Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Science and Math Textbooks
STEM Educators and Teaching
STEM Academic Advising
STEM Career Guidance
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Science and Math Textbooks
STEM Educators and Teaching
STEM Academic Advising
STEM Career Guidance
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Science Education and Careers
Science and Math Textbooks
Analysis with or without set-theoretic topology?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="inthenickoftime, post: 6394629, member: 669923"] Do you think a first course in analysis should focus entirely on inequalities and leave set-theoretic topology for another occasion? Should this depend on whether or not the student had a first rigorous calculus course first? If I'm not mistaken, Victor Bryant (Yet Another Introduction to Analysis) and Arthur Mattuck (Introduction to Analysis) authored analysis books in the language of inequalities. Has anyone had previous experience with these two? Did it alleviate topological proofs in later courses? Is topology even required for the level I'm aiming at? Let's say my main concern is grasping the calculus of variations (much needed in mechanics). At what point do you absolutely need to incorporate topology in your analysis? edit: I'd like to add that David Bressoud's A Radical Approach to Analysis also does this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Science Education and Careers
Science and Math Textbooks
Analysis with or without set-theoretic topology?
Back
Top