Learn Analysis: Math Skills & Textbook Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter Callmejoe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
AI Thread Summary
To begin learning mathematical analysis, a solid foundation in calculus is essential, which includes a year of differential calculus and some exposure to integral and multivariable calculus. While formal proof techniques are beneficial, they are not strictly necessary if one has a strong grasp of calculus concepts. Spivak's textbook is highly recommended as a bridge from calculus to analysis, as it effectively introduces proof techniques. Rudin's "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" is considered a good resource for those ready for a more rigorous approach, but it may not be suitable for beginners unfamiliar with proofs. Linear algebra is not a prerequisite for learning analysis. For self-learners, starting with Spivak, followed by either Rudin or Terry Tao's freely available analysis notes, is a suggested pathway.
Callmejoe
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hello, I would like to start learning mathematical analysis. I have a basic year of calc( on course in differential, one integral) and a course in multivariable calculus. Will I be able to learn analysis or do I need to learn formal proofs of some sort? Is linear algebra necessary? Also any recommendations on a starting textbook, bonus points if its good for self learning.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I used Spivak to bridge the gap between introductory calculus and introductory analysis. Rudin is good if you're just looking for straightforward analysis, but I wouldn't recommend it if you haven't been exposed to proofs yet. Linear algebra isn't necessary.

My recommendation would be Spivak, then perhaps Rudin, or go through an intro to proofs book, then either Rudin, or Terry Tao's (freely available) analysis notes.
 
So you would say Spivak calculus -> proofs(optional) ->Rudin.
 
If you can get through Spivak, you'll sure know your proofs well enough for Rudin.
 
Yes, if you can make it through Spivak adequately, then you won't need a proofs book (though it would never hurt).
 
Thanks for the information, wish me luck!
 
After a year of thought, I decided to adjust my ratio for applying the US/EU(+UK) schools. I mostly focused on the US schools before, but things are getting complex and I found out that Europe is also a good place to study. I found some institutes that have professors with similar interests. But gaining the information is much harder than US schools (like you have to contact professors in advance etc). For your information, I have B.S. in engineering (low GPA: 3.2/4.0) in Asia - one SCI...
I graduated with a BSc in Physics in 2020. Since there were limited opportunities in my country (mostly teaching), I decided to improve my programming skills and began working in IT, first as a software engineer and later as a quality assurance engineer, where I’ve now spent about 3 years. While this career path has provided financial stability, I’ve realized that my excitement and passion aren’t really there, unlike what I felt when studying or doing research in physics. Working in IT...
Hello, I’m an undergraduate student pursuing degrees in both computer science and physics. I was wondering if anyone here has graduated with these degrees and applied to a physics graduate program. I’m curious about how graduate programs evaluated your applications. In addition, if I’m interested in doing research in quantum fields related to materials or computational physics, what kinds of undergraduate research experiences would be most valuable?

Similar threads

Back
Top