Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#51
post #40

Part I One way and another, I got a good background in real analysis . So, okay, I'll try to answer: An answer depends on what is meant by real analysis . Part of the answer is advanced calculus, and part of that is the Gauss, Green, and Stokes theorems. If do these the modern and high end ways, then get as deep as like, and spend as much time as like, in differential geometry, calculus on manifolds, differential for…

Part II

Starting there, as you go on in real analysis, you will place much less emphasis on continuity. The main work will replacing the Riemann integral by something that does much better on the edge or pathological cases.

Well, the Riemann integral was, right, a lot about area. Well, it's actually not a really good theory of area -- doesn't have all the nice properties we would wish for. So, that view of area gets polished up and replaced by measure theory. Next, that theory of area is used to define the Lebesgue integral, which is much nicer than the Riemann integral, e.g., gets rid of the assumptions of a compact set and continuity.

Lebesgue was a student of E. Borel and did his work near 1900. You will see the Heine-Borel theorem in Baby Rudin.

In simplest terms, the Lebesgue idea is to partition on the Y axis instead of the X axis like the Riemann integral does. Just why that works so well is cute. It also frees up the domain of the function to be much more general, and in 1933 A. Kolmogorov used that fact, finally, to give a good foundation for probability theory, the one accepted now in essentially all advanced work in probability, stochastic processes, and mathematical statistics.

Likely the nicest book to read on real analysis is H. Royden, Real Analysis. But also, later, read the first, real half of W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis.

Note: For real analysis, complex valued functions of a real variable are important; functions of a complex variable are quite different and not important; Rudin has some deep reasons to disagree with me. Rudin is no doubt correct; for students trying to learn, I'm correct!

Once you have the main ideas in mind, and maybe what I've given here will be enough, Rudin is more succinct and nicer to read than Royden. But read them both, Royden first. Go through Royden quickly since will do it all again in Rudin.

In Royden, notice his Littlewood's Three Principles as a cute view of what is going on in measure theory and the Lebesgue integral. Royden also has some exercises on upper and lower semi-continuity -- glance at those and get the main idea for the remaining connection with continuity. Notice the nice treatment of differentiation -- the connection between integration and differentiation is weaker for the Lebesgue integral because the integral is so much more general. Then notice the Carathéodory extension result -- that is the key to defining measures on the real line, in particular, Lebesgue measure.

Spend at least a weekend in

John C.\ Oxtoby, {\it Measure and Category:\ \ A Survey of the Analogies between Topological and Measure Spaces,\/} ISBN 3-540-05349-2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.\ \

An amazing weekend.

Keep at hand

Bernard R.\ Gelbaum and John M.\ H.\ Olmsted, {\it Counterexamples in Analysis,\/} Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1964.\ \

Notice that for the Lebesgue integral, there is one, central proof technique in just four steps: Prove the theorem for a function that is just a positive constant defined on a set, say, just a box. By linearity, generalize to finite sums of such functions. Then by monotone continuity (see early on the monotone convergence theorem), prove the result for all non-negative functions. Last by linearity again, get the result for all integrable functions.

Okay, for integrable, there is a cute approach, trick: Define the integral for non-negative functions, even ones defined on the whole real line or all of R^n (for the set of real number R and a positive integer n) or an abstract measure space. Okay, easily enough, that integral can have value positive infinity (the Riemann integral gets sick here). Then do the same for a function that is all For this four step proof technique, can knock off a really nice version of Fubini's theorem, that is, interchange of order of integration.

The Lebesgue integral with the dominated convergence theorem, which will see early on, give nice versions of differentiation under the integral sign.

Note: Commonly in physics, engineering, probability theory, etc. we write integrals over the whole real line. Alas, really, for Riemann integration, the appropriate theorems are rarely presented; they are not in Baby Rudin. Really, the Lebesgue integral is needed. So, you've been needing the Lebesgue integral for a long time.

Then get to apply the Lebesgue integral to the powerful Radon-Nikodym theorem (Rudin gives von Neumann's cute proof based, amazingly, in part on just polynomials), get the main, important duality theorems (the Lebesgue integral is the main linear operator!), Banach spaces, Hilbert spaces, and the Fourier integral.

Cover that and can claim you have a good start on real analysis. You will also have apparently so far the only good background for probability, stochastic processes, and mathematical statistics. E.g., the Radon-Nikodym theorem is crucial for conditional expectation, Markov processes, martingales (amazing things with one of the strongest inequalities in math and a super short proof of the strong law of large numbers), ergodic theory, sufficiency in statistics, a quite general proof of the Neyman-Pearson result in statistical hypothesis testing, and more, e.g., the role of Brownian motion in potential theory, stochastic optimal control, ....

Go for it!

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#52

Without criticizing any other people’s recommendations on this thread, I think it’s easy for people who have been doing proof-based math for a few years to recommend books that look clear and easy to them now , without remembering the time, effort and other support (e.g. great teacher and classmates) that may have been necessary to make use of that book a good experience. Or maybe they are just way smart than me? :)…

Yes, the math of real analysis is too difficult as a way to learn to read/write proofs. The easy way is a course in abstract algebra from a good teacher who is nice enough to read and correct early homework papers in proofs. Abstract algebra is usually just darned simple, e.g., proving things learned in grade school, so is a good place to learn about proofs.

