Chicago Undergraduate Mathematics Bibliography

Chicago undergraduate mathematics bibliography 31/01/15 3:45 pm
Chicago undergraduate mathematics

bibliography
Somehow I became the canonical undergraduate source for bibliographical references, so I thought I
would leave a list behind before I graduated. I list the books I have found useful in my wanderings
through mathematics (in a few cases, those I found especially unuseful), and give short descriptions and
comparisons within each category. I hope that this list may serve as a useful “road map” to other
undergraduates picking their way through Eckhart Library. In the end, of course, you must explore on
your own; but the list may save you a few days wasted reading books at the wrong level or with the wrong
emphasis.
The list is biased in two senses. One, it is light on foundations and applied areas, and heavy (especially in
the advanced section) on geometry and topology; this is a consequence of my interests. I welcome
additions from people interested in other fields. Two, and more seriously, I am an honors-track student and
the list reflects that. I don't list any “regular” analysis or algebra texts, for instance, because I really dislike
the ones I've seen. If you are a 203 student looking for an alternative to the awful pink book
(Marsden/Hoffman), you will find a few here; they are all much clearer, better books, but none are nearly
as gentle. I know that banging one's head against a more difficult text is not a realistic option for most
students in this position. On the other hand, reading mathematics can't be taught, and it has to be learned
sometime. Maybe it's better to get used to frustration as a way of life sooner, rather than later. I don't
know.
Reviews not marked with initials, or marked with [CJ], were written by me, Chris Jeris ('98). Other
contributors are marked: [PC], Pete Clark ('98); [PS], Pete Storm ('98); [BB], Ben Blander ('98); [RV],
Rebecca Virnig ('00); [BR], Ben Recht ('00); [MG], Marci Gambrell ('99); [YU], Yuka Umemoto ('97).
Thanks to all of them for their input.
Jump to the elementary, intermediate, or advanced sections.
Warning: Statements about books I haven't looked at in a couple of years may be factually incorrect;
please forgive my spotty memory. I don't think I have any really egregious falsehoods in here. I apologize
for the appearance of this page; most web browsers have not yet been updated to handle the HTML4
entity set, so fools like me who read the definition write ugly-looking pages.
Enough apologia. Here we go:
ELEMENTARY
This includes “high school topics” and first-year calculus.
Contents
Algebra (4)
Geometry (2)
Foundations (1)
Problem solving (4)
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm#e:problem-solving Page 1 of 32
Calculus (6)
Bridges to intermediate topics (2)
Algebra
Gelfand/Shen, Algebra
Gelfand/Glagoleva/Shnol, Functions and graphs
Gelfand/Glagoleva/Kirillov, The method of coordinates
These three little white books come from the Soviet correspondence school in mathematics, run by I. M.
Gelfand for interested people of all ages in the further reaches of the USSR. Rather than trying to be
artificially “down-to-earth” in the way Americans do, Gelfand simply assumes that you can understand
the mathematics as it's done (and avoids the formal complexities mathematicians are inured to). YSP and
SESAME give these out by the carload to their students, who mostly love them. TMoC is notable for its
intriguing four-axis scheme for making flat graphs of R^4. Overall a fresh, inspiring look at topics we
take for granted, and a good thing to recommend to bright younger students or friends (or parents!)
Cohen, Precalculus with unit circle trigonometry
[RV] I used this book in high school and absolutely loved it. It's very skimpy on proofs, and really should
not be used for that sort of insight. However, in terms of understanding how to apply various
mathematical concepts it's wonderful. It has a large number of graphs, examples, and easy reference
tables. It covers all the algebra, trig, and cartesian geometry that any good high school math sequence
should deal with. I have used it for years as a reference book (e.g., what exactly is Cramer's rule again...)
Solutions to a number of the problems are in the back, and the problems are not entirely applications.
Geometry
Euclid, The elements
No, I'm not kidding. At first it's incredibly annoying and tedious to read, but after a while you get into the
flow of the language and the style. Euclid teaches you both the power of the modern algebraic methods
and the things that are hidden by our instinct to assign a number to a length. Besides, there are wonderful
tidbits here and there (did you know that Euclid invented the Dedekind cut?). At least check it out once, to
read his proof of the Pythagorean theorem. (Thanks to Jonathan Beere ('95) for convincing me it was
worthwhile.)
[PC] I have Volume I, and I have to admit I haven't really read it. I do think that I would benefit if
someone rammed some of it down my throat though, because nowadays we undergraduates are trained to
regard “geometric” as a strong pejorative—the very antithesis of rigor and proof.
Coxeter, Geometry revisited
This is a text on “advanced Euclidean geometry”, starting with the numberless classical “centers” of a
triangle and proceeding from there. Many good exercises. There are lots of “college geometry” texts you
can find this stuff in, but most of them are aimed at math-ed majors; this book and Coxeter's other one
(see below) have them all beat.
[PC] I like this book. I don't own it but I've flipped through it more than once and I agree that it has a
pleasantly non-brain-dead quality to it. There are interesting geometric facts that you probably haven't
seen before in here.
Foundations
Rucker, Infinity and the mind
[RV] This is not really a math book. It is a friendly introduction to the concept of infinity, transfinite
numbers, and related paradoxes. I'd recommend it to high school students who are intrested in math, but
not quite ready to sit down and read though proof after proof of theorems. (In fact, I first read it in high
school as part of an independent study math class.) The book does contain some proofs, but not in the
rigorous form of a standard math text. It does include more historical background on the concepts than
most math texts do, which is nice. Each chapter is accompanied by problems, and an answer key (with
explanations) is at the end of the book.
Problem solving (pre-college)

NML problem books
The MAA publishes a series called “New Mathematical Library” which contains many excellent titles
aimed at or below college sophomore level (Geometry revisited is among them). In this series are four
books of problems given on the AHSME, one of USAMO and two of IMO problems, all with solutions.
We use the AHSME books extensively at YSP; the USAMO and IMO problems still give me a rough
time, and are fun if you're looking for frustration one evening.
Larson, Problem solving through problems
After you grapple with the IMO problems for a while, turn here to find a book that teaches (as much as
any book can) the art of solving them. Cognitive strategies are laid out with examples of problems (mostly
from Olympiads and Putnams) to which they apply.
[PC] I own this, or at least I did—I haven't seen it since high school. I'm really not a big contest problem-
solver, but I did use this book and I think it helped to prepare me for Chicago Mathematics. Lots of good
problems, not all of them inane.
Pólya, How to solve it
I haven't read this, but it's supposed to be the “classic” version of Larson above.
Pólya, Mathematics and plausible reasoning, I and II
[PC] These are the “sequels” to Pólya's How to solve it. They are definitely interesting, although their
main interest may be psychological/philosophical (only relative to mathematics do philosophy and
psychology merge!) I'm not sure that one can really become a significantly better problem-solver by
reading a book about the nature of mathematical reasoning, but I admire Pólya for writing an interesting
and challenging book about the practice of mathematics; such books are in my opinion too few and far
between.
In 1997–98 a few books with the same general theme as Larson, but different problem collections, have
been published; I haven't seen any of them.
Calculus
Of course, as we all know, the One True Calculus Book is
Spivak, Calculus
This is a book everyone should read. If you don't know calculus and have the time, read it and do all the
exercises. Parts 1 and 2 are where I finally learned what a limit was, after three years of bad-calculus-book
“explanations”. The whole thing is the most coherently envisioned and explained treatment of one-
variable calculus I've seen (you can see throughout that Spivak has a vision of what he's trying to teach).
The book has flaws, of course. The exercises get a little monotonous because Spivak has a few tricks he
likes to use repeatedly, and perhaps too few of them deal with applications (but you can find that kind of
exercise in any book). Also, he sometimes avoids sophistication at the expense of clarity, as in the proofs
of Three Hard Theorems in chapter 8 (where a lot of epsilon-pushing takes the place of the words
“compact” and “connected”). Nevertheless, this is the best calculus book overall, and I've seen it do a
wonderful job of brain rectification on many people.
[PC] Yes, it's good, although perhaps more of the affection comes from more advanced students who flip
back through it? Most of my exposure to this book comes from tutoring and grading for 161, but I
seriously believe that working as many problems as possible (it must be acknowledged that many of them
are difficult for first year students, and a few of them are really hard!) is invaluable for developing the
mathematical maturity and epsilonic technique that no math major should be without.
Other calculus books worthy of note, and why:
Spivak, The hitchhiker's guide to calculus
Just what the title says. I haven't read it, but a lot of 130s students love it.
Hardy, A course of pure mathematics
Courant, Differential and integral calculus
These two are for “culture”. They are classic treatments of the calculus, from back when a math book was
rigorous, period. Hardy focuses more on conceptual elegance and development (beginning by building up
R). Courant goes further into applications than is usual (including as much about Fourier analysis as you
can do without Lebesgue integration). They're old, and old books are hard to read, but usually worth it.
(Remember what Abel said about reading the masters and not the pupils!)
Apostol, Calculus
This is “the other” modern rigorous calculus text. Reads like an upper-level text: lemma-theorem-proof-
corollary. Dry but comprehensive (the second volume includes multivariable calculus).
Janusz, Calculus
The worst calculus book ever written. This was the 150s text in 1994–95; it tries to give a Spivak-style
rigorous presentation in colorful mainstream-calculus-book format and reading level. Horrible. Take a
look at it to see how badly written a mathematics book can be.
Bridges to intermediate topics

