rudin

[Anonymous No.11749473]

is this the ultimate brainlet filter?

[Anonymous No.11749503]

>>11749473
help, im getting filtered on the first page.

[Anonymous No.11750305]

>>11749473
Garbage.

[Anonymous No.11750310]

>>11749503
What exactly is filtering you?

[Anonymous No.11750316]

>>11749503
Ever considered it might be because you're shilling Jewish quackery on a Science & Math board? Jewish quackery isn't well received here. It doesn't belong here.

[Anonymous No.11751761]

>>11750316
>>11750305
>NOOOO ITS THE JEWS FAULT, IM TOTALLY NOT JUST A BRAINLET WHO CAN'T UNDERSTAND INTRODUCTORY UNDERGRAD MATH

[Anonymous No.11751770]

Rudin is a total meme.
It's only ever good as a reference and for its exercises. And it doesn't even have solutions to it's exercises, so you have to search for the answers.

[Anonymous No.11752721]

>>11751770
But that's like 2/3 of what a textbook is supposed to be..

[Anonymous No.11752758]

>>11749473
I got filtered by the first word.

Principles??? EEEWW what the hell , why do i need that? can't i just be myself?

[Anonymous No.11752891]

>>11752721
It's a meme insofar as it's constantly touted as a good beginners book.

You don't even know if you've answered the questions correctly, as he's too lazy to even bother to provide solutions, not even in a separate manual.

[Anonymous No.11753243]

>>11750305
You're a fucking retard if you're calling someone garbage because of their race.

[Anonymous No.11753247]

>>11751770
There's a solution's manual, you imbecile.

[Anonymous No.11753248]

>>11750305
Cope more retard >:(

[Anonymous No.11753250]

>>11752891
There's a solutions manual online bro. I used it online when I read the book. Any other arguments?

[Anonymous No.11753335]

>>11749473
I liked it, but its terse nature isn't exactly good for studying by yourself. It's good in a course where the professor gives you hard problems and goes through a lot of examples.
Once you get accustomed to doing problems harder than rudin, it's easy to appreciate his style. That being said, I think the smoothest way for a student to transition into analysis is probably doing Abbott's Understanding Analysis up to differentiation, then doing Rudin, paying close attention to the first two chapters especially, and doing that up to integration. Then move onto harder topology and analysis books.

[Anonymous No.11753444]

>>11749473
Farbe/Marggalit mapping class groups is quite the brainlet filter; it's a topology book which gives no proofs.
>>11750305
Peak untermensch. I'm pretty goddamn natsoc, but I am fully aware that jews get to be individuals.

[Anonymous No.11753464]

>>11749503
Get mathematical maturity.
>>11750305
https://www.amazon.com/Way-Remember-History-Mathematics-V/dp/0821806335

[Anonymous No.11753467]

>>11751770
>t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.11753971]

>>11753464

> a soldier
> fights nazis in II WW
> writes a clear text based on definitions and proofs not his feelings
> creates butthurt on mongolian forum many years later

I can't even right now.

[Anonymous No.11753980]

>>11753971
>>11753467
Go back.
>>11753335
Zorich, Tao if you enjoy bugman autism, Pugh are all better than Abbott.

[Anonymous No.11754697]

What do u guys think about apostol for analysis?

[Anonymous No.11754860]

>>11752891
One thing I will never understand is the old-school idea that you should not have access to exercise solutions.
Exercises are meant to check concepts and then take you beyond the concepts in some areas. How are you supposed to be sure you know the concepts well unless you know for sure if you are doing the exercises correctly? And how are you supposed to know that without knowing solutions?
Even if the response back is to carefully think over the exercises and devise ways to ensure you're right, its still impossible to argue that the method of reaching a point of relative confidence, then checking a solutions manual for confirmation, is clearly a more EFFICIENT learning strategy.

[Anonymous No.11754873]

>>11749473
>is this the ultimate brainlet filter?
yes. i'm reading it right now on anon's recommendation, and each page feels like going through a rite of purification. this book is composed of 342 layered filters; designed to be impenetrable by my untrained mind, yet simple enough that i don't feel entirely out of tune. even when it rejects me it makes me feel welcome, and invites me to try again. quite pleasant.

[Anonymous No.11754906]

>>11753980
Abbott is fucking phenomenal what are you going on about.

