Is Lang's Book on Differential Geometry Suitable for Beginners?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the suitability of Serge Lang's "Fundamentals of Differential Geometry" for beginners in the subject. Participants recommend starting with Lang's book but caution that it may be too abstract for those with limited mathematical background. Alternative suggestions include Do Carmo's "Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces" and John Lee's series on manifolds for a more accessible introduction. The conversation highlights the need for foundational knowledge in topology and the importance of selecting appropriate texts for learning differential geometry, especially for applications in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Basic understanding of topology from an Analysis II course
  • Familiarity with calculus and mathematical analysis
  • Interest in applications of differential geometry in physics
  • Willingness to engage with mathematical rigor
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore Do Carmo's "Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces" for a practical introduction
  • Study John Lee's series: "Topological Manifolds," "Smooth Manifolds," and "Riemannian Manifolds" for comprehensive understanding
  • Read Wald's "General Relativity" for applications of differential geometry in physics
  • Investigate Pressley's "Elementary Differential Geometry" for a modern exposition of the subject
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics and physics, particularly those interested in self-learning differential geometry and its applications in mechanics and general relativity.

  • #31
Lavabug said:
Does it have solutions for some of the exercises?
Unfortunately it doesn't the last time I saw it which was in a course on differential topology for physicists. The section on the connections between circuit theory and topology was pretty mind blowing though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Lavabug said:
Does it have solutions for some of the exercises?

I have the second edition and it doesn't contain solutions. Maybe they added some in the third edition but I'm not sure...
 
  • #33
Did this hamper you at all using it as a sole resource for learning the contained subjects? Ie: are the problems more or less straightforward applications of the preceding theory or easy to infer their correctness, or are you left in the dark to toil like with some other books (Goldstein, Landau, etc.)?
 
  • #34
In my opinion the exercises are not that hard. I think there's a good balance between computational exercises and proofs... you souldn't have much trouble figuring out whether your answers are correct or not.
 
  • #35
WannabeNewton said:
This is a joke right? Are you actually trying to help the OP learn or just throw really hard books for no reason at someone looking for an introduction?

Sometimes I think the people replying are just trying to show off and "overkill" instead of actually helping the OP.
 
  • #36
Like in the other thread I recommend to toe dippers with "some" calculus and linear algebra and an interest in physical stuffs Curvature in Mathematics and Physics by Shlomo Sternberg. To the sentimentalist who think three dimensions is more than enough try differential Geometry Of Three Dimensions by C.E. Weatherburn.
 
  • #37
tade said:
Sometimes I think the people replying are just trying to show off and "overkill" instead of actually helping the OP.
In the guy's defense, I didn't feel like I understood differential geometry at all until I borrowed a copy of volume 1 of Spivak's introduction. It opens by defining a manifold as a metric space rather than the more general topological space, but other than that it was fantastic. Plus, I like the way Spivak writes. I don't know about anyone else, but it often reads like he's talking to you rather than attempting to talk around your perceived skill level. I appreciate this.

That being said, Spivak doesn't hold much back either. :-p
 
  • #38
Spivak isn't a problem. Lots of people use Spivak for a first exposition to differential topology. Only Gauss, Riemann, or Weyl would use Lang as an intro to the subject.
 
  • #39
^I don't see any problem looking at Lang (or Kobayashi and Nomizu) early on. It does not cause your face to melt. Lang is one of the few books with infinite dimensional flavor, and as is often the case with Lang, he presents things as they are best understood instead of easiest understood. Still most people would like to also read a more gentle book. Spivak is pretty chatty which others dislike, but I consider it a strength. I dislike the typeset though and if I recall correctly it is unchanged in the third edition.
 
  • #40
The issue I have with Lang is it has no exercises. Otherwise I think it would be a reasonable choice for a dedicated student.
 
  • #41
lurflurf said:
^I don't see any problem looking at Lang (or Kobayashi and Nomizu) early on. It does not cause your face to melt. Lang is one of the few books with infinite dimensional flavor, and as is often the case with Lang, he presents things as they are best understood instead of easiest understood. Still most people would like to also read a more gentle book. Spivak is pretty chatty which others dislike, but I consider it a strength. I dislike the typeset though and if I recall correctly it is unchanged in the third edition.

deluks917 said:
The issue I have with Lang is it has no exercises. Otherwise I think it would be a reasonable choice for a dedicated student.

Man, even my old differential geometry professor said that he looked at Lang and didn't understand much of it because it was so horrible written. And this is a guy who knows differential geometry inside out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K