149
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
149 points (100.0% liked)
games
20040 readers
1 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
-
3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is one of the worst math books out there and I will never understand the fanfare it gets. Rudin barely makes any effort to motivate concepts and totally obfuscates the proofwriting process in the name of elegance, while discussing a subject which is the most accessible entry point into serious math. The people who have enough experience to absorb all of the details are almost guaranteed to be at a point where they'll get a lot more out of basically any topic that's not kiddie analysis. It's like showing kindergarteners how to add by first teaching them about monoids to lead into the natural numbers and people ooh and ahh over how this is the best exposition on adding numbers they've ever seen.
By today's standards yes, but it used to be really progressive in that it broke with the standards of teaching (proper) logic first and then building the complex numbers and concept of differentiation from naught but logical calculus. Rudin even did away with the Dedekind cuts from the regular course material and relegated them to an appendix to give an easier intro into the field of real numbers. This was heresy at a time when mathematically sound teaching had to be logically sound as well.
I think its still a good reference for exam prep or when you have to look at what exactly stokes theorem said again but I agree with your point that it is not a good introductory material into maths in general. Proof writing is the real art that needs to be the first step into math but I don't think that can be taught by book alone, you need someone to read and correct and criticise your proofs if you want.
But "Principals of mathematical analysis" could have been the title of a brochure to get people interested in some religion called "mathematism" or something so I thought it worked best for the bit.