Timeline for A good book of functional analysis
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 2022 at 11:11 | comment | added | Chris Judge | Rudin is perhaps too terse as an introduction, but terseness makes it very valuable as a reference. I too would welcome a text by Paul Garrett. I would point out that some of the proofs in his beautiful vignettes appear to be pulled directly from Rudin... | |
| Jun 9, 2021 at 0:38 | comment | added | Calamardo | @paulgarrett Don't v.valued integrals reappear later? e.g. 10.13, 10.22-10.33, 13.35-13.38? | |
| Jul 25, 2019 at 22:50 | comment | added | Jon Bannon | @Ovi: I haven't. Maybe an MO question would be helpful? | |
| Jul 25, 2019 at 17:38 | comment | added | Ovi | @JonBannon I am curious if anything ever came of your suggestion to complie such a list? I think it would indeed be very useful :) | |
| Mar 5, 2014 at 12:10 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Aug 12, 2011 at 15:37 | comment | added | Jon Bannon | @Gerald: Right! I took my first graduate analysis course with a Rudin text. The brevity/clarity can be demoralizing. As one of my profs. always said: Rudin's book is great once you've tried everything else. Perhaps it is a better reference than a text, though... | |
| Aug 12, 2011 at 13:31 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | This is not a bad book. It is just "brief" like all of Rudin's books. At every point there is the shortest, most elegant, proof. Not necessarily the proof that the students would be likely to think of themselves. @Jon: most good books are probably like that: some people like them, others hate them. Unlike run-of-the-mill books which most people never notice. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 18:02 | comment | added | Jon Bannon | Perhaps it would be constructive to have an MO CW question asking us to construct a list of "Good mathematics books that are actually bad" together with reasons for the opinions collected. Certain books, when taken biblically by an advisor for example, can serve to dampen mathematical intuition to a criminal degree. I'm NOT saying Rudin's book has this property (I've found this book a very clear and useful reference recently). I'm not going to ask such a question because it really wouldn't be right to do so...but I'd like to have the list of answers, nevertheless! | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 16:57 | comment | added | paul garrett | @Gerald Edgar... :) If I can resolve some conflicts with publishers over keeping things on-line...! | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 16:15 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | Waiting to see the new text, FUnctional Analysis by Paul Garrett! | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 15:53 | comment | added | paul garrett | Indeed, while Rudin is useful, he treats many topics (e.g., vector-valued integrals) as merely obligatory, rather than useful (v.valued-integrals disappear after their brief sighting). Sobolev spaces are horribly shorted, and treated clumsily when they briefly appear. Quasi-completeness is ignored entirely. These are not odd, isolated topics. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 14:16 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | Maybe "an algebraist and not an analyst" wants the shortest presentation possible, so they can return to less painful topics. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 14:09 | comment | added | Mark | I don't like Rudin's book. It kinda feels like reading a grocery list to me... | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 2:45 | comment | added | Igor Rivin | Wow, I guess Rudin is THE right answer! All the more interesting since I think the book is dull as dishwater. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 2:00 | vote | accept | dan232 | ||
| Aug 9, 2011 at 1:47 | history | answered | Salvatore Siciliano | CC BY-SA 3.0 |