2

What are the specific qualifications for directly studying Euler and Ramanujan's works.Is Hardy's "A Course in Pure Mathematics" a good start?

Z ee
  • 33
  • That text will probably be a little un accessible as a novice to number theory. Getting to grips with elementary and analytical number theory is where you should start (possibly through using a different text though). EDIT: For some reason I thought you said 'An introduction to the theory of numbers', disregard my reply. – Loua Mar 25 '16 at 19:23
  • 1
    Going back to the "masters" is a good thing. Euler is clear enough in many parts, but I think you need exegetes to understand how such piece of work is inserted into the panorama of mathematics at that time; I advise you to have a look at a review of history of mathematics and see the articles devoted e.g. to Euler and study these parts in priority. Why are you targeting these two ? Gauss is more understable source than the very-very-hard-to-understand Ramanujan. Some books of Newton are very nicely written (even the Principia, with comments by Chandrasekar). – Jean Marie Mar 26 '16 at 00:38
  • I understand that Ramanujan is quite incomprehensible , but I cannot find Euler's Opera Omnia translated in English. What about G.H Hardy's book is it a good start ? – Z ee Mar 27 '16 at 13:57
  • Most writing (and translations!) from Euler are available at "The Euler Archive" and a good start to his Work(s!) is given by Sandifer in his "How Euler did it" linked there at the left. An excellent start to Ramanujan's work is Hardy's book Ramanujan but this requires of course some maturity in calculus and Hardy's "A Course in Pure M..." could indeed help, – Raymond Manzoni Apr 02 '16 at 10:15

0 Answers0