Does the textbook you use actually matter in mathematics? As long as if it seems rigorous it can't be that bad right?
>>16997169Bad textbooks are easier to sniff out as bad and are more explicit in how they are badly written/edited after you dabble in some. Could be constantly bipolar in it's scope and priority, delusional about the audience reading the material, clearly written as a rushed print job off of lecture notes rather than a more refined iteration of them.
>>16997169It almost doesn't matter at all, unless it leaves out important material. Even then, it's usually obvious when you move onto something else and can just come back to another book.Also, when you get beyond a certain point, there's usually only one book if any covering a topic and its total dogshit but you just have to push through it.
>>16997169What kind of bad? Typos and mistakes because Springer etc. fired all their technical editors? Shit organization? Retarded selection of topics to promote his research niche? Shit selection of problems?
yes, bad math book=bad proofs. that's why hoffman kunze is the best book on linear algebra out there, despite hundreds of LA books, or famously artin's treatment of galois theory around fixed points.
