Algebra is worse. Fucking commutative diagrams!

Analysis is kinda dry (at least what I had to take for my physics degree). The proofs are mostly either formulaic or completely unintitive and sort of mechanical.

>hating analysis
all of the shitty people in my first year class hate analysis. Honestly, if you can't at least pass basic measure theory/functional analysis you don't deserve to be a mathematician.

There are definitely more interesting fields than entry level real analysis, though, and some of the theorems are a bit dry.

>ITT - first year failures

>>7701452
> first year class
That's not even analysis, and most of them probably aren't math majors.

>>7701460
>math major

I'm talking PhD, son. No one gives a shit about undergrads.

>>7701440
>analysis
>completely unintuitive
Literally what the fuck am I reading? Analysis is the formalization of the most obvious intuition.

>>7701452
>can't pass
analysis is kinda easy (at least undergrad level, also compared to abstract algebra and such), it's just boring

>>7701413
Why the f*** do you need that many analysis books?

>>7701465
>PhD
>Having classes
Pick one

>>7701479
are you not from the US? almost all PhD programs here have classes for the first few years at least.

>>7701482
classes for PhD WHAT THE FUCK?
UK here and we only have PhD in the first term for you to fill in any missing information you may have.
Why the fuck classes are you taking for a few years when a PhD program is only a few years?

>>7701440
Analysis is the most intuitive though

>>7701495
people go to PhD programs straight from undergrad. It's assumed most have learned basic real analysis/algebra and hopefully a lot of other topics. However, things like measure/functional analysis/category theory/etc are not necessarily assumed and are usually covered in first year classes. Second year classes are usually more specialized things that you want to do research in. It's common to spend around 5-6 years or more to finish a PhD

>>7701500
>people go to PhD programs straight from undergrad
I didn't say or assume otherwise.

>However, things like measure/functional analysis/category theory/etc are not necessarily assumed and are usually covered in first year classes. Second year classes are usually more specialized things that you want to do research in
Any good PhD program requires a first class, and any missing information you have is assumed that you can read up on and cover yourself very quickly.
It's perfectly acceptable to do a PhD in probability theory even if the last time you did it was in first year.
Spending that long in a PhD program is ridiculous and honestly a waste of time and money. But again, I really don't know why you guys opt to spend so much time going over undergrad stuff when any good PhD student can cover it in less than a term.

>>7701500
>measure/functional analysis
Those are undergrad classes here in Germany. You need at least a M.Sc and several publications in leading research journals to even get accepted to PhD program.

>>7701495
Your phD programs are shorter than ours in the US.

>>7701500
>not covering those topics in undergrad
which uni anon?

>>7701513
Because you waste a good three years doing nothing.

>>7701512

US PhD programs sometimes do and sometimes don't require a Masters first--many schools don't technically give a "terminal Masters"; you enroll in the PhD program and get a Masters along the way, but they don't accept anybody just to get a Masters (though of course there are those who end up quitting with 'only' a Masters). For Mathematics, usually you can get a MS separately, but there would still be classes required in a PhD program, usually "Seminar" classes to formulate research topics et al, before the PhD. Never heard of a PhD that was nothing but a dissertation.

>>7701526
>Because you waste a good three years being and undergrad again.
FTFY

>>7701512
The M.Sc. is picked up along the way at all U.S. institutions. Hence why it takes up to 5-6 years, the first couple/few are spent learning, writing introductory papers, working with your advisor. Then you do a pre-lim, which justifies your thesis topic. Only after that are you really dedicated 100% to thesis work.

ITT - EU > US

>>7701530
>Because you waste a good three years being an undergrad again.
FTFY

>>7701415
Nah, the diagram themselves are pretty nice. Diagram chasing should be banned as an affront to God though.

But analysis is fun though. If you cannot appreciate either real analysis, complex analysis or functional analysis, there is something wrong with you. Even if you are "algebraically minded", you should at least appreciate complex analysis, locally convex spaces or spectral theory.
Besides, you can't just decide not to learn something as fundamental as analysis so you might as well want to learn to like it.

>>7701499
What I think, and what I think the guy you responded to meant, is that the proofs are highly unintuitive while the theorems are very intuitive.

That was exactly the case for me. I self studied the first nine chapters of rudin then passed a placement exam for analysis, and my experience was always that I would immiediatly recognize that each theorem was true, but only be able to guess the proof method 50% of the time and actually prove it without looking 10~20% of the time.

>>7701477
It's a meme picture that's been on /sci/ for a while, newfriend.

>>7702037
>Because you waste a good three years still being a worthless Amerifat.
FTFY

>>7702299
I've seen it before and asked why before but never got an answer senpai

Analysis is the fucking worst

So ugly

Why would you want to do ugly math might as well just do physics or something that might also suck but at least has a purpose