Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:28:53 UTC No. 16099872

Brown & Churchill

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:21:47 UTC No. 16100006

>>16099872
>Brown & Churchill
How was the experience with it?
Did you feel like you actually learned the material?
Did you feel like it was too easy, or too difficult?

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:40:55 UTC No. 16100036

>>16099815
complex analysis just felt like extended algebra and calculus to me. Legit just wtf are complex functions and how to graph em and their properties. Quite simple, and nothing too crazy with "definitions" or wtv.

Im not big on real analysis. Stephen Fisher is a nice basic introduction. Integration, Cauchy's theorem, residues, conformal mapping, etc. Although everywhere I saw them using the word "analytic" instead of "holomorphic". Idk why books do that even if they implied each other.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:45:21 UTC No. 16100044

>>16100006
"Terse" is the wrong word, but it's a short book divided into many short sections, so occasionally I felt like there wasn't much to look back to if I was stuck on an exercise. However, it's a fairly easy book that does a good job introducing things like topological notions and formal definitions for limits and derivatives to students that haven't taken real analysis yet, which sounds like what you want.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 22:22:55 UTC No. 16100097

>>16100044
>However, it's a fairly easy book that does a good job introducing things like topological notions and formal definitions for limits and derivatives to students that haven't taken real analysis yet, which sounds like what you want.

So...if I completed this book, would i meet the prerequisites to work through and understand for the most part complex analysis by Lang, because that is the main goal for me.

Basically trying to bypass real analysis, by doing complex analysis first then real analysis

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:24:42 UTC No. 16100188

>>16100097
Lang is harder and it expects you to have some familiarity with undergraduate real analysis:
>We assume that the reader has had two years of calculus, and has some acquaintance with epsilon-delta techniques. For convenience, we have recalled all the necessary lemmas we need for continuous functions on compact sets in the plane.
This makes sense, because it's intended as a graduate-level text to begin with. Brown & Churchill mostly cover the topics in the first half of Lang (at a lower level of difficulty), so I think it's a reasonable introduction to complex analysis before you start Lang, but I would advise you to also learn some real analysis somewhere inbetween. I'm not sure why you'd want to bypass real analysis as a non-engineer anyways, it's a natural foil to what you learn in complex analysis.

Anonymous at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 23:47:29 UTC No. 16100225

>>16099815
visual complex analysis by needham is great

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:42:26 UTC No. 16100630

>>16100188
>I'm not sure why you'd want to bypass real analysis as a non-engineer anyways, it's a natural foil to what you learn in complex analysis.
It's because some people have said that their first analysis course was complex analysis, as opposed to real analysis, which is what the majority of mathematicians go through first in order to learn analysis.

I'm still trying to find the book that they are referring to on amazon, it's the strangest thing. Maybe if someone wrote a complex analysis that was as good as linear algebra by axler it would work for everyone.