Mathematical Writing Pdf

[Victorio Galindo]

Iam an amateur mathematician without official scientific degrees. I am writing a breakthrough research monograph in abstract mathematics. When I finish it, what is better: to publish it traditionally or to put its LaTeX files into GitHub.com under a free copyleft license so that everyone could be able to edit my work. That it needs editing, is quite probable because this is a very new field of research and the book may require changes to make it better and more general.

The main issue here is that after the decision there is no way back: If I publish it traditionally I may lose copyright and be not able to distribute my LaTeX files for free, and reversely if I put it online with a free license, this may be an obstacle for publishing it.

Hi Terry,

Some time ago you were an advocate of publishing no further than arxiv. However, with their comments it is more of the same. Is there a time stamping technique you can recommend so that we can move on and publish at our websites?

Sir!

I find interest in maths and equally in philosophy.I have been writing them linking them in the best possible way I can..I adopt equations and theories from math and duduce explainations for some deep philosophical logics.like I have been working on limits and curves along with behavioural aspect of maths.The fact that my work doesnt incorporate(for now) a substantial amount of equations and symbols pulls me from submitting my works..kindly guide me as to where, or which university or professor should I write to!

Hello Sir, I am graduate student in Mathematics .I have some basic results related to Fibonacci sequence and partition but I am not able to deciding whether it is publishable or not.Tell me How can I proceed ?

DEAR TERENCE TAO,

I AM A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT AND HAS A MATHEMATCAL FINDING WHIVH I WISH TO PUBLISH.SO COULS YOU PROVIDE THE FORMAT IN TERMS OF MANUSCRIPT TITLE WITH AUTHOR ETC SINCE I DONT UNDERSTAND THEM NICELY

Prof Terence Tao ,

Euler and Goldbach are right when they announce this elegance guess, for years I have been fascinated by the strong conjecture of goldbach, but now I have come to a proof through pure mathematics.

How do I write mathematics well? Learning by example is more helpful than being told what to do, so let's try to name as many examples of "great writing" as possible. Asking for "the best article you've read" isn't reasonable or helpful. Instead, ask yourself the question "what is a great article?", and implicitly, "what makes it great?"

If you think of a piece of mathematical writing you think is "great", check if it's already on the list. If it is, vote it up. If not, add it, with an explanation of why you think it's great. This question is "Community Wiki", which means that the question (and all answers) generate no reputation for the person who posted it. It also means that once you have 100 reputation, you can edit the posts (e.g. add a blurb that doesn't fit in a comment about why a piece of writing is great). Remember that each answer should be about a single piece of "great writing", and please restrict yourself to posting one answer per day.

I refuse to give criteria for greatness; that's your job. But please don't propose writing that has a major flaw unless it is outweighed by some other truly outstanding qualities. In particular, "great writing" is not the same as "proof of a great theorem". You are not allowed to recommend anything by yourself, because you're such a great writer that it just wouldn't be fair.

Anything by John Milnor fits the bill. In particular, "Topology from the differential viewpoint" made me feel that I understand what differential topology is about, and the "h-cobordism theorem" made me feel that it's beautiful. Many other books and papers by him are wonderful; the first that come to mind are "Characteristic Classes", "Morse Theory", lots of things in Volume 3 of his collected papers.

True story: When I was about to move to Stony Brook to start my PhD, one of my professors took me aside to tell me "You know, when I was a student Milnor was god, and Morse Theory was the bible." I found that nice and moved on, but a little later a younger professor took me aside to say "You know, when I was a student Milnor was god, and Introduction to Algebraic K-Theory was the bible." By then I knew that something was going on, but I was still taken by surprise when a more junior professor found me and said "You know, when I was a student Milnor was god, and Characteristic Classes was the bible."

Of course this was all planned. They succeeded in motivating me to take every opportunity to talk to and learn from the big names I met. But they made another point that I only recognized later, while writing my first paper: If you want to learn to write Mathematics well, read anything by Milnor.

The book of Bott-Tu "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" was my door to enter the magic world of cohomology, Chern classes and similar topics. Moreover, it contains a wonderful (and in my opinion the best) exposition of spectral sequences with applications to the computation of some higher homotopy groups of the sphere. All that is presented in a self-contained way and in a magnificent style. A masterpiece!

