Terence Tao–type books in other fields?Self-study Real analysis Tao or Rudin?Abstract Algebra book with exercise solutions recommendations.Books to read to understand Terence Tao's Analytic Number Theory PapersLooking for fast text-booksReferences on probability theory, stochastic processes, Monte Carlo and convex optimisation, with similar writing style to Terence TaoLinear Algebra and Analysis books recommendationCould you recommend one among these Analysis Books for self-study based on my background?What 'intermediate' or 'advanced' good set theory books are there?Best books for self study with challenging exercises and solutions?Looking for a different type of Linear Algebra book
How does Rust's 128-bit integer `i128` work on a 64-bit system?
Custom Metadata SOQL WHERE clause not working
Awk to get all my regular users in shadow
Is an "are" omitted in this sentence
Conditional probability of dependent random variables
What's "halachic" about "Esav hates Ya'akov"?
Does a humanoid possessed by a ghost register as undead to a paladin's Divine Sense?
Why wasn't interlaced CRT scanning done back and forth?
Variable doesn't parse as string
Getting an entry level IT position later in life
Why do my fried eggs start browning very fast?
A Checkmate of Dubious Legality
How is foot-pounds of energy defined?
A verb for when some rights are not violated?
What could prevent players from leaving an island?
Are valid inequalities worth the effort given modern solver preprocessing options?
Did Logical Positivism fail because it simply denied human emotion?
Is the first page of a novel really that important?
What is a term for "modern" technology that doesn't imply up-to-date?
Can I use my US callsign to transmit while in El Salvador?
How easy is it to get a gun illegally in the United States?
Is there a way to say "double + any number" in German?
Is it uncompelling to continue the story with lower stakes?
How to win against ants
Terence Tao–type books in other fields?
Self-study Real analysis Tao or Rudin?Abstract Algebra book with exercise solutions recommendations.Books to read to understand Terence Tao's Analytic Number Theory PapersLooking for fast text-booksReferences on probability theory, stochastic processes, Monte Carlo and convex optimisation, with similar writing style to Terence TaoLinear Algebra and Analysis books recommendationCould you recommend one among these Analysis Books for self-study based on my background?What 'intermediate' or 'advanced' good set theory books are there?Best books for self study with challenging exercises and solutions?Looking for a different type of Linear Algebra book
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I have looked at Tao's book on Measure Theory, and they are perhaps the best math books I have ever seen. Besides the extremely clear and motivated presentation, the main feature of the book is that there is no big list of exercises at the end of each chapter; the exercises are dispersed throughout the text, and they are actually critical in developing the theory.
Question: What are some other math books written in this style, or other authors who write in this way? I am open to any fields of math, since I will use this question in the future as a reference.
That was the question; the following is just why I think Tao's style is so great.
- When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it. There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
- Similarly, there is no bad feeling of "maybe I wasn't supposed to use this more advanced theorem for this exercise, maybe I was supposed to do it from the basic definitions but I can't". It makes everything feel "fair game"
- It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
- It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the first time
I think you can achieve a similar effect with almost any other book, if you try to prove every theorem by yourself before you read the proof and stuff like that, but at least for me there are some severe psychological barriers that prevent me from doing that. For example, if I try to prove a theorem without reading the proof, I always have the doubt that "this proof may be too hard, it would not be expected of the reader to come up with this proof". In Tao's book, the proofs are conciously left to you, so you know that you can do it, which is a big encouragement.
real-analysis abstract-algebra complex-analysis reference-request soft-question
$endgroup$
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
I have looked at Tao's book on Measure Theory, and they are perhaps the best math books I have ever seen. Besides the extremely clear and motivated presentation, the main feature of the book is that there is no big list of exercises at the end of each chapter; the exercises are dispersed throughout the text, and they are actually critical in developing the theory.
Question: What are some other math books written in this style, or other authors who write in this way? I am open to any fields of math, since I will use this question in the future as a reference.
That was the question; the following is just why I think Tao's style is so great.
- When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it. There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
- Similarly, there is no bad feeling of "maybe I wasn't supposed to use this more advanced theorem for this exercise, maybe I was supposed to do it from the basic definitions but I can't". It makes everything feel "fair game"
- It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
- It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the first time
I think you can achieve a similar effect with almost any other book, if you try to prove every theorem by yourself before you read the proof and stuff like that, but at least for me there are some severe psychological barriers that prevent me from doing that. For example, if I try to prove a theorem without reading the proof, I always have the doubt that "this proof may be too hard, it would not be expected of the reader to come up with this proof". In Tao's book, the proofs are conciously left to you, so you know that you can do it, which is a big encouragement.
real-analysis abstract-algebra complex-analysis reference-request soft-question
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I personaly would like something like this for algebraic topology. Someone knows a book in this style for this field?
