Reviews (22)

Are all Silverman's "translations" like this one?
First, let us be precise in reviewing this book. It is NOT a book by Kolmogorov/Fomin, but rather an edited version by Silverman. So, if you read the first lines in the Editor's Preface, it states, "The present course is a freely revised and restyled version of ... the Russian original". Further down it continues, "...As in the other volumes of this series, I have not hesitated to make a number of pedagogical and mathematical improvements that occurred to me...". Read it as a big red warning flag. Alas, I would have to agree with the reader from Rio de Janeiro. I've been working through this book to rehash my knowledge of measure theory and Lebesgue integration as a prerequisite for stochastic calculus. And I've encountered many results of "mathematical improvements" that occurred to the esteemed "translator". Things are fine when topics/theorems are not too sophisticated (I guess not much room for "improvements"). Not so when you work through some more subtle proofs. Most mistakes I discovered are relatively easy to rectify (and I'm ignoring typos). But the latest is rather egregious. The proof of theorem 1 from ch. 9 (p.344-345) (about the Hahn decomposition induced on X by a signed measure F) contains such a blatant error, I am very hard pressed to believe it comes from the original. That book survived generations of math students at Moscow State, and believe me, they would go through each letter of the proofs. Astounded by such an obvious nonsense, I grabed the only other reference book on the subject I had at hand, "Measure Theory" by Halmos. The equivalent there is theorem A, sec. 29 (p.121 of Springer-Verlag edition), which has a correct proof.
For those interested in details, Silverman's proof states that positive integers are strictly ordered: k1Unfortunately, I don't have the Russian original. Instead, I'm trying to get the other, hopefully real translation, "Elements of the Theory of Functions and Functional Analysis". BTW, this is the actual title of the original, not "Introductory Real Analysis". Which apparently is causing significant confussion amoung past and present readers. To give you a background info, the Russian original is (or has been, at least) used as a textbook for a third-year subject for (hard-core) math students. Meaning, in the preceding two years they would complete a pre-requisite four-semester calculus course. For example, criteria of convergence of series and their properties is an assumed knowledge in presentation of Lebesgue integral. So, I think most of the critique from earlier reivews is a bit misdirected. The original book is a great starting book into functional analyis/Lebesgue integration and differentiation, but proofs require solid understanding of fundamentals of calculus.
The best part about Kolmogorov's text is the clarity of conceptual structure of the presented subject a reader would gain, if he/she puts some effort. You would gain a thorough understanding, not just a knowledge of the subject. There is quite a difference between the two, and not that many authors succeed in delivering that.
But to gain that from Kolmogorov, I would suggest the other, "unimproved" but real, translation.

Not so "introductory"
This textbook has several major virtues: it is dirt cheap, it is concise, and it touches on many advanced topics. Unfortunately, it has equally major flaws.

Many of the "proofs," especially in the first few chapters, are simply vague outlines of proofs. New notation is introduced without formal definition, terminology is used sloppily (sometimes even inaccurately), and explanations are invariably terse.

Before reading each chapter, I found it was necessary to first consult a more down-to-earth text. Sometimes I got the impression that the authors were more interested in showing off their brilliance than teaching me about analysis.

If you want to learn analysis, I would recommend first working through Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis, then using this book as a source of challenging problems and interesting remarks.

Siverman spoiled Kolmogorv
This is one of many Dover's book where the editor Silverma tryed to ''improve'' the original version of a book.

Reviews (16)

A start in math.
I am a fan of Rudin's books. This one "Real and Complex Analysis" has served as a standard textbook in the first graduate course in analysis at lots of universities in the US, and around the world.

The book is divided in the two main parts, real and complex analysis. But in addition, it contains a good amount of functional and harmonic analysis; and a little operator theory.

I loved it when I was a student, and since then I have taught from it many times. It has stood the test of time over almost three decades, and it is still my favorite. I have to admit that it is not the favorite of everyone I know.

What I like is that it is concise, and that the material is systematically built up in a way that is both effective and exciting.

Some of the exercises are notoriously hard, but I think that is good: It simply means that they serve as work-projects when the students use the book. And this approach probably is more pedagogical as well.

After surviving some of the hard exercises in Rudin's Real and Complex, I think we learn things that stay with us for life; you will be "marked for life!"

Review by Palle Jorgensen, September 2004.

