TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

How to Learn Advanced Mathematics Without Heading to University – Part 3

480 pointsby shogunmikeover 8 years ago

24 comments

lumberjackover 8 years ago
This is stupid. The hard part about a Math degree is the number of hours you have to put in. If you cannot go to university full time, go part time. If you cannot go part time, you don&#x27;t have enough time to actually learn any of these topics on your own.<p>I&#x27;ve done these classes. It&#x27;s typically 150 hours per class and it&#x27;s not something you do after coming exhausted home from work either. After those 150 hours you&#x27;ll get a basic understanding of the topic. You won&#x27;t be an expert by any means. That will require more exposure, more time.<p>The lectures themselves are not that useful, I find. The lecturers are mostly useful in guiding you along, telling you which aspects of the theory to focus on and weeding through the study material to deliver you the best bits. The problem sets are indispensable. Exams make sure you actually know the basics in depth instead of just knowing about them.<p>My advice: enrol part-time, take one class at a time, catch up on the lectures and do the problem sets and the homework over the weekend.
评论 #12432364 未加载
评论 #12431827 未加载
评论 #12432501 未加载
评论 #12436321 未加载
评论 #12431801 未加载
评论 #12432898 未加载
评论 #12435257 未加载
评论 #12436483 未加载
yodsanklaiover 8 years ago
&gt; How to Learn Advanced Mathematics Without Heading to University<p>I wonder if it&#x27;s even possible. Learning maths requires much work, time and dedication. Doing so alone must be very difficult.<p>There are several things universities provide that are hard to replicate alone: a degree, which gives you access to a job, motivation, learning environment, and &quot;peace of mind&quot;.<p>What I mean by peace of mind is that, when you&#x27;re a student, your job is to study, that&#x27;s what you&#x27;re expected to do and normally your degree will give you access to a job (esp. if your university is reputable).<p>Now suppose someone learns advanced maths on their own. There&#x27;s a huge opportunity cost. Not only it takes a lot of time, and the few lucrative jobs that make use of maths are in finance. I suspect financial institutions are very conservative and rarely recruit someone without a proper academic background.<p>An other thing when learning things alone, is that your job is twofold. You must be teacher and student at the same time. You need to find the material, impose yourself some pacing, decide when it&#x27;s ok to move on etc... It may be ok when you want to learn a new technique in a field you already know, but something as broad as &quot;learning advanced mathematics&quot; seems impossible.
评论 #12431136 未加载
评论 #12429988 未加载
评论 #12429946 未加载
评论 #12431459 未加载
评论 #12429934 未加载
评论 #12431685 未加载
评论 #12436260 未加载
评论 #12430841 未加载
评论 #12431648 未加载
fantispugover 8 years ago
Learning advanced mathematics without going to university would take an extreme amount of dedication, focus, and effort, but it&#x27;s certainly possible. It&#x27;s much easier with the resources available on the internet, and being able to connect with people through forums and stack exchange.<p>John Baez&#x27;s recommendations: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;math.ucr.edu&#x2F;home&#x2F;baez&#x2F;books.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;math.ucr.edu&#x2F;home&#x2F;baez&#x2F;books.html</a><p>For theoretical physics &#x27;t Hooft&#x27;s recommendations: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.staff.science.uu.nl&#x2F;~gadda001&#x2F;goodtheorist&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.staff.science.uu.nl&#x2F;~gadda001&#x2F;goodtheorist&#x2F;</a>
评论 #12433891 未加载
bitchyover 8 years ago
These books will kick your teeth in if you&#x27;re not prepared. You either get a teacher who&#x27;ll hold your hand or you need to gear up for fight(develop math maturity and learn all the tricks and tips). To the latter end, you can check out the Book of Proof by Richard Hammack[0] and Discrete Math by Susanna Epp[1].<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.people.vcu.edu&#x2F;~rhammack&#x2F;BookOfProof&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.people.vcu.edu&#x2F;~rhammack&#x2F;BookOfProof&#x2F;</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Discrete-Mathematics-Applications-Susanna-Epp&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0495391328&#x2F;ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1473084498&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=susanna+epp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Discrete-Mathematics-Applications-Sus...</a>
biofoxover 8 years ago
I have found the Chicago undergraduate mathematics bibliography useful for directing self-study:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ocf.berkeley.edu&#x2F;~abhishek&#x2F;chicmath.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ocf.berkeley.edu&#x2F;~abhishek&#x2F;chicmath.htm</a><p>Previously discussed on HN:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9927909" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9927909</a>
评论 #12429831 未加载
评论 #12429627 未加载
saretiredover 8 years ago
What bothers me about this article is the hook: if you can learn this stuff you can get a quant job on Wall St. Realistically, very very few people can (truly) learn this amount of material on their own, and even so, you will be competing with top people with advanced math degrees, so if you&#x27;re not the second coming of Gelfand, the goal of getting this kind of job is completely unrealistic.<p>On the other hand, if you have the time (and ability) to learn some of this material on your own, for a purpose other than competing for a highly paid job as a mathematician, great.
mathgeniusover 8 years ago
This stuff is brutally difficult to learn from books. Sigh. Maybe in the years since I studied this as an undergraduate things have changed with youtube and so-on. But there is nothing quite like talking to a real mathematician. One minute you are asking a question about some little thing you are stuck on, and the next minute the master is levitating and bending spoons! That&#x27;s when you start to feel the real depth behind the concepts. It doesn&#x27;t come from books.
