>>17080377
The criticisms of this introductory text you pose have been disproven by simply opening the text. What is a meme is hating Hatcher, and usually by people who have never even studied topology. Go larp somewhere else.

>>17080389
Holy fucking cope. I have taken 2 courses in Algebraic topology (not topology, Algebraic topology, I did one course on topo) and this piece of shit meme never helped me. What did help was Friedl's notes which absolutely blow the fuck these notes out of any conceivable conversation.

All your claims can be debunked simply by opening Hatcher, then opening the same topics from friedl and then seeing what proper topology looks like

>>17080398
Please note I never disagreed with the quality of Friedl's notes. However, I along with many readers of this text feel the idea that Hatcher reads like say, Rudin, is simply incorrect.

Mind you, there is not a graduate level text on earth that can be read without additional notes, which is what made me suspicious of your background. If you took a course on topoi as you say, then you would be keenly aware of how unrealistic it is to rely on the course-texts alone, and I've never had a professor recommend to use less than several texts.

Also, based, topoi comrade. You don't seem to be a larper.

>>17080408
>However, I along with many readers of this text feel the idea that Hatcher reads like say, Rudin, is simply incorrect.
Of course not. Rudin is a work of art where he does not talk bullshit, is to the point, defines everything, leaves EASY /DOABLE parts as exercises and proves the rest. To even claim hatcher is close to rudin is a mathematical sin.


I absolutely loved Rudin, infact I believe reading baby Rudin ruined my ability to study other analysis textbooks simply because Rudin fitted my taste

>Mind you, there is not a graduate level text on earth that can be read without additional notes, which is what made me suspicious of your background. If you took a course on topoi as you say, then you would be keenly aware of how unrealistic it is to rely on the course-texts alone, and I've never had a professor recommend to use less than several texts.

Strongly disagree, I feel most algebra textbooks even in graduate level are self sufficient. My problem with Hatcher is the same as I have with Artin's algebra, they both like to bullshit and chat to the point I lose touch of the mathematics. I don't know why people write these books and why these pieces of slop are so popular. Which is also why I don't like Hatcher being compared to baby Rudin. Baby Rudin is professional, to the point, proves everything leaving minor calculations to the reader and is structured like a dream. Same for Atiyah Mcdonald which despite being concise is structured well
>Also, based, topoi comrade. You don't seem to be a larper.
More of an Algebraic geometry person taking altop courses to motivate some concepts. I believe friedl should be the standard of topology education

>>17080413
>Of course not. Rudin is a work of art where he does not talk bullshit, is to the point, defines everything, leaves EASY /DOABLE parts as exercises and proves the rest. To even claim hatcher is close to rudin is a mathematical sin.

I was speaking of where Rudin chooses to not leave all the steps in of a proof as a tough-love pedagogical method. Naturally, Rudin is kind of a high bar.

>Strongly disagree, I feel most algebra textbooks even in graduate level are self sufficient.

Well, that's algebra to be fair. I have never needed additional notes for algebra texts unless they're branching into other fields.

>My problem with Hatcher is the same as I have with Artin's algebra, they both like to bullshit and chat to the point I lose touch of the mathematics. I don't know why people write these books and why these pieces of slop are so popular.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you are very analysis brained on the pedagogical side, which is starting to make me understand your grievances on some of these texts.


Personally, Hatcher was a pleasant experience for me. I'm more at home in logic, so perhaps that could be related, or perhaps not.

>>17080415
I am an algebra person desu can you elaborate a bit more on me being analysis brained on pedagogical side

>>17080416
Visualize the reason why Rudin's analysis makes you happy, and how much you hate other fields not writing like him.

>>17080419
Hmmm.

>>17080420
On second thoughts I don't like being told how to visualise, I prefer doing that myself. Infact I hate being told how to arrange the topics in my mind, I do that myself

It is fine.

>>17080421
Honestly the writing style I often prefer is quite different from my specialization, which may be the same for you.

>>17080425
Hmmm. Maybe that's why I look for rudin's style in algebra textbooks even

>>17080427
In that case, I can see why you vehemently dislike writers like Hatcher, as it reads absolutely nothing like the terse flair of the canon analysis texts.

I gotta roll for a while; I'll return to this thread in around 5 hours to check on it.

>>17080429
Maybe why I prefer Friedl's notes too as he writes everything in detail and is to the point and professional

I tried reading hatcher a few times. I didn't get far and found some of the proofs incomprehensible. However, I AM retarded.

>>17080458
>>17080421
>>17080413
No longer in math but never liked Hatcher. One of the grad students I was friends with in undergrad had an advisor who in turn was advised by Hatcher when he was still at Princeton. When Hatcher moved to Cornell according to the advisor he had started painting a room in the upstairs of his house, and when he visited Hatcher around 10 years later Hatcher was still painting it. Seems completely in character, since the text basically reads like it was written by a mathematically literate but messy stoner.

>>17080469
Also this grad student preferred J.P. May's Topology book. I didn't check it out in detail but what I saw seemed way more sane.