Self-Studying: Theoretical Calculus vs Analysis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a sophomore student majoring in mathematics and microbiology seeking advice on self-studying theoretical calculus and analysis. The student has completed a calculus II course and is considering whether to start with advanced calculus books or introductory analysis texts. Recommendations include various analysis books, emphasizing the importance of understanding proofs and suggesting that the student might benefit from diving directly into analysis due to their interest. The consensus is that pursuing topics of personal interest is the best approach for effective self-study. Engaging with challenging materials like Rudin can be beneficial later in their academic journey.
bacte2013
Messages
394
Reaction score
47
Dear Physics Forum advisers,

I am a sophomore in US with double majors in mathematics and microbiology; my current computational/mathematical biology research got my interested in the mathematics, particularly the Analysis and Algebra, and led me to start with calculus II (computational aspect) and discrete mathematics. My coursework plan is to take multi-variable calculus on summer and introductory analysis & theoretical linear algebra & mathematical statistics on Fall 2015. My calculus II course uses the specialized course packet and I have been using "Calculus with Analytic Geometry" by George Simmons to supplement it. However, I want to learn more about the single-variable calculus and proofs behind it because I am really interested in them and computational aspect does not satisfy me. Since I do not have heavy course load on this semester, I have a lot of time to devote on self-studying the mathematics.

My plan is to either start with "advanced" calculus books like Apostol vol.I, Courant vol.I, Peter Lax, and Spivak OR introductory analysis books like Rudin (PMA), Zorich, Apostol (mathematical analysis), Strichartz, Abott, Ross, and Pugh. I am fairly good with proof methodology which I learned from my current discrete mathematics course and "How to Prove It" by Velleman. Should I jump right into those analysis books or should I start with those advanced calculus books? I already finished with Simmons book and course packet except for the series & sequence chapters.

My future plan is to attend a mathematics graduate program in either applied math (specifically the biological science) or pure math (specifically algebra or analysis).

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your advice and input!
PK
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are better books than the ones you listed. Some of my recommendations:

Analysis by its history: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387945512/?tag=pfamazon01-20
This is a truly unique and excellent book. It approaches analysis from a historic perspective and makes you understand why we do the things we do. It contains some really beautiful things. I still skim through it now and then because it's truly wonderful.

Bloch: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387721762/?tag=pfamazon01-20
This books proves everything. And I really do mean everything. It starts from natural numbers and goes all the way to rigorous analysis. Not even things like decimal representation is accepted without proof.

That said, you might find your proof abilities are lacking. Just doing Velleman really isn't enough. But if you persist, you'll get the proofs down very quickly!
 
Jump right into analysis if that's what you're interested in. You don't really need to know advanced calculus topics in order to understand single-variable analysis. The best subject to self-study is the subject you're the most interested in. I don't know too much about different analysis books, but Rudin may be a bit tough. Rudin will be great later when you want to revisit the material.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top