Baby Rudin: A Comprehensive Analysis Text Worth Reading?

[osnarf]

I was preparing to read through this thoroughly from all I've heard about it, but the topics seem to be very similar to Spivak's Calculus, that I just worked through, and Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds, which I'm currently working through.

I was wondering if there is any compelling reason to read the whole book (different or more in depth treatments of subjects), or if I should just read through the sections that weren't covered in Spivak's books (Fourier Series, Lebesque integration, basic topology, etc) and move onto something more advanced in the same subject area, such as Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis.

Any thoughts? If you go with the latter, any suggestions are appreciated.

 

[qspeechc]

I am not familiar with Calculus on Manifolds, but I just wanted to say that baby Rudin does not treat Fourier series, Lebesgue integration and topology very well, and you will have to learn these subjects elsewhere anyway.

 

[mathwonk]

Although friends of mine who were analysts swore by Rudin's books as the best, I have never liked them. I prefer Lang or Cartan for complex analysis, and Berberian for real analysis.

 

[deluks917]

I don't think its worth reading at all. I'm currently reading Serge Lang's Real and Functional Analysis with just Spivak and some Algebra as Background. While I find the book pretty difficult I feel like my background isn't a problem. I'd read Rudin's real and Complex Analysis or Maybe Folland.

Also look at MIT's Undergraduate analysis courses analysis 1 and 2. The first course uses Rudin POMA and the second semester uses Spivak Calculus on Manifolds. I think after Spivak you will be very well prepared for graduate real analysis. One thing that does help is a little bit of algebra, for example most books discuss ideals of continuous functions on compact sets.

 

[snipez90]

I was wondering if there is any compelling reason to read the whole book (different or more in depth treatments of subjects), or if I should just read through the sections that weren't covered in Spivak's books (Fourier Series, Lebesque integration, basic topology, etc) and move onto something more advanced in the same subject area, such as Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis.

Obviously only read the sections you're weak on unless you're not confident with your basic analysis skills (e.g. if you don't know how to do all of the problems in Spivak, it's probably worth revisiting the relevant topic). However, I think Rudin's coverage of topology (chapter 2) is worth reading through since unsurprisingly, it's oriented towards analysts. IIRC, Spivak basically talked a bit about compactness in the manifolds text and that was it. In particular, solely reading Spivak will not expose you to metric spaces, which is like the MOST important concept in undergrad analysis.

Also, Rudin PMA chapter 7 on sequences and series of functions is something you won't find in Spivak. Rudin's exposition is cleaner and he goes further in depth on uniform convergence than baby Spivak (partly thanks to metric topology). Also the Stone-Weierstrass theorem is just cool.

The reason you shouldn't read the Fourier series and Lebesgue integration sections are not because they're not covered well. The Lebesgue integration stuff overlaps with the first chapter of Real and Complex Analysis. On the other hand, proper treatment of Fourier analysis really depends on tools from measure theory and Lebesgue integration.

 

[osnarf]

Phew, because I didn't really want to :) I felt confident with the information in Spivak so i'll just read through chapters 1 and 7 and then move on (I just picked up Mendelson's topology book, so I'll skip over Rudin's chapter in it).

I've heard good things about Lang, never heard of Berenian or Cartan before, I'll look into them. I find it interesting you (snipez90) say that about Fourier series, because the Stein and Shakarchi book series I was look at goes:

Fourier Analysis
Complex Analysis
Real Analysis

I also find it interesting that they put complex analysis before real. Is that normal, or is a different order usual recommended? Also, have any of you read this series?

 

[mathwonk]

Everything written by Henri Cartan is beautifully, clearly and elegantly written. Everything written by Sterling K. Berberian is extremely clearly written and explained. Lang is a little spotty, clarity varying from book to book, but I like his complex analysis book.

 

[Integral]

Frankly, I must object to the terminology "reading" , you do not "read" a math text, you must work your way through it. If you are only going to read it, save your time, get a good novel.

 

[osnarf]

Mathwonk: It's funny, because I was going to ask you which book by Berberian you meant, until I was reading reviews on amazon and saw that Fundamentals of Real Analysis by Berberian had just one review, written about 3 1/2 weeks ago, by a familiar name :P I'm assuming that's the one you were referring to? Also, in reference to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1442934&postcount=3", are Lang and Cartan's book in the category that you recommended reading after real analysis to get the full benefit, or would it be fine to read them concurrently?

Integral: I am obviously planning on working through whatever i do read. I have pen and paper in hand the entire time and i do almost all the exercises in books in math/science subjects. To me, it just sounds more natural to say I am reading a book than working through it. Like you said, it's terminology.

 

[mathwonk]

berberian's "fundamentals..." is excellent and i have it here now. but way back in college i also read his book on hilbert space and it too was superbly clear, so much so it seemed almost like cheating to read it as he explained everything understandably. i wondered why other authors did not do so. reading berberian makes one wonder if other authors are on an ego trip to make you think they are smart rather than just help you out.

so i conclude all books he writes are probably the same, super clear.

as to lang and cartan on complex analysis, you need basic elementary limits and so on (such as available from spivak's calculus), but not lebesgue integration (as in berberians fundamentals... ) before reading them.

ideally go hang out a couple hours in a university library and browse these guys to get your own take on them.

