/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11585122

454KiB, 2000x2656, 1cc5abad0147f70ab5159012132da603.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Mathematics

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 18:02:52 2020 No.11585122 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11585271 >>11585293 >>11585991 >>11585992

How do I start with the Nicolas Bourbaki book boys ? I want to learn proper rigorous mathematics , not watered down stuff .

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 18:11:04 No.11585153 Report

Quoted By: >>11585156

>How do I start with the Nicolas Bourbaki book boys ?
On the first page, like you would any other book.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 18:12:58 No.11585156 Report

Quoted By:

>>11585153
No like , which book should I start with !
That was a clever reply tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 18:48:18 No.11585271 Report

Quoted By: >>11586004

>>11585122
1) log off 4chan
2) open the book
3) when you get stuck, find a source of help.
if you can't figure that out you'll never make it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 18:58:30 No.11585293 Report

Quoted By: >>11586687

>>11585122
Bourbaki's Théorie des Ensembles is the starting point. I'm not sure why anyone would ever read a Bourbaki book aside from Algèbre, but to each their own I guess

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 22:59:50 No.11585991 Report

Quoted By:

>>11585122
step 1: stop obsessing over rigor

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:00:01 No.11585992 Report

Quoted By:

>>11585122
all math is proper rigorous by definition
just some is dead and some more alive
nicolas is a very nice graveyard

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Apr 2020 23:03:30 No.11586004 Report

Quoted By:

>>11585271
>log off 4chan

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 02:48:26 No.11586687 Report

Quoted By: >>11586724 >>11586743

>>11585293

The ones on Lie groups/algebras are considered good. The one that people shit on the most is the very first one on set theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 02:54:41 No.11586724 Report

Quoted By:

>>11586687
Yes, every book on set theory written before the 80s is completely obsolete (aside from very introductory stuff).
Plus Bourbaki tries to develop their their of structures in it, which is bad because it's basically a dead end (the fact that all the bourbakistes jumped ship to Categories as soon as they could is pretty telling).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Apr 2020 02:58:11 No.11586743 Report

Quoted By:

>>11586687
Can second this. Bourbaki's stuff on Lie algebras in particular is actually more readable than the majority of textbooks in the field even today, and for certain things like root system combinatorics it goes further in-depth than pretty much anybody else too.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches