Book Thread

Whats wrong with stewart? It's better than Apostol IMHO

Fuck Stewart. Worthless piece of shit for anything beyond a paperweight

what do you fucks learned calculus from then?

>reading books written by homosexuals
end your life.

louis leithold

stewart>leithold

Spivak and Michael Dougherty

underrated post, here's a (You) for that excellent image

The book isn't even available online. Go fuck yourself.

...

...

...

How is this book formatted exactly? Is it something like an encyclopedia?

>The book isn't even available online. Go fuck yourself.
t. poorfag who doesn't how to walk to a library

Is that book good or is just a meme? I'm looking for some discrete mathematics material

I've never read it but I'm pretty sure it's just a meme. Rosen was decent for discrete math, I'm sure there is better.

I just purchased Silverman's translation of Shilov's Linear Algebra.

Lovasz is the most fun discrete maths, though not your usual 'textbook'. As for run of the mill texts, check out Epp's Discrete Math book. MIT also has decent OCW for Discrete Math, just make sure you take the good one.

courses.csail.mit.edu/6.042/spring17/mcs.pdf
ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-fall-2010/video-lectures/

But begin with proofs if you're uncomfortable with them! for that, my friend, I'd recommend 'How to Prove it'.

And lastly, nigger, if you're into programmign, check out VanDrunen's "Discrete Mathematics and Functional Programming" - don't get the outdated pdf, get the actual book and check out the lecture series.

>implying local libraries ever have good selection

Analysis I & II by Terrance Tao

I read how to prove it, it's dry as fuck. The first three chapters of Rosen's Discrete mathematics and it's applications book is teaching you how to prove something. Also, the book is only 4 dollars used on Abe books, FOR THE HARDCOVER.

Rosen's book is worth it just for the proof instructions considering the price

Sorry my reply was meant for

They're both me anyway.

Define 'dry as fuck'? Also, learning to prove from Rosen pales in comparison to Vellemen (author of HtPI).

And I didn't recommend Rosen, I recommend Epp. I liked the organization, aesethetics and most importanly, writing style and content more.

Please point out parts of Stewart's calculus text that are inaccurate / wrong.
Maybe for math students, there are better calculus texts, but for everybody else Stewart is golden.

Precisely, Stewart is accomodates the lowest demographic (in your own words, 'everyone else'). I've never once been demanded to prove anything while reading Stewart, and he emphasizes computational methods over intuitive understanding.

I think Stewart's fine if you've never read a rigorous text and never want to. But if you do, close Stewart.

>everybody that isn't a math major is the lowest demographic
That is essentially what you said. A little elitist, no? Accounting students do not need an ultra rigorous course in calculus, for example.

Not him but I'm in a brainlet calc course atm and I'd like a more serious book, should I go for Spivak or something else?

Calculus is a subject in math, so it's bound to be compared to other great texts in that subject - of which, it does not belong. There's bound to be a difference in opinion between what experts of the field thought of it (mathematicians) and "everyone else". I'm not saying it's useless, I wasn't the original Trump poster you responded to - perhaps I should have mentioned that initially. I'm just offering a defense of my criticisms of him.

For the same reason a professional entymologist might scoff at "bugs for dummies!!!1!", an amatuer butterfly collector might find it perfectly suitable for his or her own endeavors.

Lastly, I did not intend to be elitist, just as the humble entymologist above did not either, but I stand by what I said, especially since it applies to any field, and either you have misunderstood my intent or I have communicated poorly (and likely; both). In the field of math, Stewart's specific text has a 'lowest common denomator' type appeal, just as 'bugs for dummies' has a lowest common denomator appeal. It does not somehow mean entymology is the supreme STEM major.

I certainly wasn't satisfied with my brainlet calc course, and I doubt you will be if you're already considering something else. Spivak's on the top of my to-read list, so I'd personally go with that. But more recommendations can be found here:

functionalcs.github.io/curriculum/#org813891e

And of course, the Veeky Forums wiki has several recommendations. Up there with the memebook status of Spivak is Apostol's Calculus, and I've heard that's best read after Spivak.

I agree that it doesn't belong with the greats in math text, but
I'm definitely not understanding you, because it sounds to me like you are comparing Stewart's text to something like 'bugs for dummies' for a professional etymologist. The 'lowest common denominator' source for calculus would be Khan Academy videos or literally 'calculus for dummies'.

Yeah. Just pirate it and see it yourself.

underage pls go

Tao is a brilliant guy, but his books are lacking. I'm convinced that any who thinks his books are great simply has not read any other analysis text.

HAHAHAHA ALLENS MISCONDUCT WILL LOSE THEM THE GAME LMAOOOO

What other introductory analysis books would you recommend?

Rudin. ucla switched back to this from Tao's for honors analysis. It's the standard for a reason imo. There are easier intros such as Abbott's understanding analysis (I've not read it).

What level of knowledge does it assume? I'm basically starting from scratch as far as analysis is concerned, although I'm comfortable with proofs.

bump

It is often used for undergraduate honors analysis.
All you need is some experience writing proofs such as that in a proof-based linear algebra course that a school would normally suggest/require. You should also have introductory calculus, and proof-based linear algebra will be very helpful I believe.

You should keep in mind that the book is less than 400 pages and it is typically covered throughout 3 different analysis courses.
You will spend a lot of time on some pages and a lot of time if you're planning on working through all the exercises.
There are also complete lectures online that are based around this text (and some good ones at that).
Again, you will probably spend a lot of time figuring out some of the theorems, but it is very rewarding in my experience.

Like basic algebra? Or upper-div algebra?
If basic, then just use khan academy and get a workbook with a ton of practice problems.
Analytic geometry is often taught alongside calculus I. And don't skimp on trig. Calc 1 doesn't have any great textbooks I can think of. The typical answer would be to say Apostol, but you could also do MIT OCW.

Best for high school level algebra. I can't use Khan academy. I need a book.

Get a cheap one. I can't imagine them being that much different. Check what is at your local bookstore.

high school

basic mathematics - lang

I'm currently learning from a general algebra book (Aluffi, Algebra chaper 0), which deals with groups, rings and modules with a categorical view all the way to homological algebra.

What's the next step?

I'm still an undergrad so don't have an idea about analysis or advanced math, but this is a good one

Can you recommend a classic for both?

Yes, i was using hyperbole to express my point. Stewart isnt calculjs for dummies, but hes certainly no spivak or apostol.

How advanced are you guys that you can just pick up one of these and start reading? Graduate students? Postgraduates? Doctors?

high school graduate you dumb burger

I recently got my PhD.

...

Much of Veeky Forums actually haven't read the meme books. Don't believe Veeky Forums on the meme books.

>much
*most

Classic! Cheers, user.

...

anything from this pic

Not a Maths book at all, but I highly recommend everyone reads this book. It's fucking amazingly deep.

...