 

[osnarf]

I was actually asking between fundamental's and A First Course, but after looking a little closer the former was what I was looking for, so I'm going to check out that, and Cartan for complex. The hilbert space book sounds interesting too, but i'll probably hold off on that for a while.

I'll probably wind up reading either Cartan first or both at simultaneously, because I have been waiting since early high school to find why in the world we care about these imaginary numbers :)

Thanks again everyone, you were very helpful as always.

 

[Landau]

I would not work through 'baby Rudin', certainly not the last chapters, they are treated better in other sources. But there is still a gap between Spivak's two books and Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis (the latter is great by the way, as is his Functional Analysis). This gap consists mainly of topology in the context of metric spaces, as Spivak does everything in R (Calculus) or R^n (Calculus on Manifolds).

I think one of the best things you could do, is read Knapp's https://www.amazon.com/dp/0817632506/?tag=pfamazon01-20 Knapp has become one of my favorite authors, I really really like his style. He excels in clarity, and makes original choices of the order presentation. If you do his Basic and Advanced Real Analysis, you know everything a graduate student needs to know about analysis. Similarly for his Basic and Advanced Algebra. Indeed, that was his goal: to cover everything a mathematician, not necessarily specializing in that area, is expected to know.

Other good books are Apostol's Mathematical Analysis and, somewhat more difficult, Dieudonné's Foundations of Modern Analysis. The latter contains an extensive treatment of metric spaces.

 

[mathwonk]

dieudonne's quote in chapter 8 about "slavish subservience to the shibboleth of numerical interpretation at any cost" is worth the price of admission alone.

 

[Landau]

Right, and

Except for boolean algebra, there is no theory more universally employed in mathematics than linear algebra; and there is hardly any theory which is
more elementary, in spite of the fact that generations of professors and textbook writers have obscured its simplicity by preposterous calculations with matrices.

 

[Fredrik]

I think one of the best things you could do, is read Knapp's https://www.amazon.com/dp/0817632506/?tag=pfamazon01-20 Knapp has become one of my favorite authors, I really really like his style. He excels in clarity, and makes original choices of the order presentation. If you do his Basic and Advanced Real Analysis, you know everything a graduate student needs to know about analysis. Similarly for his Basic and Advanced Algebra. Indeed, that was his goal: to cover everything a mathematician, not necessarily specializing in that area, is expected to know.

These books look really interesting, since the table of contents mentions a lot of things that I would like to know more about. I just have to say that it seems really weird to use the term "real analysis" in the title. Why not just "analysis"? I wouldn't even have looked inside it if you hadn't recommended it, because the title would have made me think it's just an alternative to baby Rudin.

 

[Landau]

Because it is mainly about analysis in R^n, not e.g. complex analysis. A lot of courses have the name 'real analysis' when they are about measure and integration, even functional analysis. (I have learned not to pay too much attention to artificial names that people happen to use.)

 

[osnarf]

Would you say the scope of the basic Knapp book you described is similar to the fundamentals book by Berberian mentioned earlier? I looked at the tables of contents and they seem similar, but it's all Greek to me (for now).

 

[mathwonk]

I have not seen Tony Knapp's book except online. But from that viewing I would say the impression I got was the amazing coverage of Tony's books, whereas the salient feature of Berberian's books is that they are uniquely readable. Be your own judge, but for me there is virtually no one easier to understand than Sterling Berberian.

I will say however that Tony also did a good job at least in the treatment of Riemann Roch, of explaining why the proof is constructed as it is in the algebraic case (in his advanced algebra book). The previous poster also said explicitly that Knapp is one of his favorite authors, so probably he has learned to write more clearly than he did in his early books. I.e. I was not blown away by his elliptic curves books years ago in terms of clarity.

 

[osnarf]

It did look like Knapp's book covered more, but I wasn't sure if I was right because I was unfamiliar with a lot of the topics.

http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~aknapp/books/basic/b-real-corrections16.pdf"
From Knapp's page. I mean I've seen mistakes in books, but that's like every other page! At least they are noted so you can just go in and change them. The list was last updated in 2008. Maybe a new edition is called for??

 

[osnarf]

What did you think of the problems in these books? I plan on going to the library monday and reading a little of the first chapter in each to get a taste for them, but I was just wondering for the moment.

Or can you more or less expect all books at this level and up to have good enlightening problems?

 

[Landau]

Would you say the scope of the basic Knapp book you described is similar to the fundamentals book by Berberian mentioned earlier? I looked at the tables of contents and they seem similar, but it's all Greek to me (for now).

I am not familiar with Berberians' book, but based on the table of contents, Knapp covers more (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your goals).