As in my posts in this thread, before real analysis should be about three books in linear algebra, and that is also likely an okay place to learn to read and write proofs -- a course in abstract algebra with a good teacher as I mentioned is easier, still.

Sadly it's a fact that the academic computer science community has too many chaired, full professors who got their education in mostly just computer science, had few or no good math theorem proving courses, in their current work try to get deep into math with theorems and proofs, but, alas, consistently make serious mistakes in notation, how to state theorems, how to write proofs, etc. I saw the same thing, sad to see, from a EE prof working hard in coding theory. It shows. Apparently a person can get competent reading and writing proofs in some early, appropriate pure math courses or not at all.

Yes, real analysis, advanced calculus, differential equations, differential geometry, mathematical statistics, stochastic processes, etc. are way too difficult as places to learn to read/write proofs. Similarly even for more advanced material in linear algebra.

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#54

Without criticizing any other people’s recommendations on this thread, I think it’s easy for people who have been doing proof-based math for a few years to recommend books that look clear and easy to them now , without remembering the time, effort and other support (e.g. great teacher and classmates) that may have been necessary to make use of that book a good experience. Or maybe they are just way smart than me? :)…

I can second the Chartrand book (I believe you mean "Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics"). I used this book in a "bridge" class and loved it; it really starts from first principles and gives you a lot of simple examples that you can build on.

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#55
post #9

Tao's Analysis I is fantastic. There's a review available from the MAA: https://www.maa.org/publications/maa-reviews/analysis-i-0 The book doesn't touch on applications. Since you're studying applied math, you might want to supplement it with something like "Calculus with Applications" by Peter Lax and Maria Terrell. On YouTube one can find lecture videos from a real analysis course given by Francis Su (former presid…

Holy cow, check out that review: don't waste your time trying to teach this to an average undergraduate math major because it "would largely amount to swine facing pearls not meant for them."

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#56
Hi, I'm a maths student in Brazil myself :) I'll answer in english, though, since I'm not sure about the HN policy on comments in foreign languages.

Can I ask you which university you're from? I'm not aware of many universities besides UFRJ which offer an "Applied Maths" degree.

About real analysis, I took the summer course in IMPA, an I used only Elon's books. I really like them (for the books themselves, not just because they're in portuguese). There are two: the thick one: "Curso de Análise", and the thin, silver one: "Análise Real" (I like to call them Elão and Elinho :)). Elão is very detailed and has lots of examples, but mentions topics which may be too specific and not covered in your course. Elinho is much more terse, and great if you need a quick summary.

I would also consider reading David Bressod's "A Radical Approach to Real Analysis". It's an awesome book, which mentions historical motivations for everything, and has a really different approach to teaching analysis (it will certainly help you learn analysis, but might not help too much in your course, since it's quite non-traditional).

If you're not used to proof techniques, I highly recommend Keith Devlin's "Introduction to Mathematical Thinking".

About strategies to studying analysis: examples. I think it's really important to work out lots of examples by hand all the time. Every time you read a definition in your textbook, whatever it is, close the book and try to think of some examples of mathematical objects which satisfy the definition. When you're done, try to think of other examples which differ significantly from the ones you came up with before. When you open your book again, if the author presents examples, read them with attention. TLDR: as the other comments have made it very clear, you shouldn't be reading an analysis book without a pencil on your hand; you should feel active, not passive, while studying analysis.

Finally, I don't know about any youtube channels that could help you with an analysis course, but you should be aware of Mathematics.StackExchange. It's a great Q&A website/community; I've asked a lot of questions there while studying for my undergrad courses.

Wish you the best in your course and you maths career :)

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#57

I wasn't a math student, but I would probably look at the OpenCourseWare from MIT if I were trying to learn this stuff. Analysis is 18.100 at MIT -- the variants are called 18.100A, 18.100B, 18.100C. There are further classes in the same vein, as well, such as 18.101. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-100a-introduction... https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-100b-analysis-i-f... https://ocw.mit.edu/cou…

I taught myself 18.100a from the book and website when I took it because class was too early in the morning and found them sufficient to make up for the missed lectures. Wonderful resources. Highly recommmend.

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#58
Don't know if anyone has suggested it here (I'd honestly be surprised if someone hasn't) but Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin, affectionatey known as "Baby Rudin" is a classic book. It's known for being relatively difficult and dense if you're just beginning with analysis, but if you go through the book and complete a fair number of exercises, it's an incredibly rewarding experience and definitely grants a ton of mathematical maturity.

Re: Ask HN: Resources to learn real analysis?

#60

Without criticizing any other people’s recommendations on this thread, I think it’s easy for people who have been doing proof-based math for a few years to recommend books that look clear and easy to them now , without remembering the time, effort and other support (e.g. great teacher and classmates) that may have been necessary to make use of that book a good experience. Or maybe they are just way smart than me? :)…

+1 for "Understanding Analysis." Great book.
Post reply on HN