Springer-Verlag has just begun a new series of texts designed to bring students gently into the realm of
abstract mathematics. While there is no shortage of such books, these seem better than average
pedagogically; they are all quite talky, include complete solutions to all exercises, and cover sensible (as
opposed to traditional) sets of topics. The series is called SUMS, for Springer Undergraduate Mathematics
Series. Two so far seem noteworthy: Smith, Introduction to mathematics: algebra and analysis and
Johnson, Introduction to logic via numbers and sets. Give them a look.
INTERMEDIATE
Roughly, general rather than specialized texts in higher mathematics. I would not hesitate to recommend
any book here to honors second-years, but they might not find easy going in some of them.
Contents
Foundations (5)
General abstract algebra (7)
Linear algebra (3)
Number theory (5)
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics (1)
Real analysis (10)
Multivariable calculus (2)
Complex analysis (5)
Differential equations (2)
Point-set topology (5)
Differential geometry (4)
Classical geometry (3)
Foundations
Halmos, Naive set theory
The best book for a first encounter with “real” set theory. Like everything Paul Halmos writes, it's
stylistically beautiful. A very skinny book, broken into very short sections, each dealing with a narrow
topic and with an exercise or three. It requires just a little sophistication, but no great experience with
“real” math; we use this one for YSP kids sometimes too.
Fraenkel, Abstract set theory
Fraenkel was the F in ZFC, and he gives a suitably rigorous development of set theory from an axiomatic
viewpoint. Unfortunately, for the philosophical foundations of the axioms he refers to another book
(Fraenkel and Bar-Hillel, Foundations of set theory), which is missing from Eckhart Library. Good for
culture.
Ebbinghaus/Flum/Thomas, Mathematical logic
The only logic book I can name off the top of my head, this is the 277 book. I found it readable but
boringly syntactic (well, maybe that's elementary logic).
Enderton, A mathematical introduction to logic
Look, another logic book! This one might be preferable just because there's much more talking about
what's going on and less unmotivated symbol-pushing than in E/F/T. The flip side of that is, the
constructions may or may not be epsilon less precise. I'm not a logician; if you are, write some reviews so
I can replace these lousy ones!
Landau, Foundations of analysis
This is the book that invented the infamous Landau “Satz-Beweis” (theorem-proof) style. There is
nothing in this book except the inexorable progression of theorems and proofs, which is perhaps
appropriate for a construction of the real numbers from nothing, but makes horrible bathroom reading.
Read for culture.
General abstract algebra

The situation here is problematic, because there are many good books which are just a little hard to
swallow for an average 257 student, but precious few good ones below that. But you learn by doing, so
here we go:
(Difficulty: moderate)
Dummit/Foote, Abstract algebra
[PC] I bought this for 257—I was at the age where I uncritically bought all assigned texts (actually, I may
still be at that age; I don't recall passing on buying any course texts recently), but as Chris knows the joke
was on me, since we used the instructor's lecture notes and not Dummit/Foote at all. So I didn't really read
it that much at the time. I have read it since, since it is one of two general abstract algebra books in my
collection. I think it's an excellent undergraduate reference in that it has something to say, and often a lot
to say, about precisely everything that an undergraduate would ever run into in an algebra class—and I'm
not even exaggerating. I would say this is a good book to have on your shelf if you're an undergraduate
because you can look up anything; I used it this fall as a solid supplementary reference for character
theory to Alperin and Bell's Groups and representations, and it had an amazing amount of material, all
clearly explained. [Warning: there is an incorrect entry in one of the character tables; it's either A_5 or
S_5, I can't remember which.] Look elsewhere, particularly below, for a good exposition of modules over
a principal ideal domain; D/F's exposition is convoluted and overly lengthy. In fact, overall I would use
this book as a reference instead of a primary text, because the idea of reading it through from start to
finish scares me. It also has many, many good problems which develop even more topics (e.g.,
commutative algebra and algebraic geometry).
Herstein, Topics in algebra
This is a classic text by one of the masters. Herstein has beautiful and elementary treatments of groups
and linear algebra (in the context of module theory). But there is no field theory, and he writes mappings
on the right, which annoys many people. Sometimes he suffers from the same flaw of excessive
elementarity as Spivak's calculus book, but overall the treatment is quite pretty. Many good exercises.
(Not to be confused with Abstract algebra, which is a much-cut version for non-honors classes.)
[PC] But this is the book I would use if I were a well-prepared undergraduate wanting to learn abstract
algebra for the first time. Wonderful exposition—clean, chatty but not longwinded, informal—and a very
efficient coverage of just the most important topics of undergraduate algebra. Think of it as a slimmed
down D/F. “No field theory” is certainly an exaggeration; the exposition there is quite brief, and the
restriction to fields of characteristic zero obscures the fact that much of the theory presented, including the
Galois theory, is the theory of separable field extensions, but even so, this is still the book I open first to
remind myself about the Galois theory I'm supposed to know. The last main chapter of the book is quite
lengthy and treats linear algebra and canonical forms in detail, which is one of the book's strongest
features. Also, there are many supplementary topics—maybe Herstein really doesn't like field theory,
since he inserts a section on the transcendence of e early on in his field theory chapter as something of a
breather—but there's lots of good stuff to warm the heart of someone who likes to see his algebra applied
to actual stuff, especially number-theoretic stuff; the famed Two and Four Squares Theorems are both
proved in here!
Artin, Algebra
Artin's book is a nontraditional approach to undergraduate algebra, emphasizing concrete computational

examples heavily throughout. Accordingly, linear algebra and matrix groups occupy the first part of the
book, and the traditional group-ring-field troika comes later. This approach has the advantage of providing
many nontrivial examples of the general theories, but you may not want to wait that long to get there.
Supposed to be well written, though I haven't read it thoroughly.
(Difficulty: higher)
Jacobson, Basic algebra I
Jacobson was my first real algebra book, and I retain an affection for it. The book is very densely written,
and his prose has its own beauty but is difficult to get much from at first. The selection of topics is
interesting: chapters 1–4 cover groups, rings, modules, fields (modules in the linear-algebra sense, that is,
over principal ideal domains), while chapters 5–8 cover extension topics not usually found in general
texts. He deliberately avoids modernist abstraction, preferring an explicit construction to a universal
property and a commutative diagram (although the universal property is frequently given), and this
complicates his notation and prose at times, especially in the module chapter. The field-theory chapter is
fantastic. Some of the exercises are deliberately too hard.
Hungerford, Algebra
Many people like this book, but I don't. Hungerford covers the standard topics from group, ring, module,
and field theory, with a little additional commutative ring theory and the Wedderburn theory of algebras.
The field-theory chapter is horrible, and the rest of the book is okay but doesn't excite me. (And the
typesetting is bad.)
Lang, Algebra
Well, do you like Serge Lang books, or not? Like every other Serge Lang book, this one is
uncompromisingly modern, wonderfully comprehensive, and unpleasantly dry and tedious to read. Unlike
most other Serge Lang books, this one has exercises, at least.
Mac Lane/Birkhoff, Algebra
I keep recommending this book to people because it's the only hard one whose contents correspond well
to the 257-8-9 syllabus, and also because I like Mac Lane's treatment of linear and multilinear algebra.
Mac Lane and Lang are the only books in this group which treat multilinear (tensor) algebra at all, and
believe me, you'll need it eventually. Worth a look to see whether you find Mac Lane's style congenial.
Not to be confused with Birkhoff/Mac Lane, A survey of modern algebra (a much shorter and easier
book).
[BR] I used Mac Lane/Birkhoff's book pretty heavily in Math 257 and 258. Unlike most algebra books
I've seen, they don't put all the group theory at the beginning and all of the field theory at the end, but
prefer to develop each topic a little bit at a time and then develop it with more depth later. As a result, this
book is hard to use as a reference. You can't get past rings without tackling categories and universal
constructions which are used heavily throughout the remainder of the text. However, their treatment of
categorical algebra is one of the more readable introductions to the theory I've come across.
Linear algebra
Halmos, Finite dimensional vector spaces
This is a linear algebra book written by a functional analyst, and the crux of the book is a treatment of the
spectral theorem for self-adjoint operators in the finite-dimensional case. It's a beautiful, wonderful book,
but not a very good reference for traditional linear algebra topics or applications. You also have to read a
fair distance before you even see a linear map, and the exercises are mostly too easy, with a few too hard.
But this book was where I first learned about tensor products, and why the matrix elements go the way
they do and not the other way (Halmos is very careful on this point).
[PC] I own this book and read through it often, but it's never taught me linear algebra per se. Let's agree
that it's too abstract for a reasonable first introduction to linear algebra; it's really meant for students who
already know (some) linear algebra to read through and appreciate one particular, and particularly elegant,
presentation of the material. If you want to know about the linear algebra which surrounds functional
analysis, then by all means read this book, but much of the material is nonstandard and a bit curious from
the perspective of mainstream linear algebra; projections seem to be the most important linear map, and
there are many sections lovingly devoted to commuting projections, decomposing projections, etc. I still
am not sure why Halmos deifies the [,] as much as he does, and quite honestly, I would learn multilinear
algebra anywhere but here.
Curtis, Abstract linear algebra
If you can stand terrible typesetting and an unexciting prose style, this tiny little book is a good rigorous
reference for traditional linear algebra (i.e., it doesn't assume you're a tree). A nice bonus at the end is the
Wedderburn theorem for division algebras over R, although the lack of sophistication makes for some
unmotivated technical carpentry. I look in here whenever I can't remember what a positive-definite matrix
is.
Greub, Linear algebra and Multilinear algebra
You may never need The Book on linear algebra. But one day, you may just have to know fifteen different
ways to decompose a linear map into parts with different nice properties. On that day, your choices are
Greub and Bourbaki. Greub is easier to carry. End of story.
Number theory
Ireland/Rosen, A classical introduction to modern number theory
The first half is a coherent, systematic development of elementary number theory, assuming the basics of
algebra. In the second half the authors explore more advanced topics of an algebraic/geometric flavor
(zeta functions, L-functions, algebraic number fields, elliptic curves). Lots of exercises. This book helped
make number theory make sense to me. You will find many introductory number theory texts pitched
below I/R, but if you can read I/R, ignore the easy ones.
[PC] Yes, this is the standard and to my knowledge the best number theory text that is modern, broad, and
reasonably elementary. It's a strange book in that it's really not written at any one level—if you've heard of
something called unique factorization, you'll find the first few chapters easygoing material, but the
algebraic sophistication rises slowly but surely throughout the book. Eventually you need to be
comfortable with rings, fields and Galois theory at the undergraduate level, but they tell you at the
beginning of the chapter when they require more background than before. There's an awful lot in here;
this was my course text for Math 242 and I used it as one of the texts in a reading class on number theory,
and I still haven't read through all the chapters. It's a great example of a book in which the authors have
tried and succeeded in bringing advanced material down to the undergraduate level. Some good historical
notes, as any self-respecting number theory text should contain. Recommended highly.
Burn, A pathway into number theory
[BB] The book is composed entirely of exercises leading the reader through all the elementary theorems
of number theory. Can be tedious (you get to verify, say, Fermat's little theorem for maybe 5 different sets
of numbers) but a good way to really work through the beginnings of the subject on one's own.
Hardy/Wright, Introduction to number theory
This is the classic, and Hardy is one of the great expository writers of mathematics. However, I remember
that the last time I looked at this book it made no sense to me. If you like number theory you should
probably at least look at it.
[PC] Oh, here I must fervently disagree (well, okay, maybe it didn't make sense to you at the time, but
please go ahead and look again). I say that any student of mathematics should have this book on their
shelf. Here's H/W's game: they explain number theory to people who can follow mathematical proofs but
have no prior exposure to the subject or any advanced machinery whatsoever—hmm, maybe a little
calculus at times, but not always. The one thing they do use is a little asymptotic growth notation, i.e., O,
o, and the squiggly line, and for some reason they assume that people will know all about this without
much comment. I seem to recall that one chapter towards the beginning is confusing because of this, and
when I first bought the book it stymied me (I was sixteen at the time). But it's written so that you don't
have to read it in order: they develop just enough theory about almost every branch of (elementary)
number theory so that you can see interesting theorems proved. I have jumped around a lot, but over the
years I think I've read almost every chapter. I really think it's the #1 “cultural enrichment” book for math
students.
Chandrasekharan, Analytic number theory
[PC] Recommended to me by none other than Professor Narasimhan himself, it's actually a very
elementary and readable introduction to the classic theorems of analytic number theory: Chebyshev's
Theorem, Bertrand's Postulate, uniform distribution, Dirichlet's Theorem and the Prime Number Theorem.
Requires epsilonics and just a little bit of complex function theory.
Apostol, Introduction to analytic number theory
[PC] If you've been reading this list, you know from Chris that Apostol writes terribly dry books. I've
never read anything by him but this one, and it's fine, a bit more elementary than Chandrasekharan and
easier to get your hands on (Apostol is a UTM; Chandrasekharan is an out of print Springer international
edition). It starts out with a nice introduction to arithmetic functions, including the convolution product,
and it covers much the same as the above, only a bit less briskly. A quick route to the proofs of the
greatest theorems of 19th century mathematics.
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics

