Background for Analysis and Topology

AI Thread Summary
A foundational understanding of calculus, experience with proofs, and familiarity with sets are essential for learning Analysis and Topology. It is generally recommended to study analysis before topology, with a focus on metric spaces, which are often covered in analysis courses. Rigorous analysis texts, such as those by Aliprantis & Burkinshaw or Abbott, are suitable for self-learners. There is some confusion regarding the curriculum, as one participant noted that their school's real analysis course primarily covers metric spaces and topology, which is atypical since real analysis should also include differentiation, integrals, and series. The concept of "reconstruction" of the real numbers is typically addressed in real analysis but may also appear in set theory or abstract algebra courses, although the latter is considered unusual.
Acut
Messages
226
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I am a self-learner. What background knowledge is necessary to learn Analysis and Topology?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Calculus, an experience with proofs and an experience with sets.

Personally, I would take analysis before you take topology. Make sure you know about metric spaces before topology (metric spaces are usually studied in analysis, but not always).

If you studied calculus from a rigorous book like Spivak, then you can take on a rigorous analysis book (like the excellent book by Aliprantis & Burkinshaw). Otherwise, the book "Understanding Analysis" by Abbott is very good.
 
Is it weird that my school's real analysis is a course on topology and metric space? I'm only first year but that's what my calculus teacher told me when i asked what real analysis was. He told me the course content for real analysis course at my school was metric space and topology.

I keep on hearing about "reconstruction" of the real numbers... but apparnetly that's done in abstract algebra and or set theory 3rd year course. Is this normal?
 
kramer733 said:
Is it weird that my school's real analysis is a course on topology and metric space? I'm only first year but that's what my calculus teacher told me when i asked what real analysis was. He told me the course content for real analysis course at my school was metric space and topology.

I keep on hearing about "reconstruction" of the real numbers... but apparnetly that's done in abstract algebra and or set theory 3rd year course. Is this normal?

That's a bit weird. Metric spaces (and a little topology) are certainly part of real analysis, but real analysis should be much more then that. It should also deal with differentiation, integrals, series, etc. It's a bit weird if you only see topology in your real analysis course.

Reconstruction of the real numbers is very often done in real analysis, because it's important to know what the real numbers are exactly. It is extremely weird that you do this in abstract algebra, I never heard of such a thing before. It would fit in a set theory course though.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top