Need some input on a few analysis texts.

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmjlt88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Input
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on selecting accessible textbooks for self-study in measure theory and real analysis. The primary texts mentioned include Cohn's "Measure Theory," Wheeden and Zygmund's "Measure and Integral," and Folland's "Real Analysis." The goal is to find a book that effectively teaches the material, similar to Munkres' expository style in topology, while also providing manageable exercises. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding Lebesgue integration, noting that different approaches exist—one using measure theory and another that simplifies the concept without it. The preference for a straightforward explanation of complex topics is emphasized, alongside the need for a solid grasp of foundational concepts like the completeness of Lebesgue integrable functions and the fundamental theorem of calculus. The discussion suggests that while some texts may be more challenging, they serve different educational purposes, and it's crucial to choose one that aligns with the learner's needs.
jmjlt88
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
The textbook of which I am interested in obtaining some input are the following:

Cohn- Measure Theory
Wheeden and Zygmund - Measure and Integral
Folland- Real Analysis.

Let me be frank here, I am looking for the easiest textbook. I will be working through the text for a self-study project. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I will be using the text alongside Kreyszig's Functional Analysis (which is already proving to be exceptionally clear). Thank you very much in advance for your input. Other book suggestions are very welcomed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let me add a remark. By "easiest textbook," I mean that the author(s) is/are actually trying to teach you. For instance, I enjoyed Munkres' very expository style in his Topology text. The aforementioned textbook read as though he was carefully explaining the material to you. It was a pleasant experience! Don't get me wrong: I do enjoy "filling in the gaps" in proofs. Learning is an active process. However, I am a novice (and working alone). Hence, these I desire a few gaps -- not chasms! The exercises, of course, need to be doable as well.
 
My friends who are expert analysts liked Wheeden and Zygmund. I who am not, always liked as a student, everything by Sterling K. Berberian.

Be aware there are several ways to do "Lebesgue integration", namely with and without measure theory. In my own opinion, treatments that do not use measure theory may sometimes be easier, but may leave you ignorant of what some feel is a basic topic.

Berberian's books do cover measure theory as I believe also does Wheeden and Zygmund. A book that does not is the classic by Riesz and Nagy. A book that makes a hybrid of the two points of view is Real Analysis by Lang. Lang's book can be very abstract and overwhelmingly general.The essential difference is this: It is possible for a sequence of functions whose Riemann integrals exist to converge pointwise to a function whose Riemann integral does not exist, even though the sequence of integrals does converge.

There are two solutions to this problem: the usual, measure theory way is to start all over with a new definition of the integral using hard measure theory for complicated sets much more complicated than the intervals that Riemann's theory is based on, and show that in this new theory the limit function does have an integral which does equal the limit of the integrals of the Riemann integrable functions.

Another way, to me much easier is to simply say that the limit of any function that arises as a pointwise limit (almost everywhere) of a sequence of Riemann integrable functions with convergent integrals, is integrable and its integral is that limit. Then one has to prove that this limit is independent of the choice of Riemann integrable functions converging to the given limit function. I find this approach much simpler.

In both approaches one wants the result that the Lebesgue integrable functions form a complete metric space, in the L1 (i.e. "integral") norm, in which the Riemann integrable functions are dense. I admit that in my preferred "simpler" approach, one has to prove then that every L1 Cauchy sequence of functions does converge almost everywhere pointwise to some function, the limit function.

Purists however may feel that Lebesgue measure is so beautiful that it deserves to be developed on its own. Ok. Just be aware that different books are trying to serve different purposes of their own, not necessarily to get you where you want to go as quickly and easily as possible.Basically, no matter how you slice it, you need to prove that every L1 Cauchy sequence of integrable functions has a pointwise limit almost everywhere, and that for any two L1 Cauchy sequence sequences with the same pointwise limit a.e., their integrals converge to the same limit.

Then you want a fundamental theorem of calculus, basically that an integrable function g is the derivative a.e. of its indefinite integral, and a function F is an indefinite integral (necessarily of its derivative) if and only if F is absolutely continuous.

This is my take on a subject I am not at all expert in and have always been puzzled by, so run these opinions past an actual analyst in a university, before betting on them.
 
Last edited:
For the following four books, has anyone used them in a course or for self study? Compiler Construction Principles and Practice 1st Edition by Kenneth C Louden Programming Languages Principles and Practices 3rd Edition by Kenneth C Louden, and Kenneth A Lambert Programming Languages 2nd Edition by Allen B Tucker, Robert E Noonan Concepts of Programming Languages 9th Edition by Robert W Sebesta If yes to either, can you share your opinions about your personal experience using them. I...
Hi, I have notice that Ashcroft, Mermin and Wei worked at a revised edition of the original solid state physics book (here). The book, however, seems to be never available. I have also read that the reason is related to some disputes related to copyright. Do you have any further information about it? Did you have the opportunity to get your hands on this revised edition? I am really curious about it, also considering that I am planning to buy the book in the near future... Thanks!
I’ve heard that in some countries (for example, Argentina), the curriculum is structured differently from the typical American program. In the U.S., students usually take a general physics course first, then move on to a textbook like Griffiths, and only encounter Jackson at the graduate level. In contrast, in those countries students go through a general physics course (such as Resnick-Halliday) and then proceed directly to Jackson. If the slower, more gradual approach is considered...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top