Graham/Knuth/Patashnik, Concrete mathematics
The first chapter of Knuth's immortal work The art of computer programming is an extensive study of
combinatorics and asymptotics. G/K/P is an expanded and friendlier version, which emphasizes teaching
the reader to solve things, rather than just showing how they are done. Contains many funny marginal
notes from students in the Stanford class which gave birth to the book, as well as tons of great exercises.
Not a reference work.
Real analysis
(Elementary level: metric spaces, continuity, differentiation)
Rudin, Principles of mathematical analysis
The first eight chapters of this little book form the best, cleanest exposition of elementary real analysis I
know of, although few UC readers will have much use for the chapter on Riemann-Stieltjes integration.
Like Rudin's other books, it is broken into bite-size pieces, so you can prove every statement in the book
on your own if you're self-studying. If that isn't enough, there is a large collection of challenging
exercises. Some people think Rudin is too skinny and streamlined, but I think it's beautiful. (Ignore
chapters 9 and 10, which are a confusing and insufficiently motivated development of multivariable
calculus. Chapter 11 is all right for Lebesgue integration, but there are better treatments elsewhere.)
[PC] I agree 100% with what Chris says, but I want to add my voice that this is (through chapter 8) the
cleanest exposition I have ever seen. I still flip back to this to check things out.
[BR] I must insist that Chapters 9 and 10 are not THAT bad. They're worth revisiting if you are tired of
Spivak and do Carmo.
Apostol, Mathematical analysis
Covers the same material as Rudin, plus a little complex analysis. Apostol assumes (hence, engenders)
less maturity on the reader's part, writing most arguments out in “advanced calculus” detail rather than
“real analysis” detail, if that makes sense. I find it terribly dry. Nevertheless the book is careful and
comprehensive, with many exercises.
Gelbaum/Olmsted, Counterexamples in analysis
This little book contains a long list of examples, of strange objects which contradict the things that you
think should be true but aren't. It starts off at a very elementary level and gradually builds up to include
the Lebesgue theory and R^n. A good thing to have around on your first or second trip through analysis.
(Intermediate level: normed spaces, Lebesgue integration)
Kolmogorov/Fomin, Introductory real analysis
When I started 207 I couldn't see why the material of this book was analysis: here was set theory, some
linear algebra, some stuff about normed linear spaces, a little functional analysis... oh, here's that cool
integral everyone talks about, but where are the derivatives? Now I know why it's analysis, of course, but
the book as a whole is still a perplexing beast to the inexperienced. I think the primary reason it remains a
text for 207 is that it costs $13, so why not? The style is distinctively Russian, which puts me off but turns
other people on. Extended applications appear occasionally to lend context, but on the whole there is little
motivation (and few exercises). The book is also difficult to use as a reference work, because the authors
develop only the results they need to get where they're going.
[PC] Agreed. But it's cheap and though you may wonder why you're learning so much functional analysis
before you see a Lebesgue integral, it's still clear and easy to read, so there's no reason why you shouldn't
own it.
Haaser/Sullivan, Real analysis
Covers the same material as K/F, with the addition of a chapter relating differentiation to Lebesgue
integration (the fundamental theorems of calculus). H/S use the Daniell integral rather than K/F's
concrete, bare-hands construction of Lebesgue measure; it's probably good to do it by hand once, but after
that forget it. The sequence of topics makes a little more sense than K/F, although the chapter on inner
product spaces is lonely at the end, where it lives because they want to do Fourier series. But the book is
written in a ho-hum style, and the exercises are too easy. In this H/S shares the flaw of many books at this
level, of making too big a deal of a little bit of abstraction which might be new to the reader. I went
straight from little Rudin to big Rudin without much of a stop for either of these books.
Hewitt/Stromberg, Real and abstract analysis
This is an old, classic book which is worth a look. They develop many concrete classical topics (all those
things like Legendre polynomials that you were always curious about) as exercises.
Dieudonné, Foundations of modern analysis
This book is a strange bird, the first volume of a nine(!)-volume treatise by one of the original
Bourbakistes. I can't really describe it except to say that it's very formalistic, it has many good exercises,
it's very hard to relate to other treatments of the subject, and it made a big impression on me.
(Graduate level: measure theory, basic functional analysis)
Rudin, Real and complex analysis
The first half is the standard reference for real analysis (the second half is reviewed below). It's a very
clean treatment of the topics it covers, again in bite-size pieces and with many challenging exercises.
Sometimes I get frustrated with the lack of motivation, or with Rudin's habit of proving exactly the
lemmas he needs to do something, without any context for the results. Nevertheless it's a good reference
or self-study book. Topics: Integration and L^p spaces, Banach and Hilbert spaces, Radon-Nikodym
theorem and differentiation, Fubini's theorem, Fourier transforms.
[PC] Yes, how wonderful that there's one book whose first half contains all the analysis that you'll ever
need to know! This book is advanced and the exposition is austere (“which gives (5). Applying (3) to (4),
we get (6)”) but it is absolutely crystalline in its clarity (exception: is its proof of the L^2 inversion
theorem for Fourier transforms valid? I'm not so sure.) Isn't this the one math book that every student
must buy sooner or later (aside from Hardy and Wright, of course)? Some rainy day you'll discover that
the book has a second half and find some very interesting theorems in there, but don't confuse it with a
course on complex analysis, because it's a weird-ass treatment of complex analysis viewed through the
eyes of a conventional analyst. Think of it as a bonus.
Lang, Real and functional analysis
Another Serge Lang book, but a Serge Lang book is about the only place you'll find the inverse function
theorem systematically treated for Banach spaces (except Dieudonné, and Lang was a Bourbakiste too).
Royden, Real analysis
Royden is like Hungerford for me: a lot of people like it, but it annoys me for a number of semi-silly
reasons. He denotes the empty set by 0 (zero) and the zero element of a vector space by lowercase theta.
He proves many theorems three times in gradually increasing generality. He leaves whole proofs to the
exercises, and then depends on them later in the text. And I don't like his construction of Lebesgue
integration. (Nyaah, so there.)
[BR] This is such a terrible book! He leaves the hardest theorems to the reader and proves some really
simple-minded things with too much machinery. For example, he assigns the Urysohn lemma for normal
spaces as an exercise for the reader and then has to use the Baire category theorem to show that on
Banach spaces, linear operators are continuous iff they commute with taking limits. If you have to take
208 or 272, find a supplementary text. You'll be happy you did.
Multivariable calculus
Spivak, Calculus on manifolds
This is the book everybody gets in differentiation and integration in R^n, and it's a pretty good one,
although the integration chapters are hard to read—maybe it was just my first encounter with exterior
algebra that made it hard. As usual for Spivak books, clear exposition and lots of nice exercises.
Unfortunately this one is old enough to be annoyingly typeset.
[PC] I don't really like this book, and I'm a big fan of Spivak in general. Does anybody else think that this
rigorous multivariable Riemann integral theory is a dinosaur? And when Spivak starts talking about
chains (in chapter four, I think), I don't know what the hell he's talking about. Presumably you could
ignore that chapter and use the book as an introduction to differential forms. I can't suggest a substitute at
the moment, other than Spivak's Comprehensive introduction volume 1, which is a wonderful book but
which I still wouldn't want to read as a first introduction to forms. Come to think of it, I love forms to
death, but maybe they're just plain confusing the first time around...
do Carmo, Differential forms and applications
This skinny yellow book has replaced Munkres's Analysis on manifolds as the text for 274, and I'm not
sure it's an improvement. It's more like a modernized Calculus on manifolds. I haven't done more than
glance through it, but the notation is reputedly horrible, and Spivak is definitely a superior expositor.
Complex analysis
Ahlfors, Complex analysis
Ahlfors has been the standard text for complex function theory for quite some time. I like it, but he's very
classical and concrete in outlook: nary a function space or a norm in the whole book. The exposition is a
classic, though.
[PC] Everyone lists it; do people actually read it? I'd use Conway instead.
Conway, Functions of one complex variable I
This book starts very, very slow and easy, so if you're rusty on metric spaces or real-variable theory you
have no need to worry. Conway's style is to prove things very thoroughly, but relegate the occasional
proof to the exercises. The text is more modern than Ahlfors; Conway proves Runge's theorem using
Banach space techniques (well, he's an operator theorist). I like the book more for this reason, but I finally
sold my copy because the slow pace got to me.
[PC] I like the book, but I hear your criticisms. The chapter on convergence in the compact-open
topology, arguably the most important topic in the whole book, is marred by the fact that he mixes metric
space theory which is perfectly general with the theory of complex functions. His chapter on Riemann
surfaces sort of annoys me too, for the same reason. Maybe just a bit of reorganization would improve this
book. But he covers all the theorems that an undergraduate needs to know (and a little more), and he does
it without using fancy machinery of any sort: no fundamental groups, no differential forms, no deep
theorems from real analysis. [CJ: The Hahn-Banach theorem isn't a deep theorem from real analysis?]
Still, I can't help but think that the great American complex analysis book has yet to be written.
Narasimhan, Complex analysis in one variable
As we might expect from the famed freshman-eating Narasimhan, this book is much quicker-paced and
covers more topics than either of the two above (including a chapter on several variables). Sadly, there are
no exercises, but the book is a good reference work.
Rudin, Real and complex analysis
Rudin's second half is a treatment of complex analysis even more modern than Conway but even more
resolutely non-geometric than Ahlfors. I never really got along with it, for the second reason; also, the
selection of topics after the canonical material feels a little random. (Rudin's aim was to bring out the
unifying threads in real and complex analysis; thus there is a chapter on Banach algebras near the end.)
However, the style is still crystalline, and the exercises are still excellent. Best for confirmed analysts.
Palka, An introduction to complex function theory
[YU] The author follows Ahlfors's approach and thus the book is very geometric. After reading this book,
I began to like complex function theory. It contains lots of interesting exercises as well as routine ones.
Differential equations
Arnold, Ordinary differential equations
Yes, Virginia, there is an interesting geometric theory of differential equations (of course!), not just the
stuff you see in those engineering texts: stuff about stable and unstable points or manifolds, and other
things with a dynamical-systems flavor. Nevertheless there is substantial material on how to reduce a
differential equation to linear form and solve it, although no Laplace transform techniques or the like.
Arnold explains it all coherently at an advanced-calculus level (manifolds appear at the end), complete
with many beautiful diagrams. Another distinctively Russian book—read all the ones I describe that way,
and you'll see what I mean. The third edition is substantially different from the second (which I have): the
manifolds material is much expanded, and the typesetting is not so nice.
Hurewicz, Lectures on ordinary differential equations
A tiny book which covers material similar to Arnold, but more concisely. I haven't read it but it's
frequently referenced, and worth a look if you need to know the basic theorems. (If all you need is the
basic existence-uniqueness theorem for ODEs, it's also in Spivak volume 1 or Lang, Real and functional
analysis.)
Point-set topology
Munkres, Topology: a first course
Munkres's book is a wonderful first encounter with topology; in fact it begins slowly enough to be a first
encounter with abstract mathematics (after a traditional advanced calculus course). Every abstraction is
carefully motivated, and there are tons of examples, pictures, and exercises. This is one of those books
you could hand to a bright student of any age who knew some calculus (not a bad book to choose if you're
coming back to mathematics at age 35). Most of the book is the traditional analysis-topology material, but
there is a long last chapter on the fundamental group which covers enough to prove the Jordan curve
theorem.
[PC] Yes, Munkres deserves to be the standard undergraduate point-set book. It doesn't have everything,
but it has most of the standard topics and it's relentlessly clear.
Willard, General topology
But Willard is my topology book of choice. The level of abstraction is deliberately higher, and the book is
better organized as a reference than Munkres. It's not nearly as friendly, but it's still clear and well-written
(I think an unclear point-set topology book is probably no longer a point-set topology book). Willard is
probably the best modern reference for analysis-topology, where “modern” means “excluding Kelley”
(see below). You can learn from it too; it's organized bite-size like a Rudin book, so you can prove all but
the hard theorems on your own (I did this with an initial segment, and learned a lot).
Kelley, General topology
[PS] Let me just say that Kelley's book on topology is horribly old-fashioned—I know because my
advisor is forcing me to read it. Half the topics are things which I don't think are as important as they used
to be. Nets, filters? I guess they're interesting in and of themselves. On the upside, it does have a nice
appendix covering the rudiments of set theory.
[CJ] It is old-fashioned, but it's still the best book on topology for functional analysis, bar none. Nets are
surprisingly necessary in infinite-dimensional topological vector spaces! The occasional proof is easier to
read once recast in modern language, but doing so is a good learning exercise anyway. And Kelley has the
nice habit (emulated less successfully by Willard) of treating substantial pieces of analysis as exercises;
two of the exercises to Chapter 2 are titled “Integration theory, junior grade” and “Integration theory,
utility grade”. It's really an analysis book disguised as a point-set topology book, but then much of
functional analysis is really general topology on spaces that happen to be vector spaces too.
Steen/Seebach, Counterexamples in topology
This is a topology ‘anticourse’: a collection of all the screwed-up topological spaces which provide
limiting counterexamples to all those point-set topology theorems with complicated hypotheses. It's a
classic just for the content, but pretty well written too. This book and Gelbaum/Olmsted (above) are two
parts of what should someday be the big book of counterexamples to everything. Read it and see just what
you avoid by sticking to differentiable manifolds.
[BR] Steen and Seebach have catalogued 143 of the most disgusting pathological topological creatures.
They are invaluable for when you're first learning point set topology and need to understand why the
definitions are necessary. They can also come in handy on tests: I used the one-point compactification of
an uncountable discrete space three times on my Math 262 final. The text used for 262, Munkres, relies on
three counterexamples to disprove everything: the Sorgenfrey line, S_Omega and I x I in the dictionary
order. Steen and Seebach let you know that there are tons of other beastly topological spaces which
violate the laws of common sense.
Dugundji, Topology
[YU]This is a point-set topology book. Less elementary than Munkres, but useful as a reference book for
grad students.
Differential geometry
Guillemin/Pollack, Differential topology
I didn't understand transversality at all until I saw this book. It's a very geometric (as opposed to
formalistic), down-to-earth introduction to some of the most mystical areas of smooth manifold theory:
transversality and intersection theory. Abstraction is avoided (manifolds are defined as embedded in
Euclidean space, which annoys me just a bit), but without hand-waving important distinctions (they are
careful to point out that for noncompact manifolds, an injective immersion need not be an embedding, that
is, proper too). The last chapter treats integration and Stokes's theorem, but that's not what anyone reads
the book for. Beautifully written, and fills an important hole in Spivak volume 1.
do Carmo, Differential geometry of curves and surfaces
We used this book for Corlette's differential geometry seminar two years ago (293). I didn't like it all that
much because do Carmo is careful to keep the book to a post-advanced-calculus level: everything takes
place in R^3, no vector bundles, lots of componentwise calculations. Nevertheless it's a nice treatment of
the classical theory of curves and surfaces in space. Read it if you want to know about the Gauss map or
the two fundamental forms, but don't want to work all the way through Spivak volume 2.
Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, 1
[PC] Volume 1 is the best introduction to smooth manifold theory and differential topology that I know
of. Every chapter of this book has come in handy for me at one time or another. Ben and I like to describe
the book as “locally readable”: his exposition is very careful, but sometimes he takes too damn long to
explain a single concept. Luckily, despite Spivak's efforts to the contrary, you can flip around and read
chapter by chapter, and I recommend this. There is so much good stuff in here.
[CJ] Buy it and read it over and over and over. Don't skip the exercises because that's where he puts all
the freaky examples. It's true that sometimes he talks too much, but for the loving detail in which he lays
out difficult concepts, he can be forgiven.
Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, 2
As Spivak puts it at the beginning, “Volume 1 dealt with the ‘differential’ part; in this volume we finally
get down to some geometry.” Volume 2 treats the classical theory of curves and surfaces using the modern
machinery developed in the first volume, which makes it (for me) a more comfortable read than do
Carmo. Spivak is careful to motivate everything historically; surface theory is introduced by a long walk
through Gauss's General investigations of curved surfaces (you should really have a copy of it to read this
book), and the second half of the book goes through the (convoluted) stages of evolution of the definition
of a connection. Not easy reading but every bit as rewarding as Volume 1. Unfortunately there are almost
none of the wonderful exercises which characterize the first volume.
Classical geometry
Coxeter, Introduction to geometry
This is an interesting book which I can't really describe. It contains a number of short treatments of
undeniably geometric but nontraditional topics; one fascinating application is the relation between
phyllotaxis (the arrangement of plants' leaves around the stem) and generalized Fibonacci-type numbers.
Read for culture.
Hilbert, Foundations of geometry
Hilbert was very interested in finding coherent, minimal axiom systems for parts of mathematics; he was
probably inspired by the long debate over Euclid's parallel postulate and the discovery in the late 19th
century of consistent non-Euclidean geometries. (The Gödel incompleteness theorems solved negatively
one of Hilbert's famous problems.) In this book Hilbert described a correct and complete axiom system
for Euclidean geometry, with the dependence relations between axioms exhaustively determined, and then
carefully derived most of Euclid from it. It's not a particularly fun read but its existence is philosophically
interesting.
Hartshorne, [Euclid revisited book]
The algebraic geometer of the famed book from hell (see below) recently finished another modern-Euclid
book. I haven't seen it and don't even remember the title, but it might be interesting.
ADVANCED
Specialized works, difficulty level unbounded above.
Contents
Foundations (1)
Problem solving (1)
General abstract algebra (1)
Group theory and representations (5)
Ring theory (4)
Commutative and homological algebra (5)
Number theory (5)
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics (3)
Measure theory (2)
Probability (1)
Functional analysis (5)
Complex analysis (6)
Harmonic analysis (5)
Differential equations (4)

