Are you an aspiring math major, but don't know what your field of study should be? Consider using this flow chart to help determine what you should focus on!

seen from Germany
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from Iraq

seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from Malaysia
seen from Russia
seen from Saudi Arabia
Are you an aspiring math major, but don't know what your field of study should be? Consider using this flow chart to help determine what you should focus on!
So I have heard of Descriptive Set Theory before, but unfortunately it came off as very bland and unmotivated for me up until now. Today, I found this theorem on one of the topology books that I have been reading (it was written by John L. Kelley), and came in the form of a practice problem:
Theorem 1. If f is a continuous real-valued function on X, then f^{-1}[0] is a G_δ. The set {0} is in the space of all reals.
My first proof of this theorem was of the following: The real numbers ℝ have a countable base, and from this it needs to be shown that the image of f^{-1}: ℝ -> {0} is G_δ. If f^{-1}{0} were somehow not G_δ, then there will be only be a finite intersection of open sets U_α in R covering f^{-1}[0] in the form f^{-1}[0] ⊂ {∩ U_α}. However, one can easily select other open sets (let's label it U_β for now) that will cover f^{-1}[0] ⊂ {∩ U_α} ⊂ {∩ U_β}; this can go on ad nauseum to infinity, as R has a countable base.
I also came up with another proof. For some B_1 and B_2 ∈ ℝ and every point x ∈ B_1 ∩ B_2, there exists a B_3 ∈ B such that x ∈ B_3 ⊂ B_1 ∩ B_2. For f^{-1}[0] in particular, and for f{B_1], f[B_2] ∈ B and every point f^{-1}[0] ∈ f[B_1] ∩ f[B_2], there is a f[B_3] ∈ B that is a subset of f[B_1] ∩ f[B_2] which contains f^{-1}[0] and is smaller than the original B_1's and B_2's. From this, it may be deduced that there is a {∩ B_α} of open sets covering f^{-1}[0], in which α is countable.
I suppose that this practice problem/theorem is somewhat trivial, but I found it to be interesting nonetheless, especially since it contained stuff relating to the Borel hierarchy. I think what I got out of it was that we can use G_δ or F_σ sets (or other sets within the Borel hierarchy :P) to analyze subsets of the real line, although I think I might need to do a bit more research on topology/DST first...
Which one do u want to obliterate from existence aaaaaa
Arithmetic/Number Theory
Algebra
Geometry
Statistics
Calculus/Analysis
Discrete Mathematics(Combinatorics)
Mathematical Logic and Set Theory
Why don’t they teach mathematical logic earlier? It’s present in literally all the books you have to read anyway. Some algebra author is going to be like for vs real numbers a,b ≠ 0 there exists a ratio a/b that is also a real number. And most people can’t even read that. Like half of the book is completely inaccessible because logic is fucking wild and requires actual practice with.
I’m not saying that this stuff is incredibly hard; it’s not. However logic just isn’t taught even though it is clearly foundational.
Sets especially seem to trigger me. Like I think a lot of people struggle with trig specifically because this aspect of functions is just not taught well. Like of course the arcsin(x) isn’t defined for -pi/2 > x < pi/2. It would be so much better if we actually taught this stuff.
The Philosophy of Set Theory
The philosophy of set theory explores the foundational aspects of set theory, a branch of mathematical logic that deals with the concept of a "set," which is essentially a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. Set theory forms the basis for much of modern mathematics and has significant implications for logic, philosophy, and the foundations of mathematics.
Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Set Theory:
Definition of Set Theory:
Basic Concepts: Set theory studies sets, which are collections of objects, called elements or members. These objects can be anything—numbers, symbols, other sets, etc. A set is usually denoted by curly brackets, such as {a, b, c}, where "a," "b," and "c" are elements of the set.
Types of Sets: Sets can be finite, with a limited number of elements, or infinite. They can also be empty (the empty set, denoted by ∅), or they can contain other sets as elements (e.g., {{a}, {b, c}}).
Philosophical Foundations:
Naive vs. Axiomatic Set Theory:
Naive Set Theory: In its original form, set theory was developed naively, where sets were treated intuitively without strict formalization. However, this led to paradoxes, such as Russell's paradox, where the set of all sets that do not contain themselves both must and must not contain itself.
Axiomatic Set Theory: In response to these paradoxes, mathematicians developed axiomatic set theory, notably the Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC). These formal systems use a set of axioms to avoid paradoxes and provide a rigorous foundation for set theory.
Set Theory and the Foundations of Mathematics:
Role in Mathematics: Set theory serves as the foundational framework for nearly all of modern mathematics. Concepts like numbers, functions, and spaces are all defined in terms of sets, making set theory the language in which most of mathematics is expressed.
Mathematical Platonism: The philosophy of set theory often intersects with debates in mathematical Platonism, which posits that mathematical objects, including sets, exist independently of human thought. Set theory, from this perspective, uncovers truths about a realm of abstract entities.