$endgroup$
– Cornman
Jul 25 at 17:08
2
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Hatcher is great. If you want something at more or less the same general level of Hatcher but a bit more specific, Bott and Tu's "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" is the best-written math textbook I've come across on any subject.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Probably just analysis on manifolds, to deal with differential forms. (Hatcher deals with CW category; Bott and Tu mostly stays in the category of smooth manifolds, at least until they get into Eilenberg-MacLane spaces.) If memory serves, there's less homological algebra in Bott and Tu (for one thing, a lot of it is done over $mathbbR$); in Hatcher, you should probably be at least familiar with modules for the chapter on cohomology. For both, you should be familiar with basic undergrad point-set topology.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:14
2
$begingroup$
Also, for Hatcher: Pay careful attention to the appendix on CW-complexes. That's probably the steepest learning curve to the book, but you can dip in and out of that appendix while reading the main part of the book if you don't want to wade through it all at once. You should probably be comfortable with it by the beginning of the chapter on homology, though, and it makes the chapter on the fundamental grou p easier.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:17
6
$begingroup$
That the exercises are interspersed vs at chapter end is not necessarily a good feature, because it may give you too much of a hint as to what met methods you should apply. Later when you tackle research problems in the wild you won't have those crutches, which means you may be less well prepared than you would be using a textbook that weaned you earlier from those contrived contexts.
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jul 25 at 18:56
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
I have looked at Tao's book on Measure Theory, and they are perhaps the best math books I have ever seen. Besides the extremely clear and motivated presentation, the main feature of the book is that there is no big list of exercises at the end of each chapter; the exercises are dispersed throughout the text, and they are actually critical in developing the theory.
Question: What are some other math books written in this style, or other authors who write in this way? I am open to any fields of math, since I will use this question in the future as a reference.
That was the question; the following is just why I think Tao's style is so great.
- When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it. There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
- Similarly, there is no bad feeling of "maybe I wasn't supposed to use this more advanced theorem for this exercise, maybe I was supposed to do it from the basic definitions but I can't". It makes everything feel "fair game"
- It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
- It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the first time
I think you can achieve a similar effect with almost any other book, if you try to prove every theorem by yourself before you read the proof and stuff like that, but at least for me there are some severe psychological barriers that prevent me from doing that. For example, if I try to prove a theorem without reading the proof, I always have the doubt that "this proof may be too hard, it would not be expected of the reader to come up with this proof". In Tao's book, the proofs are conciously left to you, so you know that you can do it, which is a big encouragement.
real-analysis abstract-algebra complex-analysis reference-request soft-question
$endgroup$
I have looked at Tao's book on Measure Theory, and they are perhaps the best math books I have ever seen. Besides the extremely clear and motivated presentation, the main feature of the book is that there is no big list of exercises at the end of each chapter; the exercises are dispersed throughout the text, and they are actually critical in developing the theory.
Question: What are some other math books written in this style, or other authors who write in this way? I am open to any fields of math, since I will use this question in the future as a reference.
That was the question; the following is just why I think Tao's style is so great.
- When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it. There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
- Similarly, there is no bad feeling of "maybe I wasn't supposed to use this more advanced theorem for this exercise, maybe I was supposed to do it from the basic definitions but I can't". It makes everything feel "fair game"
- It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
- It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the first time
I think you can achieve a similar effect with almost any other book, if you try to prove every theorem by yourself before you read the proof and stuff like that, but at least for me there are some severe psychological barriers that prevent me from doing that. For example, if I try to prove a theorem without reading the proof, I always have the doubt that "this proof may be too hard, it would not be expected of the reader to come up with this proof". In Tao's book, the proofs are conciously left to you, so you know that you can do it, which is a big encouragement.
real-analysis abstract-algebra complex-analysis reference-request soft-question
real-analysis abstract-algebra complex-analysis reference-request soft-question
edited Jul 26 at 22:00
community wiki
4 revs, 2 users 100%
Ovi
1
$begingroup$
I personaly would like something like this for algebraic topology. Someone knows a book in this style for this field?
$endgroup$
– Cornman
Jul 25 at 17:08
2
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Hatcher is great. If you want something at more or less the same general level of Hatcher but a bit more specific, Bott and Tu's "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" is the best-written math textbook I've come across on any subject.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Probably just analysis on manifolds, to deal with differential forms. (Hatcher deals with CW category; Bott and Tu mostly stays in the category of smooth manifolds, at least until they get into Eilenberg-MacLane spaces.) If memory serves, there's less homological algebra in Bott and Tu (for one thing, a lot of it is done over $mathbbR$); in Hatcher, you should probably be at least familiar with modules for the chapter on cohomology. For both, you should be familiar with basic undergrad point-set topology.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:14
2
$begingroup$
Also, for Hatcher: Pay careful attention to the appendix on CW-complexes. That's probably the steepest learning curve to the book, but you can dip in and out of that appendix while reading the main part of the book if you don't want to wade through it all at once. You should probably be comfortable with it by the beginning of the chapter on homology, though, and it makes the chapter on the fundamental grou p easier.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:17
6
$begingroup$
That the exercises are interspersed vs at chapter end is not necessarily a good feature, because it may give you too much of a hint as to what met methods you should apply. Later when you tackle research problems in the wild you won't have those crutches, which means you may be less well prepared than you would be using a textbook that weaned you earlier from those contrived contexts.
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jul 25 at 18:56
|
show 6 more comments
1
$begingroup$
I personaly would like something like this for algebraic topology. Someone knows a book in this style for this field?
