I'm a physics student trying to get a more in-depth understanding of math. A few weeks ago, I started studying from two textbooks, Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds and Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms. So far, the stuff from Hubbard's text is pretty straight forward. The problems are, for the most part, fairly easy, and even if I come across a difficult one, it's at least something I can take a stab at. On the other hand, I'm having a much different experience with Spivak. I read the text and understand the proofs, but when it comes to actually solving the problems, I struggle. I'm happy if I can work 30% of them. It makes me feel pretty dumb, I won't lie. At this point, I may very well give up on the end of chapter problems and just use it as a supplement to Hubbard. I've never really sat down and studied analysis from a text like Rudin; my only experience with the subject comes from Spivak's Calculus, which I went through maybe 50% of. Is it unreasonable to tackle a text like Calculus on Manifolds without being well practiced at analysis problems? Maybe if I just try and hammer out problems, it'll eventually start making sense? It doesn't help that Spivak doesn't include many problems to begin with.