Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper?

Re:Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper? by backpropaganda on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @08:59AM (#14910142)

Thanks a lot for your comment. I do have exposure to all the three topics. I self-studied with Strang's MIT OCW course in high school, took calculus and probability in high school and undergrad. So, I'm not really looking for big introductory books for two reasons, I don't really have time to go through big books, and since I already have some exposure, it becomes hard to find new things to learn from such introductory books. So, I was looking for something more concise which efficiently covers such mathematics.

EDIT: I think the main topic missing from my background is this so-called "analysis". I never formally studied it. Is there a more efficient way to study analysis than spivak's, for someone who has a decent background otherwise?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper? by thanatropism on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @09:49AM (#14910501)

Check out Mattuck's Introduction to Analysis.

Analysis is basically "really rigorous calculus". Basic analysis courses are also usually where you learn to do proofs.

(To some reasonable generality "calculus" stands for "rules of manipulation", while analysis is the mathematical theory of calculus. So I can teach you stochastic calculus in a couple of two-hour sessions but understanding what the hell is going on (stochastic analysis) requires measure theory, some functional analysis and much courage)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Do I really have to cite an arXiv paper? by tnecniv on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @03:46PM (#14913964)

I don't know why, but people always seem to forget that optimization is an important topic in machine learning that requires study. Boyd's book is the canonical source (and free online). If you want to get some functional analysis background at the same time, you can look at Optimization by Vector Space Methods. It's an older book but it is still worth a read and provides more theoretical foundations than Boyd.

[ Parent | on HN ]