$endgroup$
– Cornman
Jul 25 at 17:08
2
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Hatcher is great. If you want something at more or less the same general level of Hatcher but a bit more specific, Bott and Tu's "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" is the best-written math textbook I've come across on any subject.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Probably just analysis on manifolds, to deal with differential forms. (Hatcher deals with CW category; Bott and Tu mostly stays in the category of smooth manifolds, at least until they get into Eilenberg-MacLane spaces.) If memory serves, there's less homological algebra in Bott and Tu (for one thing, a lot of it is done over $mathbbR$); in Hatcher, you should probably be at least familiar with modules for the chapter on cohomology. For both, you should be familiar with basic undergrad point-set topology.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:14
2
$begingroup$
Also, for Hatcher: Pay careful attention to the appendix on CW-complexes. That's probably the steepest learning curve to the book, but you can dip in and out of that appendix while reading the main part of the book if you don't want to wade through it all at once. You should probably be comfortable with it by the beginning of the chapter on homology, though, and it makes the chapter on the fundamental grou p easier.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:17
6
$begingroup$
That the exercises are interspersed vs at chapter end is not necessarily a good feature, because it may give you too much of a hint as to what met methods you should apply. Later when you tackle research problems in the wild you won't have those crutches, which means you may be less well prepared than you would be using a textbook that weaned you earlier from those contrived contexts.
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jul 25 at 18:56
1
1
$begingroup$
I personaly would like something like this for algebraic topology. Someone knows a book in this style for this field?
$endgroup$
– Cornman
Jul 25 at 17:08
$begingroup$
I personaly would like something like this for algebraic topology. Someone knows a book in this style for this field?
$endgroup$
– Cornman
Jul 25 at 17:08
2
2
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Hatcher is great. If you want something at more or less the same general level of Hatcher but a bit more specific, Bott and Tu's "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" is the best-written math textbook I've come across on any subject.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Hatcher is great. If you want something at more or less the same general level of Hatcher but a bit more specific, Bott and Tu's "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" is the best-written math textbook I've come across on any subject.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 17:15
1
1
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Probably just analysis on manifolds, to deal with differential forms. (Hatcher deals with CW category; Bott and Tu mostly stays in the category of smooth manifolds, at least until they get into Eilenberg-MacLane spaces.) If memory serves, there's less homological algebra in Bott and Tu (for one thing, a lot of it is done over $mathbbR$); in Hatcher, you should probably be at least familiar with modules for the chapter on cohomology. For both, you should be familiar with basic undergrad point-set topology.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:14
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Probably just analysis on manifolds, to deal with differential forms. (Hatcher deals with CW category; Bott and Tu mostly stays in the category of smooth manifolds, at least until they get into Eilenberg-MacLane spaces.) If memory serves, there's less homological algebra in Bott and Tu (for one thing, a lot of it is done over $mathbbR$); in Hatcher, you should probably be at least familiar with modules for the chapter on cohomology. For both, you should be familiar with basic undergrad point-set topology.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:14
2
2
$begingroup$
Also, for Hatcher: Pay careful attention to the appendix on CW-complexes. That's probably the steepest learning curve to the book, but you can dip in and out of that appendix while reading the main part of the book if you don't want to wade through it all at once. You should probably be comfortable with it by the beginning of the chapter on homology, though, and it makes the chapter on the fundamental grou p easier.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:17
$begingroup$
Also, for Hatcher: Pay careful attention to the appendix on CW-complexes. That's probably the steepest learning curve to the book, but you can dip in and out of that appendix while reading the main part of the book if you don't want to wade through it all at once. You should probably be comfortable with it by the beginning of the chapter on homology, though, and it makes the chapter on the fundamental grou p easier.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:17
6
6
$begingroup$
That the exercises are interspersed vs at chapter end is not necessarily a good feature, because it may give you too much of a hint as to what met methods you should apply. Later when you tackle research problems in the wild you won't have those crutches, which means you may be less well prepared than you would be using a textbook that weaned you earlier from those contrived contexts.
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jul 25 at 18:56
$begingroup$
That the exercises are interspersed vs at chapter end is not necessarily a good feature, because it may give you too much of a hint as to what met methods you should apply. Later when you tackle research problems in the wild you won't have those crutches, which means you may be less well prepared than you would be using a textbook that weaned you earlier from those contrived contexts.
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jul 25 at 18:56
|
show 6 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Vakil's notes on Algebraic Geometry http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGnov1817public.pdf are written in the same style. A nice contrast to the terse, traditional nature of the standard reference, Hartshorne https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387902449
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
Ah, the youth of today. Hartshorne was written in a (what was considered 40 years ago to be a ) breezy informal style in contrast to the (what was considered terse and traditional nature) of EGA ! I remember how excited I was to receive from Berkeley the typo version of his book in 1977.
$endgroup$
– aginensky
Jul 26 at 18:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know the OP probably knows this but for undergraduates, there are Analysis I and Analysis II by Terence Tao which follow the exact same style as mentioned in the question. The book is self-sufficient and Tao provides all the necessary background needed to solve the exercises. Some sample chapters can be found freely here.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yup; and these books contain some material which I haven't seen anywhere else, for example, the construction of the real numbers starts from the natural numbers. It also talks about "the axiom of equality" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jul 26 at 12:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ovi He mentions 4 axioms if equality in the appendix on mathematical logic. In no other analysis books, I've seen such a fantastic exposition of construction of real numbers using Cauchy sequences starting from construction of natural numbers using Peano axioms. What's surprising is that the book is accessible by anyone who has completed high-school. Also, this is the only book in my knowledge (except Zorich) which discusses axiomatic set theory. The book is a gem in my opinion. I would love Tao writing other books as well, say converting his notes on Linear Algebra.
