math books PSA

>>7643090

Correct, Spivak or Apostol is better.

>>7643090
Maybe your school expected you to be comfortable with calculus and also already have a strong foundation of mathematics?

>>7643090
I completely disagree. I'm not sure about that edition, but I used that book when I was learning calculus and it gives plenty of examples and problems for you to do.

If you aren't getting it, I recommend you find a video of somebody explaining what you don't understand. Math textbooks can be hard to read sometimes.

Kind of off-topic, but is bib.tiera.ru just giving 404 links for anyone else? I found Stephen Abbott's Understanding Analysis there, but the link didn't work. (Luckily I found the same filename somewhere else).

I used the site a few weeks ago and it was working fine IIRC.

>>7643103
>Spivak
>a baby analysis book
>for calculus
kek'd

>>7643123
Strong foundation in math, check... understanding of calc.... well, that's why I'm taking the calc class, bright one.

I always thought Larson books were high school level.

I got the same book and its cash as fuck. Everything is laid out and paced appropriately.

I bet op thinks im aspie for being able to think critically

I used that book in highschool. It wasn't hard at all. Maybe you just have a low iq?

>>7643090
I remember that book. I didn't have to resort to it for learning because I fucking payed attention.

>>7643125

Don't know if connected but some court decision happened recently to shut down research paper sites or something to that effect.

File: Introduction-to-Real-Analysis-Bartle-Robert-9780471321484.jpg (21KB, 266x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 266x400px

goat analysis book desu

>>7643270
That might be it actually, since it's not just bib.tiera.ru that's affected but pretty much every one of the ebook/pdf download sites in the /sci/ wiki.
Where should I find books from now (apart from #bookz on undernet, which kind of sucks for textbooks anyway)

why dont you try bookfi... oh wait... =(

>>7643132
... spivak has a calculus book too, you know?

What does /sci/ think of Amann's analysis book?
Do you think it's suboptimal for a first approach at analysis?
I think it's pretty solid desu.

>>7643358
He has a weird babby analysis book with the title "Calculus". It is by no means a calculus book and by no means a good replacement for a proper analysis book.

>>7643428
Why is it so truly awful?

>>7643428
I mean, it kind of is a calculus book. It's great for a well-motivated intro to abstraction and proof for those who have already done cookbook calculus, but that's just a side bonus. It covers all the traditional freshman calc topics at an appropriate level and doesn't eschew computation.

Nobody's ever said it substitutes for an analysis book, just like nobody ever said Baby Rudin substitutes for a decent exposition on forms and measure. That's why it's called Calculus (along with Apostol's two volumes)

>>7643090
I thought Larson was poor until I saw the other cookbook calculus forms. Rogawski basically made his skimp lecture notes the default textbook for calc courses in Southern Californian universities.