MHB Book Recommendations for Proofs

kanderson
I want a good book with an introduction to either graduate or undergraduate mathematics that has excercises and clear explanations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kanderson said:
I want a good book with an introduction to either graduate or undergraduate mathematics that has excercises and clear explanations.
I have never seen any book titled "Intro to undergrad math". Maybe there are such books but I don't know.
"Elementary Number Theory by David M Burton" is an excellent book. If one wants to start reading non High School math then I guess this is a good place to start. You will get to know numerous proof techniques not used at all in high school. It has a lot of exercises too.
 
Undergraduate, and especially graduate, math is divided into subjects: analytical geometry, linear algebra, abstract algebra, calculus, discrete mathematics and so on. I personally never studied any generic higher math or proof methods per se; I studied the subjects above and in the process I learned how proofs work.

That said, when I started college I already had a good background in math, so starting abstract algebra directly may not work for everyone. This thread on MathOverflow seems to have a nice selection of books about proofs.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top