ITT: Post meme textbooks no one actually reads

David Klein - "Organic Chemistry As A Second Language"

>>8023806
That's actually a really good book if you work all of the exercises. It's been maybe 7 years since I last read it, but I still remember some of my favorite problems from that book like this one from the chapter on sequences and series (I think chapter 3):

Show that you can rearrange (reorder) the terms a conditionally convergent series (that is not absolutely convergent) to sum to any real number s.

>>8023806
>nobody reads
literally used it for my first analysis course, the first 6 chapters are great.

don't get why it has such a bad rep

>>8023837
that's not a problem, that's a restatement of theorem 3.54

>>8023847
Maybe I am misremembering. I could have sworn it was an exercise.

>>8023841
>>8023837
It's a joke. Of course I read these sort of text. I'm just shitposting to shitpost, but happy to see good discussions are evolving from my shitpost such as

>>8023837
>>8023847
>>8023853

>>8023841
Butthurt CS majors can't understand a word and blame the book for being bad.

>>8023873
the book is shit for self studying a first exposure to analysis because it's terse, the proofs are condensed to the point they're shit, and it's too fast dropping concepts without making sure you get the point

the book is great for a prof to give lectures on though, because he knows what he's doing

use Tao for self study

>>8023901
to paraphrase your argument: it's shit because it doesn't spoon feed you?

That's a bullshit excuse. There are plenty of valid criticisms for rudin but terseness isn't one of them.

>>8023913
I personally love Rudin (the blue one; his green one is not as nice). But the point of textbooks is to teach, if people aren't able to learn from it then it's not really doing a good job.

>>8023901
If you think Rudin is terse, you should try reading Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds next.

>>8023913
If you have a hard time learning from terse writing, then that is a huge fucking problem for a textbook. The idea is to learn things,

Rudin himself,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBcWRZMP6xs

>>8023939
pretty cool

>>8023945
yep, I'm really enjoy this lecture. The book in OP is absolutely solid. I wish I was exposed to it when I first took analysis, if I were I would have enjoyed it more but satisfied I can appreciate the rigor he presents now.

>>8023913
+1, used it for self study. Hard but rewarding.

File: a.gif (3MB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x333px

>>8023939
>tfw high as fuck and paused this video after 14 mins and started googling and reading about Frechet spaces for the first time

dragon book

>>8023913
>spoon feed
the word non-autistic people use is "explain"

>>8024013
The amount of explanation needed varies from person to person. It doesn't make sense for everyone to use a textbook that spends 5 pages on the definition of a limit when for some people a paragraph is all that is necessary.

The converse is also true which is why there are a wide range of textbooks available for most subjects. Being terse is just writing for a different audience, it doesn't make it a bad textbook.

That said, the writing in maths papers is actually often far more terse than rudins so at some point you're just going to have to get used to it.

>>8024011
Top kek. I'm 22 minutes in.

>>8024031
a single paragraph is not "all that's necessary"
rudin makes things intentionally concise, taking all of the color in analysis and throwing it out of the window. you don't really get the intuition behind what it all means, and that's what you want when you're learning analysis, especially if you're learning it yourself

>hurr things are terse get used to it
textbooks are not papers
textbooks are supposed to be colorful and map out a new field for students
papers are supposed to concisely get a point across

you people instantly assume anyone who doesn't say rudin is perfect to be someone who never learned math or some shit like that. couldn't be further from the truth

>>8024058
>rudin makes things intentionally concise
Some people prefer it that way. To you they are autists because you can only see out of your own arse. Just because you found it hard or non-intuitive doesn't mean it's so for everyone else.

>textbooks are supposed to be colorful and map out a new field for students
The world must surely bow down to your opinion of how textbooks should be written.

>papers are supposed to concisely get a point across
That's exactly what I want from a textbook though.

>you people instantly assume anyone who doesn't say rudin is perfect to be someone who never learned math or some shit like that. couldn't be further from the truth
I didn't say that at all. I quite clearly pointed out that people learn in different ways and that for some, conciseness is preferred and that for others it is not so much. I did point out that papers are written in a concise style and that you'll have to get used to it if you want to make a career out of maths.

Don't be so damn insecure.

>>8024072
it's shit for self study, especially as a first book in math. that's really all.

>>8024083
nothing I can say to that except that you're a brainlet.

>>8024031
To add to this:

You are doing yourself a disfavor if you limit yourself to just one textbook on a particular subject. I sometimes see people on sci ask "Spivak or Apostol for Calculus?" and the best answer is always: both. There is also no shame in introducing a new subject to yourself with a less rigorous, more applied and problem-solving focused text. For example, it is much easier to dive into Spivak or Apostol after Stewart and a basic intro to proofs and predicate logic, because having that foundation of understanding makes the more rigorous texts much more useful.

>>8023901
Are you the math graduate that is going self-studying analysis again from a previous thread? If so, thanks for recommending Tao's course the other day!

Courant master race

File: 20160422_233835.jpg (971KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 2560x1536px

Got excellent marks on calc 1 thru 3 but for the life of me i cant understand these books.

>>8024296
is that simmons diffy qs? I've only done a couple of chapters but it seems pretty accessible. What exactly is the problem with it?

>>8023901
Thanks for the Tao reference. It explains stuff that was left unsaid in other introductory calculus or analysis textbooks.

>>8024328
Maybe I need a good tutor