Timeline for Learning French to follow some mathematics texts
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 20, 2012 at 17:15 | history | edited | Evpok | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| May 14, 2012 at 5:54 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| May 14, 2012 at 3:02 | comment | added | Samuel Lisi | I would recommend grabbing an introductory textbook (in French) to whatever topic you are trying to read, and studying it. If you know the material already, this will give you a nice review of the mathematics and will teach you the elements of French mathematical style and vocabulary you may need. | |
| May 14, 2012 at 3:00 | comment | added | Samuel Lisi | +1 to Bruno. A couple of tricky points that come to mind at the moment: in French, intervals are denoted by e.g. ]-1;5] to mean the interval that in English would be denoted by (-1, 5]. Similarly, the statement x > 0 in English is "x is positive". In French, «x est strictement positif». x ≥ 0 in English is read "x is non-negative". In French, «x est positif». If you get into topological spaces and functional analysis, it becomes a nightmare. A Hausdorff space is «séparé» in French, «simplement connexe» doesn't imply connected for all authors, whereas "simply connected" does, etc. | |
| May 13, 2012 at 18:34 | comment | added | Bruno | @SabyasachiMukherjee, the symbols might actually not be exactly the same either. Contrarily to popular belief, maths notations are not universal. In my experience, English-based maths usually seems less rigorous in terms of presentation than what you'd find in French books (possibly due to bourbakism). This won't be a problem if you're just reading, it will be if you plan to take exams. | |
| May 13, 2012 at 18:24 | comment | added | user1126 | In fact, I won't mind learning how to read French .I am sure authors do not necessarily use symbols all throughout.So, any books you recommend? | |
| May 13, 2012 at 17:28 | comment | added | Evpok | Well, it is texts and documents. If you question its reliability, have a look at the sources of the articles, at the bottom. You will find that the proofs in the article are not so different from those of the sources. | |
| May 13, 2012 at 17:14 | comment | added | user1126 | Wikipedia cannot be a reliable tool.It cannot be a substitute for texts and documents. | |
| May 13, 2012 at 14:28 | history | answered | Evpok | CC BY-SA 3.0 |