评论 #12429885 未加载
评论 #12431769 未加载
评论 #12430475 未加载
ziedaniel1over 8 years ago
To get the key ideas behind many of these topics, you could try reading Evan Chen&#x27;s Infinitely Large Napkin: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mit.edu&#x2F;~evanchen&#x2F;napkin.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.mit.edu&#x2F;~evanchen&#x2F;napkin.html</a>
评论 #12433307 未加载
lordnachoover 8 years ago
Seems pretty comprehensive to me. As a career quant trader I&#x27;d say it&#x27;s a matter of doing the advanced stuff so that you understand the simple stuff. Especially in statistics, there are a number of simple principles, but they need to be learned by incorporating them into some complicated lessons.<p>There&#x27;s also programming. That&#x27;s a whole can of worms in itself. There&#x27;s both theory and practice, where I&#x27;d say the practice is far more important than it seems. You really have to have bashed your head against a wall (of your own making) to appreciate how to code in a sensible, maintainable way.
评论 #12429616 未加载
ronald_raygunover 8 years ago
My two cents - I got a BS in math and an MS in stats. A ton of this stuff is really hard and takes a lot of time to understand, and it really does help to have a bunch of time to dedicate to it, a professor to guide you, and friends to try problems with. It also really helps to be exposed to a good order to learn stuff (for example I&#x27;d suggest tons of functional analysis, then prob, then stats, then finally ML)<p>But once this stuff clicks it becomes very easy to teach yourself. I&#x27;ve been learning stuff like quantum algorithm, network analysis, etc.
kikishortlerover 8 years ago
On the face of it this looks more like studying than learning. The distinction is not meaningless. I <i>studied</i> French for six years and passed an exam at the end. However despite all this activity I have never been able to converse in French. By a variant of Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, I conclude that I cannot do mathematics either.
Tychoover 8 years ago
What do people think of this idea. Let&#x27;s say you want to casually improve your maths knowledge in your spare time. Let&#x27;s say you find it frustrating how you generally can&#x27;t just google concepts as you come across them, because the material is usually presented so obtusely and you need to be able to ask questions and have things explained in different ways. Let&#x27;s say you live in a university town. Let&#x27;s say you pay a graduate student to just spend a couple hours per week answering your questions, on whatever concepts you&#x27;re having difficulty with.<p>Do you think this would work well? Obviously it costs money but I&#x27;m guessing the rate wouldn&#x27;t need to be too high to make it worth their time. They wouldn&#x27;t need to do any preparation, just have a good grounding in the language of maths.
评论 #12432975 未加载
ekm2over 8 years ago
There is another guide online: &quot; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hbpms.blogspot.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;05&#x2F;stage-1-elementary-stuff.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;hbpms.blogspot.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;05&#x2F;stage-1-elementary-stuff.h...</a>
hal9000xpover 8 years ago
As I a software developer with no degree (working since 2009 in 3 countries), I can share my experience of attempts to learn advanced math.<p>In 2010, I was very interested in foundations of mathematics, an extremely abstract math branches:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Foundations_of_mathematics" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Foundations_of_mathematics</a><p>In particular I spent huge amount of time on:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nicolas_Bourbaki" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Nicolas_Bourbaki</a> (Set theory)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Principia_Mathematica" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Principia_Mathematica</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Foundations_of_Arithmetic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_Foundations_of_Arithmetic</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jhtm.nl&#x2F;tudelft&#x2F;tw3520&#x2F;Introduction_to_Mathematical_Logic.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jhtm.nl&#x2F;tudelft&#x2F;tw3520&#x2F;Introduction_to_Mathematic...</a><p>What attracted me is that these books doesn&#x27;t require any specific knowledge of classical math. I.e. they are self-contained.<p>It was fun and ... the experience to delve into highly abstract view on entire math.<p>The big problem is that while I read that for more than a year, I had no experience in problem solving and just ignored exercises (thinking that concept is everything). As a result of that, my entire knowledge is completely evaporated and I literally can&#x27;t solve any of exercises.<p>After that year, I dropped math till recently.<p>Now, I have completely different approach. I learning elementary olympiad style math and most importantly solving problems all the time. Currently, I&#x27;m into series of books:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.artofproblemsolving.com&#x2F;store" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.artofproblemsolving.com&#x2F;store</a><p>These books made for math olympiad preparation. While I solving exercises, I feel how solid my knowledge is.<p>So if you want to learn advanced mathematics, learn elementary olympiad-style math first. It will give you solid background to start learning advanced math (not just knowledge background but most importantly problem solving skills).