Welcome to the self-service analysis center!
This year we have been using Walter Rudin's treatise as the main text for a standard first-year graduate sequence on real analysis, backed up by Wheeden/Zygmund's book on Measure and Integral, and the two seem to complement each other quite nicely. Rudin writes in a very user-friendly yet concise manner, and at the same time he masterfully manages to maintain the high level of formality required from a graduate mathematics text. To be totally honest, a few years ago my very first attempt at learning graduate-level real analysis in a classroom setting (via Folland's book) was not successful, as I found the exposition in Folland very dense and rigid, and the homework problems too difficult to do. Rudin's book however is a lot more accessible for the beginning graduate students who may not have had any more than some basic exposure to measure theory in their upper division analysis classes. One point to keep in mind is that Rudin developes the measure in the more formal axiomatic way, instead of in the more concrete constructive approach. In the constructive approach, one first introduces the "subadditive" outer measure as a set function which is defined on the power set P(X) of a nonempty set X. One then proceeds by showing that the restriction of the domain of the outer measure to a smaller class of subsets of X (a sigma algebra M), obtained via applying the Caratheodory's criterion, results in a "countably additive" set function which is called a measure on (X,M). (The latter is the approach taken in both H.L. Royden and Wheden/Zygmund). The formal approach is not very intuitive and is less natural for a beginning graduate student who might not have developed a certain level of mathematical maturity yet.

Also, Rudin does not discuss some of the more advanced or interdisciplinary topics such as distribution theory (Sobolev spaces, weak derivatives, etc.) or applications of measure theory to the probability theory, both explored in the book by Folland. Last but not least, it's worth noting that contrary to the common practice, Folland includes many end-of-chapter notes where he outlines some important historical aspects of the development of the topics, and also gives a few references for further study. For example, in the notes section at the end of the chapter on Lebesgue integration, he mentions --and briefly outlines-- the basics of the theory of "gauge integration" (also called Henstock-Kurzweil theory) which serves to construct a more powerful integral than that of the Lebesgue's. As another instance, having already defined and used "nets" within the chapter on topology, in the end-notes Folland also introduces "filters" and "ultrafilters". These are all machineries which have been developed to play the role of the metric space sequences in general (locally Hausdorff) topological spaces, but for some historical reasons, ultrafilters have nowadays taken a backseat to the nets (the older general topology books usually prove the Tychonoff theorem using ultrafilters). All said, I can recommend taking up Royden as your very first approach to measure theory, then based on how well you think you have learned the first course, move on to either Rudin or Folland for a more advanced treatment. Please note that the other books I have mentioned above do not discuss complex analysis, a subject which is also masterfully presented in Rudin. There are however a few other equally well-written complex analysis books to pick from, for example John B. Conway's classic from the Springer-Verlag graduate series, or L.V. Ahlfors' masterpiece, to name just a couple.

A Comprehensive Guide to Analysis
Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis is an excellent book for several reasons.Most importantly, it manages to encompass a whole range of mathematics in one reasonably-sized volume.Furthermore, its problems are not mere extensions of the proofs given in the text or trivial applications of the results- many of the results are alternate proofs to major theorems or different theorems not proved.With that in mind, this book is not appropriate for a course where the instructor wants students to merely understand the theorems well enough to develop applications- the structure of the book is far better suited for a more theoretical course.

For example, the construction of Lebesgue measure is considered one of the most important topics in graduate analysis courses.After this construction, more abstract measures are developed, and then one proves the Riesz Representation Theorem for positive functionals later.

Conversely, Rudin develops a few basic topological tools, such as Urysohn's Theorem and a finite partition of unity, to construct the Radon measure needed in a sweeping proof of Riesz's Theorem.From this, results about regularity follow clearly, and the construction of Lebesgue measure involves little more than a routine check of its invariance properties.

Another example of where Rudin takes a more theoretical approach to provide a more elegant, yet less intuitive proof, is the Lebesgue-Radon-Nikodym theorem.Other books generally introduce signed measures with several examples, and use this result, along with properties of measures to derive the proof.On the other hand, since the first half of the book contains an intermission on Hilbert Space, Rudin uses the completeless of L^2 and the Riesz Representation Theorem for a more sweeping proof.

In the real analysis section, Rudin covers advanced topics generally not covered in a first course on measure theory.The chapters on differentiation and Fourier analysis are key examples of this.Rudin uses maximal functions to develop the Lebesgue Point theorem and results from complex analysis, and provides an incredibly thorough proof of the change-of-variables theorem.The ninth chapter, on Fourier transforms, relies heavily on convolutions, which are developed as a product of Fubini's theorem.This, in turn, is used to prove Plancherel's theorem and the uniqueness of Fourier transforms as a character homomorphism.

The tenth chapter, on basic complex analysis, essentially covers an entire undergraduate course on the subject, with added results based on a solid knowledge of topology on the plane.Once a solid foundation on the topic is laid, Rudin can develop more advanced topics from Harmonic analysis using general results from real analysis like the Hahn-Banach theorem and the Lebesgue Point theorem (for Poisson integrals).