Differential topology (3)
Algebraic topology (7)
Differential geometry (6)
Geometric measure theory (4)
Algebraic geometry (5)
Foundations
Mac Lane, Categories for the working mathematician
Pete Clark isn't convinced that the working mathematician needs any category theory at all, but I
definitely am! Of course it depends on whether you're interested in something heavily homological, but
most people will need at least the basics of adjoints and limits sometime. The book covers substantially
more than that, but because examples are drawn from some advanced stuff (rings and Lie algebras appear
in the first chapter) you need a fair amount of background to read it. Noteworthy is a section near the end
entitled “All concepts are Kan extensions”. Most books on homological algebra will contain a brief
summary of category theory, as does Jacobson's Basic algebra II; here you can find it laid out in more
detail.
Problem solving
Pólya/Szegö, Problems and theorems in analysis I and II
These are very old books of very good problems, mostly from analysis, with complete solutions. They're
old-fashioned of course, but the polite word is “classical”; worth reading for culture, to prepare for your
quals, or (important!) to see if you can still do concrete calculations after four years of brainwashing by
abstraction. (Anyone want to compute the n-Hausdorff measure of S^n in R^(n+1)?)
General abstract algebra

Jacobson, Basic algebra II
This is perhaps the only really advanced general-algebra book; it contains chapters on categories,
universal algebra, modules and module categories, classical ring theory, representations of finite groups,
homological algebra, commutative algebra, advanced field theory... Readability is uniformly low (unless
you really like Jacobson's prose style) and the quality (“sanity”) of the treatments varies; I'd look
anywhere else for group representation theory, but as Jacobson is a ring theorist, the structure theory of
rings and fields is definitive. (Not the commutative ring stuff though!) I bought it before I really knew
whether it was worth having; now I'm not sure, but it's come in handy at surprising times. Of dubious use
as a reference, since each chapter is woven rather tightly and he frequently refers to hard results from
volume I.
Group theory and representations

Alperin/Bell, Groups and representations
If you're not into finite groups or their representations, this book contains exactly what you need to know
about them. After a quick run-through of what you probably already know, it treats matrix groups
(Alperin, like Artin, insists that these are the real examples of finite groups, and I agree), p-groups,
composition series, and then basic representation theory via Wedderburn's structure theorem for
semisimple algebras. I learned a lot from the matrix-groups chapter. The exposition is nearly as clean and
clear as Rudin's, and there are many good exercises (some deliberately too hard, and none marked for
difficulty).
[PC] Yep, a solid text for an intro course to group theory (at the graduate level). It's designed so that no
more and no less than the entire book gets covered in Math 325, so unlike most math books, I have read
this from cover to cover.
Rotman, Introduction to the theory of groups
This is a group theorist's group theory book, although it contains no representation theory at all. What I've
seen of it looks good (the diagrams on the inside covers are neat, although I have no idea what they
mean). But I don't like group theory that much, so I can't say more.
[BR] This was my favorite reference for Murthy's 257 class. Starting with the simplest notions of
permutations, Rotman is able to construct everything you ever wanted to know about group theory. If
you're just looking for a clear, readable exposition and elegant proofs of the isomorphism theorems or
Sylow's theorems, this is a great place to look. And if by some random chance you have need to learn
what a wreath product is, you won't need to buy a new book.
Gorenstein, Finite groups
[BB] The final word on finite groups prior to 1970. Everything is in here. Very hard reading for a non-
specialist, but a good reference for a serious group-theorist. I think Glauberman has it memorized.
Humphreys, Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory
A skinny little book which runs briskly through the basic theorems on Lie algebras and their
representations. Note that it says Lie algebras, not Lie groups; there are no smooth manifolds here! There
are four copies in Eckhart Library and they're always all checked out, so it must be pretty good; it helps
that the alternative works (like Jacobson, Lie algebras) are all very old, thus hard to read.
Fulton/Harris, Representation theory: a first course
This is a beautifully concrete introduction to Lie groups and their representations. “First course” in Joe
Harris-speak means that the book is driven largely by examination of concrete examples and their
characteristics: in fact, the first quarter of the book covers representations of finite groups, as an extended
“concrete example” motivating the Lie theory. Nevertheless the book is not easy reading, and you will
need a lot of multilinear algebra and some readiness to fill in glossed-over details. But at the end, you will
know a lot about why the more advanced general theory behaves as it does. Physicists with a high
mathematics tolerance ought to check this one out.
Ring theory
Kaplansky, Fields and rings
Actually this is three little sheaves (coherent sheaves, even) of lecture notes, bound as a book: one on
Galois theory, one on the classical structure theory of (noncommutative) rings, and one on homological
dimension theory of rings. Kaplansky's exposition is classic, and for people who (like me) didn't really get
Galois theory out of 259, this isn't a bad place to learn it. He has a similar volume called Lie algebras and
locally compact groups, which is half structure theory of Lie algebras and half (of all things) a proof that a
locally compact topological group has a unique analytic Lie group structure.
Anderson/Fuller, Rings and categories of modules
Noncommutative rings have a homological theory very different in flavor from that of commutative rings,
namely the structure theory of the categories R-mod and mod-R of left and right modules. I don't really
know why I bought this book, because I find the material itself pretty boring. But it's a good exposition,
contains category-oriented proofs of most of the classical noncommutative ring theory (as opposed to
Lam's book below), and I did use it to give a Math Club talk last year.
Morandi, Field and Galois theory
This is an exceedingly gentle but comprehensive course in field theory (a lot more material than the field-
theory chapter of a general algebra text). Morandi goes very slowly, and you could probably cover most of
the proofs and do them yourself; the beginning exercises are too easy, but there are some good ones too.
You might not find the material interesting enough to sustain such length of presentation; if so, look at
Kaplansky instead. But it's a good reference if you just need field theory to do something else with
(commutative algebra, say).
Lam, A first course in noncommutative rings
This is the ring-theory book I should have gotten when I was looking at ring-theory books. Informed by a
huge number of examples (many of which I never would have guessed could exist), Lam lays out a
beautiful and detailed exposition of the more concrete parts of the theory of noncommutative rings as it
exists today. (Some more sophisticated areas, such as the theory of central simple algebras which
Jacobson treats in Basic algebra II, are left to a planned second course, now published as Lectures on
rings and modules.) Lots of exercises, mostly not too hard. He avoids category-theoretic methods for the
most part, which saves the book from turning into the kind of functor catalog that Anderson/Fuller
sometimes becomes.
Commutative and homological algebra

