After following a reference to an older book, College Algebra (1901) by Henry Burchard Fine, I discovered the problem in the new book was presented as a solution in the latter.
That discouraged me a lot, being stuck on something that would have been handheld in an older work. From then on, I thought it would be better to seek out the aged books, so concepts would (possibly) be simplified, if only by the lack of a larger sphere of implicit prerequisites.
It's not always true, of course. Maybe it was just that one time or the teaching style. Math does not age, but explanations can always be modernized.
I would like to regularly peruse Math Overflow for exactly that.
There is a very slick proof for the irrationality of the number 2 that is found in Baby Rudin.I thought it was his invention.Turns out it appears verbatim in Hardy's A course of Pure Mathematics.
Comments
Dover offers a lot of those classics:
https://store.doverpublications.com/by-subject-mathematics.h...
After following a reference to an older book, College Algebra (1901) by Henry Burchard Fine, I discovered the problem in the new book was presented as a solution in the latter.
That discouraged me a lot, being stuck on something that would have been handheld in an older work. From then on, I thought it would be better to seek out the aged books, so concepts would (possibly) be simplified, if only by the lack of a larger sphere of implicit prerequisites.
It's not always true, of course. Maybe it was just that one time or the teaching style. Math does not age, but explanations can always be modernized.
I would like to regularly peruse Math Overflow for exactly that.
There is a very slick proof for the irrationality of the number 2 that is found in Baby Rudin.I thought it was his invention.Turns out it appears verbatim in Hardy's A course of Pure Mathematics.