/math/ - Mathematics

>>688
this is the actual mathchan curriculum: https://sheafification.com/the-fast-track/

>>689
and how do you know

>>689
>actual mathchan curriculum
>mechanics
Top kek

>>688
aim high, it doesn't just have to be a dumb desk engineering job either.
the effort doesn't just stop at reading hard books, if you just go for a programming job you're being lazy, and that's not why we're here on mathchan
it's not 'follow this hobby math curriculum and do a bunch of toy analysis proofs'
which is why our list doesn't look like a typical math or CS major, because it is not courses for courses' sake
it doesn't stop there, it continues in your work - if you know theoretical physics and a base of mathematics, you could be doing literally anything
it would be lazy and shameful to stop there
you should be working on something big and important, gather experience in a different field, transform it with mathematics, start your own company
anything less is a waste

>>694
I aim trying to aim high anon. This curriculumn looked difficult. So should I start with sheafification?

>>695
Almost all the recommendations there are great. It recommends first getting proficient at single- and multivariable calculus before moving onto analysis but I prefer books that treat both simultaneously, like Amann and Escher's three-book analysis series.

>>689
Even Urs Schreiber approves of the /mg/ curriculum:
https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/15070/anisomorphism/?Focus=102597#Comment_102597

>>688
Why haven't anyone named the books yet. Just fucking read the titles. I need the names of last two books

Last book is Topics in Transcendental Algebraic Geometry by Phillip A. Griffiths and other one is Geometric Invariant Theory by Mumford.

>>758
Thanks Anon.
Its /thread/

The early curriculum is great for building a solid foundation. But it seems very single-minded on getting to abstract results in algebraic geometry. You can easily miss the trees for the forest by doing that.

>Are the books shown in the picrel enough to cover the mentioned topics.
They mostly seem to be selected for being the "hardest" book on the particular subject, which is not always the best. For instance BottTu is definitely not the hardest for anything it covers, but the clarity of exposition makes it a worthwhile read.
>how long would it take
Depends how much time you devote to it. If you spend 40-50 hours a week on studying, and you study efficiently, you could maybe finish this in five years. How much you would retain with no interaction from a mathematical community is uncertain, probably low. It takes years of being immersed in the field for knowledge to really sink in.