Is this a good book for teaching myself linear algebra? It would be my first step in non highschool maths

probably because calculus is prioritized, as almost everywhere else.

You use matrices to solve systems of equations really fast.

I had a shit linear algebra course and I'm trying to work with something rigorous. Is friedberg alright?

His "elementary linear algebra" book is shit, "linear algebra" is fine.

basically this + looking at other applications of matrices, as well as characteristics of related things like vectors, vector spaces, subspaces, eigenvectors, eigenvalues, etc.

If you're interested, this YouTube series is a pretty good introduction to some of the ideas in lin alg: youtube.com/watch?v=kjBOesZCoqc&list=PLZHQObOWTQDPD3MizzM2xVFitgF8hE_ab

It focuses more on the geometrical intuitions than on tedious matrix computations.

I like it, but it might not be for you if you haven't encountered linear algebra before. It approaches the subject from an unorthodox direction even by the standards of the level the text is aimed at, and the reason Axler does certain things might not make sense unless you already know what he's building towards. For example, all multiplication you have done so far is commutative, i.e. XY = YZ, but this isn't the case for matrices. Many courses will start out by telling you what matrices are and the basic rules they follow, and you can verify for yourself that they don't commute (this has the added advantage of getting students looking at transformation problems right away, which is a more immediately practical application). For most students this is the first time they will encounter a multiplication that doesn't commute.

Conversely, LADR starts out with set-theoretic definitions of fields and vector spaces. Vector spaces (what matrices live in) have various properties like associativity and so on, which together specify their set structure. If you aren't paying attention (i.e. if you didn't know what to look for) you might not notice that multiplicative commutativity isn't listed in the axioms. If you did notice, you might just assume this property was not an axiom, but was provable from the others (it isn't). This is common in university level math texts, and you might feel as if you were thrown in the deep end.

Pic related is from the first chapter. If you're intimidated by this, you should definitely find a different text. If not, maybe you'll like the challenge.

Shut up and do the problems.

I thought it would be a good book for entering in real rigorous math, your photo confirmed my guess. I know something about linear transformations, matrices and vectors because i've done them at high school but not in a rigorous and axiomatic way, so i think that i could go through LADR with some good effort obviously.

Ah well in that case good luck, hope you enjoy it.

also

.>XY = YZ

obviously i meant

>XY = YX

brainfart on my part

What do i need to learn this only pre-algebra ?

>non-commutative multiplication is spooky

jej, i just realized that this is actually a hard concept for some people

I'm not sure that this board is for you.

I thought so too until I actually read a fucking linear algebra book. You too can have that experience if you just expand the picture in the post you replied to.

Technically yes but it will be very hard for you.

LADR is pretty straightforward and easy. The hardest part I suppose is getting an intuitive grasp for what is going on inside linear transformations. I think usually the content is geared for a higher level of understanding, but it would be very possible to structure a linear algebra course for people without calc.

Also Linear Algebra Done Wrong is a superb text.