$endgroup$
– Apoorv Potnis
Jul 26 at 13:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One such example, for functional analysis, is Lax's book, "Functional Analysis." It's a very-received and commonly-used textbook (see https://mathoverflow.net/questions/72419/a-good-book-of-functional-analysis), and it leaves many results to exercises as you read along, similar to Tao's style.
Another example, although to a lesser extent, is Abbott's introductory real analysis book "Understanding Analysis." This is a very good book with in-depth explanations and visuals. The author leaves plenty of results to exercises, and in some sections, has you construct many of the tools yourself through guided exercises (such as the sections on double sums and Fourier series).
An additional textbook that has lots of discussion and illustration, while leaving a fair amount of results to the reader, is John Lee's "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds," which is one of the standard texts on the subject for graduate students. Although Lee is more proactive in proving results than Tao in most of his books, I'd say this still fits the description, at though to a lesser extent.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure about your mathematical background, but you can try "How to Prove It". I am currently studying this book myself. As someone with no formal mathematical education, and someone who had been really terrified of mathematical proofs before, I think this book is exteremely well written.
Excerpt from the book's introduction:
The book begins with the basic concepts of logic and set theory, to
familiarize students with the language of mathematics and how it is
interpreted. These concepts are used as the basis for a step-by-step
breakdown of the most important techniques used in constructing
proofs. The author shows how complex proofs are built up from these
smaller steps, using detailed 'scratch work' sections to expose the
machinery of proofs about the natural numbers, relations, functions,
and infinite sets.
I believe it may be suitable for you, because:
When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it.
There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read
enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
As I've just pointed out, I don't have mathematical background, or put it bluntly, I'm quite bad at math. However, even for me, it is extremely easy to follow everything author says.
It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
Indeed it is. Besides having plenty of exercises after each chapter, there are a lot of them scattered within each chapter. Unless you devote you time and energy and solve each exercise yourself, I believe it will be pretty hard to follow anything.
It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if
you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the
first time
As you can see from the name of the book, the author's aim is teach students how to prove things. And, when trying to prove something yourself, you will definitely need to use your own reasoning and develop your own approaches to the problem.
You can check out the book here
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’ve had a very good experience with Marcus’s Number Fields. I haven’t been through the entire book, but the first few chapters definitely follow the style you’ve outlined. Particularly, it is quite difficult to read it passively. Many important results are relegated to exercises, but they were introduced in such a way that I always felt the solutions were within my reach.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I recommend the following books, which are similar to Tao's books in that their exercises are very well planned out and form an integral part of the text itself.
- Pinter, "A Book of Abstract Algebra"
- Fong & Spivak 2017, "Seven Sketches in Compositionality:. An Introduction to Applied Category Theory"
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Marian Fecko: Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists
is written in such a style. As you read the book you develop the theory by solving exercises scattered throughout the text. I hope you count mathematical physics as other field of math (the book is mostly math though).
The author has two chapters on his webpage so you can check the style if that is what you are looking for: Chapter 2 and Chapter 15
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Convex Optimization. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Cambridge University Press.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3303829%2fterence-tao-type-books-in-other-fields%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Vakil's notes on Algebraic Geometry http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGnov1817public.pdf are written in the same style. A nice contrast to the terse, traditional nature of the standard reference, Hartshorne https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387902449
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
Ah, the youth of today. Hartshorne was written in a (what was considered 40 years ago to be a ) breezy informal style in contrast to the (what was considered terse and traditional nature) of EGA ! I remember how excited I was to receive from Berkeley the typo version of his book in 1977.
$endgroup$
– aginensky
Jul 26 at 18:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Vakil's notes on Algebraic Geometry http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGnov1817public.pdf are written in the same style. A nice contrast to the terse, traditional nature of the standard reference, Hartshorne https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387902449
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
Ah, the youth of today. Hartshorne was written in a (what was considered 40 years ago to be a ) breezy informal style in contrast to the (what was considered terse and traditional nature) of EGA ! I remember how excited I was to receive from Berkeley the typo version of his book in 1977.
$endgroup$
– aginensky
Jul 26 at 18:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Vakil's notes on Algebraic Geometry http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGnov1817public.pdf are written in the same style. A nice contrast to the terse, traditional nature of the standard reference, Hartshorne https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387902449
$endgroup$
Vakil's notes on Algebraic Geometry http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/FOAGnov1817public.pdf are written in the same style. A nice contrast to the terse, traditional nature of the standard reference, Hartshorne https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387902449
answered Jul 25 at 16:42
community wiki
bounceback
8
$begingroup$
Ah, the youth of today. Hartshorne was written in a (what was considered 40 years ago to be a ) breezy informal style in contrast to the (what was considered terse and traditional nature) of EGA ! I remember how excited I was to receive from Berkeley the typo version of his book in 1977.