Philosophical Issues and Paradoxes:
Russell's Paradox: This paradox highlights the problems of naive set theory by considering the set of all sets that do not contain themselves. If such a set exists, it both must and must not contain itself, leading to a contradiction. This paradox motivated the development of axiomatic systems.
Continuum Hypothesis: One of the most famous problems in set theory is the Continuum Hypothesis, which concerns the possible sizes of infinite sets, particularly whether there is a set size between that of the integers and the real numbers. The hypothesis is independent of the ZFC axioms, meaning it can neither be proven nor disproven within this system.
Axioms of Set Theory:
Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms (ZF): These axioms form the basis of modern set theory, providing a formal foundation that avoids the paradoxes of naive set theory. The axioms include principles like the Axiom of Extensionality (two sets are equal if they have the same elements) and the Axiom of Regularity (no set is a member of itself).
Axiom of Choice (AC): This controversial axiom asserts that for any set of non-empty sets, there exists a function (a choice function) that selects exactly one element from each set. While widely accepted, it has led to some counterintuitive results, like the Banach-Tarski Paradox, which shows that a sphere can be divided and reassembled into two identical spheres.
Infinity in Set Theory:
Finite vs. Infinite Sets: Set theory formally distinguishes between finite and infinite sets. The concept of infinity in set theory is rich and multifaceted, involving various sizes or "cardinalities" of infinite sets.
Cantor’s Theorem: Georg Cantor, the founder of set theory, demonstrated that not all infinities are equal. For example, the set of real numbers (the continuum) has a greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers, even though both are infinite.
Philosophical Debates:
Set-Theoretic Pluralism: Some philosophers advocate for pluralism in set theory, where multiple, possibly conflicting, set theories are considered valid. This contrasts with the traditional view that there is a single, correct set theory.
Constructivism vs. Platonism: In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivists argue that mathematical objects, including sets, only exist insofar as they can be explicitly constructed, while Platonists hold that sets exist independently of our knowledge or constructions.
Applications Beyond Mathematics:
Set Theory in Logic: Set theory is foundational not only to mathematics but also to formal logic, where it provides a framework for understanding and manipulating logical structures.
Philosophy of Language: In philosophy of language, set theory underlies the formal semantics of natural languages, helping to model meaning and reference in precise terms.
The philosophy of set theory is a rich field that explores the foundational principles underlying modern mathematics and logic. It engages with deep philosophical questions about the nature of mathematical objects, the concept of infinity, and the limits of formal systems. Through its rigorous structure, set theory not only provides the bedrock for much of mathematics but also offers insights into the nature of abstraction, existence, and truth in the mathematical realm.
PHOTOSTORY DRY AS DUST / SPECIAL EPISODE
the theory of derivation trees
is mathematics dealing with absolute truth?
That question is really thrilling to answer, to be honest.
We have to define 'absolute truth' first.
If we consider this "absolute truth" as logical consistency, then I'd like to introduce Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems:
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, for instance, state that mathematics will never be complete, because it will always have parts that cannot be proven. Either it is incomplete, but consistent, or complete but inconsistent (in form of being self-referent).
Mathematics cannot prove itself by its own rules, WITHIN its own system.
As for another track of thoughts/perspctive: (Now it becomes an utter mess... And I am sorry for leaping between multiple different conceptions rn. My thinking process IS like what I describe here - a sort of "extraction process" of "truth", or correct and exact thoughts. )
The only "absolute truth" there is, is actually that there is none - as a kind of "structure" at least, as in a "static", non-chaotic linear axiomatic system (Classical logic). When it comes to non-linear axiomatic systems [networks] (inserting chaos theory in meta-math - neat feedback-loop INSIDE mathematics as recursive system itself btw) I would rather refer to such "truth" as a process of oscillating around the most exact reality description - the symmetry axis is hence the equilibrium state and the actual structure of absolute truth. But- this is exceeding the margin now - The absolute state is an information singularity I call "invertium". Reaching that equilibrium causes an 'inversion', a process of inner polarity. That recursive inner polarity IS that absolute truth.
Furtherly, I somehow sense a strange logical twisted mindfuck fusing Gödel's Incompleteness with my concepts on non-linear axiomatic [networks] (Quantum logic, in a sense). (Transcendence of a paradox, huh???)
Also, in regards of these trains of thought, "absolute truth" is what I would call a "superposed entangled state of all truths and lies" - like an information singularity. A state in which an Invertium happens - the indistinguishabilty of two extreme states - 100% dense information can't be distinguished from a 0% one. A singularity is hence, in a sense, an isolated [conservative] system itself, from a rough viewpoint.
What happens in this state? I suppose a desintegration of said information as "self/own complex", and integration of its information parts into its super-ordinate medium. (That is how I interpret entanglement) (The information strangely "dissolves"/integrates.)
Absolute truth bears every partial truth - and all partial truths, well, I would refer here to Feynman's Path integrals, virtual pairs in Feynman-diagrams and statistical mechanics.
And I am sorry for the confusion. Maybe one day I will be able to turn these highly compressed thoughts into fathomable chunks.
(In my upcoming book a lot of the concepts stated above will be some of the primary issues.)