Is learning epsilon-delta proofs before analysis a good idea

AI Thread Summary
Learning epsilon-delta proofs can enhance understanding of limits but is not essential for grasping basic calculus concepts. It is suggested to focus on mastering foundational topics like differential, integral, and vector calculus before delving into more rigorous analysis. Supplementing current studies with a text like Spivak can provide deeper insight into mathematical theory. However, it is important not to overwhelm oneself with too much theory too soon. Balancing foundational knowledge with exposure to analysis is advisable for a solid mathematical education.
Magenta55
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello PF people. It's my first post here, but I have been lurking around this forum for awhile now.

I'm currently learning differential calculus using a text by Stewart and I want to attain a better comprehension of pure mathematics.

My question is: would it be a good idea to get another text to supplement Stewart and gain a deeper understanding of how limits work using the epsilon-delta definitions at this stage of my education? or would this be a waste of time (meaning, is it better to finish integral calculus and vector calculus, then start analysis)?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'd say there's no harm in learning it along with your work, provided it doesn't interfere with the basics of what you're learning now. I started reading Spivak to supplement my calculus knowledge while I was in Calc II.
 
Stewart isn't a terribly rigorous introduction to calculus; if you want something more mathematically pure and rigorous, Michael Spivak's ``Calculus" is a favorite in the math community for its emphasis on theory and proofs.

Learning ##\delta - \epsilon## proofs isn't crucial to understanding limits (especially if you're just getting into calculus yourself). I would say just get comfortable with what I would call the ``foundation" of higher math. This includes:
-Differential Calculus (derivative rules, word problems, etc.)
-Integral Calculus (right/left sums, Riemann Integrals, FTC I and II, solids of revolution, etc.)
-Vector Calculus (dot/cross product, equations of planes, parametrizing curves in space, curl, flux, divergence, Stokes, Green, Jacobians, etc.)
-Diff Eq. (Laplace transforms, physics problems, etc.)
-Linear Algebra (Vector spaces, bases, inverses, ranks, determinants, eigenvalues, eigenvectors, eigenspaces, etc.)
-[Maybe a proofs class somewhere in here?]

So try to bone up on the topics above (i.e., get really comfortable with it). If your aim is to pursue higher math, I wouldn't recommend skipping any steps or you might risk overwhelming yourself with too much theory without having seen many applications and how the material is related. So, there's no harm in exposing yourself to some analysis now, although it's probably more practical to wait until you have all your bases covered.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top