Atiyah/Macdonald, Introduction to commutative algebra
Matsumura, Commutative ring theory
Eisenbud, Commutative algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry
As Pete Clark said, these three are the standard references now, in roughly increasing order of difficulty.
Atiyah/Macdonald is short, to the point, and mostly non-homological. Matsumura is the “big Rudin” of
commutative algebra: a clear systematic exposition from first principles. Eisenbud is a huge, sprawling
monster of a book, which includes almost everything... somewhere. All three have many good exercises,
and they complement each other well. Eisenbud is the newest and the most complete reference (and, as a
specific objective, includes every result used in Hartshorne's algebraic geometry book), but it can be
difficult to wade through so much material to find what you want. Atiyah/Macdonald is probably the best
introductory text—or try Kaplansky's book below.
Kaplansky, Commutative rings
I list this one separately because it's, well, different. Like Atiyah/Macdonald, this is a small book which
takes up commutative algebra from the beginning, largely without homological methods. However, the
pace is much brisker, and many results are stated in somewhat idiosyncratic form, since Kaplansky
resolutely avoids algebraic-geometric language. He unfortunately refers to the third part of his notes
Fields and rings (above) for the homological results he does need.
Weibel, An introduction to homological algebra
Without this book I would probably have failed the second half of Kottwitz's Math 327 class. The first
half is a systematic exposition of homological algebra, more modern than the standard references: the aim
stated is to bring “current technology” in homological algebra to casual users from other disciplines. The
second half is devoted to a group of applications, including cohomology of groups (the lifesaver in 327),
Lie algebra homology and cohomology, and other stuff. It's reasonably well written and careful in notation
(a very important thing in this field). Weibel also takes care not to let too much abstract nonsense go by
without an example or three of what in the hell structures he might be talking about.
Number theory
Weil, Basic number theory
[PC] Um, I saw this book in the Coop, was intrigued by the title, and opened it up to a discussion of Haar
measure! Not suitable for a first course in number theory, or a second course in number theory, or... It's
really hard. Maybe someday I'll get to it.
[CJ] It's not that bad, just... brisk. Weil was another of the original Bourbakistes, and his approach to
algebraic number theory reflects their devotion to proper foundation: to study global (algebraic number)
fields, one must first study local (locally compact) fields, and to study these one begins with topology and
measure, etc. I think it's a great book, but it's true you won't learn any number theory you don't already
know. You'll discover that you hadn't known what you thought you knew, but now you do.
Narkiewicz, Introduction to the elementary and analytic theory of algebraic numbers
This is a huge yellow brick which looks more like a dictionary than a math book. Narkiewicz gives a
careful exposition of basic algebraic number theory (in somewhat old-fashioned notation) with more
emphasis on the role of (both complex and p-adic) analytic methods than usual. I used it to learn some
things about character theory on the p-adics. Notable for its extensive historical notes, unsolved problems
lists, and truly immense bibliography.
Silverman, The arithmetic of elliptic curves
Silverman's two books (the second is Advanced topics in the arithmetic of elliptic curves) are the standard
texts in the subject, and from what I've seen they deserve it. You will need to be thoroughly comfortable
with basic algebra and number theory to pick up the first one, however. If you want to learn something
about elliptic curves without so much algebraic background, try Koblitz, Introduction to elliptic curves
and modular forms (but brush up your complex analysis) or Cassels, Lectures on elliptic curves (and be
prepared for a short book that doesn't hold your hand much).
Koblitz, p-adic numbers, p-adic analysis, and zeta functions
[PC] Interesting, and probably a good place to read up on p-adics.
[CJ] I still want to know what a zeta function really is. Koblitz is a good writer, and he'd probably tell me
if I read his book...
Fröhlich/Taylor, Algebraic number theory
[PC] This is the book that I'd love to find time to read from cover to cover. It's advanced in the sense that
it's definitely for would-be algebraic number theorists: they cover a lot of ground and basically pride
themselves on doing stuff that the other introductory texts don't. For example, they actually talk about
cubic, biquadratic and sextic number fields, and complain in their introduction that many number theorists
never acquire enough technique to work with anything but quadratic fields. But in terms of prerequisites,
it presupposes a solid knowledge of undergraduate algebra, including an acquaintance with modules. I'm
biased because I love algebraic number theory, but this book jumped onto my shelf above all the others.
There is just so much great stuff in here, and it is written about with enthusiasm and clarity. Only problem
is the confusing and oppressive letters that they use for ideals; what's up with that?
[CJ] What, the lower-case Fraktur? It's the old standard (grin).
Combinatorics and discrete mathematics

