If you want a proof-based approach, __Linear Algebra Done Right__ is the typical go-to that’s also on the MIRI page. I went through maybe the first 3/4ths of it, and I thought it was pretty good, in terms of number of exercises and helping you think about manipulating vector spaces, etc. in a more abstract sense.

Otherwise, I’ve heard good things about Gilbert Strang’s MIT OCW course here: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-06-linear-algebra-spring-2010/.

In general, I think that 3B1B’s videos are really good for building intuition about a concept, but trying to do exercises off of the pedagogy in his videos alone can be quite challenging, especially as he often assumes some mastery with the subject already. (EX: In the eigen-stuffs video, he doesn’t actually explain how to find the eigenvalues of a matrix.)

Thus, I think it makes more sense to stick to a traditional textbook / course for learning linear algebra and using 3B1B as supplementary stuff for when you want a visual / different way of looking at a concept.

Also, it might be worth checking in to see what you want to learn linear algebra for. I suspect there are more domain specific resources if, for example, you cared about just the useful parts of linear algebra used in machine learning (dimensionality reduction, etc.).

I’ve looked a little bit at the RAISE website, and I’ve looked at the overview of curriculum topics, and I’m finding it a little...sparse, maybe? (I haven’t actually looked at the class materials on grasple though, so maybe there’s more stuff there.) I’m wondering how realistic it would be for someone to start engaging with MIRI-esque topics after learning just the courses RAISE has outlined.

At least for the prerequisites course, these are all topics covered throughout the first two years of a typical undergraduate computer science degree. And that doesn’t seem like quite enough.

EX: TurnTrout’s sequence of essays on their journey to become able to contribute towards MIRI-esque topics seems to span a much greater gamut of topics (linear algebra, analysis, etc.) at greater depth, closer to what one might cover in graduate school.

I guess, to operationalize, I’m curious about:

1. What target audience RAISE has in mind (technical people looking for a refresher, people who have had zero real exposure to technical subjects before, etc. etc.) for their materials.

2. What degree of competence RAISE expects people to come out of the curriculum with, either best-case or average-case.

3. In the best case, how many units of material do you think RAISE can product? In other words, is it enough for students to study RAISE’s material for a 6-month long curriculum? 1 year long?

****

(Of course, it’s also much easier from my position to be engaging/critiquing existing works, than to actually put in the effort to make all of this happen. I don’t mean any of the above as an indictment. It’s admirable and impressive that y’all have coordinated to make this happen at all!)