Is Lang a meme?

# Is Lang a meme?

Yes, terrible expositor. He has not written a single book that does not have an established superior alternative

I don't think there's a viable alternative to his Basic Mathematics though, i.e. a book that will prepare you for higher mathematics from scratch and has proofs, covers enough topics but isn't too long.

Gelfand (Algebra, Trigonometry, Functions and Graphs and Method of Coordinates)

"Number, Shape, and Symmetry" by Herrmann/Sally

i dropped out of school after 8th, having completed only basic algebra, and didnt persue education again until i was like 25.

i used lang’s basic math to basically teach myself math before starting school again.

at this point 95%+’d precalc, calc 1, and discrete, and im currently taking calc 2 and linear algebra

i know im still doing baby math, but i think lang gave me a really solid foundation to grow from. i couldn’t recommend it more for someone starting from square one.

Gelfand

Biggest meme on the board. His books are mediocre supplements, at best.

Gelfand (Algebra, Trigonometry, Functions and Graphs and Method of Coordinates)

Lang covers more topics quicker and with more rigor though

baby rudin is good if you already know your way around math but you kinda forgot ale the theory behind calculus and need to refresh. it's terrible if it's your first exposure to mathematical analysis. I don't have any experience with his other books.

gelfand is such utter garbage

principles of mathematics by oakley and allendoerfer was much better. even serge lang was better, from what I looked over.

Don't listen to Veeky Forums on anything that is labelled a meme. 9 times out of 10 it's the highschoolers spouting nonsense.

I'm currently working through Open University MST124. It's a first-year course from a distance learning "university"[1] which has no entrance requirements. It assumes that its readers are vaguely familiar with essential algebra/function/trig concepts but are very rusty and require reminders and practice to improve fluency. It provides that and then moves on covers calculus and some linear algebra.

I'm not actually taking the course, just reading through the books (which is almost the same thing, since the books are the only method of teaching in the course). I wouldn't call it "rigorous" at all- instead of proving things, it follows this pattern.

Introduce a concept

Build up to a solution intuitively

Use the solution on some worked examples

Ask the reader to solve a bunch of practice problems

Move on to a new topic, often one that requires the solution you just learned in one way or another

It seems to be somewhat uncommon to teach calculus etc before teaching logic and proof. I'm sure it's not Veeky Forums approved, but this is working for me so far. I can go back and read more "rigorous" texts after I have a good working knowledge.

[1] I use quotes because its degrees, while "real"/accredited/non-diploma-mill, honestly don't seem to be in the same league as degrees from normal unis with strict entrance requirements. I don't see how they could be, since they take the same amount of time while requiring much less starting knowledge.

I hope not, I just bought his Basic Mathematics book..

You should have just downloaded it instead of wasting your money

It isn't.

"Lang is a meme" is a meme, probably perpetuated by some faggot brainlet who couldn't hack it. It definitely prepared me for Spivak.

Thanks for proving it's the same person posting this meme over and over with that same canned response.

Brainlet.

person who reads books by Lang and Spivak calling others "brainlet"

Oh, the irony...

what the fuck did I just read?

Is it an actual paragraph from the book?

Which part do you not understand?

Excellent meme, cross-boarder. You've been caught, faggot.

What are you trying to say?

these are the kind of brainlets who are too dumb to read Gelfand, so they read Lang

Just look at the last paragraph in the screenshot you inbred fuck, it looks like some turbo autist entered brain failure mode and that was the result.

Not an argument

None is needed when there is no issue with that excerpt from Gelfand, aside from you both being too brainlet to understand it.

t. brainlet defending the first math book he ever read, after falling for a Veeky Forums meme

t. brainlet defending the first math book he ever read, after falling for a Veeky Forums meme

We're not a "he", and nor is that the first math book we ever read (that would be some forgettable assigned textbook in grade school, or if meaning a book read front to back, Shafarevich's "Basic Notions of Algebra").

also pretending to be a femanon

epic

how did lang hurt you

was it his algebra book?

Not related to Lang, bit nice work dude. Hang in there. I started school at 23 and initial did precalculus and trig as my first math class. I finished it, then all of calculus, a proofs course, linear algebra, Real Analysis, Abstract Algebra, Statistics and probability theory. Going to be taking graduate level maths soon. I'm 26 now.

Believe in yourself and don't let anyone tell you too aren't smart or good enough for math. Don't worry about being in "babby tier" maths

No, it's not a meme. It is a difficult book that requires some supplemental help in the form of a lecture or an extra book. In that circumstance, it is an amazing book. For complete self study, it is subpar unless you're already quite well prepared. I.e., you know basic Analysis in R^1.

To get the most out of it, you need to attempt the proofs of the theorems yourself as you read it. The exercises are not enough, you have to also prove all the theorems

So, what's the best to relearn basic math from scratch (assuming I had math classes on university years ago, but forgot even basic trig and polynomials at this point)?

Principles of Mathematics by Oakley and Allendoerfer

Number and Geometry by Stillwell

or Basic Mathematics by Lang?

people saying lang or rudin suck haven't read them. they're just parroting reddit posts.

I'm in no hurry and I remember gaps in basics always biting me in the ass when I was in university

I think exposure to several approaches to the subject is the superior option. It also depends on what your goal is related to learning. i.e. just for fun, cause you are autistic, or you are young and want to be a mathematician, or you are already a mathematician reviewing the basics.