TestMagic

werther · 09-25-2006, 08:07 PM

Hi, I'm sure TMians here know a lot about RA than what I know -- I am considering taking an analysis course in the future but one is taught using Rudin and the other, Royden. Can someone plese tell me the difference between the two; I understand one is more difficult than the other, but I don't know which one is which. Thanks very much.

tct · 09-26-2006, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by werther

Hi, I'm sure TMians here know a lot about RA than what I know -- I am considering taking an analysis course in the future but one is taught using Rudin and the other, Royden. Can someone plese tell me the difference between the two; I understand one is more difficult than the other, but I don't know which one is which. Thanks very much.

Which Rudin are you talking about, the baby Rudin (principles of Math analysis) or Rudin's "Real and Functional Analysis" text?
I assume that you're talking about the baby Rudin. Anyways.
Royden and baby Rudin are tough books to read if that's your first pure math course. Royden is more advanced, more abstract, and covers more of the advanced topics in subjects like measure theory or topology. Royden is usually used in a graduate level analysis course while Rudin is standard for undergraduate analysis. I'd just take this course with Rudin's book because it covers more ground in terms of subjects like elementary functions, and even this little book is impossible to cover in a one semester course. If you read Rudin cover to cover and master the subject, then you will be already be well prepared to enter a graduate economics program in terms of real analysis preparation (of course, if you also study things like optimization, statistics, etc, that'd be even better). I also think that Rudin can be handier as a reference because it covers differential calculus in R^n while Royden doesn't.

don_ny01 · 09-26-2006, 12:23 AM

If tct is true about baby Rudin, then take the one using Royden, the book is quite good especially cover some Lebegue Intergration and abstract space concepts which will be a good preparation for yr Ph.D research later on.

werther · 09-26-2006, 01:06 AM

thanks for the reply. i've checked course info and real analysis is taught using "baby" rudin.
now since i have very little background in pure math i want to take the one that is a little more user-friendly for a non-math major.. i've only taken a course on mathematical logic which covered a combination of logic, set theory, and number theory. right now i'm taking a second course in set theory, and i like it so far. that is all in terms of my familiarity with pure math. i did well in mathematical logic (A) but did terribly in calc1 & 2 (C/C+). i am a bit worried about the whole idea of attempting a real analysis course because a) i don't think i have sufficient pure math bg 2) i read in the course description that RA is a "rigorous" dev/treatment of calculus material... and i did so terribly in calculus

anyway, thanks for your advice. the reason i asked between baby rudin vs. royden was because i have an option to either take RA at my school (royden) or RA at a school right beside mine (baby rudin) and i can probably get into either courses without any difficulty..

butler blue · 09-26-2006, 01:27 AM

My recommendation would be Rudin because of your background. Maybe for someone with more background I would say to take Royden for the extra preparation/rigorousness, but I have a hard time seeing someone start their path of doing rigorous proofs with a grad level text rather than Rudin.

asquare · 09-26-2006, 01:39 AM

werther, I took real analysis using "baby Rudin," and it was sufficient mathematical background (well, combined with linear algebra) for my first year classes. I'm not doing any advanced theory, so it's possible that a deeper background would be necessary for those classes, but a "baby Rudin" analysis class gives you a good handle on the concepts and techniques that will be used in first year core classes.

And for what it's worth, I sucked at calc when I took it! Real analysis is a very, very different thing -- it's hard, because it's a whole new way of doing math, but at least you start at the beginning and you aren't "behind" or anything because you weren't super at calc. The material is new for everyone. You just have to be very, very sure that you understand each step, rather than just do something formulaically (sp).

(Oh, and do review calc at some point -- you'll do a ton of it in micro and macro, and you want to be able to work through maximizations, etc. quickly and confidently. Thomas's Calculus is a great text to use for a self-review.)

09-25-2006, 08:07 PM	#1 (permalink)
werther a ghost Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 334	Rudin vs Royden Hi, I'm sure TMians here know a lot about RA than what I know -- I am considering taking an analysis course in the future but one is taught using Rudin and the other, Royden. Can someone plese tell me the difference between the two; I understand one is more difficult than the other, but I don't know which one is which. Thanks very much.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-26-2006, 12:23 AM	#3 (permalink)
don_ny01 Eager! Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 56	If tct is true about baby Rudin, then take the one using Royden, the book is quite good especially cover some Lebegue Intergration and abstract space concepts which will be a good preparation for yr Ph.D research later on.

09-26-2006, 01:06 AM	#4 (permalink)
werther a ghost Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 334	thanks for the reply. i've checked course info and real analysis is taught using "baby" rudin. now since i have very little background in pure math i want to take the one that is a little more user-friendly for a non-math major.. i've only taken a course on mathematical logic which covered a combination of logic, set theory, and number theory. right now i'm taking a second course in set theory, and i like it so far. that is all in terms of my familiarity with pure math. i did well in mathematical logic (A) but did terribly in calc1 & 2 (C/C+). i am a bit worried about the whole idea of attempting a real analysis course because a) i don't think i have sufficient pure math bg 2) i read in the course description that RA is a "rigorous" dev/treatment of calculus material... and i did so terribly in calculus anyway, thanks for your advice. the reason i asked between baby rudin vs. royden was because i have an option to either take RA at my school (royden) or RA at a school right beside mine (baby rudin) and i can probably get into either courses without any difficulty..

09-26-2006, 01:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
butler blue Within my grasp! Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 438	My recommendation would be Rudin because of your background. Maybe for someone with more background I would say to take Royden for the extra preparation/rigorousness, but I have a hard time seeing someone start their path of doing rigorous proofs with a grad level text rather than Rudin.

09-26-2006, 01:39 AM	#6 (permalink)
asquare TestMagic Guru Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ann Arbor Posts: 1,381	werther, I took real analysis using "baby Rudin," and it was sufficient mathematical background (well, combined with linear algebra) for my first year classes. I'm not doing any advanced theory, so it's possible that a deeper background would be necessary for those classes, but a "baby Rudin" analysis class gives you a good handle on the concepts and techniques that will be used in first year core classes. And for what it's worth, I sucked at calc when I took it! Real analysis is a very, very different thing -- it's hard, because it's a whole new way of doing math, but at least you start at the beginning and you aren't "behind" or anything because you weren't super at calc. The material is new for everyone. You just have to be very, very sure that you understand each step, rather than just do something formulaically (sp). (Oh, and do review calc at some point -- you'll do a ton of it in micro and macro, and you want to be able to work through maximizations, etc. quickly and confidently. Thomas's Calculus is a great text to use for a self-review.)

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests