Is it a good guide? Should one really make quite a path towards Lang's BM? Is there any better guides?...

Is it a good guide? Should one really make quite a path towards Lang's BM? Is there any better guides?? Thanks in advance!

Other urls found in this thread:

staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No one needs that many foundational books

Here is the tried and true path

Stewart's calculus -> velleman's how to prove it -> baby Rudin/like any abstract algebra book -> Lang/big rudin

Alternatively, if you have a grasp on calculus and don't want to read a proof book (ie, you're slightly more advanced)

Stewart's calculus ->Spivaks calculus -> baby Rudin (in particular, ch.2, but the rest of the book will be a breeze since you are essentially doing calculus a third time)/ any abstract algebra book

Look man the only way to get good at higher math is to do it, and no amount of proof books will adequately prepare you for the mindfuck of doing algebra and analysis for the first time. It will be hard no matter what. Just learn how to write proofs with How To Prove It and move on to algebra and analysis. By the time you know that stuff, you'll have your own opinion on these stupid "guides"

Inb4 "rudin is a meme"

It's a good book. It was written with the intended audience already knowing rigorous calculus in R^1. It was my real Analysis text book and I learned loads

I just realized you are talking about Basic Mathematics, not Lang's algebra

Lol
Man do what you want

what about basic mathematics books, im not going to start with calculus.

Sheldon Axler: Precalculus, A Prelude to Calculus
or Schaum's Outlines: Precalculus

this. maybe it's too hard if you have no background and no professor, but it's a fantastic book

here's another path you could do, people did this at my undergrad (not top by any means but very good math program). it's slower than and would give you a good grounding.

stewart calculus (or similar)/incel friedberg spence introductory linear algebra->smith/eggen/andre a transition to advanced mathematics->abbott understanding analysis/incel friedman spence linear algebra->baby rudin/artin algebra/munkres topology

do that and you have pretty much all the important parts of an undergrad math education, but that's probably several years of work

>Should one really make quite a path towards Lang's BM?
Lang is a meme.

I'm the poster you quoted. I like this path. I think it's fine. My uni was Stewart's for calc 1&2, Marsden and tromba for calc 3, an intro to proofs course and then analysis with baby rudin and algebra with Artin. After that, grad courses if you desire.

It's a bit fast, but it works if you work hard. Personally, I wish we just did spivaks calculus instead of the intro to proofs course, but can win em all

If you want to learn calc, then this path is far too long and technical, better off learning from something like Stewart's.
If you want to have a foundation in mathematics, you can cut off most of the books really. Proof book, set theory, transition to adv. maths, and calc. You can read logic book but it is just that, not maths. Everything else can be ignored given that you know high school mathematics.
On a slightly related note, anyone have a good guide on the field of physics?

>On a slightly related note, anyone have a good guide on the field of physics?
staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

Thanks friend

I've done Lang's BM and Hammack's Book of Proof (plus Polya's How to Solve it). Is this enough to start Apostol or might it be too hard and I should settle for Stewart instead?

Only guide Veeky Forums certified

...

It's good but you need to do this 24H for the next 10 years.

It seems too long.

lang is meem
read s-serre

ftfy

boring

Hey it's the unfunny namefag who sometimes posts in /trek/ threads