LINEAR ALGEBRA BOOK RECS

>"¿"
Hispanic?

H/K is good for math majors and I have a feeling OP's class is more oriented to computation

Good eye.

I'd thought that a CS major would benefit from the rigorousness of the aforementioned book.

CS majors can't reason their way out of a paper bag.

Best linear algebra exercises pdf free on internet?

Interested as well.
I've heard/read that Schaum have a lot of exercises, are they gud?

Step 1: Prove the paper bag exists

CS major: "Uhm, is this an induction proof?"

Manin, Kostrikin is the best undergrad lingebra book out there

halmos linear algebra problem book is free if you search on libgen

Axler is amazing but who the fuck recommends it for a first course? It's proof-heavy and requires some mathematical "maturity" to understand. The exercises are also difficult.

It's absolutely perfect for a second course in linear algebra, though.

>everything is free if you're a thief

>implying someone asking for "free pdfs from the internet" cares about that

Linear Algebra Done Right masterrace

Axler.

???
What do you study as a first course in abstract algebra? Axler is about as basic as it gets.

What kind of exercises are you looking for? I got quite a lot of them in my book from linear algebra, but the text isn't on English.

stemez.com/subjects/maths/QLinearAlgebra/QLinearAlgebra.php

gonna need the pdf of this one

>second course in linear algebra

uhh did you learn all about hom and tor your first time around??

Yes

This

CS major state school: "sure I just import library"

At least they can reason their way into employment with useful skills ... unlike most math majors who will be unemployed.

what's this manga guide? link anyone?

Anyone can get coding jobs. Don't flatter yourself.

we used strang down here in UC davis. It didn't seem that bad, not sure what these other guys' problems are.

>needing to be spoon fed

...

opinions on pic related?

crap

this

why?

Just mindless compute of matrix.

Lay is an easy read. Though it does skip out on some detail from time to time.

This

Is there a hentai version of this?

Sheldon Axler, my man.

You'll thank me later.

Covering a full course in linear algebra is impossible. First course is something like vector spaces, representation, change of basis linear transformations, determinants and maybe basic computational eigenvector and values. A second course would talk about adjoint operator, diagonalizability, , inner product spaces and canonical forms.

Undergraduate linear algebra course for physicists, taken in 1st semester on my shitty yuropoor uni.
>Groups, Rings, Fields
>Vector spaces (lin independence, steinitz, spline functions)
>Dot product (gramm-schmidt, ortho complement)
>Matrices and linear maps
>Rank (frobenius, bases)
>Operators, trace
>Determinant (circulant matrix, column, cramer)
>Eigenvalues, eigenvectors (characteristics of isometries, cartan's group classification)
>Tiling, crystals (penrose)
>Exponential (solving systems of ODEs, heisenberg image, trace vs det, taylor, poisson, gauss, log, hamilton oscilator)
>Lie algebra (killing form/metric, representation theory, compact groups, weights, lattices, superalgebras and SUSY, [math]E_8[/math])
>Nilpotence, Jordan
>Positive matrix (perron-frobenius, feynman integral)
>Duality (dual groups/graphs/rings, dual space, dot and duality)
>Spectral analysis, adjunction (fourier series space, mostly just QM, hermit polynomials, legendre polynomials, chebyshev, laguerr, diagonalisation of convolution operator)
>Bilinear form, quadratic form, signature, quadrics, wavelets
>(usually not talked about in detail) Pseudoinverse, polar decomposition
>Tensors (symetric, antisymetric, spinors, independent events)

Yea, well courses for physicists are designed to skimp on the rigorous proofs and definitions. I'm talking about a general course in linear algebra.

Physics want jump to tensor,Lie algebras and operator theory quickly.

The only difference between the lingebra for math undergrads and physics undergrads is in how much proofs you do as homework. Mathematicians prove all the lemmas, we only prove major lemmas and selected theorems.
Agree, especially true for theoretical physics. Doesn't mean we don't do it rigorously. Every major lemma and theorem that is presented in lectures we have to prove as homework, of course if you're ok with losing some points, you don't have to. Right now we're at representations and the homework that's due in 3 days is to prove the first Brauer-Thrall conjecture, i don't think anyone will get the points for that one unless he just copies it. Not all homework is this hard, but all of them require you to study outside of the scope of the course. I'd say our course is harder, since it requires one to be familiar with QM and, if you're aiming for an A, to have a superficial knowledge of fundamentals behind string theory.

no way you're gonna learn more than just few definitions and formulas for each topic in a course like this

I think you need to read a proper textbook in representation theory and whatnot. Functional analysis is really dense and has many little things to consider. It's not rigorous in the proper sense, it's rigorous in the methods physicists use which go over a lot of details. In essence. They only generalize linear algebra and calculus without proper consideration. Yes, you see into important theorems, but it's really selective.

Yeah lecture is pretty much: here's 5 definitions, here's 20 lemmas (prove 10 as a homework till next lecture), here's few theorems. Here's how you do some computational examples, here's how you prove this lemma and this lemma. So what we have now you can interpret geometrically as this and we can use what we have built up to solve this problem in physics.
Right now, we're doing representations and the we've talked about
> Irreducible representations of groups, Shur's lemma (homework)
>Representations of finite groups, Maschke's theorem (homework with hint)
>Characters, orthogonality relations, Burnside's theorem (homework)
>Rank of irreducible representations
>Permutation representations
>Representations of finite index induced subgroups

Surely, i'm not claiming we're covering whole undergraduate math in one semester of linear algebra, just that we're covering exactly what math undergrads do, plus some applications in physics. The lectures are not where we learn, it's when we're working on homework, proving what we've been presented with in lecture where we learn about the subject. The canonical book we're using is written in similar manner to the lectures, it's basically just a reference of definitions, theorems and lemmas with few worked-out proofs.
The linear algebra and analysis courses are on par with math undergrads on my uni. Analysis because we do take them with mathematicians, we build up everything from peano and ZFC, we do the same homework, attend same lectures, it's the same course. Linear algebra because while we don't have to do as much proofs as math undergrads to pass, we do have to do the same if we want a good grade. And as a bonus, we actually have to learn about some parts of theoretical physics if we want a good grade, which is something math undergrads don't have to do. Their linear algebra is spread out over 2 semesters and i do attend their lectures too because, our lectures are very hard to process and pretty much useless since the book already has everything i need. In math linear algebra it feels like i'm being spoonfed.