Strang's Linear Algebra lectures are god-tier
Never felt like I really understood linear algebra from my own uni lectures
That's real neato and all, but can he perform trice iterated integration?
This. Trying to learn linear algebra from some autistic Quebecois grad student at the University of Washington was hell. Strang's lectures are the only thing that got me through that class.
Sorry but i have to disagree.
I watched some of his lectures from youtube but his approach is too much "practical" and leaves too many theoretic details out.
The problem with this is that you can't "build" foundation about geometry and linear algebra.
I like this book (in pic) better, but the main defect about this book is that it needs more simple-number examples. For example, when explaining decomposition on bases, it uses e^x as base in the very first example. Still, a very valid book. Saldy, only in italian.
>Math is a tool, not an end unto itself.
That is why it has to be explained right. You can't just throw a bunch of definition and not explain how each relates to the others.
But maybe it's just me, I like to have a basic understanding of how the tools i use work.
>dancing is a tool to maintain physical fitness, not something that is pleasurable for its own sake
>making art is a tool to maintain mental health, not an end in itself
>playing music is only, /only/ a vehicle for getting pussy and thereby improving evolutionary fitness, no one ever wrote a nice song that they just plain liked for its melody
>even if we both agree that a thing is somehow useful, then you shouldn't like it in and of itself
>it is impossible that something could both be a tool and an end unto itself. you shouldn't ever just like something for its own qualities, or want to develop it as far as it can go for its own sake, it has to have utility outside of itself
>stop liking what I don't like, durrr
Just today, not six hours ago, I was thinking about how math being done for its own sake, for the pleasure of it, the fun of it, far from being merely strange to some, is taken to the point that it seems to actively piss people off.
The first time that I can recall being acquainted with the idea, is when an old professor, who is now sadly gone, once explained to the room why a particular proof was done: "Because it's beautiful. It's like poetry". Most of the room was dissatisfied, but I got the aesthetic conceit immediately.
I can only conclude that science-folks who are obliged to constantly use math without ever really liking math itself, have a certain masochism, which is unfortunate for them. And I am sure that you will able, if you are so inclined, to dismiss this post with "okay autist" or similar, while missing the larger point, which goes well beyond math: it's a good thing that we have a world where people have (the more-or-less constructive) diverse interests and passions. Or better yet, you could concede the latter correct point.
No, it isn't, because I shoed in the (constructive) qualifier that I did.
You've been cornered and BTFO. I did this elsewhere a few hours ago, and the rest of the thread smelled the bullshit and had already been piling on
Where before there was simply a pissing match about taste, we now have a much more exciting pissing match about what's so, the more exciting because I'm still right, because of how carefully I phrased my conclusion.
It bears mentioning that I anticipated the fedora meme in lieu of an argument in the above, and whoever you may be, you've played it to type, with this one post.
It also bears mentioning that the earlier post also hit a nice "hurr demonstrably wrong" affect (as if to impeach my coda in >>7584066 -it didn't), and then couldn't be bothered to follow up. And we haven't heard from the person since.
There are a few possibilities. Either the poster >>7584069 really did blow smoke and knows that it can't be substantiated, or, rather than realizing the futility of arguing with someone who is determined to declare themselves right no matter what (which isn't what's actually going on here), they realized that I am in fact right, and therefore abandoned the argument, which sounds nice, but is still simple.
But there's a third angle to the retard fight, the sexiest of all. Let's suppose that the above poster really was an educated person who could BTFO of my whole thing at will. Did they not reply because they were bored, or disengaged? /Then why even make the original false assertion in the first place/? The point being that they wanted to try and win something-in their own head, on the internet, during downtime-and they didn't manage it. In order for them to do that, they would have to comprehensively refute my above conclusion, without the air quotes this time. They didn't, because they can't.
I don't have to do either, despite the marginal, rhetorical truth in both of your claims, neither of which bothers to directly assault the central point which I wrote at the end of this post >>7584066 . Because of the redeeming nature of this particular forum, among similar forums. It's not like a board room where an executive can sell a line of bullshit to the team, in person, and they go along with it out of convenience. Or like a television program. The ideas are forced to stand on their own.
We are at distance from the larger true point, which is why it bears repeating at this stage. It started out as a guy >>7583978 unfortunately (but not objectively incorrectly) making an aesthetic judgment that math is not an end unto itself, to which I took objection. From here, I correctly escalated, heard more Wrong, called it out, and the Right that I posted has yet to be refuted beyond a Nuh-Uhhh.
The safe coda that I wrote (taken out of its above native context): "It's a good thing that we have a world where people have (the more-or-less constructive) diverse interests and passions." This was crafted quickly, and it still hasn't been directly shown up, for the above mentioned reasons.
But please, emotionally win the argument again by posting Dewphoria for the umpteenth time like it's a substantive argument. This really works off the internet just as well as on. Sadly, that latter sentence is not intended ironically.
No, I won't. There is a difference between "frilly language", and simple, accurate articulation which takes more than a few sentences. The above post falls into the latter camp, because it makes multiple definite claims, and therefore has substance which your frilly language does not. It does not duck and weave - that's for you to do, since you're still only attacking tone, which is all that has been done except for the simple "nuh-uh" >>7584069 above, which was never developed. It's still a rung above what you're doing, though.
Calling out frilly language is legitimate when it comes at the expense of substance. When it doesn't, as in the above, then it's appropriate to conclude the opposite: that the complaintant is the dumb one.
If you or anyone else could have proven me wrong, they've had chance after chance. They still do have a chance, but it doesn't seem to be coming.