certainly we all underestimate the difficulty of material (obverse of the dunning-krueger effect) but it says it does at least hint at it right there.
but honestly i'm curious where in the book you see an example of a term or notion that isn't defined in situ?
as usual (with all of these things) mathematical maturity is what's required rather than familiarity with the material. what this means is a sense for why definitions are written in the way that they are, which hypotheses in theorems capture the phenomenon and which are technical, which lemmata can be ignored on first reading, etc. this is a very hard thing to communicate, especially in text, but this book does do its best to make that not-overwhelming as possible with ample restatements of definitions and assumptions and diagrams.
>The average high schooler
with
>motivated high school student
certainly we all underestimate the difficulty of material (obverse of the dunning-krueger effect) but it says it does at least hint at it right there.
but honestly i'm curious where in the book you see an example of a term or notion that isn't defined in situ? as usual (with all of these things) mathematical maturity is what's required rather than familiarity with the material. what this means is a sense for why definitions are written in the way that they are, which hypotheses in theorems capture the phenomenon and which are technical, which lemmata can be ignored on first reading, etc. this is a very hard thing to communicate, especially in text, but this book does do its best to make that not-overwhelming as possible with ample restatements of definitions and assumptions and diagrams.