>>11749473
Ill share my views as an engineer going thru analysis at the moment.
Our professor recommends and usually has us read certain bits from a shit ton of authors. He says that this helps us see different approaches and perspectives and an overall bigger picture rather than just following a single textbook and never looking at others.
Regardless of this, our main textbook is Rudin's, and as hard as it is I can definitely see why.
With Rudin's book most of the time you need to put real effort into reading the theorems and proofs in order to actually grasp them, so his cryptic writting style actually helps you mature the techniques and concepts a lot better, he also doesnt baby you in any way, so you get a lot of exposure to very general concepts early on, this has helped me have a better picture of whats "out there".
For example his topology chapter is in metric space topology whilst most authors only concern themselves with topology on the real line.
In short, Rudin is a good book in the sense that it strong arms you into getting gud.

[Anonymous No.11754959]

>>11754697
Eh it's fine but it's complex analysis book series is better

[Anonymous No.11755029]

No (pic related)

[Anonymous No.11755032]

>>11754860
The author doesn't want to waste his time tending to every brainlet's wants.

[Anonymous No.11755033]

>>11754860
Those kinds texts are usually not meant for self study.

[Anonymous No.11755038]

>>11755029
7. (a) trivial
(b) first part trivial, proper: Take B to be the set of rationals in R, A_i each containing one rational.
8. First part yes, trivially. Second part depends on what you mean by a limit point. If the sequence must be outside of the point, then no: for example, take the singleton set.
9. trivial

[Anonymous No.11755044]

>>11749473
FUCK RUDIN

WE ONLY READ TAO IN THIS FUCKING BOARD

[Anonymous No.11755047]

>>11754860
The solutions manual for Rudin is 240 pages long. This is a common situation for pretty much all math books; a properly written solutions manual will be between 50-100% the length of the book itself. Authors don't include them because
>it's a huge investment of time and effort to actually type up 300 formal solutions in textbook-quality LaTeX
>it bloats the fuck out of your book
>they assume if you're reading a math text intended for juniors (or higher) you've developed the basic skill of sanity-checking your work

Eventually, whether you get a job or stay in academia, you will be tasked with solving problems that don't HAVE solutions yet. What are you going to do then? You can't go to your boss and say "okay I've finished my model, please show me the solution manual so I know I did it properly", and you will be in shit if you screwed in up.
Being able to verify your own work is an essential mathematical skill. It's pure "b-b-but I CANN'T decide whether or not my argument makes sense" brainletism to whine about not having prebaked solutions.

[Anonymous No.11755049]

>>11755038
That's my point. Also, he defines a limit point of a set A as a point such that every neighborhood of that point contains another point that is in A.

[Anonymous No.11755058]

>>11755032
Its not a criticism of the author but rather of the attitude that I have come across that an earnest student should not use a solutions manual at all.
>>11755033
Fair enough.
>>11755047
Again, not an argument as to why authors don't include them. But yes I agree with your post.

[Anonymous No.11755059]

>>11755058
>not an argument
You are correct. It's four arguments why authors don't include them.

[Anonymous No.11755062]

>>11755047
Except this part:
>Eventually, whether you get a job or stay in academia, you will be tasked with solving problems that don't HAVE solutions yet. What are you going to do then? You can't go to your boss and say "okay I've finished my model, please show me the solution manual so I know I did it properly", and you will be in shit if you screwed in up.
>Being able to verify your own work is an essential mathematical skill. It's pure "b-b-but I CANN'T decide whether or not my argument makes sense" brainletism to whine about not having prebaked solutions.
Yes this is what tests are for. That's why they are called tests, they "test" your knowledge of the material.
Its a retarded argument that because one day you will have to solve a problem on your own that you should always do it that way in all cases while training. Its equivalent to saying you have to start lifting weights at the weight that you expect to be lifting when you've hit your end goal.
Plus, using a solutions manual does not mean that you do not attempt the problem yourself. It means that you get to see if you're right. Which also happens in real life, the world lets you know if you're right or not.
The purpose of training is to build the very reasoning that you're talking about. You're not supposed to have it already, otherwise WHY WOULD YOU BE WASTING TIME DOING EXERCISES AT ALL?

[Anonymous No.11755064]

>>11755059
Retard, what I meant was I wasn't making an argument against authors including them. I wasn't saying that your post was "not an argument".
Why would I say after that I agreed? Reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.11755065]

>>11755049
Whats wrong with that definition?
What ive heard most people complain about is his definition of neighborhood, as he defines the r neighborhood of a point x in X as all the points that are inside the ball of radius r centered at x.
But then again all metric space topology books I know use the same definition so wtf do I know

[Anonymous No.11755073]

>>11755062
>Its a retarded argument that because one day you will have to solve a problem on your own that you should always do it that way in all cases while training. Its equivalent to saying you have to start lifting weights at the weight that you expect to be lifting when you've hit your end goal.
Why don't you actually explain why it's stupid instead of replacing it with some ridiculous unrelated strawman analogy that's obviously retarded?

