How are Kelley, Dugundji, and Willard compared to Munkres?

[bacte2013]

Dear all,

I recently found the topology textbooks written by Kelley, Dugundji, and Willard, which I heard that they are more concise and motivational than Munkres, which is a required text for my current topology course. I actually do not like Munkres as he is very verbose, and his problems are not insightful and challenging either. Unfortunately, there is no way for me to read Kelley, Dugundji, or Willard as all of them are already checked out...I would like to hear your opinions about their pros and cons, and how they are compared to Munkres. Please help me!

P.S.
I read Armstrong, Kahn, and Hocking, and I found the last two books to be better than Munkres (I did not like Armstrong's exposition). I never read Kelley, Dugundji, and Willard...

 

[wilsont23274]

Kelley, Dugundji, and Willard are all highly respected topology textbooks. They have a reputation for being more concise and providing more insight and challenge than Munkres. Kelley is often praised for his clear exposition of concepts and proofs. Dugundji and Willard are generally seen as rigorous and modern texts. All three books cover the same topics as Munkres but from different viewpoints and with different emphases.In terms of difficulty level, Munkres is usually considered to be easier than Kelley, Dugundji, or Willard. However, this does not necessarily mean that one is better than the other. It simply means that they cater to different audiences. For example, if you are a beginner in topology, Munkres may be more suitable for you than Kelley, Dugundji, or Willard. On the other hand, if you already have some background in topology and need to brush up on your skills, then the latter three books may be more suitable.In conclusion, it really depends on your level of understanding and what you want to get out of the book. If it is available, it is probably worth reading at least a few chapters of each book to decide which one you prefer.