So aside from Evans which seems like the gold standard, I also found "Partial Differential Equations Modeling Analysis, Computation" by Mattheij, Rienstra and ten Thije Boonkkamp as a prominent recommendation.
It seems like it has a soft introduction so good for getting back into math, as well as a side-focus on numerical methods and modeling, so playing around with some made-up real-life problems in SageMath or Matlab (and lets be honest drawing pictures is the fun part of this endeavour) should be achievable.
I personally haven't used it so can't vouch for it but these two books are what my library has as the standard textbooks on PDE.
That is one of the worst math books out there and I will never understand the fanfare it gets. Rudin barely makes any effort to motivate concepts and totally obfuscates the proofwriting process in the name of elegance, while discussing a subject which is the most accessible entry point into serious math. The people who have enough experience to absorb all of the details are almost guaranteed to be at a point where they'll get a lot more out of basically any topic that's not kiddie analysis. It's like showing kindergarteners how to add by first teaching them about monoids to lead into the natural numbers and people ooh and ahh over how this is the best exposition on adding numbers they've ever seen.
By today's standards yes, but it used to be really progressive in that it broke with the standards of teaching (proper) logic first and then building the complex numbers and concept of differentiation from naught but logical calculus. Rudin even did away with the Dedekind cuts from the regular course material and relegated them to an appendix to give an easier intro into the field of real numbers. This was heresy at a time when mathematically sound teaching had to be logically sound as well.
I think its still a good reference for exam prep or when you have to look at what exactly stokes theorem said again but I agree with your point that it is not a good introductory material into maths in general. Proof writing is the real art that needs to be the first step into math but I don't think that can be taught by book alone, you need someone to read and correct and criticise your proofs if you want.
But "Principals of mathematical analysis" could have been the title of a brochure to get people interested in some religion called "mathematism" or something so I thought it worked best for the bit.
May I interest you in some math lectures? Please read our brochure: https://web.math.ucsb.edu/~agboola/teaching/2021/winter/122A/rudin.pdf
deleted by creator
Just do the first few steps of ODEs. Never a whole ODE.
Not of the top of my head but I'm back in the library on Thursday and can have a look at the recommended section.
deleted by creator
I've heard good things about Evans, but I can't vouch for that myself and the book is massive.
So aside from Evans which seems like the gold standard, I also found "Partial Differential Equations Modeling Analysis, Computation" by Mattheij, Rienstra and ten Thije Boonkkamp as a prominent recommendation.
It seems like it has a soft introduction so good for getting back into math, as well as a side-focus on numerical methods and modeling, so playing around with some made-up real-life problems in SageMath or Matlab (and lets be honest drawing pictures is the fun part of this endeavour) should be achievable.
I personally haven't used it so can't vouch for it but these two books are what my library has as the standard textbooks on PDE.
deleted by creator
Best of luck
GOOOD bit
That is one of the worst math books out there and I will never understand the fanfare it gets. Rudin barely makes any effort to motivate concepts and totally obfuscates the proofwriting process in the name of elegance, while discussing a subject which is the most accessible entry point into serious math. The people who have enough experience to absorb all of the details are almost guaranteed to be at a point where they'll get a lot more out of basically any topic that's not kiddie analysis. It's like showing kindergarteners how to add by first teaching them about monoids to lead into the natural numbers and people ooh and ahh over how this is the best exposition on adding numbers they've ever seen.
By today's standards yes, but it used to be really progressive in that it broke with the standards of teaching (proper) logic first and then building the complex numbers and concept of differentiation from naught but logical calculus. Rudin even did away with the Dedekind cuts from the regular course material and relegated them to an appendix to give an easier intro into the field of real numbers. This was heresy at a time when mathematically sound teaching had to be logically sound as well.
I think its still a good reference for exam prep or when you have to look at what exactly stokes theorem said again but I agree with your point that it is not a good introductory material into maths in general. Proof writing is the real art that needs to be the first step into math but I don't think that can be taught by book alone, you need someone to read and correct and criticise your proofs if you want.
But "Principals of mathematical analysis" could have been the title of a brochure to get people interested in some religion called "mathematism" or something so I thought it worked best for the bit.