$endgroup$
– aginensky
Jul 26 at 18:57
add a comment |
8
$begingroup$
Ah, the youth of today. Hartshorne was written in a (what was considered 40 years ago to be a ) breezy informal style in contrast to the (what was considered terse and traditional nature) of EGA ! I remember how excited I was to receive from Berkeley the typo version of his book in 1977.
$endgroup$
– aginensky
Jul 26 at 18:57
8
8
$begingroup$
Ah, the youth of today. Hartshorne was written in a (what was considered 40 years ago to be a ) breezy informal style in contrast to the (what was considered terse and traditional nature) of EGA ! I remember how excited I was to receive from Berkeley the typo version of his book in 1977.
$endgroup$
– aginensky
Jul 26 at 18:57
$begingroup$
Ah, the youth of today. Hartshorne was written in a (what was considered 40 years ago to be a ) breezy informal style in contrast to the (what was considered terse and traditional nature) of EGA ! I remember how excited I was to receive from Berkeley the typo version of his book in 1977.
$endgroup$
– aginensky
Jul 26 at 18:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know the OP probably knows this but for undergraduates, there are Analysis I and Analysis II by Terence Tao which follow the exact same style as mentioned in the question. The book is self-sufficient and Tao provides all the necessary background needed to solve the exercises. Some sample chapters can be found freely here.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yup; and these books contain some material which I haven't seen anywhere else, for example, the construction of the real numbers starts from the natural numbers. It also talks about "the axiom of equality" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jul 26 at 12:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ovi He mentions 4 axioms if equality in the appendix on mathematical logic. In no other analysis books, I've seen such a fantastic exposition of construction of real numbers using Cauchy sequences starting from construction of natural numbers using Peano axioms. What's surprising is that the book is accessible by anyone who has completed high-school. Also, this is the only book in my knowledge (except Zorich) which discusses axiomatic set theory. The book is a gem in my opinion. I would love Tao writing other books as well, say converting his notes on Linear Algebra.
$endgroup$
– Apoorv Potnis
Jul 26 at 13:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know the OP probably knows this but for undergraduates, there are Analysis I and Analysis II by Terence Tao which follow the exact same style as mentioned in the question. The book is self-sufficient and Tao provides all the necessary background needed to solve the exercises. Some sample chapters can be found freely here.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Yup; and these books contain some material which I haven't seen anywhere else, for example, the construction of the real numbers starts from the natural numbers. It also talks about "the axiom of equality" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jul 26 at 12:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ovi He mentions 4 axioms if equality in the appendix on mathematical logic. In no other analysis books, I've seen such a fantastic exposition of construction of real numbers using Cauchy sequences starting from construction of natural numbers using Peano axioms. What's surprising is that the book is accessible by anyone who has completed high-school. Also, this is the only book in my knowledge (except Zorich) which discusses axiomatic set theory. The book is a gem in my opinion. I would love Tao writing other books as well, say converting his notes on Linear Algebra.
$endgroup$
– Apoorv Potnis
Jul 26 at 13:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I know the OP probably knows this but for undergraduates, there are Analysis I and Analysis II by Terence Tao which follow the exact same style as mentioned in the question. The book is self-sufficient and Tao provides all the necessary background needed to solve the exercises. Some sample chapters can be found freely here.
$endgroup$
I know the OP probably knows this but for undergraduates, there are Analysis I and Analysis II by Terence Tao which follow the exact same style as mentioned in the question. The book is self-sufficient and Tao provides all the necessary background needed to solve the exercises. Some sample chapters can be found freely here.
answered Jul 26 at 5:55
community wiki
Apoorv Potnis
1
$begingroup$
Yup; and these books contain some material which I haven't seen anywhere else, for example, the construction of the real numbers starts from the natural numbers. It also talks about "the axiom of equality" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jul 26 at 12:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ovi He mentions 4 axioms if equality in the appendix on mathematical logic. In no other analysis books, I've seen such a fantastic exposition of construction of real numbers using Cauchy sequences starting from construction of natural numbers using Peano axioms. What's surprising is that the book is accessible by anyone who has completed high-school. Also, this is the only book in my knowledge (except Zorich) which discusses axiomatic set theory. The book is a gem in my opinion. I would love Tao writing other books as well, say converting his notes on Linear Algebra.
$endgroup$
– Apoorv Potnis
Jul 26 at 13:37
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Yup; and these books contain some material which I haven't seen anywhere else, for example, the construction of the real numbers starts from the natural numbers. It also talks about "the axiom of equality" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jul 26 at 12:59
1
$begingroup$
@Ovi He mentions 4 axioms if equality in the appendix on mathematical logic. In no other analysis books, I've seen such a fantastic exposition of construction of real numbers using Cauchy sequences starting from construction of natural numbers using Peano axioms. What's surprising is that the book is accessible by anyone who has completed high-school. Also, this is the only book in my knowledge (except Zorich) which discusses axiomatic set theory. The book is a gem in my opinion. I would love Tao writing other books as well, say converting his notes on Linear Algebra.
$endgroup$
– Apoorv Potnis
Jul 26 at 13:37
1
1
$begingroup$
Yup; and these books contain some material which I haven't seen anywhere else, for example, the construction of the real numbers starts from the natural numbers. It also talks about "the axiom of equality" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jul 26 at 12:59
$begingroup$
Yup; and these books contain some material which I haven't seen anywhere else, for example, the construction of the real numbers starts from the natural numbers. It also talks about "the axiom of equality" or something like that.
