My Math Forum What Order?

June 2nd, 2010, 07:42 PM   #2
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2007
From: Chicago

Posts: 1,701
Thanks: 3

Re: What Order?

Hello!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by woodand6 The reason I give this background is that my degrees made me realize that I understand math best first through proof, then by application. For example, even simple arithmetic was somewhat confusing to me, but when we defined numbers (complex, real, pure imaginary, rational, irrational, etc.) and proved things like associativity, commutability, and distributivity, it all seemed to make more sense.
Part of the problem with math education (at least in America, but my discussions with non-American friends makes it seem pandemic), is that emphasis is placed on rote calculation, instead of conceptual understanding. The formal method (axioms, proving properties) is a powerful learning tool because it forces conceptual understanding-- you cannot do a proof by rote, without brute-frocing the search space. Your training in philosophy has very likely made you a creful enough thinker that you can work your way through the simple properties without too much difficulty... it turns out there are people who don't learn well when given a set of axioms and some definitions. (Yeah, I can't see what's so hard either. :P )

Quote:
 I really like this style of teaching (explicitly define and prove), but this book is directed at giving a rigorous introduction to the topics of math to those who are not math majors. Hence, it does not apply the math; so, I need to learn and apply the math.
At the higher levels, you'll see a lot more of the "define and prove" style of teaching, and you'll see a lot less application in math books. You'll have to start looking into the econ, or physics, or engineering text books for application.

Quote:
 My question is, what order should I learn the topics of math, and in what order should I learn theory, proof, application, etc.? It seems that some proof is required for application, but also application is needed for proof.
Theory -> Proof -> Application is definitely the way to learn math. Of course, it isn't nearly that cut and dry: you won't have a full grasp of the theory without writing proofs, applications will help to motivate proofs and theory, and applications will show up in the proofs. The learning process should really flow rather organically, and the only place you may have to be consciouos of where you are is in the gap between Theory/proof and application.

Quote:
 They do not teach the logic in the lower level math in America, they just blindly teach examples and expect you to memorize tricks in order to do the calculation which leads to an inadequate understanding of the calculations.
I think most people on this board could complain endlessly about the sorry state of math education.

Quote:
 So far I have accumulated for self-study: Alfred North Whitehead's An Introduction to Mathematics Peter Eccles' An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning Foundations of Mathematics from MIT Press in three volumes; 1. Algebra, 2. Geometry, 3. Analysis Spivak's Hitchhiker's Guide to Calculus Spivak's Calculus and accompanying answer book Stewart Shapiro's Thinking About Mathematics And other books about the philosophy of math and whatnot which I hope to get to after I have learned more about math.
Whitehead's book is surely dated. If you are just looking for a treatment of grade-school level math (and this is what it is), it's probably safe to use, but you may want to check the notation with a more recent book. If it's supposed to be a little more advanced, it is probably not a very useful book to use.

Is it actually Foundations of Mathematics or is it Fundamentals of Mathematics? Foundations typically has a certain meaning in math, and I only see Fundamentals of Mathematics from MIT Press.
Anyway: it may be better to learn calculus before this book, if only because some calculus will be assumed. This won't show up except in examples and problems (applications) until Volume 3. maybe it will show up in volume 2, but I would doubt they would approach any truly deep geometry without covering analysis first.

Were I in your position, I'd probably read volumes 1 and 2 first (if only because they're more fun), and if 3 even starts presenting problems, go to a calculus text. If you manage to get through 3 without reading a calc text, you'll find calculus really easy in hind-sight.

Quote:
 but then again, the order they use did not work for me.
It seems to me that you're right about at the point where the ordering straightens out and starts to make sense, so from where you are, the order in American universities should be more or less manageable.

This all being said, a text on "discrete math", or depending on your background, one on combinatorics and one on number theory should be interesting. Based on your comments about formal logic (which I assume you studied while studying philosophy), you may be better off skipping a discrete math book, and getting a "proof book" like How to Prove It or How to Solve it.

I hope this was helpful, and not too rambly.

Cheers,
Cory

 June 3rd, 2010, 09:04 AM #3 Senior Member   Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 435 Thanks: 0 Re: What Order? I really like the idea of moving on to a discrete math book, perhaps Rosen's Intro to Number Theory. I agree that a focus on some proof-making techniques is a necessary addition, and discrete math often leads to a friendly introduction to that subject.
June 3rd, 2010, 03:26 PM   #5
Global Moderator

Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: What Order?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by woodand6 For Rosen's Intro to Number Theory do you mean A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory by a Michael Rosen, because that is a graduate level textbook and I seriously doubt I could even attempt to start that. There does seem to be another book by a Kenneth Rosen titled Elementary Number Theory that seems more appropriate for me (if only because is says "elementary" and is not graduate level).
Rosen's Elementary Number Theory was surely what was intended. Ireland & Rosen is hard even for a graduate class.

 June 3rd, 2010, 11:26 PM #6 Senior Member   Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 435 Thanks: 0 Re: What Order? Ah yes, I'm so sorry! Elementary Number Theory. I suppose I rely on my textbook memory too strongly.
June 4th, 2010, 09:44 AM   #7
Global Moderator

Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Re: What Order?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jason.spade Ah yes, I'm so sorry! Elementary Number Theory. I suppose I rely on my textbook memory too strongly.
That shows a pretty good memory, in my view. I have to get my textbooks to remember their titles at all, with very few exceptions (Enderton and Ireland & Rosen, for example).

 June 4th, 2010, 10:09 AM #8 Senior Member   Joined: Oct 2007 From: Chicago Posts: 1,701 Thanks: 3 Re: What Order? I tend refer to text books by author's last name, which only rarely leads to problems... I got Herstein and Hungerford mixed up once.
 June 7th, 2010, 11:54 AM #9 Senior Member   Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 345 Thanks: 3 Re: What Order? Calculus: Graphical, Numerical & Analytical. By Finney Waits & Thomas.

 Tags order

,

,

,

,

,

,

# fundamentals of mathematics moses richardson 2nd ed

Click on a term to search for related topics.
 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post M_Strauss Applied Math 0 October 31st, 2013 09:37 AM Kappie Abstract Algebra 0 April 22nd, 2012 01:52 PM Grayham1990 Calculus 2 March 30th, 2012 06:24 AM Norm850 Calculus 2 March 7th, 2012 04:08 PM Jamers328 Number Theory 1 December 2nd, 2007 08:21 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top