This is the book we use for my Linear Algebra 2 course, and I think it is a terrible terrible book. Most of the Theorems or proofs are given in one or two lines, and many of them are missing proofs (to be done as an exercise). Believe it or not, it is a meme book with the "its trivial" and "the rest is left to the reader as an exercise". fuck no, a book should tell me all the information, then give me chances to apply my learning, not a "fill in the blanks". Also there are no answers for proofs whatsoever, and limited answers on the numerical computation. /rant
>>7656317
also its cover pisses me off with that infinitely extending L
Maths books in general have an annoying incompleteness to them. Stuff like not giving answers to exercises 'so you can't cheat' and the things mentioned in OP can really reduce their usefulness.
haha i also hate this book, i'm glad i downloaded and didn't have to pay the ~$200 CAD at the book store. I imagine it's mostly designed for teachers to base their lectures off of. But yeah, this is one of the worst text books I've encountered
I've learned computations and understand proofs through math.stackexchange for the most part
Mmmm. Well, I had this book for my advanced lin alg class. It was decent. The prof mostly did his own proofs/ modified proofs from the book in class. The chapter on Dual Spaces and forward aren't bad.
>>7656358
lol are you me haha and my prof happens to read directly from the book so its really not much help. stackexchange / mathworld is a godsend
>>7656385
i find the major problem is its not intuitive, maybe to the authors or to a prof who's taught it for 20 years. But the general definitions are worded poorly and the layout itself doesn't help (things like for all i in a set {v1, ... vi} just laid out inline with the general text)
>taking linear algebra now
>professor literally just writes the theorems and proofs on the board
>tells us he wants us to do some of the proofs for homework
>look in the book and find that the proofs he wants us to do for homework are the ones that are left as exercises for the reader in the book
>doesn't expand on the book at all, literally just copies the book
>stop going to class because i can read the book myself
but yeah this book is pretty shit. i've spent hours working with proofs trying the figure out what's being said and how they're justifying jumps in reasoning. that may be because i'm stupid or that this is my first proof based class.
do any of you go to ULL by any chance?
>>7656317
hoffman & kunze is pretty good for linear algebra, try that one. heard good things about axler's too
>>7656317
I am self-studying linear algebra from a book as I prepare myself for starting college early next year so I will bite.
>Most of the Theorems or proofs are given in one or two lines
Indeed, most theorems are given in two lines but that is because, as I have learned, these theorems are actually very intuitive and simple to picture, in contrast with what I imagine is more abstract mathematics.
However, very few proofs have been just two lines. At least in the book I am using. So if there is really 2 line proofs that are excluding logical parts of the proof then that is wrong from the author but I doubt an author would get to the level of publishing when he can't formulate proofs.
>many of them are missing proofs (to be done as an exercise)
Here I see why you feel the book is bad and it is not the book, it is yourself. My book also does this and I love it because, even though I had never before done formal proofs, the harder questions of my book involve making proofs and the better ones are actually about completing the theorems that the author left sort of incomplete. At least in my book, everything you need to finish the theorem is right there in the "incomplete" proof or in the preceding paragraphs. I think you are just bad at proofs and therefore at maths. There is no way an educational book would give you a problem that you are not fit to solve. That would be ridiculous and that author would get ridiculized.
>its trivial
What is wrong with this? The author of my book says this pretty much every page and it is usually after what he is doing has already been done in a previous section so you can just use that procedure or that mindset to complete the example or the proof yourself. Even if you are bad at maths, believe it or not, some things are actually trivial and there is no reason a respectable author wanting to challenge a clever student should not be allowed to.
>>7656444
And a side note to my comment:
I love when theorems are left "incomplete" so that they are an exercise later. Mainly because my book has a complete answer sheet online and while I use that to check my computational results. I also enjoy comparing how I formulated the final bits of the proof and how the writer of the answer sheet did the same.
I've been very surprised and it is a great learning experience. There are times where we coincide in our thinking and order of arguments so I get a very satisfying sense of understanding the topic. There are times where I was alright but the way I wrote it was unclear, compared to the answer sheet. And there are times where I had been making assumptions and my proof was completely wrong.
It is just an amazing learning experience.
Just to keep biting. I assume that you are not a pure maths students. You are probably of an engineering or a science and no other subject does this to you. It is sad that applied math programs do not encourage actual mathematical thinking because you are actually pissed at the author of your book for trying to enlighten you.
By the way, I am, of course, going to start college as a pure mathematics major.
>>7656444
>hasn't started college
>arrogantly talks down to others he considers intellectually below him
youll be a great mathematician one day kid
>>7656460
>you can't state opinions with conviction if you're young
he gave pretty simple, reasoned points and wasn't at any point incendiary, stop whining
>>7656460
>hasn't stared college
I am sorry that you needed to start college before you were even mentally prepared to study simple vector spaces. Not my fault.
