Studying Why do Walter Rudin's proofs in real analysis often seem so elusive and clever?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of understanding mathematical proofs in Walter Rudin's "Real Analysis" compared to Burkill's "A First Course in Mathematical Analysis." A mechanical engineering student expresses difficulty in grasping the structure and reasoning behind Rudin's proofs, despite finding them well-organized and elegant. The student questions whether their alternative proof methods are valid and seeks guidance on ensuring correctness in their own proofs. Responses highlight that Rudin's proofs, while clever and elegant, often lack clear motivation, making them challenging for beginners. Some recommend using more intuitive texts for foundational understanding before tackling Rudin, noting that it is common to struggle with his material and that revisiting chapters is often necessary for clarity. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of foundational understanding in mathematical analysis and the varying accessibility of different textbooks.
mix34
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Dear all,
I currently a student in mechanical engineering and i reached the conclusion that maths from the point of view of mathematicians is lot more interesting than the eyes of engineers (for me at least).

One of my friends in the maths department suggested to me to read real analysis Walter Rudin as a starting point and combine it with Burkill a first course in mathematical analysis.

In general i am just in the beginning of reading these books (just chapter 1) and i find both quite easy to read and understand each ones proof. However whenever i study Rudin and i read his proof i am not sure why his proof follows these steps (why use the argument the way he does? I can see why his proof are so well structured but how did he know to make this structure? Even the way he is phrasing and the sequence of arguments are deliberate towards the proof). I always try to prove the same theorem as him before reading his proof but i end up with an alternative method (most of the times quite different, though i still use the same theorems but not the same exact arguments or at best my phrasing is not the same does this mean my proof is wrong?). In general i always aim not to deviate beyond what is assumed in the chapter so to me it seems that my proof also always makes sense.

My questions are: what am i missing from Rudin and how can i make sure that my proof is right without doubts just like Rudin's (i was thinking about using propositional logic within my own proof but this could be too much)??
Am i on the right path with Rudin that makes me ask these questions? Or should i stick to Burkill, which i does not really make me have doubts (he is way more intuitive).

Thank you for your time and effort
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Little Rudin" is a classic, and is a good textbook for people who have a strong background in pure math, and are already familiar with the basics of real analysis. That said, I would absolutely not recommend it as an introduction. Rudin's proofs are very "nice", in the sense that they tend to be pretty and elegant, but they usually don't do a very good job of making the theorems clear. For intro real analysis, I'm a fan of Shilov's text

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486689220/?tag=pfamazon01-20

though I'm sure someone here can give a better recommendation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with @Number Nine . Rubin's proofs tend to be clever, elegant and sometimes appear like they have little motivation. I had a very hard time understanding the proof and motivation. I spent my hours in my professor's office trying to understand it, and often times he would just go through a more straight forward proof that was more tedious to write but made more sense to me.Also it's not unusual to have to spent a week or so rereading a single chapter in Rubin. Many moons ago, I recall spending an entire day on a single page. There's a lot of subtleness in mathematical books. Often time catching the key phrase or word in a passage in the right light clears up the entire haze.
 
TL;DR Summary: What topics to cover to safely say I know arithmetic ? I am learning arithmetic from Indian NCERT textbook. Currently I have finished addition ,substraction of 2 digit numbers and divisions, multiplication of 1 digit numbers. I am moving pretty slowly. Can someone tell me what topics to cover first to build a framework and then go on in detail. I want to learn fast. It has taken me a year now learning arithmetic. I want to speed up. Thanks for the help in advance. (I also...
Hi community My aim is to get into research about atoms, specifically, I want to do experimental research that explores questions like: 1. Why do Gallium/Mercury have low melting points 2. Why are there so many exceptions and inconsistencies when it comes to explaining molecular structures / reaction mechanisms in inorganic and organic chemistry 3. Experimental research about fundamental Quantum Mechanics, such as the one being followed by Hiroshima university that proved that observing...
guys i am currently studying in computer science engineering [1st yr]. i was intrested in physics when i was in high school. due to some circumstances i chose computer science engineering degree. so i want to incoporate computer science engineering with physics and i came across computational physics. i am intrested studying it but i dont know where to start. can you guys reccomend me some yt channels or some free courses or some other way to learn the computational physics.
Back
Top