[Anonymous No.11755084]

>>11755073
Read the rest of my post, I don't rely solely on the analogy to make my argument, it was throwaway rhetoric.
The logic that led to the analogy is in the first part of the sentence even, the analogy itself is clearly just for flavor.
Of course the real issue is you are on the backfoot but can't concede because I called you retard, so you have to misrepresent and nitpick now until you slink away.

[Anonymous No.11755086]

>>11755062
>It means that you get to see if you're right. Which also happens in real life, the world lets you know if you're right or not.
The world "lets you know if you're right" when your rocket explodes or your apartment building falls over or your software gets hacked and leaks 3 million credit cards. "I'll find out eventually if it's wrong" is not a sustainable way to work. You can't submit stuff and just hope it isn't wrong or that if it is wrong, somebody else will always save your ass. You have to know.

[Anonymous No.11755097]

>>11755086
Yes and "having to know" is reflected in being told you are wrong when you do a solution incorrectly so you don't continue forward with an incorrect understanding of the concepts.
I mean this is basic shit dude. Why do teachers grade homework? For fun? To throw some points into the grade?

[Anonymous No.11755105]

>>11755097
Yes this is what tests are for. That's why they are called tests, they "test" your knowledge of the material.

[Anonymous No.11755106]

>>11755065
>Whats wrong with that definition?
Nothing. My point is that the book isn't that difficult.

[Anonymous No.11755111]

>>11755105
Homework is used a tool to identify misconceptions so that those misconceptions can hopefully be explained. Homework is intended to be practice, so it is not weighted very much in most STEM courses.
Tests are weighted so heavily on the other hand, because they are meant to reflect if you have sufficient grasp of the material to deserve a passing grade of the course. This is why you receive consequences for not being correct and then told why you weren't correct.
In no pedagogical situation is it considered beneficial to have the student do something and then never tell them if they were correct in their attempt or not. This is actually considered not just not beneficial, but harmful.
Have you ever taken a college course?

[Anonymous No.11755174]

>>11755106
Nope, its just the right amount of hard.
It forces you to improve a shit ton but it isnt completely incomprehensible. Pretty well done imo.

[Anonymous No.11757096]

>>11749473
No.
>>11750305
>>11750316
Poes

Anyways, the real problems with Rudin:

1) Outdated notation at times which would really help both clarify and cut down on the verbosity of descriptions

2) Sometimes is strangely not self-contained (see the way he suddenly shifts from the notion of Q being dense in R (an element of Q being between any two elements of R) to suddenly using it in a more general way in the exercises without explaining how he is using it (he suddenly uses density in the context of a general metric space, wherein a set is said to be dense in a space if every open set in the space contains elements of that set, but he never explains this).

Things that will affect absolute beginners at analysis:

1) Proofs are quite terse and take a little mathematical maturity to fill in the gaps at times

2) The exercises can get very difficult compared to other introductory texts.

Things the text does well:

1) If the exercises are worked through and understood, you will become much more prepared for many later texts in mathematics, both inside of and outside of analysis

2) Order of presentation is great

Things that are good about having the text but are not because of the text as is:

1) A ton of supporting material for the text online because of how popular it is: notes, many solutions, supplementary exercises, etc.

[Anonymous No.11757582]

>>11755044
>>11753980
Tao is actually good for a beginner self studying, right guys?
I am on chapter 5 and even now I had exercises I couldn't finish. Although I didn't spend much time on them so maybe that was the problem.

[Anonymous No.11757585]

>>11757582
Tao is written for beginners by someone who uses he/him, she/her pronoun faggot shit and coddles retarded 21st century genetic sludge that get tiger mom’d into his ucla classes. its significantly easier than rudin

[Anonymous No.11757591]

>>11757585
Aight, thanks.

[Anonymous No.11757592]

>>11757096
Another problem you left out, which is so universal even professors who love the book admit it, is that the last chapters are complete dogshit. Nobody, or practically nobody, reads or assigns or teaches from chapters 10 and 11 of PoMA.

[Anonymous No.11757610]

>>11757585
Sometimes I forget about how tiny the collective IQ of this board is

[Anonymous No.11758970]

>>11757585
ok buddy

[Anonymous No.11760656]

>>11758970
>shit taste
>shit takes

im surprised

[Anonymous No.11761548]

>>11753243
>>11753248
Everyone who uses this piece of shit website is retarded, some are just more honest about it and wear their clown hats with pride.

[Anonymous No.11761704]

>>11749473
Yes, brainlet thinks it has value outside of itself.