评论 #12431479 未加载
评论 #12431742 未加载
echelonover 8 years ago
Would it be possible to do this for quantum mechanics, chromodynamics, etc. (to the point where I can follow the primary literature)? I have an undergraduate understanding of physical chemistry, but that was the closest exposure I got to the subject. My mathematics background is petty weak, too (only a modest background in PDE, no ODE, and a faint memory of linear algebra).<p>I&#x27;d pay handsomely for a personal tutor &#x2F; teacher.
partycoderover 8 years ago
Unless you work on graphics, physics, signal analysis, sound, trading, data science, computer vision, machine learning, etc... it&#x27;s hard as a software engineer to be exposed to math past the basics, meaning that you can survive without having to go beyond arithmetic.<p>You might still get some exposure to discrete mathematics once in a while. Statistics is always there to help you, some people avoid it, some others embrace it.
评论 #12435212 未加载
naveen99over 8 years ago
Sympy can help get over the fear of following scary looking equations or just speed you up.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;minireference.com&#x2F;static&#x2F;tutorials&#x2F;sympy_tutorial.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;minireference.com&#x2F;static&#x2F;tutorials&#x2F;sympy_tutorial.pdf</a>
IvanK_netover 8 years ago
The hard part of learning anything without heading to university is not learning that subject, but persuading yourself, that you realy do need to learn each specific area of the subject thoroughly, even if you have never heard of it in your previous &quot;career&quot;.
jimhefferonover 8 years ago
&gt; it is essential that we study topics such as Measure Theory and Linear Functional Analysis<p>I love this sentence. I&#x27;m not sure it is true, but it is nonetheless a great sentence.
graycatover 8 years ago
Somewhere in the OP or its links is a statement that in 1997 or so the world of finance was really hot for <i>quants</i>.<p>Net: What I found was not &quot;hot&quot; but ice cold.<p>In contrast, early in my career around DC, for applied math for US national security and NASA, in one two week period I went on seven interviews and got five offers. In four years, my annual salary increased by a factor of 4 to six times what a new, high end Camaro cost. That was &quot;hot&quot;.<p>When I went for my Ph.D. in applied math, I&#x27;d read E. O. Thorpe who had, basically an early but basically correct version of the Black-Scholes option pricing model. In the back of his book, he mentioned <i>measure theory</i>. So, I dug into Royden&#x27;s <i>Real Analysis,</i> and in grad school I got a really good background in measure theory, probability, and stochastic processes from a star student of E. Cinlar, long in just those topics and the mathematics of operations research and mathematical finance at Princeton.<p>In more detail, about 1992 to 2000, after my Ph.D., I tried to get into finance in NYC as a <i>quant</i>. My Ph.D. dissertation research was in stochastic optimal control, with careful attention to measure theory and the relatively obscure topic of <i>measurable selection</i> and with a lot of attention to real world modeling, algorithms, and software. I had a good background in multivariate statistics and time series techniques, an especially good background in advanced linear algebra and numerical linear algebra (e.g., numerically exact matrix inversion using only double precision machine arithmetic and based on number theory and the Chinese remainder theorem), double precision inner product accumulation and iterative improvement, etc.<p>So, I sent nicely formatted resume copies, in total 1000+.<p>I have held US Federal Government security clearances at least as high as Secret; never arrested; never sued; never charged with worse than minor traffic violations; never bankrupt; good credit; physically normal; healthy; never used illegal drugs or used legal drugs illegally; married only once and never divorced; etc.<p>Results:<p>(1) I got an interview at Morgan Stanley, but all they wanted was software development on IBM mainframes (where I had a good background at the time) with no interest in anything mathematical.<p>(2) I got a <i>lunch</i> with some guy who claimed to be recruiting for Goldman Sachs, but, except for the free lunch and what I had to pay for parking in Manhattan, that went nowhere.<p>(3) I had a good background in optimization, published a nice paper in JOTA that solved a problem stated but not solved in the famous paper in mathematical economics by Arrow, Hurwicz, and Uzawa.<p>So, for mathematical finance, I got a reference to<p>Darrell Duffie, <i>Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory</i>, ISBN 0-691-04302-7, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1992.<p>and dug in: The first chapters were heavily about the Kuhn-Tucker conditions, that is, the topic of my JOTA paper. By the end of the chapter, I&#x27;d found counterexamples for every significant statement in the first one or two (IIRC) chapters. I had to conclude that Duffie was not a good reference for anything good!<p>(4) Headhunters: I tried them, especially the ones claiming to be interested in technical work, computing, etc. They were from unresponsive down to insulting. It wasn&#x27;t clear they had any recruiting requests.<p>(5) In those days, getting names and mailing addresses of hedge funds was not so easy. But I did get some lists and mailed to them. Got next to nothing back. I didn&#x27;t hear about James Simons until well after year 2000.<p>(6) Right, there was Black-Scholes. Well, of course, that was Fisher Black at Goldman Sachs. So I wrote him and enclosed a copy of my resume. I got a nice letter back from him saying that he saw no roles for applied mathematics or optimization on Wall Street.<p>So, I gave up on trying to be a <i>quant</i> on Wall Street!<p>So that was 1992-2000, 8 years, 1000+ resume copies, and zip, zilch, and zero results.<p>Curious that the OP thinks that 1997 was a &quot;hot&quot; year for applied math on Wall Street.<p>Now I&#x27;m an entrepreneur, doing a startup based on some applied math I derived, computing, and the Internet! To heck with Wall Street: If my startup is at all successful, I will make much more money than I could have on Wall Street. And I don&#x27;t have to live in or near the southern tip of Manhattan and, instead, live 70 miles north of there in the much nicer suburbs!<p>Lesson: Take the OP with several pounds of salt!
