/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11213217
u shouldn't be reading that shit, nigga. wat u need to read is shlomo sternberg's advanced calculus. it will give ya an edge, negro. i guarantee ya.

do it.

>>11213300
>Tfw name is actually shlomo sternberg

>>11213217
>redpill me on this book
It's not a book for people who learn Analysis the first time.
A lot of the things are only sketched and you don't have the tools to show them properly.
Don't feel bad if the book looks difficult because it is if you are a beginner like first year mathematics, don't listen to what other people say.
Look for a book which explains things clearly.

>red incel me on x

>>11213217
It’s a good book for going further from first semester analysis. I highly recommend Abbott from my own personal experiences, which walks you through a lot of the intuition and big results for the real line. Then I suggest going through Rudin for the following
1) to understand the field axioms and construction of the reals via dedekind cuts (and, in the exercises, construct the real line via equivalence relations on Cauchy sequences of rationals)
2) doing all exercises you can on analysis in general metric spaces. Rudin exercises are really, really good. Even the basic one on showing that exponentiation in the reals by a real actually makes sense is very informative.
Everything up to chapter 7ish is good. After that, go to another analysis book and / or read munkres / your favorite topology book

>>11213336
thanks for your response, do you have any recommendations for topology books? i'm really interested in it and i'd possibly like to specialize in it in the future

>>11213336
>Abott
About to head into my first analysis course and bought this, did I make a goos choice?

>>11213351
> do you have any recommendations for topology books?
I actually really liked munkres. I feel you should probably cross reference with other authors - I hear Willard is good but a bit dry. Topology is really cool, but you need to take off your training wheels and get comfortable talking about more general spaces. I've found that studying analysis and topology in the same semester is incredibly beneficial since you get a really great top-down and bottom-up view of these ideas. It helped a lot when I was really getting down compactness, continuity, and connectedness.
>>11213352
It's very good in my opinion. Very clear, very well motivated, and Abbott makes many pains to do proofs in a way that builds off prior techniques (ie, unlike Rudin, he won't pull a magic bound out of his ass to make the proof 10 lines shorter). Its important to be able to read and follow Rudin, as his tricks *are* very important, but I appreciated them only after an initial course with Abbott. Can't speak for Tao nor Pugh as I've never read them.

>>11213312
>It's not a book for people who learn Analysis the first time.
i learned analysis from this book and i love that book and anyone who thinks it is too hard is a mental baby

>>11213300
is that a kippah?
>>11213312
Abbott.
>>11213352
>bought
no you did NOT make a good choice.

>>11213786
"Hard" isn't really the word I'd use. It's more that it's obtuse at times in the earlier chapters.
Chapter 2 onwards is smooth sailing. It's not the worst initial book for analysis, but I don't like it as a first text. I really like Rudin's problems, but I don't appreciate the incredibly terse style right off the bat. I have a complicated opinion in that, overall, I do really like Rudin, but I hate how everyone feels like they need to bully everyone else into loving Rudin as the first and only intro analysis text.

>>11213809
sure. my analysis teacher said to the class that if you need “more” then crack open Apostol. i think that is a reasonable supplement to baby Rudin if you find Rudin too terse

>>11213300
>>11213802
>confusing a mousepad for a hat
Whenever I do Advanced Calculus I always put on my ugly casino carpet colored kippah, get on my knees and start sucking Tyrone's cock while Tyrone solves the x and then some. Great book. Five stars.

>>11213836
>hurr durr math is a jewish conspiracy
>>>/pol/

>>11213217
You don't read Rudin, you do the exercises. You will git gud.

>>11213824
I think Abbott is also fine to accompany Rudin. Really, just choose what looks best to you and study.

>>11213217
>Theorem 2.8: Every infinite subset of a countable set A is countable
I bet most anons can't prove this without looking at the book

>>11213842
Based psychotic Israeli brainlet failing basing English reading comprehension.

>>11213836
>solves the x
I'm a mathematician and I've never solved for x in my life.
is this some kind of euphemism?

>>11213842
fuck off jew in the name of Allah

>>11213336
I second this anon's Abbott>Rudin sequence

>redpill me

>>11213217
The whole point of this book is to do the exercises. The given proofs can be a bit ridiculous with how many steps are skipped, but the exercises are made such that if you are able to do them, you REALLY know analysis.

>>11216183
I wonder how far back your hairline is on your head

>I wonder how far back your hairline is on your head

dare you to post your fat manboobs and pimply disgusting face

>>11213217
>redpill me on this book
The purple cover makes the gold lettering difficult to read. Cannot recommend

>>11216615
The purple version of the book is also really low quality. The blue one is much better.

>>11213300
absolutely based and high iq pilled, read this and munkres and stride past the insecure pseud freshman

Bartle -> Small Rudin -> Big Rudin (I actually prefer it over other Analysis texts)

for Topology, try Munkres and Lee (the latter is more suitable for the graduate level though)

>>11216183
>onions
ironic

>>11213217
rudin is tough because it is proof-based and really starts with mathematical foundations of dedekind cuts and epsilon neighborhoods. It's for mathematicians who like math and are good at it.

>>11217011
That’s not why Rudin is tough lol. The problem is that Rudin is very terse, so on your first exposure to analysis, he doesn’t really teach as much as “present” the topics. The cuts have details but they’re not hard.
>epsilon neighborhoods
>hard
Now I know you’re meming. While applications of triangle inequality do stump students, it’s hardly not because of the definition of the epsilon neighborhood.
>mathematicians who like math and are good at it
You’re not a mathematician if you haven’t published a few papers, much less if you’re at the level that you learn from Rudin lmfao.