It's extremely tedious and I feel like I am wasting time. Would I have been off going with a simpler book and then straight to Abbott?
Just read Foundations of Modern Analysis by Dieudonné instead of any of those meme books.
>>17074775real analysis is real homo
>>17074775If your end goal is mastering real analysis, you can reasonably skip the rest of Spivak's Calculus (3rd edition) and move to Abbott's Understanding Analysis.- Spivak: Excellent for developing rigorous mathematical thinking, but its exercises can be extremely demanding. You don't need to complete the entire book to succeed in real analysis.- Abbott: A more direct route to your goal. It focuses on real analysis: sequences, limits, continuity, differentiation, integration, and rigorous proofs.Recommended approach:1. Move to Abbott now if you already understand ordinary single-variable calculus reasonably well.2. Work through Abbott's proofs and exercises seriously rather than just reading the material.3. Return to Spivak or a simpler calculus textbook whenever you encounter gaps in your calculus knowledge.One caveat: Abbott will still be challenging if you're unfamiliar with writing mathematical proofs. Skipping Spivak won't eliminate that difficulty, but it will let you focus more directly on real analysis.Bottom line: Spivak is an excellent book, but completing it isn't a prerequisite for mastering real analysis. If it's slowing you down and making your studies unnecessarily tedious, switching to Abbott is a sensible decision, not a shortcut that compromises your education.
>>17074787>>17074775Spivak is a meme book if you use it incorrectly, but Abbott isn't a meme book at all and is very goodFoundations of Modern Analysis by Dieudonné is a dogshit book from a pedagogical standpoint, and nobody has read it. Just look at the Amazon reviews for proof.
>>17074775LMAO HE BOUGHT THE MICHAEL SPIVAK BOOKNGMI
>>17075282It's the greatest intro analysis book of time. Puts Pugh and Apostol to shame.
Spivak is a masterpiece lots of proofs though. Anyone who says it isn't is kinda dumb.
>>17074789kek
yeah
>>17074775Go for Zorich
>>17074775>Real analysisThere is no logical foundation to real analysis since it requires an axiom of infinity to be postulated. Why would you want to master something that’s built like a house of cards?
The truth is that there's no reason to waste time discussing which calculus textbook is better. Just learn from whatever text you have at hand and then move on to actual maths like Real Analysis. Btw, the book you use for mathematics literally does not matter. If it's not proof-based, then anything is fine as long as you do tons of exercises - that's where you actually learn your stuff. If it's proof-based, the book itself matters even less. You don't need a good that writes beautiful proofs - YOU are supposed to be one doing it.
do u know if hiroyuki kojima and shin togami have a calculus 2 book
>>17074792>- Spivak: Excellent for developing rigorous mathematical thinking, but its exercises can be extremely demanding.different anon but i don't feel as much a retard now. i should probably go back to it at some point.
