Have any of you ever worked through pic related? Do you have any other suggestions to study complex analysis from?
>>16881844If your Complex Analysis textbook is longer than 32 pages and takes more than an afternoon to complete, then you bought the workbook version instead.
>>16881890That sucks? I just looked up on amazon, there is no complex analysis textbook that is 32 pages long. What university did you go to learn CA where they teach everything tp you in 32 pages?
>>16881931why even bother responding to a post obviously made in bad faith?
>>16881932Just asking
>>16881931Rice.It's a closed field. You can learn it in a day by yourself. In fact, you should.Then decide if you want to spend the rest of your life treating real analysis as an endless cascade of special cases of general principles you've already mastered or move on to something truly interesting.
>>16881952Rice university?!U must be in serious debt my man
>>16881959I graduated in the 80's when it was a bargin. And you were expected to pick up complex analysis on your own over a weekend.C++ was the same. And you were just born knowing FORTRAN77 somehow.Still, yes, I had debt that took about a decade to pay off. Long gone though.70% equity in the house. That last 30% is the current goal.Just read the book. The answer is always 0 or tau anyway.
>>16881952>>16881997You didn't say what book.
>>16882035You want me to remember a 'zine from the 80s?I think Cauchy was the primary author.
>>16882035>>16881997>>16881932>>16881931>>16881890MIT 18.04 (Undergrad) Complex AnalLecture notes and textbooks are hundreds of pages long:https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-04-complex-variables-with-applications-spring-2018/pages/syllabus/Basically all complex anal books on Anna's archive are hundreds of pages long.Which is pretty standard for Math majors.EE & physics majors learn just a tiny fraction of Complex Anal on their Mathematical Methods courseLimits and Derivatives of Holomorphic function, Cauchy integration formula, Residue theorem and Laurent series.But without proofs so sloppy.Any student who studies like Physicicists or Engineers won't know how to prove so actually knows nothing and certainly will fail in a proof based course for math majors.
>>16881844https://archive.org/details/concisecomplexan0000gong
>>16882079Any student who studies math like most Physicists* or Engineers (without proofs) don't know math for real.Only those who learn how to prove the theorems know math for real:Math & Statistics majors & grads.
>>16882085That Complex Anal book is (literally) very Concise for real so quite neat indeed. But it's 176 pages long.So not even close to 32 pages.This elusive >>16881890's 32 pages book is probably either made up, just a lecture note, or just a chapter from some Mathematical Methods book (for Physics or EE brainlets) such as Arfken or Riley.
I like math, but complex analysis was too autistic for me, functional analysis was as far as I got. Life of a statschad
>>16882117>functional analysisis cool and useful af
>>16882117Well, you are right. Calculating shit with numbers that don't exist seem like pure satanism to me though
>>16881844Maybe something from Cauchy since he single-handedly built the field…?
>>16881844I worked through that whole princeton analysis series.It's decent reading for the john, but ultimately not very serious.>>16882248This, also I suggest learning french. To this day I cannot get around in Paris without some frog speaking in his shitty broken english like a jeet but I have no trouble giving a lecture in french.
>>16881844Try this one. It was pretty useful for me at grad levels.
>>16882892Thx anon, it looks easier to understand compared to stein
>>16882892This is for engineers.
>>16881890The 32 pages in question
>>16882988What the fuck is that
>>16882994A compact oxford english dictionary that fits in only two volumes
>>16882988Oh fuck, it's real. I have had nightmares about this class. And I can't find my car or my pants. And I really need to pee.
>>16882971No...this one is for engineers
>>16883990Was it good or bad?
>>16881844I liked this one as an undergrad, plus nice cover!!!Covers pretty much the stuff you need as an EE/phys undergrad, so from holomorphicity trough residue th. and later various transforms
>>16884094>>16883990Actually it was good. It had plenty of practical questionsto do, but not much of proving statements (as expected).You get historical background, complete topics suitablefor undergrad (for two semesters) plus applications.Check it out from here:https://vdoc.pub/documents/complex-analysis-for-mathematics-and-engineering-4u76s1mdput0
Has anyone here tried complex analysis by Gamelin?
I just want to know how good is complex analysis by lang. Anyone here tried it?
>>16881844 i recently picked up the precursor to it about Fourier Analysis but havent made time to get deep into it yet.>>16882079>>16882090I'm a recent EE grad who really enjoyed the signal processing stuff, do you guys have any advice or potential resources for getting cracked at fourier analysis, or more general advice regarding how to transition from an engineering problem solving mindset to one that's more in line with higher mathematics?
>>16887106Isnt that a bad book because it has zero solutions? How do you learn from it? Do you just have faith when answering the questions?
>>16888004Bait used to be believable.
>>16881844Schaum outlines. It's not a difficult subject and you learn all there is to know working through a few examples.
>>16888004thats a good point, i should probably find some secondary source to cross reference my answers with. the first chapter isnt too unfamiliar to me but im probably gonna get my shit rocked later.
>16889502
>>16889502
Pic related is also good but has zero analysis
>>16890010
Not all complex analysis books are the same, i would go with one that has solutions like gamelin or lang.
I went with Lang's complex analysis because it has a solutions manual on amazon.
There are a few new ones coming out on amazon
>>16893289Which ones?
>>16895224Krantz is publishing a new one, also pic related
I wish more complex analysis textbooks had solutions
>>16895910They do. C is algebraically closed.
>>16895910kys
>>16895946It would be nice if they did
>>16895226>>16895224I'll hope to check them out
On the subject of complex analysis, does anyone know a book where multivariable analytic functions (analytic in the sense of local power series expansion) are treated properly? 99% of the books I've seen don't even know how to define a sum over a multiindex set N^p, never mind properly justifying something as basic as composition of multivariable power series. Only book I've seen that is decent is Dieudonne's Analysis, where he gives a satisfactory Bourbakist definition of sums over arbitrary index sets, however his chapter on analytic functions keeps filtering me, I can't quite digest parts of it. Any ideas?
>>16883013kek
>>16898099>DieudonneHave your read Henri Cartan?https://archive.org/details/elementarytheory0000henr
>>16899998I have, his exposition of the single variable theory is good, but the chapter on many variables is a dud, he doesn't prove anything, just cites a couple of results.
>>16900751Have you tried, then, looking for recent lecture notes instead of books?
>>16900838I haven't searched far and wide, but the notes I have seen didn't have what I'm looking for
>>16895226Interesting, I've been leafing through this guy's textbook on Nevanlinna theory.
>>16895226You do realize he’s a retired senile old man, right? He just loves writing books.
>>16881844Buttocks should have only a single crack. Therefore complex analysis is overdoing it. The simple case is sufficiently arse splitting
>>16882995Cool until digital storage.