>arrogantly talks down to others he considers intellectually below him
I know that odds are OP is more into his book that I am into mine. I can only study in free time so I have barely go beyond the 100 page mark. If we were in some sort of linear algebra competition he would reck me but whatever. The point is, odds are his book is not as bad as he says and he just does not appreciate mathematics in the way the author wants him to.
I mean, linear algebra in ceturies old shit, it is the most basic of basic of basic mathematics. If you can't do proofs there then I don't think you have any business going into STEM where you will have to continue on tackling much more abstract and complex topics.
>youll be a great mathematician one day kid
I get that you are trying to say that mathematicians are arrogant but you sound a bit butthurt about it. Maybe they are arrogant and maybe I am being arrogant but you just have to remind yourself that we are all talking about linear algebra and I am allegedly just being arrogant for being good at linear algebra so we are all pretty ridiculous here.
If anything, maybe I am just a bit mad about OP not appreciating proofs and blaming the author for his own shortcomings.
>>7656470
wow. you may be a cunt, but at least you keep falling for the bait; thanks for the entertainment.
>>7656483
>i was only pretending to be retarded
>im a master troll and baited you
>>7656462
>[he] wasn't at any point incendiary
>Here I see why you feel the book is bad and it is not the book, it is yourself
>Here I see why you feel the book is bad and it is not the book, it is yourself
>these theorems are actually very intuitive and simple to picture
>Even if you are bad at maths, believe it or not, some things are actually trivial and there is no reason a respectable author wanting to challenge a clever student should not be allowed to.
>you are actually pissed at the author of your book for trying to enlighten you.
he's talking to OP as if he's a dumb child and even scolding him for not liking the book, despite never having read the book himself
>>7656470
>I am allegedly just being arrogant for being good at linear algebra
you have no way of knowing if you're good at linear algebra because you've never been evaluated in an academic setting.
beside that, i'm not calling you arrogant for being "good at linear algebra," i'm calling you arrogant because you're talking as if you're an authority on math and college despite never learning anything past linear algebra and not having any formal education outside of high school
anyway, the statements
>I am just a bit mad about OP not appreciating proofs and blaming the author for his own shortcomings.
>The point is, odds are his book is not as bad as he says and he just does not appreciate mathematics in the way the author wants him to.
>If you can't do proofs there then I don't think you have any business going into STEM
make me believe you're baiting, so i'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts
>>7656488
>he's talking to OP as if he's a dumb child and even scolding him for not liking the book, despite never having read the book himself
You are ignoring a crucial part of my post and it was when I said that if that book actually has two line proofs that actually skip logical steps needed to derive the proof then I would agree that book is shit.
But what are the odds? How does an author that can't do proofs himself get published? How does a book with incomplete proofs get picked up by an educational institution? How come no professor has figured out that the proofs are incomplete, even when they read them all day to their students. Is it that the professors themselves also do not know how to write proofs?
His initial statement implies all of these things because if the book had incomplete proofs but the math department was good then that book would be tossed out of the window in favor of another one.
>you have no way of knowing if you're good at linear algebra because you've never been evaluated in an academic setting.
You are right. That is why I said allegedly.
> i'm calling you arrogant because you're talking as if you're an authority on math and college despite never learning anything past linear algebra and not having any formal education outside of high school
He is someone studying linear algebra. I am someone studying linear algebra. Do I need to get a PhD before I am allowed to talk about the way I see mathematical proofs?
>make me believe you're baiting, so i'm not going to respond to anymore of your posts
And I love it
>I don't like this guy's opinion!
>Oh I know how to fix this all so that I don't look like a sore loser.
>I'm sure it is all bait. There is no way someone on the internet would behave in a way I dissaprove!
>>7656444
>Over 18 and hasn't started college.
>Thinks others are intellectually below him.
KEK.
>>7656460
I agree with your assessment. Might be a little pedantic, but exactness is part of a mathematician's charm.
You'll go far, kid.
>>7656545
Seriously, I don't know if you are retards or if you have been home schooled all the way through college.
I mean, you all must have met at least one person that complains about the material in a subject just because they suck at it. These persons are always assholes, questioning the professors about "How is this even useful".
>>7656460
:^)
>>7656317
Not sure if this thread has dissolved into a shitposting thread, but I'll give my opinion of the book, in case the OP is still around.
When I took LA last semester, this was the text they used, and to be honest, I think I lucked out. The book worked very well as a supplement to the class; any proofs that were in the book, the professor would state and prove rigorously, as well as be very explicit about what he was doing and how he got there with each step. So, when reading the text, the proofs would be very short, but still allow you to follow along with what they were doing if you had attended the class that covered it.
So, the book is fantastic if you are lucky enough to get a good professor; I will admit that it would be very difficult to use if you were self-studying.
tl;dr I liked it (the proofs were, in my opinion, what proofs should look like, short). It may not be great for self study.
Used it for summer course in proof linear algebra, last summer, it is fucking shit
>>7658165
unfortunately my prof re-iterates it and even uses the trivial meme, so its eseentially self-studying.
I actually kinda like this book
