Is this book worth picking up? I'm currently almost done with calc 2 and am interested in learning more about proofs. I haven't really done many at all before, but I have heard this book is a good introduction to them.
>>8083912
I thought it was pretty good as an intro to proofs, don't stick to the ideas as if they're gospel, but it helped me learn proofs.
>>8083912
It's excellent. Pick up Rudin's introductory text to accompany it so you can practice with real mathematics.
>>8083912
It exposes a lot of proofs by way of number theory. I found it boring and a bit dry. I didn't care to continually prove useless number theoretic results early on and lost interest. Also the proofs are just tedious and boring. I'd recommend discrete mathematics by epp or Rosen. It has a wide range of subjects and teaches proofs that'll help in higher level courses.
If you need a textbook to teach you how to prove something, you should just give up on mathematics now and save your time
>>8083954
You never looked at those books so you gtfo. You're faggot in combinatorics class that doesn't understand what Ramsey theory is & later complains in functional analysis
>>8083953
This desu. Unless you were born with an innate understanding of mathematics you may as well quit now.
>>8083986
>born with an innate understanding of mathematics
nice meme
Look for Richard hammacks book of proof. Probably the best proof book. It's free too. My uni uses Ted sundstrom or some shit.
Yes, that's a great book
>>8083986
Truu, I asked my newborn son what the sum of all intagers was and he didn't even respond, so I shoved him back up into his mother. You're either born with it or not fa[math] [/math]m