Lovasz, Problems in combinatorics
[PS] You simply must include what Hungarian mathematicians consider the most important math book
ever, Laszlo Lovasz's huge tome covering combinatorics from an elementary level to Ph.D. level in one
book. It teaches combinatorics the way Hungarians think it should be taught, by doing lots of problems.
The problems are very hard, but in the book there are separate sections for problems, hints (which are
often quite helpful), and full solutions. Every budding young Hungarian combinatorist spends a year
doing every problem in this book sometime before he finishes his Ph.D. As a side treat, the questions are
often filled with bits of Hungarian culture, e.g. “How many ways can you pass out k forints to n friends if
1 friend only wants an even number of forints and the rest of them must get at least one?” or “Bela wants
to buy flowers for his friend...” Probably the main thing wrong with this book is it's horribly expensive
unless you buy it in Hungary, where it's still $60. If you can't find this book in Eckhart, then maybe it's not
so important to include it. On the other hand, Babai did help write it, so it is relevant nonetheless.
[CJ] A forint is about half a cent these days.
Stanley, Enumerative combinatorics I
Combinatorics is maturing from a collection of problems knit together by ad hoc methods (or methods
which appear ad hoc to non-combinatorists) into a discipline which is taught and learned systematically.
Stanley's book got a rave review in the Bulletin of the AMS as the new standard reference on counting,
which really means most of combinatorics; I haven't read it but I've seen it on a whole lot of grad students'
shelves. Try it out if G/K/P (above) is too talky for you. The second volume is now out.
Bollobás, Modern graph theory
This recent Springer GTM is a substantial revision and expansion of Bollobás's earlier graph theory text.
Although I'm not a combinatorist by any stretch of the imagination, it looks like a good book, inviting but
not toy.
Measure theory
Halmos, Measure theory
This was the standard reference for at least two generations of analysts, and it probably still is, because
nobody writes books entitled Measure theory any more. Basically it's an abstract analysis text with extra
care paid to set-theoretic questions, regularity problems for measures, and a construction of Haar measure.
It's a good book, since Paul Halmos wrote it, but it might be considered old-fashioned now. (For a more
modern, emphatically measure-theoretic analysis text, check out Bruckner/Bruckner/Thomson, Real
analysis.)
Federer, Geometric measure theory
Federer's book is listed here because in the last few months, to my great surprise, it has become my
reference of choice for basic real analysis (replacing the first half of big Rudin). Chapter 2 (of 5) is
entitled “General measure theory”, and it covers chapters 1–3 and 6–8 of big Rudin in the space of eighty
pages, together with tons of additional material on group-invariant measures, covering theorems, and all
the geometric measures (Hausdorff et al). The presentation is compressed to within epsilon of
unreadability, but once you unravel it, it has a powerful elegance. Federer takes great care to give the
limits of generality in which each result is true. There are no exercises, but reading the book is hard
exercise enough. My one quibble is that even big-name theorems are referenced by number; I would far
prefer “by the dominated convergence theorem” to “by 2.3.13” for the rest of the book. If you don't like
reading dense books, stay far, far away from Federer, but if you want a complete, powerful reference to
measure theory, give it a try.
Probability
Feller, Introduction to probability theory and its applications
This is the standard text. It splits into two volumes, namely probability before and after it turns into
measure theory. What I've read of it is quite well written, and noteworthy for the great care with which it
discusses experimental issues (the idea “what sequence of choices corresponds to what mathematical
construct” can get sticky when dependence relations are complex). Some of us will need to know some
probability someday, and here it is. Alternative references are Shiryaev, Probability (Springer, so cheaper
and easier to get, but very Russian) and Billingsley, Probability and measure (by a UC emeritus).
Functional analysis
Conway, A course in functional analysis
A grad student I knew from 325 saw me leaving the bookstore with this book, and told me it was terrible,
that he'd hated it at Dartmouth. I didn't believe him at the time, but now I see what he meant. As in his
complex analysis book, Conway develops functional analysis slowly and carefully, without excessive
generalization (locally convex spaces are a side topic) and with proofs in great detail, except for the ones
he omits. This time around, though, the detail is excruciating (many functional analysis proofs consist of a
mass of boring calculation surrounding one main idea) and the notation is simply awful. (The fact that
Hilbert spaces are often function spaces is not an excuse to use ‘f’ to denote a general element of a Hilbert
space.) The book is not without virtues, but it goes so slowly that I can't see which results are important.
Dunford/Schwartz, Linear operators
After all these years, I think Dunford/Schwartz is still the bible of functional analysis; the analysts who
did all the exercises in Kelley to learn topology tried to do all the exercises in here, or at least volume 1, to
learn about operators. They all failed, although one of the exercises turned into Langlands's doctoral
thesis. D/S is too old to be easily read now, but worth looking at for culture.
Kadison/Ringrose, Fundamentals of the theory of operator algebras
No, I'm not turning into an operator algebraist (although I might be doing noncommutative geometry
some day). The first three-fifths of volume 1 contains a much better treatment of basic functional analysis
than I've seen elsewhere, certainly slanted toward operator algebras, but clearly written and interesting (a
quality lacking in many functional analysis texts). The book is known for its collection of challenging
exercises, which were so popular that K/R wrote up complete solutions to the two volumes and published
them as volumes 3 and 4. Unfortunately volume 1 is missing from Eckhart Library.
Kreyszig, Introductory functional analysis with applications
Here is a book to look at for a lot of applications and motivation for functional analysis, without a lot of
technicalities. I've only looked at it a little bit; it seems to be written more like a physics book, substituting
a plausibility argument for an occasional tricky technical proof, but spending a lot of time in explanation.
Try it if you have trouble seeing what's really different about the infinite-dimensional case.
Zimmer, Essential Results of Functional Analysis
[BB] It's a U of C published blue book, and is extremely concise and quickly presents most of the stuff
one needs to know. It's certainly not easy—Chapter 0 presents weak derivatives—but it's a good second
course.
Complex analysis
Andersson, Topics in complex analysis
I got through the non-Riemann surfaces part of 314 on this book. It's a skinny Springer Universitext which
presents complex analysis at a second-course level, efficiently and clearly, with less talk and fewer
commercials. He starts off by defining dz = dx + i dy, which will annoy some people but makes me happy.
Later chapters treat more advanced analytic material (Hardy spaces, bounded mean oscillation, and the
like). The exercises are pretty tough.
Gunning/Rossi, Analytic functions of several variables
This is one of the classic texts on the “real” theory of several complex variables, meaning analytic spaces,
coherent sheaves and the whole bit. It's a good book so far as it goes, but there's a lot of hard theory and
not a lot of geometric motivation—and no exercises.
Whitney, Complex analytic varieties
And this is where you go to learn the “fake” theory of several complex variables, meaning what things
actually look like geometrically, with as little machinery as possible. Very concrete. I think there's a law
that several-complex-variables books must have no exercises and must use letters as ordinals at some
sectioning level.
Narasimhan, Compact Riemann surfaces
I put this book here to warn that, although Corlette likes to use it as a 314 text, you should not try to read
it until your second or third year of graduate school. It presents the theory of compact Riemann surfaces
as someone who already knew the general principles would see it, as a specialization of complex algebraic
geometry.
[PC] This book lies on my shelf from Math 314, waiting for someone smarter than me to come by and
read it. I think I read pages 27 and 28 about 50 times, but that's about it.
Jost, Compact Riemann surfaces
If you want to know what Riemann surfaces are and why they're interesting, go here instead. Jost assumes
little background; you could probably read this after 207-8-9 with some work.
Weyl, The concept of a Riemann surface
Or try this book, which is a beautiful classic but uses terminology and ways of thinking which we
consider archaic. Hassler Whitney is credited with the formal definition of a differentiable manifold, and
Riemann with the idea (in his Habilitationsschrift; see Spivak volume 2 for a translation), but the first
edition of this book was a significant step in its formulation. Read for culture and brain elevation, once
you know some substantial complex analysis.
Harmonic analysis
Katznelson, An introduction to harmonic analysis
And he means analysis... This is a short text on classical harmonic analysis, cheap and pretty readable.
There's a rather perfunctory treatment of locally compact groups at the end, but the real emphasis is on the
classical theory of Fourier series and integrals, including all kinds of sticky convergence and summation
questions.
Rudin, Fourier analysis on groups
This is a classic text on commutative harmonic analysis (that is, on locally compact abelian groups). It's a
fairly dense research monograph.
Hewitt/Ross, Abstract harmonic analysis
H/R is the Dunford/Schwartz of harmonic analysis; this is an immense two-volume set which spends most
of a first volume just setting up the generalities on topological groups and integration theory. As such, the
recommendation is similar: look at it for culture.
Stein/Weiss, Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces
You might think of this as a more advanced Katznelson; it requires a pretty solid comfort with first-year
graduate analysis to read.
Helgason, Groups and geometric analysis
I found this a fascinating book. At the risk of totally missing the point I might characterize it as the
differential-geometric side of noncommutative harmonic analysis (infinite-dimensional representation
theory of nonabelian groups). It's about the geometric objects which arise from invariance under
symmetries of an ambient space (e.g., the Laplacian is the only isometry-invariant differential operator on
the plane). Maybe someday I will actually be able to read it; Helgason's earlier book (below) is a
sufficient preparation.
Differential equations
Taylor, Partial differential equations I: basic theory
I finally learned a little about PDEs, and this book is the first one I'd recommend to any pure
mathematicians interested. It's the first volume of a monumental three-volume series covering a wide
