Help me anons. Who here majors in Math? I'm currently doing

Most undergrads can't do baby rudin problems with just a course in reals and proofs class. Rudin you have to bash, the solutions to his problems usually require a slick technique, just like the proofs he presents. We went through in 2 quarters right measure theory the last quarter my senior year. But I already had done honors reals (in R^n) and complex, algebra, axiomatic set theory (ironically out of Enderton, the book in that image), and advanced logic at this point. So I had a lot more experience and some of his problems I still couldn't solve without hints from friends and the professor. Keep bashing.

>>8875263
I've given up the textbook and resorted to doing my Uni problem sets. Definitely will go back to it, but its very weird to me to relearn Analysis again through Rudin after going through a semester of it already (we don't use Rudin as a prescribed).
Do you know if Real Analysis is a Pure Math trademark course?

>>8875272
Rudin is alot more abstract, general, and sophisticated than introductory analysis. Also the exercises make you better at solving hard problems (a valuable skill). You should know analysis at the baby rudin by the end of undergrad or grad school is be a lot harder.

If you don't feel ready take your time, I hear Abott is nice intro text to reals.

>>8875228
gotta say this is a very strange question
seems like your idea of pure math is very much influenced by an analysis course, which might be a different tempo than what you'd get at stats (i.e. more rigor) - but is kind of similar in taste (dealing with, well, analysis).
there is much more to pure maths. have you studied algebra, combinatorics etc.?

sure if it's "fucking hard" i guess its fine to assume you wont enjoy it much. just make sure you're not giving up quick just because it's a new language, because of wrong impressions. or because you actually buy into "brainlet" dichotomy.

[spoiler]also. i dont really know this for a fact - so feel free to ignore this part - but it makes sense to me that you could get most stats jobs with a pure math focus. seeing as you can still study statistics (and desu, at a higher level).[/spoiler]

>>8875282
I find it really strange for Unis to prescribe this as a text for a students first real analysis class then. Did proofs and problems in real analysis just "click" for you one day? I always thought I was good at Math, and I do well in Calculus/Algebra but when I stumbled on this it fucking destroyed my ego.

>>8875302
Yep, I might've made a bad statement there. I think I'd find Pure interesting, and enjoying the rigour aspect of it, but I mean to say if I can't survive in even Real Analysis, how would I survive later on? Yes, I have done combinatorics, Algebra (just basic like introductory Group Theory + the first year undergrad areas like vector spaces etc.)
Really? I didn't think Pure Maths would have many opportunities outside of academia (ive searched a bit and there was also a thread on MSE that had ppl saying academia is mostly where Pure will end up).

>>8875316
Correction: combinatorics at a basic level. And yes, the real analysis course is kind of influencing my view on Pure.

>>8875282
I had 2 quarters of honors reals in R^n and honors complex before I started the course that used Rudin. Plus a bunch of other proof classes. They never clicked you just start to catalogue different techniques and approaches to problems. Calculus/ linear are premajor classes and not predictors of how well you will do in majors courses.

>>8875320
>>8875304
Replied to myself, was meant for (you).

>>8875320
Gives me hope, thanks Anon, will keep bashing

>>8875316
>>8875318
so were the courses in group theory and combinatorics more to your liking? i know good students who didnt care for one subject and succeeded in others. if its specifically real analysis busting your balls i wouldnt read too much into it.

as to job opportunities, i wouldnt want to lie to you. i know for a fact that many people in pure maths get good paying jobs in the industry (though usually they require extra knowledge. programming for example). but all in all, im not going to say its easier than focusing on statistics or anything

>>8875316
Real analysis is generally considered the absolutely hardest undergrad course at my university. Don't take it too hard.

>>8875332
We only did Group Theory as a beginning for my Linear Algebra course this semester for some reason. I haven't really done much of it desu because we ended going back to Vector Spaces, inner products, eigenvectors etc. But I did find it quite interesting (maybe I liked that we had our own ability to define operations) but I feel as if I don't fully understand it.

Ah I see. I might learn a language as well just to be more qualified. I'm in second year of uni btw, just for context. Degree finishes in 3.5 years.

>>8875342
Is Complex Analysis similar? (Note I have no idea what complex analysis is right now so excuse the stupid question)

>>8875228
> I was destined to not do it, seeing as id most likely struggle in it
pure math is hard work
lazy people think hardworking people are geniuses
but in math you reap what you saw. it's a commitment. everyone can do pure math. everyone will struggle with it.

>>8875228
>I can't even do most of Baby Rudins problems.

If you can do SOME of the problems and overall you are able to follow the book, you are at a better shape than 90% of all people who ever try pure math. this guy >>8875360 is right.

>>8875228
I'll pray for you.

Stats always annoyed the shit of me, but its super useful. I also think that stats is easier to parlay into other jobs, such as a business role for example.