My Math Forum Advice on chapter order in my book

 February 6th, 2019, 03:59 PM #1 Newbie   Joined: Feb 2019 From: Israel Posts: 20 Thanks: 2 Math Focus: general topology Advice on chapter order in my book I have written a free e-book with my research (in general topology). Now the book has (among other) chapters "Funcoids" and "Reloids". You don't know what are funcoids and reloids (unless you read my book), but I suppose my general problem formulation does not depend on such details. These chapters are about the category of funcoids and the category of reloids. I introduced the concept of "unfixed morphisms" in my recent draft. Unfixed morphisms is a way to turn a category (with certain extra structure) into a semigroup (that is to abstract away objects). In this draft I also consider basic properties of unfixed funcoids and unfixed reloids. I call unfixed morphisms for the above mentioned categories "unfixed funcoids" and "unfixed reloids". I decided to rewrite my book to consider (more general) unfixed funcoids instead of funcoids and unfixed reloids instead of reloids, where possible and appropriate. To do this, in my unpublished draft of the book I moved basic properties from chapters "Funcoids" and "Reloids" into before inserted chapters "Introduction to funcoids" and "Introduction to reloids", added the chapter "Unfixed morphisms" (from the above mentioned online draft) after these "Introduction" chapters and left the more detailed consideration of "unfixed" funcoids and reloids for the chapters which were before called "Funcoids" and "Reloids". Is it a good idea to describe in "Funcoids" and "Reloids" only unfixed ones? and move all about regular ("fixed") funcoids into the "Introduction" chapters? Maybe, also rename "Introduction to funcoids" simply to "Funcoids" and "Funcoids" to "Unfixed funcoids" to properly separate unfixed and "fixed" funcoids (and likewise for reloids)? Or maybe, it is better to keep the "Introduction" chapters as short as possible, and in the later chapters mix both properties of unfixed funcoids/reloids and more advanced properties of plain ("fixed") funcoids and reloids? Maybe it is better for the reader to have (nearly) shortest introduction first? I realize that I have more information for you, but your advice for the general problem I asked may be helpful for readers of the next release of my book.
February 6th, 2019, 10:42 PM   #2
Senior Member

Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia

Posts: 1,833
Thanks: 649

Math Focus: Yet to find out.
Browsing around your... sites:
Quote:
 Victor Porton is ready to answer a question related to Linux for as low as \$50 per question (you pay only after the answer!)
. Good lord.

Also.. in your slides on "funcoids" and "reloids" you claim to not be a mathematician, but supposedly wrote the book: "New Testament Commentary by a Mathematician" all in 0.25 mb

February 6th, 2019, 11:02 PM   #3
Newbie

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Israel

Posts: 20
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: general topology

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joppy Browsing around your... sites: . Good lord. Also.. in your slides on "funcoids" and "reloids" you claim to not be a mathematician, but supposedly wrote the book: "New Testament Commentary by a Mathematician" all in 0.25 mb
One time I include amateur mathematicians into mathematicians and another one exclude

Actually, I studied 4.5 years in a university but left for reasons loosely related to religious discrimination.

 February 7th, 2019, 02:20 AM #4 Senior Member   Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 850 Thanks: 325 I'm sure that the theory is very interesting, but the book is close to unreadable for me. I just give up after a while because it is way too dense and badly written. You will need to fix this. But I'm likely not the intended audience...
February 7th, 2019, 02:35 AM   #5
Newbie

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Israel

Posts: 20
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: general topology
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss I'm sure that the theory is very interesting, but the book is close to unreadable for me. I just give up after a while because it is way too dense and badly written. You will need to fix this. But I'm likely not the intended audience...
I realize that my book may be too dense and even badly written.

However, I need particular advices how to improve it. To make it less dense is not an advice particular enough for me to be able to follow it.

The intended audience is anyone who wants to study mathematics deeply. It is probably a my failure if you are not able to read it, you should be able.

Finally: I thought my book is well-written, thanks for disillusioning me.

February 7th, 2019, 03:29 AM   #6
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 850
Thanks: 325

Quote:
 Originally Posted by porton I realize that my book may be too dense and even badly written. However, I need particular advices how to improve it. To make it less dense is not an advice particular enough for me to be able to follow it. The intended audience is anyone who wants to study mathematics deeply. It is probably a my failure if you are not able to read it, you should be able. Finally: I thought my book is well-written, thanks for disillusioning me.
I understand that you want particular advices, but that's not easy to give. It's not that one particular theorem or section is hard to read, it is the entire structure and style that makes it hard.

For example, there are no examples, motivations, analogies with what the reading should know, etc. This makes your text into a research monograph instead of a textbook.

The proofs are generally hard to follow and unpleasant to read as they are just a bunch of equations thrown at you, without motivation or underlying reasoning, etc.

Again, for a particular audience (which is probably limited), this is a good and easy to read text. For the majority of people interested in your text, they will probably give up after a few pages of formalism upon formalism and definition upon definition without motivation.

I can read the first 10 pages if you wish and give more detailed criticism. But I'm probably not going to bother to read the entire book if it is in a style like this (even though I am interested in the topics).

February 7th, 2019, 06:51 AM   #7
Newbie

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Israel

Posts: 20
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: general topology

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss I understand that you want particular advices, but that's not easy to give. It's not that one particular theorem or section is hard to read, it is the entire structure and style that makes it hard. For example, there are no examples, motivations, analogies with what the reading should know, etc. This makes your text into a research monograph instead of a textbook. The proofs are generally hard to follow and unpleasant to read as they are just a bunch of equations thrown at you, without motivation or underlying reasoning, etc. Again, for a particular audience (which is probably limited), this is a good and easy to read text. For the majority of people interested in your text, they will probably give up after a few pages of formalism upon formalism and definition upon definition without motivation. I can read the first 10 pages if you wish and give more detailed criticism. But I'm probably not going to bother to read the entire book if it is in a style like this (even though I am interested in the topics).

February 7th, 2019, 07:06 AM   #8
Newbie

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Israel

Posts: 20
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: general topology
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss The proofs are generally hard to follow and unpleasant to read as they are just a bunch of equations thrown at you, without motivation or underlying reasoning, etc.
I don't think this is essential. The proofs are not the most important thing in my book. The most essential thing are definitions. The proofs are just to fill the gaps. So I deem it not important whether proofs are motivated.

February 7th, 2019, 07:09 AM   #9
Newbie

Joined: Feb 2019
From: Israel

Posts: 20
Thanks: 2

Math Focus: general topology
Quote:
 Originally Posted by porton I don't think this is essential. The proofs are not the most important thing in my book. The most essential thing are definitions. The proofs are just to fill the gaps. So I deem it not important whether proofs are motivated.
Also, note "algebraic" in the title of my book. The proofs are meant to be just sequences of formulas for as much as possible It is to be thought algebraically. The meaning are the formulas themselves.

February 7th, 2019, 07:27 AM   #10
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 850
Thanks: 325

Quote:
 Originally Posted by porton Also, note "algebraic" in the title of my book. The proofs are meant to be just sequences of formulas for as much as possible It is to be thought algebraically. The meaning are the formulas themselves.
Then it seems the things that are hard to read are conscious decisions of yours. Too bad, since that means your work will remain inaccessible for me.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post kevinnn Calculus 1 April 6th, 2013 05:21 AM tedward570 Algebra 4 September 30th, 2012 05:59 PM BruceStark Academic Guidance 1 August 12th, 2012 09:16 AM Yoha Advanced Statistics 1 February 25th, 2012 11:59 PM AEStudent Math Books 3 June 9th, 2010 12:26 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top