range of topics in analysis and geometry (yes, Atiyah-Singer is in volume II). Volume I contains the
foundational material on Fourier analysis, distributions and Sobolev spaces, application to the classical
second-order PDE (Laplace, heat, wave, et cetera), as well as a handy introductory chapter containing all
you really need to know about ordinary differential equations! This list of topics doesn't do the book
justice, however, since it's packed with interesting little applications and side notes, in the text and the
copious exercises. The general consensus among MIT graduate students is that this book, like Federer and
Griffiths/Harris, has everything in the world in it.
Evans, Partial differential equations
This is a big, fat, talky introduction to PDE for pure mathematicians. It slights some theoretical topics
(Fourier transforms and distributions) in favor of an unusually full treatment of nonlinear PDE; the author
claims that “we know too much about linear equations and not enough about nonlinear ones,” and his
preferences are evident throughout. But it is a good book, written with careful attention to pedagogy and
making things make sense to someone new to the field. I like it as a textbook, but Taylor is a better first
choice for reference.
Hörmander, The analysis of linear partial differential operators I
Here is the book Evans was complaining about; Hörmander's four-volume masterwork contains
everything we knew about linear PDE up to the mid-seventies. The first volume is available as a
paperback study edition, and makes a good secondary reference on distributions and Fourier transforms. I
hope someday to understand the last two chapters, which introduce something called “microlocal
analysis” that currently has me fascinated. The book shows little mercy for the reader; distribution theory
has some very hard technicalities and Hörmander proceeds pretty briskly. But it's sometimes nice to have
a truly definitive reference.
Olver, Equivalence, invariants and symmetry
Another book on geometric objects arising from invariance conditions, this one more focused on
differential equations. People confused about why the equations of physics look the way they do might try
it.
Differential topology
Hirsch, Differential topology
[PC] A solid introduction to differential topology, but maybe a bit bogged down in technical details: a
theme of the subject is that arbitrary maps can be approximated by very nice maps under the right
conditions. Hirsch has a chapter which he investigates conditions other than “the right ones,” and comes
up with some sharpish estimates about when you can approximate what by what. This is sort of
interesting, but seems distinctly antithetical to the spirit of “soft” analysis which runs through my veins
and the veins of differential topologists everywhere. Why bother? I own the book, and there's some good
stuff in it, but in retrospect I'd rather own Guillemin and Pollack, which proceeds a bit more geometrically
and far less rigorously. The rigor is optional and can be filled in later.
[CJ] I agree with Pete's assessment of the book, but not with his opinions on rigor. Hirsch is a good
second differential topology book; after you see how all the touchy-feely stuff goes (move it a little bit to
make it transverse), read Hirsch to see how it actually works, and how a nice theoretical framework can
be constructed around the soft geometric ideas. I think it's indispensable to see how things are done.
Lang, Differential and Riemannian manifolds
Another Serge Lang book, which also contains a proof of the inverse function theorem in Banach spaces
(sigh). It's not really human-readable, and I list it mostly because it was the first manifolds book I
blundered across in 209. But it has a nice proof of the ODE existence theorem, too.
Warner, Foundations of differentiable manifolds and Lie groups
This is a curious selection of material: besides the basic theory of manifolds and differential forms, there
is a long chapter on Lie groups, a proof of de Rham's theorem on the equivalence of de Rham
cohomology to Cech and topological cohomology theories, and a proof of the Hodge theorem for
Riemannian manifolds. It's convenient to have all this stuff here in a single book, but Warner's notation
annoys me terribly, and you can find better treatments of any one topic elsewhere.
Algebraic topology
Massey, A basic course in algebraic topology
Massey wrote two earlier algebraic topology books, Algebraic topology: a first course, and Singular
homology theory. This book is their union, minus the last chapter or two of the first book. Thus the first
half of the book is a nice, well-grounded treatment of the fundamental group and covering spaces, at a
very elementary level (Massey fills in all the material on free groups and free products of groups). The
second half is a course on homology theory which is, well, boring. Too slow, too elementary, too talky,
and not even very geometric for all that. It'll do, but it's not lovable.
[PC] For better or worse, this will probably be your first textbook on algebraic topology. I know Chris
doesn't like it very much. The homotopy theory part is fine, but I think the homology/cohomology part
could be improved... somehow.
Fulton, Algebraic topology: a first course
[PC] I own this too, and it's a pleasant book: an algebraic topology book for math students who aren't
especially interested in algebraic topology. No, really. I do like algebraic topology, but this book appeals
to me too because it takes a holistic and geometric approach to the material; after all, algebraic topology is
supposed to be for proving stuff about manifolds and complexes (and other topological spaces of interest,
if any), not about chain complexes. There's a lot of interesting stuff here, but because Fulton often
contents himself with “the simplest nontrivial case” for fundamental groups, homology, etc., the
presentation is less than complete. Great supplementary reading and good treatment of branched covering
spaces.
Bott/Tu, Differential forms in algebraic topology
This book made algebraic topology make sense to me! Bott/Tu approach cohomology and homotopy
theory through the de Rham complex, which means the calculations are all easy to understand and give
insight into the geometric situation. The book is not a first course in algebraic topology, as it doesn't cover
nearly all the standard topics. What it does cover is beautifully clear, motivated and, well, sensical. They
even give a good excuse for spectral sequences, which in my book is a major accomplishment.
Spanier, Algebraic topology
Spanier is the maximally unreadable book on algebraic topology. It's bursting with an unbelievable
amount of material, all stated in the greatest possible generality and naturality, with the least possible
motivation and explanation. But it's awe-inspiring, and every so often forms a useful reference. I'm glad I
have it, but most people regret ever opening it.
Rotman, An introduction to algebraic topology
[BR] You didn't mention this one. I think an appropriate nickname for this one is “Spanier Lite” or maybe
“Diet Spanier”, or better still, “Spanier for Dummies.” Rotman was actually a student of the infamous
Spanier (and also of Saunders Mac Lane for that matter!). Basically, he stole the table of contents from
Spanier's book and tried to write a text that was much less dense and general, but more in depth and more
categorical than, say, Massey. I've only read through the first 3 chapters, but anyone who is totally
frustrated with having to choose between ultra-elementary and ultra-advanced algebraic topology books
should look here.
Stillwell, Classical topology and combinatorial group theory
[PC] This book is great! No book on this list coincides with my own mathematical esthetics like this one:
I checked this book out this summer while I was doing research on surface topology and read it cover to
cover: you'll see how geometry relates to topology relates to group theory. I wish this was my first
algebraic topology book, because it's full of exciting theorems about surfaces, three-manifolds, knots,
simple loops, geodesics—in other words, it's rippling with geometric/topological content intead of
commutative diagrams. Let me also recommend Stillwell's book Geometry of surfaces, along the same
lines.
Bredon, Topology and geometry
Don't be fooled by the word “geometry” in the title; there are two chapters on basic differential topology
followed by the best modern course in basic algebraic topology I've seen. Differential geometry and Lie
groups supply the occasional example, but there are no metrics to be found! Lots and lots of exercises.
[PC] This one gets the Ben Blander seal of approval. From what I've seen, it's an excellent compendium
of graduate-level geometry and topology powered by good examples and (again!) actual geometric
content.
Differential geometry
Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, 3-5
The latter three volumes form the ‘Topics’ section of Spivak's masterwork; he treats a succession of more
advanced theories within differential geometry, with his customary flair and the occasional stop for
generalities. The last chapter is entitled “The generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem and what it means for
mankind”, so that gives you an idea of Spivak's take on geometry. Sadly again, there are no exercises, but
the annotated bibliography at the end of volume 5 is immense.
Helgason, Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces
The title is a little bit of a misnomer, as this book is really about the differential geometry of Lie groups
and symmetric spaces, with an occasional necessary stop for Lie algebra theory. The first chapter is a
rapid if rather old-fashioned (no bundles; tensors are modules over the ring of smooth functions) course in
basic differential geometry. The rest of the book describes the geometric properties of symmetric spaces
(roughly, manifolds with an involutive isometry at each point) in depth. I find the material interesting in
itself, and as a lead-in to Helgason's other fascinating book (above). There are many exercises, and
solutions at the end!
Kobayashi/Nomizu, Foundations of differential geometry
K/N is the standard reference on differential geometry from the sophisticated point of view of frame
bundles. The emphasis here is on ‘reference’, unfortunately. I think it's the only book anyone actually uses
to look up stuff about principal bundles when they need it, but it's not written as a textbook. The notes and
bibliography are very nice, however.
Rosenberg, The Laplacian on a Riemannian manifold
[BB] A different approach to geometry, through analysis. Lots of exercises integrated critically into the
text; proves the Hodge theorem using the heat kernel. Introduces analysis on manifolds. I've only gotten
through the first chapter and I've skimmed the rest, so I can't say too much more, but it looks interesting.
do Carmo, Riemannian geometry
[BB] A readable and interesting introduction to the subject. It covers some interesting material, such as
the sphere theorem and Preissman's theorem about fundamental groups of manifolds of negative
curvature, and much more.
Boothby, Introduction to differentiable manifolds and Riemannian geometry
I don't know why everyone likes this book so much; maybe because they managed to find it and it
contains what they need? It's just another manifolds book, really, and less well-written (lots of annoying
coordinates) than most.
Geometric measure theory

