I finished the whole calculus sequence using Stewart. To move onto analysis should I get Spivak or Tao of Analysis...

I finished the whole calculus sequence using Stewart. To move onto analysis should I get Spivak or Tao of Analysis? Which one will help me get better at proofs?

The only thing learning calc with stewart prepares you for is learning calc with spivak.

but does it really matter how you learn calc I?

>7 No.

It does if you're moving on to higher math. stewart is meant for "math for engineers" type classes. not even memeing. Anyone who's taken calc 1 could tell you the chain rule, even the ones who failed it. Most of them wouldn't even know where to start with proving it. You can ace calc 3 very easily with stewart yet not know any theory.

Read a proofs book.
Learn a few low hanging fruit to build mathematical maturity: set theory, number theory, combinatorics, probability, graph theory, and linear algebra.
Study analysis and topology.

Yeah but proving the chain rule is for real analysis, not first year calc.

>if you're moving on to higher math

proving the chain rule isn't even something you need to take a real analysis class for. It comes strictly from the definition of a derivative. The difference between Stewart and Spivak isn't so much what you learn, but the mindset each one requires. Stewart teaching you how to plug numbers into an equation to solve a problem, which will do you no favors in analysis.

>chain rule
I don't remember this by heart. Am I doomed?
studying meme cs.

you are dooming if you want to get into AI or machine learning

Fug. So if I wanna do deep learning I need to brush off my calculus?

This man is correct. You can always learn the theory somewhere else, but Stewart lacks of substance, literally none of my engineer friends who learned calc with it know a shit about calc

everyone in CS should know at least calculus and linear algebra. it's "general knowledge".

Well I know it. I just don't know say, the chain rule, by heart.

then you don't know calculus my friend

But I can do stuff like line integrals and navier-stokes :c

Babe Rud

Understanding analysis Habott. Very nice bool that i'm currently reading before next semester. There is also a whole solution manual to the book. 10/10 would recommend

I used this for my analysis course, at least the first half of it.

Baby Rudin with Abbott and Counterexamples.

Here's hyour h(You)

Tao will. It's written specifically to hold the hand of students who are reading a proof-based mathematics book for the first time. It does it beautifully.

So glad I never got to calculus. I dont see a single thing useful in these books.
So much math is so meaningless that its bonkers the field even still exists post-computer in ways that dont even benefit the computer.

you're such a retard. this could have been somewhat accurate in some thread about higher, abstract math, but this is basic analysis you fucking doofus. it's used everywhere.

>>>/reddit/

I'm in a class only for first semester freshmen and we proved the chain rule. the class uses spivak.

That's called honors calculus, user. It's the mid point between junior year analysis. Not the same

you have to know the chain rule to evaluate basic integrals

you fucking brainlet
claimed that proving the chain rule is only for real analysis
says that he proved the chain rule in a calculus class
then you like a fucking retard
>thats honers calcus
no fucking shit that wasn't the point of the conversation

Why so angry? Does your dad beat you and your mom when he's drunk?