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 uglylooking 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)
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 pejorativethe 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 didI 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.
Plya, How to solve it
I haven't read this, but it's supposed to be the classic version of Larson above.
Plya, Mathematics and plausible reasoning, I and II
[PC] These are the sequels to Plya'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
Plya for writing an interesting and challenging book about the practice of mathematics; such
books are in my opinion too few and far between.
In 199798 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: lemmatheorem-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 199495; 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 257I 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 classand 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 expositionclean, chatty but not longwinded,
informaland 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 topicsmaybe 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 breatherbut
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 14 cover groups, rings, modules, fields (modules in the linearalgebra sense, that is, over principal ideal domains), while chapters 58 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
levelif 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
whatsoeverhmm, 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 RiemannStieltjes 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.
Dieudonn, 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 manychallenging
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 Dieudonn, 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 semisilly 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 readmaybe 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 HahnBanach 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 quickerpaced 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 bookread 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 pointset 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 bitesize 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-fashionedI 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 Gdel 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
Plya/Szeg, 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 textor 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...
Frhlich/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.
Bollobs, Modern graph theory
This recent Springer GTM is a substantial revision and expansion of Bollobs'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 13 and 68 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 easyChapter 0 presents weak derivativesbut
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 motivationand 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 isometryinvariant 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.
Hrmander, The analysis of linear partial differential operators I

Here is the book Evans was complaining about; Hrmander'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 Hrmander 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 ultraelementary 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, geodesicsin 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 bookbut 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