Morgan, Geometric measure theory: a beginner's guide
Mattila, Geometry of sets and measures on Euclidean spaces
Federer, Geometric measure theory
Okay, so it's a little overkill, but I like geometric measure theory. Here are three books about it, two you
should consider reading and one you should consider not reading. Morgan truly is a beginner's guide, and
one of the best I've seen to any subject. He introduces the formidable technical apparatus of geometric
measure theory bit by bit, leaning on pictures and examples to show what it's for and why we work so
hard. Proofs of hard theorems are frequently omitted (mostly referred to Federer). Mattila is a recent book
on the theory of rectifiability, and looks good from the little I've seen. Federer is the bible, and it's the
densest book I've ever seen, on anything. Everything up to 1969 is in here, and much afterward is
anticipated. In addition to the theory of rectifiable sets, Federer develops a powerful homological
integration theory, leading to a homology theory for locally Lipschitz sets and maps in R^n which is
isomorphic on nice sets to the usual homology theories. You can't really learn from it, except that
sometimes you have to: the subject is itself very complicated and there are few expositions.
Falconer, The geometry of fractal sets
Here is an exposition of the rudiments of geometric measure theory, mostly Hausdorff measures, together
with applications to rectifiability and regularity of sets of ugly dimension. A nice little book if you're
curious about why it's a cool subject.
Geometry: algebraic geometry

Harris, Algebraic geometry: a first course
Algebraic geometry is a hard subject to learn, and here is as good a place as any. It has a very different
flavor from any other kind of geometry we study in this day and age: lots of results about curves having
cusps and intersecting hyperplanes three times. Harris presents a body of classical material (projective
varieties over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero) through analysis of many, many
examples, much like his representation theory book. Be warned that much is left out, and you develop
your first familiarity with the subject by figuring out what he's really saying. You will also need to be
quite comfortable with multilinear algebra. But Harris has a great expository style, and there's a lot of
good stuff in all those examples.
Shafarevich, Basic algebraic geometry 1
This may be a better place to learn for the first time, as Shafarevich assumes that the language and ways of
thought of algebraic geometry are alien to the reader. He proceeds briskly, though, with fewer stops to
look around for interesting examples of varieties (ameliorated somewhat by the copious exercises). To
make a serious attempt at learning algebraic geometry, you'll probably need both. Shafarevich, like Harris,
teaches some of the commutative algebra along the way.
Mumford, Algebraic geometry I: complex projective varieties
This book is superficially similar to the previous two (varieties, no schemes) but it's written for mature
mathematicians: it's an expository monograph, not a textbook. As such, it's a Good Book in the abstract,
but not all that useful to someone looking for guidance. You will need to be solidly comfortable with
commutative algebra to begin reading.
Griffiths/Harris, Principles of algebraic geometry
A huge, sprawling, beautiful, inspiring, infuriating book. It should be called Principles of analytic
geometry, because although the questions are algebraic-geometric, the objects and methods considered are
all complex-analytic. This is algebraic geometry over C, the classical case and the one in which existing
theory is richest. It's a beautiful and hugely sophisticated theory. G/H treat a vast quantity of it in eight
hundred pages, and the treatment is still so compressed that many proofs are quite elliptical. Filling in the
gaps requires (or develops) a great deal of maturity. If you're interested in any aspect of algebraic or
differential geometry, you should not miss this book—but don't expect any of it to be easy.
Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry
Hugh, my algebra TA, described Hartshorne as “the schemes book for the more manly algebraic
geometer”. It's the standard exposition of scheme theory, the Grothendieck remaking of algebraic
geometry, and it's legendarily difficult, not only the text but the many exercises. The preface to
Shafarevich's English edition remarks that “many graduate students (by no means all) can work very hard
on Chapters Two and Three of Hartshorne for a year or more, and still know more or less nothing at the
end of it.” But, as with most legendarily difficult books, it has its own awesome beauty, and the diligent
reader is rewarded. I'm not sure Hartshorne belongs in an undergraduate bibliography, but I did say
“difficulty level unbounded above”...
Undergraduate mathematics bibliography, revised 21 January 1999 (142 entries)

Christopher Jeris, cjeris@math.mit.edu
Back

Chicago Undergraduate Mathematics Bibliography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chicago Undergraduate Mathematics Bibliography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chicago undergraduate mathematics bibliography 31/01/15 3:45 pm

Chicago undergraduate mathematics

Jump to the elementary, intermediate, or advanced sections.

Enough apologia. Here we go:

Gelfand/Glagoleva/Shnol, Functions and graphs

Gelfand/Glagoleva/Kirillov, The method of coordinates

Cohen, Precalculus with unit circle trigonometry

Coxeter, Geometry revisited

Problem solving (pre-college)

Larson, Problem solving through problems

Pólya, How to solve it

Pólya, Mathematics and plausible reasoning, I and II

Other calculus books worthy of note, and why:

Spivak, The hitchhiker's guide to calculus

Hardy, A course of pure mathematics

Courant, Differential and integral calculus

Bridges to intermediate topics

Fraenkel, Abstract set theory

Ebbinghaus/Flum/Thomas, Mathematical logic

Enderton, A mathematical introduction to logic

Landau, Foundations of analysis

General abstract algebra

Dummit/Foote, Abstract algebra

Herstein, Topics in algebra

Artin's book is a nontraditional approach to undergraduate algebra, emphasizing concrete computational

Jacobson, Basic algebra I

Mac Lane/Birkhoff, Algebra

Curtis, Abstract linear algebra

Greub, Linear algebra and Multilinear algebra

Burn, A pathway into number theory

Hardy/Wright, Introduction to number theory

Chandrasekharan, Analytic number theory

Apostol, Introduction to analytic number theory

Combinatorics and discrete mathematics

Rudin, Principles of mathematical analysis

Apostol, Mathematical analysis

Gelbaum/Olmsted, Counterexamples in analysis

(Intermediate level: normed spaces, Lebesgue integration)

Kolmogorov/Fomin, Introductory real analysis

Haaser/Sullivan, Real analysis

Hewitt/Stromberg, Real and abstract analysis

Dieudonné, Foundations of modern analysis

(Graduate level: measure theory, basic functional analysis)

Rudin, Real and complex analysis

Lang, Real and functional analysis

Royden, Real analysis

do Carmo, Differential forms and applications

Conway, Functions of one complex variable I

Narasimhan, Complex analysis in one variable

Rudin, Real and complex analysis

Palka, An introduction to complex function theory

Hurewicz, Lectures on ordinary differential equations

Munkres, Topology: a first course

Willard, General topology

Kelley, General topology

Steen/Seebach, Counterexamples in topology

do Carmo, Differential geometry of curves and surfaces

Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, 1

Spivak, A comprehensive introduction to differential geometry, 2

Hilbert, Foundations of geometry

Hartshorne, [Euclid revisited book]

Differential equations (4)