Talk:A Course of Modern Analysis

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Course of Modern Analysis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Untitled

"Abramowitz and Stegun is a modern successor" is tremendously innacurate. How does this type of post survive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.15.15 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-27T18:57:19‎

Would you like to explain that? We are talking about authoritative texts on special functions. If you want to make the point that A&S is not a comparable text on the side of analysis, yes, that can be mentioned. Charles Matthews 14:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth edition

The fifth edition was published by Cambridge University Press in 2021. It has been revised and digitally reset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjt1949 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]