Best way self study real analysis?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the best methods and resources for self-studying real analysis, particularly in preparation for university-level courses. Participants share their experiences and suggest various textbooks and approaches to learning the material effectively.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant plans to study real analysis using "How to Prove It" by Daniel J. Velleman, "Understanding Analysis" by Stephen Abbott, and "Baby Rudin," and seeks additional recommendations.
  • Another participant recommends Spivak's "Calculus" and "Calculus on Manifolds" as valuable resources for analysis 1/2, suggesting that these texts helped them appreciate the subject more.
  • Some participants argue that Abbott may be more user-friendly than Rudin, with one suggesting it could serve as a useful supplement to Rudin's more challenging content.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in content focus between Abbott and Rudin, particularly regarding the treatment of integrals.
  • One participant suggests that using multiple resources can be beneficial, as different authors may explain concepts in varied ways.
  • A participant mentions the potential usefulness of video lectures by Prof. Francis Su from Harvey Mudd College available on YouTube.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on which textbooks are most effective for learning real analysis, with no clear consensus on a single best approach or resource. Some advocate for the inclusion of multiple texts to gain diverse perspectives, while others emphasize the strengths of specific authors.

Contextual Notes

Participants note varying levels of user-friendliness among the recommended texts, which may affect their suitability for different learners. There is also mention of specific topics covered in the texts that may not align, such as the types of integrals discussed.

Government$
Messages
87
Reaction score
1
In October of this year i will start with math major and i decided to prepare myself in spear time. In my faculty there is no such thing as Calculus but rather you go strait to the analysis and you pick up calculus along. (There is singe variable calculus in high school). In first two years subjects that have most ECTS (Grading system in EU) points are Anlysis 1A,1B,2A and 2B where each lasts one semester i.e. in total two years. And in third year i have Analysis 3A,3B and all of these courses are proof based.

Topics for Analysis 1A/1B is single variable calculus and series and for Analysis 2A/2B multivariable calculus and things like multiple remain integral and Fourier series. And for Analysis 3A/3B topics are measure theory and functional analysis.

To prepare my self for Anlysis 1/2 i decided to go through following:
1. How to prove it by daniel j velleman
2. Understanding Analysis by Stephen Abbott
3. Baby Rudin

1. Do you suggest me to add something or to use some different material?
2. And what is the best way to learn RA? The way i see it it is best for me to read definition and theorem, read and understand proof and then to try to prove same theorem myself and then move on to the exercises?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For analysis 1/2 I recommend Spivak's books "Calculus" and "Calculus on Manifolds."

I too began studying analysis as an undergraduate with Rudin, but I only started to enjoy it and see its beauty once I found Spivak.
 
I think Abbott will be more useful than Rudin, or a useful supplement. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum of user friendliness.

One should be aware however that after the standard Riemann integral, Abbott treats the "generalized Riemann integral" which is a non standard topic, whereas Rudin discusses the more usual Lebesgue integral.
 
Last edited:
dx said:
For analysis 1/2 I recommend Spivak's books "Calculus" and "Calculus on Manifolds."

I too began studying analysis as an undergraduate with Rudin, but I only started to enjoy it and see its beauty once I found Spivak.

So you mean to use Spivak's textbooks instead of Abbott or to just add Spivak to the mix?

mathwonk said:
I think Abbott will be more useful than Rudin, or a useful supplement. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum of user friendliness.

I know that Rudin doesn't have great rep for user friendliness. I thought using Abbott first as an intro and then to study Rudin.
 
Just add it to the mix. Its always good to see the same thing explained by different people. (I've never read Abbott by the way.)
 
Yoou may find the video lectures of Prof. Francis Su from Harvey Mudd College useful. Hes on YouTube.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K