Could someone recommend an undergraduate maths textbook?

er, for what?

Pre calc? Trig? Derivatives and Integration? Diff eq? Linear algebra?

Well, I like Math, but I'll have to concede that Logic scores a big point in its favor by not having epsilon-delta proofs. Can't stand those.

Mathematics is a system of abstraction! ;D

>>3 oh shii--

I didn't even notice =(

I can't be nasa though, I would never convert cubic feet to cubic meters like that or whatever it was

>>2,6's voice is nasaI.

>>4

No difference. READ MORE HOFSTADLER (Did I spell that correctly?)

Since >>4 just wanted to show off by termdropping, I suggest he starts the Wikipedia article for "Epsilon-Delta proof" since there isn't one as of now yet.

You go to Mathworld for maths definitions! http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Epsilon-DeltaProof.html

Also, I only termdrop it in the sense that I'll grab any excuse to complain about how much I hate them!

http://wakachan.org/hofstadter/

For a few hours only...

indeed, a few hours only

They don't seem so bad. Am I missing something?

I suffer horribly at Math. My worst subject. It's too complicated for me. I guess because my brain isn't focused on it. =\

Analysis by Rudin.

>>Analysis by Rudin.

Seconded.

Speaking of math, did you know that there are no boring natural numbers? (A natural number is an integer greater than or equal to zero.) Here's the proof:

Assume there are boring natural numbers. Then there is a smallest boring natural number. But being the smallest makes it uniquely interesting. Contradiction. Therefore, there must not be any boring natural numbers.

>>>>Analysis by Rudin.

>>Seconded.

Thirded. I have a 2nd edition of Principles of Mathematical Analysis from the '60s which I've kept checked out of my university library for the past year.

I've heard that many modern Analysis texts skip constructing the reals altogether, and opt for axiomizing them instead, which to me kinda seems to go against the whole point of Analysis.

And epislon-delta proofs are easy, so long as you know what you're trying to prove in general (the specific definition for limits of real functions which you get taught in Calc doesn't tell you much): that for every neighbourhood Z (with some radius epsilon) of points centered at L (the limit) there's a neighbourhood Y (with some radius delta) of points centered at c (the value x approaches) such that for all values x which fall inside Y, f(x) falls inside Z.

Makes a lot more sense stated that way, I think.

> Makes a lot more sense stated that way, I think.

Funny!