/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9037415
Why do people like this book? I don't really get it. I've given it a try many times but it's just hard to read, even now after knowing plenty of abstract algebra. His treatment is painfully concrete, this is most apparent in how he treats the determinant in the first chapter by just giving a formula, no motivation at all. Hoffman and Kunze has served me much better, although his treatment of determinant still isn't enlightening. Evan Chen's napkin has a section on determinant and trace which is extremely nice, though you have to know a bit of algebra.

>>9037437
That is a good book. Though later on it goes a little crazy with the characteristic polynomial for everything. I'm not convinced getting trace and determinant from it is really all that sensible. You could take a look at Hoffman and Kunze as well, it's a bit harder than Axler but not that much.

ITT We finally settle the debate. We've pretty much settled which analysis' textbooks are the best, but when it comes to Linear Algebra there's not much love for a single or a couple of texts.
State your pick and your reason.

I'll start, Linear Algebra - Hoffman and Kunze, it's a traditional approach to linear algebra which I think is preferable to for example LADR, it covers a lot of more advanced topics, rigorous and is perfectly fine as an introductory book.

You're free to also pick this and/or add more reasons.

>>8412457
hoffman kunze gets recommended a lot

i think it's unlikely something you need to know isn't in there if you're an undergrad

ITT: 0/10s.

What is the Baby Rudin of Linear Algebra? Is it Hoffman and Kunze?