Talk:Walter Rudin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nicknames for his books

I've never heard "Mama Rudin" or "Papa Rudin", although "Baby Rudin" is quite common and easily verifiable. The other names sound like a joke that someone may make, and I wonder if the article creator mistook such a joke for common usage. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Google hasn't heard of Mama Rudin (excepting Wikipedia-related links), and the hits for Papa Rudin are substantially smaller than for Baby Rudin (understandable, I suppose); however, those hits for papa Rudin are for real and complex analysis, which makes a lot more sense. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

THE "BABY" AND "bIG" RUDIN BOOKS TOO OVERRATED! The books are good, but too technical and sometimes impose narrow vision. Rudin book on Principles of Mathematical analysis defines the Riemann stijelites integral with a very heavy emphasis on order theoretic definition incapable of generalization to Banach spaces valued maps. Compare and contrast with the book of Bartle R.G more readable and with broader vision. Also the same book introduces stoke's theorem in too terse a manner. Better treatment of Analyis is availble in Foundations of modern analyis by J. diuodenne a classic. one can learn better analyis for sergelang's Analyis-I and exemplary analysis-II. The imlicit function theorem is done in a lucid and succint manner but only for those who have not read the masterpiece of J. Deiuodenne Foundations of modern Analysis. The book real and complex analysis treats foundations of complex analyis in too terse a fashion leaving the laurent's theorem as an exercise! The real contribution of the book is an algorithm for winding numbers but it is not understandable. A mail was sent to the author but it has not evoked any response and surprisingly no reply from the faculty or staff of the university. Moreover the choice of the subject mater in real& complex analysis is not so good. the author has wasted pages on results which are really not that important, as is evident in the progress of the subject in last 30 years. Certainly the author does not seem to have a good vision. Compare to the classic of Alhfors or Serge lang's book on Complex analyis.

In a book dealing with abstract Mathematics( Baby rudin ) when the author uses the term complex quantity rather than complex number one feels amused. According to me The books are overrated. They are original and display great scholarship on the part of the author but not as scholarly as Lang's or dieuodenne's treatises nor as readable as goldebrg's Real analyis or Bartle's analyis and not as original as Alhfors classic. Only the people who have not browsed through Dieodenne or Lang would refer these books as the ultimate books. The above two books suffer from the notion of integral which is treated as linear functional rather than more general view which is taken for exapmle in Serge Lang's Analyis _II. The books are good as supplementary books to to scholarly texts like Serge Lang's analyiss-II or dieodenne's foundations of modern analysis or more readable and lucid Goldber's Real Analyis, R.G. Baryle's modern analyis, H'L royden's Real analyis, Titschmarch's classic theory of functions. i strongly object to training of analysis based on these books when these alternative better sources are available. May be rudin's books made their entry earlier on the scene when there was dearth of modern treatises and people were reluctant to use full general treatment offered in Dieuodene or Lang. Nevertheless the books are great scholarly acievements of human civilization! Anil.pedgaonkar 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Anil Pedgaonkar