$endgroup$
– Ovi
Jul 26 at 12:59
1
1
$begingroup$
@Ovi He mentions 4 axioms if equality in the appendix on mathematical logic. In no other analysis books, I've seen such a fantastic exposition of construction of real numbers using Cauchy sequences starting from construction of natural numbers using Peano axioms. What's surprising is that the book is accessible by anyone who has completed high-school. Also, this is the only book in my knowledge (except Zorich) which discusses axiomatic set theory. The book is a gem in my opinion. I would love Tao writing other books as well, say converting his notes on Linear Algebra.
$endgroup$
– Apoorv Potnis
Jul 26 at 13:37
$begingroup$
@Ovi He mentions 4 axioms if equality in the appendix on mathematical logic. In no other analysis books, I've seen such a fantastic exposition of construction of real numbers using Cauchy sequences starting from construction of natural numbers using Peano axioms. What's surprising is that the book is accessible by anyone who has completed high-school. Also, this is the only book in my knowledge (except Zorich) which discusses axiomatic set theory. The book is a gem in my opinion. I would love Tao writing other books as well, say converting his notes on Linear Algebra.
$endgroup$
– Apoorv Potnis
Jul 26 at 13:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One such example, for functional analysis, is Lax's book, "Functional Analysis." It's a very-received and commonly-used textbook (see https://mathoverflow.net/questions/72419/a-good-book-of-functional-analysis), and it leaves many results to exercises as you read along, similar to Tao's style.
Another example, although to a lesser extent, is Abbott's introductory real analysis book "Understanding Analysis." This is a very good book with in-depth explanations and visuals. The author leaves plenty of results to exercises, and in some sections, has you construct many of the tools yourself through guided exercises (such as the sections on double sums and Fourier series).
An additional textbook that has lots of discussion and illustration, while leaving a fair amount of results to the reader, is John Lee's "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds," which is one of the standard texts on the subject for graduate students. Although Lee is more proactive in proving results than Tao in most of his books, I'd say this still fits the description, at though to a lesser extent.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One such example, for functional analysis, is Lax's book, "Functional Analysis." It's a very-received and commonly-used textbook (see https://mathoverflow.net/questions/72419/a-good-book-of-functional-analysis), and it leaves many results to exercises as you read along, similar to Tao's style.
Another example, although to a lesser extent, is Abbott's introductory real analysis book "Understanding Analysis." This is a very good book with in-depth explanations and visuals. The author leaves plenty of results to exercises, and in some sections, has you construct many of the tools yourself through guided exercises (such as the sections on double sums and Fourier series).
An additional textbook that has lots of discussion and illustration, while leaving a fair amount of results to the reader, is John Lee's "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds," which is one of the standard texts on the subject for graduate students. Although Lee is more proactive in proving results than Tao in most of his books, I'd say this still fits the description, at though to a lesser extent.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One such example, for functional analysis, is Lax's book, "Functional Analysis." It's a very-received and commonly-used textbook (see https://mathoverflow.net/questions/72419/a-good-book-of-functional-analysis), and it leaves many results to exercises as you read along, similar to Tao's style.
Another example, although to a lesser extent, is Abbott's introductory real analysis book "Understanding Analysis." This is a very good book with in-depth explanations and visuals. The author leaves plenty of results to exercises, and in some sections, has you construct many of the tools yourself through guided exercises (such as the sections on double sums and Fourier series).
An additional textbook that has lots of discussion and illustration, while leaving a fair amount of results to the reader, is John Lee's "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds," which is one of the standard texts on the subject for graduate students. Although Lee is more proactive in proving results than Tao in most of his books, I'd say this still fits the description, at though to a lesser extent.
$endgroup$
One such example, for functional analysis, is Lax's book, "Functional Analysis." It's a very-received and commonly-used textbook (see https://mathoverflow.net/questions/72419/a-good-book-of-functional-analysis), and it leaves many results to exercises as you read along, similar to Tao's style.
Another example, although to a lesser extent, is Abbott's introductory real analysis book "Understanding Analysis." This is a very good book with in-depth explanations and visuals. The author leaves plenty of results to exercises, and in some sections, has you construct many of the tools yourself through guided exercises (such as the sections on double sums and Fourier series).
An additional textbook that has lots of discussion and illustration, while leaving a fair amount of results to the reader, is John Lee's "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds," which is one of the standard texts on the subject for graduate students. Although Lee is more proactive in proving results than Tao in most of his books, I'd say this still fits the description, at though to a lesser extent.
edited Jul 26 at 21:32
community wiki
4 revs
cmk
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure about your mathematical background, but you can try "How to Prove It". I am currently studying this book myself. As someone with no formal mathematical education, and someone who had been really terrified of mathematical proofs before, I think this book is exteremely well written.
Excerpt from the book's introduction:
The book begins with the basic concepts of logic and set theory, to
familiarize students with the language of mathematics and how it is
interpreted. These concepts are used as the basis for a step-by-step
breakdown of the most important techniques used in constructing
proofs. The author shows how complex proofs are built up from these
smaller steps, using detailed 'scratch work' sections to expose the
machinery of proofs about the natural numbers, relations, functions,
and infinite sets.