The previous poster also said explicitly that Knapp is one of his favorite authors, so probably he has learned to write more clearly than he did in his early books. I.e. I was not blown away by his elliptic curves books years ago in terms of clarity.

Yes, I have partly read his Basic+Advanced Real Analysis, Basic+Advanced Algebra, and (some very small parts of) Lie Groups: Beyond an Introduction. These seem to be his most recent books, so you might be right :)

What did you think of the problems in these books? I plan on going to the library monday and reading a little of the first chapter in each to get a taste for them, but I was just wondering for the moment.

Or can you more or less expect all books at this level and up to have good enlightening problems?

The exercises are certainly one of the strong points of Knapp's Real Analysis. There are a lot of them, varying in difficulty. Moreover, answers to all of them are in the back.

My advise would be to go to the library, take these two and perhaps one or two other books which seem fine, and take like half an hour to skim through them. See what writing style appeals to you, etc. After all, different people like different books.

 

[mathwonk]

in terms of coverage knapps books are certainly impressive looking. the table of contents pulls you in. you have to see if the writing lives up to that promise.

 

[profanilp]

serge lang's nalysis I ois the best book. it also introduces to nalysis in banach spaces. the analysis II by serge lang ( addision wesley ) is masterpiece. these two books take you to the frontiers rather quickly.

 

[mathwonk]

i also like lang's books. i read them long ago. I did not find Analysis II a good place to learn measure theory however. Although I did not realize it at the time, for me it was too abstract. lang uses the approach of starting with the most abstract version and then specializing down to the more elementary and concrete. much as i respect lang, this is not the best direction to learn in for many people including me. you do learn very high powered fancy conceptual stuff that is fun to know, and that many people never learn, but you do not get a good hands on feel for the basics that way, and you do not learn to calculate with examples.

if you are looking for these books, which I acquired in about 1970, they may be out of print, or may have been issued under different names in later editions. E.g. Analysis II may have been renamed Real Analysis.

the books listed today on amazon, which are possibly the same, are called Undergraduate analysis, and Real and functional analysis.

 

[mathwonk]

wow, unbelievable. here's the first book for $10!

ANALYSIS I.
Serge Lang.
Bookseller: Kubik Fine Books Ltd., ABAA
(Dayton, OH, U.S.A.)

Bookseller Rating:
Quantity Available: 1
Book Description: Addison-Wesley Publishing: 1968., 1968. Ex-library hardcover book. Various library markings else a clean tight book in very good condition. Bookseller Inventory # 98187

Bookseller & Payment Information | More Books from this Seller | Ask Bookseller a QuestionPrice: US$ 10.00
Convert Currency
Shipping: US$ 5.50
Within U.S.A.
Destination, Rates & Speeds

 

[mathwonk]

heres the second book for $34.

Analysis II
Lang, Serge A.
Bookseller: Moe's Books
(Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.)

Bookseller Rating:
Quantity Available: 1
Book Description: Addison-Wesley 196. Book Condition: Good. Good. Corners and crown and bottom of the spine slightly frayed. Spine cocked. (Binding: Hard Cover, Jacket: No Jacket). Bookseller Inventory # 1045094

Bookseller & Payment Information | More Books from this Seller | Ask Bookseller a QuestionPrice: US$ 34.00
Convert Currency
Shipping: US$ 3.99
Within U.S.A.
Destination, Rates & Speeds

 

[profanilp]

i also like lang's books. i read them long ago. I did not find Analysis II a good place to learn measure theory however. Although I did not realize it at the time, for me it was too abstract. lang uses the approach of starting with the most abstract version and then specializing down to the more elementary and concrete. much as i respect lang, this is not the best direction to learn in for many people including me. you do learn very high powered fancy conceptual stuff that is fun to know, and that many people never learn, but you do not get a good hands on feel for the basics that way, and you do not learn to calculate with examples.

if you are looking for these books, which I acquired in about 1970, they may be out of print, or may have been issued under different names in later editions. E.g. Analysis II may have been renamed Real Analysis.

the books listed today on amazon, which are possibly the same, are called Undergraduate analysis, and Real and functional analysis.

no i find analysis /II is one of the best books to learm measure theory.
measure theoy is simply a tool. in analysis II lang has elat with banch space bvalued mappings ( rathr than real valued ) and treats petis/bochner integrals. the trreatment is noit readily available elsewhere.
lots of weird examples are really unnecessary. onre just has to learn basic tools. laos this is the book where a very short treatment of vector measures is prsented. Also in thsi book hilbet space version of radon nikodym throrm is presented. the book takes you to these theorems in avery general setting with lesser efforts than walter rudin,s real and complex nalysis. also undue stuff like differentiation theory and vitali's lemma are avoided. a really grat choice! onlyin this book you can integrate banach space valued maps on topological groups.
areal masterpiece. may be read in comjunction with royden for better understanding.

 

[DeadWolfe]

I loved doing the excercises in Baby Rudin. The material covered in the text itself is really quite minimal, but I found the excercises take that limited machinery as far as it can go