like a novel expecting to just "get it." NO. math books are not read this way. you must pick out a pick which is not too large and read through the exposition of the topic. Then the theorems and lemmas will come, read their statement and try to solve it on your own. If you fail, read the first few lines to see how it is set up. And so on.
I can't think of a book to suggest you read because I don't know what your level is at, but a good start is in applied mathematics. But without a doubt you must learn logic and proofs. Maybe pic related, he has a great functional analysis book but this covers all undergrad mathematics without any big prerequisite