I believe it may be suitable for you, because:
When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it.
There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read
enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
As I've just pointed out, I don't have mathematical background, or put it bluntly, I'm quite bad at math. However, even for me, it is extremely easy to follow everything author says.
It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
Indeed it is. Besides having plenty of exercises after each chapter, there are a lot of them scattered within each chapter. Unless you devote you time and energy and solve each exercise yourself, I believe it will be pretty hard to follow anything.
It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if
you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the
first time
As you can see from the name of the book, the author's aim is teach students how to prove things. And, when trying to prove something yourself, you will definitely need to use your own reasoning and develop your own approaches to the problem.
You can check out the book here
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure about your mathematical background, but you can try "How to Prove It". I am currently studying this book myself. As someone with no formal mathematical education, and someone who had been really terrified of mathematical proofs before, I think this book is exteremely well written.
Excerpt from the book's introduction:
The book begins with the basic concepts of logic and set theory, to
familiarize students with the language of mathematics and how it is
interpreted. These concepts are used as the basis for a step-by-step
breakdown of the most important techniques used in constructing
proofs. The author shows how complex proofs are built up from these
smaller steps, using detailed 'scratch work' sections to expose the
machinery of proofs about the natural numbers, relations, functions,
and infinite sets.
I believe it may be suitable for you, because:
When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it.
There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read
enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
As I've just pointed out, I don't have mathematical background, or put it bluntly, I'm quite bad at math. However, even for me, it is extremely easy to follow everything author says.
It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
Indeed it is. Besides having plenty of exercises after each chapter, there are a lot of them scattered within each chapter. Unless you devote you time and energy and solve each exercise yourself, I believe it will be pretty hard to follow anything.
It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if
you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the
first time
As you can see from the name of the book, the author's aim is teach students how to prove things. And, when trying to prove something yourself, you will definitely need to use your own reasoning and develop your own approaches to the problem.
You can check out the book here
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure about your mathematical background, but you can try "How to Prove It". I am currently studying this book myself. As someone with no formal mathematical education, and someone who had been really terrified of mathematical proofs before, I think this book is exteremely well written.
Excerpt from the book's introduction:
The book begins with the basic concepts of logic and set theory, to
familiarize students with the language of mathematics and how it is
interpreted. These concepts are used as the basis for a step-by-step
breakdown of the most important techniques used in constructing
proofs. The author shows how complex proofs are built up from these
smaller steps, using detailed 'scratch work' sections to expose the
machinery of proofs about the natural numbers, relations, functions,
and infinite sets.
I believe it may be suitable for you, because:
When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it.
There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read
enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
As I've just pointed out, I don't have mathematical background, or put it bluntly, I'm quite bad at math. However, even for me, it is extremely easy to follow everything author says.
It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
Indeed it is. Besides having plenty of exercises after each chapter, there are a lot of them scattered within each chapter. Unless you devote you time and energy and solve each exercise yourself, I believe it will be pretty hard to follow anything.
It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if
you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the
first time
As you can see from the name of the book, the author's aim is teach students how to prove things. And, when trying to prove something yourself, you will definitely need to use your own reasoning and develop your own approaches to the problem.
You can check out the book here
$endgroup$
I am not sure about your mathematical background, but you can try "How to Prove It". I am currently studying this book myself. As someone with no formal mathematical education, and someone who had been really terrified of mathematical proofs before, I think this book is exteremely well written.
Excerpt from the book's introduction:
The book begins with the basic concepts of logic and set theory, to
familiarize students with the language of mathematics and how it is
interpreted. These concepts are used as the basis for a step-by-step
breakdown of the most important techniques used in constructing
proofs. The author shows how complex proofs are built up from these
smaller steps, using detailed 'scratch work' sections to expose the
machinery of proofs about the natural numbers, relations, functions,
and infinite sets.
I believe it may be suitable for you, because:
When you come to an exercise, you know that you are ready for it.
There is no doubt in the back of your mind that "maybe I haven't read
enough of the chapter to solve this exercise"
As I've just pointed out, I don't have mathematical background, or put it bluntly, I'm quite bad at math. However, even for me, it is extremely easy to follow everything author says.
It makes it difficult to be a passive reader
Indeed it is. Besides having plenty of exercises after each chapter, there are a lot of them scattered within each chapter. Unless you devote you time and energy and solve each exercise yourself, I believe it will be pretty hard to follow anything.
It makes you become invested in the development of the theory, as if
you are living back in 1900 and trying to develop this stuff for the
first time
As you can see from the name of the book, the author's aim is teach students how to prove things. And, when trying to prove something yourself, you will definitely need to use your own reasoning and develop your own approaches to the problem.