I absolutely hated analysis until I read the Stein/Shakarchi analysis series (Fourier, Complex, Real Analysis). Now I find the subject to be very beautiful and full of deep ideas, and it is these books that really convinced me.

I think Algebraic Topology by Hatcher is one of my early favourites. It starts off being very basic but it manages to mention so much fascinating stuff, and I think the exposition is great. Definitely inspired me and got me interested in algebraic topology.

John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. This book reminded me of all the mathematics I kinda learned in undergrad, prepared me for graduate school, and taught me differential topology. I feel like every undergrad should have this book and work through it on their own.

Just like in this thread, I am amazed that no one mentions Deligne. I think it was Illusie who said Grothendieck had a gift to build new theories and new language while Serre's talent was to find new things to do with old tools. Deligne got the generality, abstraction and theory building from Grothendieck and the clarity of exposition and the constant reference to older language/simple ideas from Serre. I think that's why he is sometimes overshadowed by his elders when someone asks this kind of question.

Here's a few examples. His "Thorie de Hodge I" explains the "yoga of weights" in just a few pages. The first sections of "La conjecture de Weil I" provide a great survey of both the theory of tale cohomology and Lefschetz theory for algebraic varieties almost from scratch. Another masterpiece is his "Le groupe fondamental de la droite moins trois points" where he builds a whole theory unifying several aspects of arithmetics, topology and differential equations but always comes back to very down to earth examples. Not to mention, his Bourbaki lectures or the uncountable number of private communications of his cited in the literature.

Walter Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis has long been one of my favorites. Like Serre, Rudin seems to strike a nice balance for detail, and his proofs are always slick and fun to read; I became heavily interested in analysis after reading that one.

One of the math books I enjoy reading in most is Neukirch's book "Algebraic Number Theory". In my opinion, he presents the material beautifully and with a good degree of generality for a text book. Also, he manages to use language beautifully without losing mathematical rigor and without compromising clarity (this holds for the German version as well as for the English translation). When I have to look up some fact from algebraic number theory, Neukirch is usually the first book I try.

Without a doubt, Arnold's Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics is the book most responsible for me deciding to be a geometer. Only some papers of Atiyah were able to replicate the feeling of awe I had reading Arnold's classic as an impressionable green undergrad. Very few authors are able to convey to me the feeling of completely unconstrained thinking as Arnold's writings do. They continue to be the go to place whenever if feel stuck or stale in my research. A few pages from him still do the trick: they remind me why I became a mathematician.

I don't think it would necessarily change the life of anybody who was already into mathematics enough to pay for it, but I very much wish the Princeton Companion had come out when I was younger. You don't get the chance to get your hands dirty with the details of any of the topics the PCM covers, but sometimes you're not looking to get your hands dirty, and there's not much else of any quality that can compare in terms of breadth.

Virtually every page I've read of EGA/SGA has been useful to me, and almost every page I've skimmed I've later wished I'd read in more detail. The reputation for difficulty is, I think, unfounded. They are certainly abstract, but virtually every detail is present; in many ways, that makes EGA/SGA easier to read than other sources. Opening a volume and reading a sub-paragraph from the middle can be difficult because of all the back-references, but reading linearly can be very pleasant and rewarding. The French language may be a barrier for some, but one doesn't have to "learn French" to learn enough to understand EGA.

Mumford's "The Red Book of Schemes and Varieties" was the first book trying to explain Grothendieck's new theory of schemes to the large public. It does this with a lot of examples from the 'real life' and even with drawings! It is far from complete, but it remains the best for communicating the love for the subject and for the clearness of the exposition. Another masterpiece!

Gowers' Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction. This is in Oxford's series of "very short introductions" on a variety of topics (hieroglyphics, film, Rousseau,...), each of which I think is a tremendous challenge to the (invariably eminent) writer. Gowers dispenses with "anecdotes, cartoons, exclamation marks, jokey chapter titles," and instead plunges right into details without apology. The chapter on proofs is especially important for nonmathematicians to understand. The explanations of concepts (e.g., "dimension") are lucid, achieving clarity without compromising on technical accuracy.I read it in one sitting, which may dismay the author who must have labored over these small 160 pages, but which is a testimony of how smoothly he conveys his insights.

3a8082e126