How do I succeed in analysis? I did both volumes of apostol,

also, what is with the meme of people recommending graduate level books you never read to learn undergrad level things from

Do you honestly think it makes you look smarter?

you seem somewhat inflamed

>>8318473
God forbid people recommend real rigorous books instead of toy books

>>8318485
yes, because people told me to read a meme book that's like the emperor's new clothes, instead of one that actually teaches the material

>>8318461
Get a real book.
Spivak and Apostol are baby books.
Read a bit of Rudin or Pugh, google the theorems, struggle and get better.

>>8318488
well, rigor implies conscientiousness and thoroughness rather than pretentious artificial difficulty

Rudin hand-waves his proofs and doesn't really show techniques for proofs, he just regurgitates them, skips steps, and expects you to synthesize everything on your own. The book is just bad. I realize now that it's for nerds like you to seem smart on internet forums by name-dropping it.

If anyone has an analysis book that has good proofs, good exercises, and, most importantly, SHOWS YOU THE TECHNIQUES AND METHODS FOR DOING PROOFS, then please recommend it to me.

>>8318614
Maybe you're not cut out for math?

>>8318629
How would I even discern that, if there is no text that shows me how to do proofs and what techniques to use?

Lectures show these things, these opaque books don't.

>>8318614
Since you're doing analysis, take a look at Andrew M. Gleason's "Fundamentals of Abstract Analysis". It's a good rigurous introduction to more rigurous analysis from a set theoretic point of view, without bogging you down in formalism. I haven't noticed it requiring too many prerequisites that even a school kid could read it if he took it slow enough. I didn't actually learn analysis from it, but when I did read it, it was a breeze and it might teach you some mathematical rigor needing to read more advanced texts.

>>8318680
thanks

Terrence Tao

>>8320158
>Terrence

>>8318461
Quit math. If Rudin isn't easy for you, you don't have the innate ability. You shouldn't have any difficulty with anything in undergraduate mathematics, ever.

>>8320245
What, his analysis book is pretty good

>>8318488
This.

If you think the textbooks recommended on /sci/ are a troll/pretentious then honestly you should just quit. The texts are recommended with the assumption that you are a good student who doesn't want to waste his time on money mill books with 1000s of worthless calculation practice problems doing.

Grad-level texts are recommended because they are GOOD, and good students will learn from them faster even if they struggle a bit more it's still faster than wasting time on long, droned out money mill kid books. Almost any text that is on a general and not a cutting edge topic is accessible to undergrads if you paid your dues to calculus, LA and freshman level sciences in high-school like you should've.

The understanding is that you can read a preface and supplement what you need without someone holding your hand.

Not talking about Rudin necessarily, that is a piece of shit text.

>>8321050
>Not talking about Rudin necessarily, that is a piece of shit text.
What's better than Rudin in your opinion? Are you undergrad?

>>8321367
Rudin is not bad, it's just not as good as everyone wants to believe it is, it's probably the most overrated book in human history after the holy books.

PhD candidate.