You can check out the book here
answered Jul 25 at 16:58
community wiki
Nelver
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’ve had a very good experience with Marcus’s Number Fields. I haven’t been through the entire book, but the first few chapters definitely follow the style you’ve outlined. Particularly, it is quite difficult to read it passively. Many important results are relegated to exercises, but they were introduced in such a way that I always felt the solutions were within my reach.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’ve had a very good experience with Marcus’s Number Fields. I haven’t been through the entire book, but the first few chapters definitely follow the style you’ve outlined. Particularly, it is quite difficult to read it passively. Many important results are relegated to exercises, but they were introduced in such a way that I always felt the solutions were within my reach.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’ve had a very good experience with Marcus’s Number Fields. I haven’t been through the entire book, but the first few chapters definitely follow the style you’ve outlined. Particularly, it is quite difficult to read it passively. Many important results are relegated to exercises, but they were introduced in such a way that I always felt the solutions were within my reach.
$endgroup$
I’ve had a very good experience with Marcus’s Number Fields. I haven’t been through the entire book, but the first few chapters definitely follow the style you’ve outlined. Particularly, it is quite difficult to read it passively. Many important results are relegated to exercises, but they were introduced in such a way that I always felt the solutions were within my reach.
answered Jul 26 at 2:25
community wiki
wgrenard
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I recommend the following books, which are similar to Tao's books in that their exercises are very well planned out and form an integral part of the text itself.
- Pinter, "A Book of Abstract Algebra"
- Fong & Spivak 2017, "Seven Sketches in Compositionality:. An Introduction to Applied Category Theory"
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I recommend the following books, which are similar to Tao's books in that their exercises are very well planned out and form an integral part of the text itself.
- Pinter, "A Book of Abstract Algebra"
- Fong & Spivak 2017, "Seven Sketches in Compositionality:. An Introduction to Applied Category Theory"
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I recommend the following books, which are similar to Tao's books in that their exercises are very well planned out and form an integral part of the text itself.
- Pinter, "A Book of Abstract Algebra"
- Fong & Spivak 2017, "Seven Sketches in Compositionality:. An Introduction to Applied Category Theory"
$endgroup$
I recommend the following books, which are similar to Tao's books in that their exercises are very well planned out and form an integral part of the text itself.
- Pinter, "A Book of Abstract Algebra"
- Fong & Spivak 2017, "Seven Sketches in Compositionality:. An Introduction to Applied Category Theory"
answered Jul 25 at 17:23
community wiki
Ben Bray
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Marian Fecko: Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists
is written in such a style. As you read the book you develop the theory by solving exercises scattered throughout the text. I hope you count mathematical physics as other field of math (the book is mostly math though).
The author has two chapters on his webpage so you can check the style if that is what you are looking for: Chapter 2 and Chapter 15
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Marian Fecko: Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists
is written in such a style. As you read the book you develop the theory by solving exercises scattered throughout the text. I hope you count mathematical physics as other field of math (the book is mostly math though).
The author has two chapters on his webpage so you can check the style if that is what you are looking for: Chapter 2 and Chapter 15
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Marian Fecko: Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists
is written in such a style. As you read the book you develop the theory by solving exercises scattered throughout the text. I hope you count mathematical physics as other field of math (the book is mostly math though).
The author has two chapters on his webpage so you can check the style if that is what you are looking for: Chapter 2 and Chapter 15
$endgroup$
Marian Fecko: Differential Geometry and Lie Groups for Physicists
is written in such a style. As you read the book you develop the theory by solving exercises scattered throughout the text. I hope you count mathematical physics as other field of math (the book is mostly math though).
The author has two chapters on his webpage so you can check the style if that is what you are looking for: Chapter 2 and Chapter 15
answered Jul 30 at 9:15
community wiki
LukasK
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Convex Optimization. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Cambridge University Press.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Convex Optimization. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Cambridge University Press.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Convex Optimization. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Cambridge University Press.
$endgroup$
Convex Optimization. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Cambridge University Press.
answered Aug 1 at 19:19
community wiki
kaka
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3303829%2fterence-tao-type-books-in-other-fields%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I personaly would like something like this for algebraic topology. Someone knows a book in this style for this field?
$endgroup$
– Cornman
Jul 25 at 17:08
2
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Hatcher is great. If you want something at more or less the same general level of Hatcher but a bit more specific, Bott and Tu's "Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology" is the best-written math textbook I've come across on any subject.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
@Cornman: Probably just analysis on manifolds, to deal with differential forms. (Hatcher deals with CW category; Bott and Tu mostly stays in the category of smooth manifolds, at least until they get into Eilenberg-MacLane spaces.) If memory serves, there's less homological algebra in Bott and Tu (for one thing, a lot of it is done over $mathbbR$); in Hatcher, you should probably be at least familiar with modules for the chapter on cohomology. For both, you should be familiar with basic undergrad point-set topology.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:14
2
$begingroup$
Also, for Hatcher: Pay careful attention to the appendix on CW-complexes. That's probably the steepest learning curve to the book, but you can dip in and out of that appendix while reading the main part of the book if you don't want to wade through it all at once. You should probably be comfortable with it by the beginning of the chapter on homology, though, and it makes the chapter on the fundamental grou p easier.
$endgroup$
– anomaly
Jul 25 at 18:17
6
$begingroup$
That the exercises are interspersed vs at chapter end is not necessarily a good feature, because it may give you too much of a hint as to what met methods you should apply. Later when you tackle research problems in the wild you won't have those crutches, which means you may be less well prepared than you would be using a textbook that weaned you earlier from those contrived contexts.
$endgroup$
– Bill Dubuque
Jul 25 at 18:56