The structure of this set of books is simple. First, briefly talk about the relevant knowledge (the so-called "relevant knowledge" is the definition and noun explanation that readers will use next), and then the title. "Five-year college entrance examination? Three years of simulation must have got the true biography of this set of books, and I am quite disgusted with this rough way of imparting knowledge. Of course, it cannot be denied that the topic is gradual, and there are many representative and skilled people. However, the topic is always a topic, and the things behind the topic cannot be expressed by a hundred or a thousand questions. Just like the "real number" part in the first chapter of the book, only five important concepts are explained in the book, and then the sea of questions strikes. These five concepts are mathematical induction, division, absolute value, supremum and supremum, absolute error and relative error. But the logic behind these five concepts and the relationship between them are not clearly explained in books. From this perspective, it is enough to show how ridiculous it is to "become a great god of mathematical analysis after completing this set of questions".
This set of books is not very helpful to the study of mathematical analysis. Just like instant noodles. Of course, eating it every day won't starve to death, but I don't get much nutrition, because the main body of this book is the piling up of topics. Readers can chew on one topic after another and work out all the topics carefully if they have the heart, but this does not mean that they really understand the wisdom behind knowledge. Just like derivative, in fact, derivative operation is not difficult, especially when a large number of formulas are provided to readers. This book only exercises the reader's proficiency in seeking guidance, and does not help much to understand the matter itself. Many people have labeled this set of books as "postgraduate entrance examination". I'm actually quite skeptical about this. Is this set of books really helpful for math learning? Or is there a problem with the content of the "postgraduate entrance examination"?
Learning mathematical analysis, "Jimidovich Problem Set" is a very bad choice. You can choose other books as substitutes, such as Tao Zhexuan's Practical Analysis, which is logically rigorous in axiomatic terms, but enough is enough. Of course, if you just study general calculus, you have more choices. There are many calculus textbooks with complete topics and rich contents, so you don't have to embarrass yourself with Jimidovich's problem set.
Doing problems is only the tip of the iceberg in mathematics learning. I really can't stand to see a lot of comments praising this book on the Internet. Why do you deceive yourself like this? If it is because of the postgraduate entrance examination, Jimmy Dovich's problem set should go down the altar, which is also a respect for the author.