Most of the basic results from the power series perspective are covered in the text, but while the geometric view is examined, it is still done in a very analytic, formula-based way that does not allow the reader to gain too much intuition.Nonetheless, all the basic results are covered, and Rudin uses these to develop the main theorems, such as the Mittag-Leffler and Weierstrass theorems on meromorphic functions, and the Monodromy Theorem and a modular function used to prove Picard's Little Theorem.

Reviews (73)

An excellent textbook
I think mathematics is a part of our culture.That's why, as a non-math major, I wandered into a very serious analysis class for mathematics majors.That might have been a disaster for me.Luckily, we used this book as a text, and it saved me.I read the whole book and diligently did all the exercises (of course, back then, it was the first edition, with only 227 pages and 140 exercises; it's somewhat more now).And that is my recommendation today.Read the book carefully and do as many exercises as you can.It certainly isn't easy.But it isn't, um, countably hard either.

The material in the book is self-contained.I guess that in theory, it could be mastered by any bright 14-year old who had learned some high school algebra and geometry.But I would surely recommend having much more mathematical sophistication than that as a prerequisite!

If you haven't learned the language of mathematics before, you'll enjoy the use of terms such as "countable," "real," "rational cuts," "measure," "ring," and "complete." By the end of the book, when the author claims that a proof (involving Cauchy sequences no less) is complete, you'll barely be able to suppress a desire to ask "Does every Cauchy sequence in the proof converge?"

In the first edition of this book, Rudin did mess up a little in his section on "the integral as a limit of sums." His theorem as stated was false.We cruelly dubbed it "Rudin's Last Theorem."Worse, he had used it "to prove some elementary properties of the Stieltjes integral."But that was all straightened out by the second edition.

I especially like the first couple of chapters.They give most readers the confidence to continue.And the final chapter, on Lebesgue integration, is very well written.One note of warning, though.Rudin begins this chapter by saying, "Some of the easier propositions are stated without proof.However the reader who has become familiar with the techniques used in the preceding chapters will certainly find no difficulty in supplying the missing steps."That is an exaggeration.It takes work.After all, this is, um, real mathematics you'll be doing!

I'm thankful that I was assigned this as my textbook.

A masterpiece
I absolutely agree with Professor Jorgensen.

I loved it when I was a student of physics, and I still love it because I tend to consider it as my personal standard in Classical Mathematical Analysis (and not only): sort of a "pacemaker" which sets the qualitative level to go back to just every time one is a little confused about what to do and where to go ;)

Reviews (9)

overrated, but still good
This book is a good reference, because it contains a lot more material than is contained in most courses, but I don't think I'd want to use it for an intro to linear algebra. It's got stuff that other books don't have, like Hilbert spaces & some analysis stuff in an appendix, tensor products, multilinear forms... It's good as a reference or supplement, but not as a main text, IMO. For an intro, I liked Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right or the Hoffman/Kunze book.

Linear algebra for mathematicians
I've just been looking on Amazon to see how some of my favorite old math texts are doing. I used this one about twenty years ago as a supplementary reference in a graduate course, and I still have my copy.

Everybody with some mathematical background knows the name of Paul Richard Halmos. I saw him speak at Kent State University while I was an undergraduate there (some twenty-odd years ago); to this day I remember the sheer elegance of his presentation and even recall some of the specific points on which, like a magician, he drew gasps and applause from his audience of mathematicians and math students.

This book displays the same elegance. If you're looking for a book that provides an exposition of linear algebra the way mathematicians think of it, this is it.

This very fact will probably be a stumbling block for some readers. The difficulty is that, in order to appreciate what Halmos is up to here, you have to have _enough_ practice in mathematical thinking to grasp that linear algebra isn't the same thing as matrix algebra.

In your introductory linear algebra course, linear transformations were probably simply identified with matrices. But really (i.e., mathematically), a linear transformation is a special sort of mathematical object, one that can be _represented_ by a matrix (actually by a lot of different matrices) once a coordinate system has been introduced, but one that 'lives' in the spaces with which abstract algebra deals, independently of any choice of coordinates.

In short, don't expect numbers and calculations here. This book is about abstract algebraic structure, not about matrix computations.

If that's not what you're looking for, you'll probably be disappointed in this book. If that _is_ what you want, you may still find this book hard going, but the rewards will be worth the effort.

The best abstract linear algebra book out there
This book is the best if you are looking for an abstract approach to linear algebra. It provides elegant proofs to theorems that usually seem long-winded and awkward (like the cauchy-schwarz inequality). Sometimes in your lectures you may get to the point thinking "can't this be proven more elegant?" and you simply open halmos and it is there.

Note that this book does not deal alot with matrices, everything of the theory is there, but you might miss illustrations and applications. In this case I recommend to back it up with Gilbert Strangs Linear Algebra and its Applications, which has an intuitive, matrice-oriented approach.