Stein's Analysis Series

>>8972261
Good content, but I hate how they're formatted. Took complex last semester, used that text.

>>8972261
His Fourier book is tolerable.

>>8972261
They aren't bad as a series, but each subject individually has been done better by other texts like rudin (baby, papa, grandpa), folland (real and fourier analysis), alfhors, needham, conway, and especially simon's new 5 volume set on analysis. I'm gonna keep shilling these books cause they're fantastic and you should read them.

>>8972261
Not really a fan. Though I'm not an analyst so it was very boring to me. Lot's of concrete classical analysis type stuff. Take a look for yourself.
>>8972309
Is Needham actually worth looking at? I've always ignored it since it feels like the classic meme book that non mathematicians recommend.

>>8972261
Good for 3rd year undergrads who've finished baby Rudin. If you're a graduate student, you should read Simon's "A Comprehensive Course in Analysis"

>>8972313
Needham works for undergraduates who'd like to learn basic complex analysis with an eye towards applying it to physics (this mainly comes up in the later chapters, it also works well for people who like constructions of a geometric flavor). It is by no means a bad book, you just need to know your audience though imo ahlfors is superior. Simon's two volume text on complex analysis is the best I've seen so far though, the first few chapters work well as an intro to basic complex analysis.
>>8972586
This guy gets it.

>>8972313

Why the hell would a non mathematician bother reading an analysis text?

>>8972261
I've had two courses use Stein's books and I have to say I'm not a fan. They have their hands at a lot of things, not going in depth and glossing over important details. I liked the exercises in the complex analysis text well enough, but the exercises in the Real Analysis text I think are a little too involved.

>>8972261
They are very good, but as a second course. They are not introductory.

>>8972313
Needham is great. Of course it's not the book you'll read if you want to ace your exam; it's not really a textbook. That being said, if you wish to better understand the motivation for the subject and how it interacts with geometry an dynamics, it's a good reference.
Not all math books have to be textbooks or monographs

>>8972313
needham is a waste of time if your are trying to be a professional mathematician