Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
This book is a good reference but let me tell you what its really good for. You have taken all the lower division courses. You have taken that "transition to proof writing" class in number theory, or linear algebra, or logic, or discrete math, or whatever they do at your institution of higher learning. You can tell a contrapositive from a proof by contradiction. You can explain to your grandma why there are more real numbers than rationals. Now its time to get serious.
Get this book. Start at page one. Read until you come to the word Theorem. Do not read the proof. Prove it yourself. Or at least try. If you get stuck read a line or two until you see what to do.
Thrust, repeat.
If you make it through the first six or seven chapters like this then there shall be no power in the verse that can stop you. Enjoy graduate school. You half way there.
Now some people complain about this book being too hard. Don't listen to them. They are just trying to pull you down and keep you from your true destiny. They are the same people who try to sell you TV's and lobotomies.
"The material is not motivated." Not motivated? Judas just stick a dagger in my heart. This material needs no motivation. Just do it. Faith will come. He's teaching you analysis. Not selling you a used car. By the time you are ready to read this book you should not need motivation from the author as to why you need to know analysis. You should just feel a burning in you chest that can only be quenched by arguments involving an arbitrary sequence {x_n} that converges to x in X.
Finally, some people complain about the level of abstraction, which let me just say is not that high. If you want to see abstraction grab a copy of Spanier's 'Algebraic Topology' and stare at it for about an hour. Then open 'Baby Rudin' up again. I promise you the feeling you get when you sit in a hottub for like twenty minutes and then jump back in the pool. Invigorating.
>>
No but really. Anyone who passes you an analysis book that does not say the words metric space, and have the chapter on topology before the chapter on limits is doing you no favors. You need to know what compactness is when you get out of an analysis course. And it's lunacy to start talking about differentiation without it. It's possible, sure, but it's a waste of time and energy. To say a continuous function is one where the inverse image of open sets is open is way cooler than that epsilon delta stuff. Then you prove the epsilon delta thing as a theorem. Hows that for motivation?
Anyway, if this review comes off a combative that's because it is. It's unethical to use another text for an undergraduate real analysis class. It insults and short changes the students. Sure it was OK before Rudin wrote the thing, but now? Why spit on your luck? And if you'r a student and find the book too hard? Try harder. That's the point. If you did not crave intellectual work why are you sitting in an analysis course? Dig in. It will make you a better person. Trust me.
Or you could just change your major back to engineering. It's more money and the books always have lots of nice pictures.
>>
Nice pasta
>>
File: 1112481.jpg (59KB, 500x539px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 500x539px
>>8515300
>tfw this shit actually got spammed with upvotes on Amazon
>>
File: 1445937034136.jpg (18KB, 499x499px)
18KB, 499x499px
>>8515302
>Or you could just change your major back to engineering. It's more money and the books always have lots of nice pictures.
tfw math majors are salty that I could cram my math exams in the last week and still make more money and add more value to society than they do
>>
>>8515352
>Implying money is more important than ascending to Plato's heaven through the study of analytic number theory
You'll never get there if you don't do all the textbook exercises, anon
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3