Hnrobert42over 8 years ago
Am I missing something? This just appears to be a link to buy some guy&#x27;s ebooks.
评论 #12429571 未加载
评论 #12429587 未加载
评论 #12429602 未加载
paulpauperover 8 years ago
On question is: why? The examples in differential geometry can be difficult and time-consuming , unlike simple calculus, and are best done with computer, not by hand. A single tensor, as found in general relativity, may have dozens of components...writing them out would be taxing. My question is, what do want to do with this knowledge. There is value in learning complicated, abstract math to signal intellect and thus become more popular online, and maybe get consulting work. But in terms to practical applications, a lot of it is done by software programmed by large teams (not just one person), although learning the rules is always helpful. If you want to be a professional researcher who makes original findings in pure mathematics, it will presumably require full dedication, and one can&#x27;t be both a quant trader and pure researcher at the same time (even someone as smart as James Simmons, founder of Renaissance Capital, was forced to choose between one or the other; he chose the former).<p>It seems as of late ,especially since 2013, there is huge demand for learning complicated mathematics, coding, and trading algorithms. It&#x27;s like the AP-math class of high school, but as of 2013 expanded to include almost everyone, not just a dozen students lol. This recent obsession with math and finance is described in more detail in . People observe, read headlines about high-IQ founders, venture capitalists, and coders making tons of money in Web 2.0 (Uber, Pinterest, Snaphat, Dropbox, etc.); STEM people getting tons of prestige, status, and global notoriety for their finding (Arxiv physics and math papers frequently go viral); and how the economy, especially as of 2008, rewards intellectualism and STEM in terms of higher wages and surging asset prices (like stocks (the S&amp;P 500 has nearly tripled since the 2009 bottom), web 2.0 valuations (Snapchat is worth $15 billion, on its way to $50 billion), and real estate (Palo Also home prices have doubled since 2011)), and, understandably, many people want a piece of the wealth pie. They see that intellect - which includes STEM, finance, and also quantitative finance - is the path to both riches and social status (as embodied by wealthy geniuses like Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Shkreli), which is why there is so much interest in these technical, difficult subjects, unlike decades ago when only a handful of people were interested.<p>But another question is: Does algorithmic trading work? I don&#x27;t know for sure, but I think a lot money is made in market making (Citadel Capital comes to mind), which tends to full under the umbrella of algorithmic trading - the two are closely related. And the math in involved has much less to do with differential geometry and number theory and more to to do with statistics and linear algebra (such as analyzing correlations between data). This involves a lot of trading and paying constant attention to order books - it&#x27;s a full time job. I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s as glamorous as many think it is, and I&#x27;m not sure if the returns are worth the effort. There are simpler methods, based on mathematics such as the ETF decay, that an also generate very good returns and don&#x27;t require full-time trading. Here is one <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;greyenlightenment.com&#x2F;post-2008-wealth-creation-guide&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;greyenlightenment.com&#x2F;post-2008-wealth-creation-guide...</a>
评论 #12431364 未加载
评论 #12431082 未加载
karma_vaccum123over 8 years ago
People don&#x27;t go to university to learn, they go to university to get degrees...or to be more blunt...to buy degrees.
DavidWanjiruover 8 years ago
&quot;Why are you wanting to learn mathematics?&quot;<p>The author is called Michael Halls-Moore. Why would a person called Michael Halls-Moore write a sentence like this? I&#x27;m genuinely curious, coz I&#x27;d assume this is a native English speaker.