5 ms·
The book based on this paper is one of the best text books I've read. I highly recommend reading it if you're looking for a solid understanding of linear algebr
by agandy 9y ago
The book based on this paper is one of the best text books I've read. I highly recommend reading it if you're looking for a solid understanding of linear algebra.
- tptacek 9y agoAs someone who worked their way through Strang (we did a little study group and did the homework assigned to some class at Rutgers), I'd love it if someone could take a moment to explain what they like so much about Axler. I've tried a couple times to slog my way through Axler and had not much success.
- tnecniv 9y agoI have both Axler and Strang. I learned from Axler but occasionally use Strang as a reference. I find that Axler emphasizes the algebra part of linear algebra while Strang emphasizes the linear part. One isn't better than the other but one might make more sense to different people.
- tanderson92 9y agoAxler avoids determinants with a passion. For good reason, too, because they are not helpful in understanding how spaces interact. I forget how Strang proves the spectral theorem but compared to Lax the pedagogy could not be more different. Determinants are really nice tools for short proofs, but not helpful in understanding. But Axler is the way you want to think about linear algebra as a practitioner.
- pvg 9y agoAxler is easier to digest if you have some familiarity with the tools and the jargon but hated/forgot everything in your college linear algebra course. A (very imperfect) analogy might be something like the GoF book vs Peter Norvig's essay on design patterns.
- jacobolus 9y agoI’m not in the target audience and have neither learned nor taught from Axler’s book, so I can’t tell you precisely what people like about it, but it is aimed at pure math undergraduates who are interested in using linear algebra in much more abstract contexts, and focuses more on proofs than many introductory linear algebra textbooks. Not sure if they’re useful (I haven’t watched them), but Axler made a series of videos about the core content of his book https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkx2BJcnyxk&list=PLGAnmvB9m7zOBVCZBUUmSinFV0wEir2Vw&index=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkx2BJcnyxk&list=PLGAnmvB9m7...
- pvg 9y agoit is aimed at pure math students who are interested in using linear algebra in much more abstract contexts I don't think that's really true. The book itself puts it much more simply and directly, at the very beginning in 'Preface for the Instructor': "You are about to teach a course that will probably give students their second exposure to linear algebra."
- jacobolus 9y agoYou don’t think this book is aimed at pure mathematics students? It’s certainly not aimed at numerical analysis students, or engineering students, or physics students. (Which isn’t to say that those students can’t take pure math courses if they want.)
- pvg 9y agoI mean in the context of Strang. I don't think Strang is aimed strictly at, say, engineering students. To me, the difference is the starting point, more than anything else.
- jacobolus 9y agoAs far as I can tell Strang’s target audience is something like: most undergraduates at MIT who didn’t already learn the subject before arrival, except the pure math students who are likely to substitute a more theoretical course (18.700 or 18.701 vs. 18.06).
- stablemap 9y agoIt is probably logically unnecessary but I think it's best to have experience with the "computational" aspects of linear algebra before diving into Axler's book.