Geometry of Complex Numbers: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:23, 14 February 2020

Revision as of 06:29, 14 February 2020

Line 19:

and its many exercises (called "examples") extend the material in its sections rather than merely checking what the reader has learned.{{r|crowe|eves}} Reviewing the original publication, A. W. Goodman and [[Howard Eves]] recommended its use as secondary reading for classes in [[complex analysis]],{{r|goodman|eves}} and Goodman adds that "every expert in classical function theory should be familiar with this material".{{r|goodman}} However, reviewer Donald Monk wonders whether the material of the book is too specialized to fit into any class, and has some minor complaints about details that could have been covered more elegantly.{{r|monk}}

By the time of itshis 19792015 republicationreview, reviewer Mark Hunacek wrote that "the book has a decidedly old-fashioned vibe" making it more difficult to read, and that the dated selection of topics made it unlikely to be usable as the main text for a course.{{r|hunacek}} Reviewer R. P. Burn echoes Hunacek's concerns about readability, and also complains that Schwerdtfeger "consistently lets geometrical interpretation follow algebraic proof, rather than allowing geometry to play a motivating role".{{r|burn}} Nevertheless Hunacek repeats Goodman's and Eve's recommendation for its use "as supplemental reading in a course on complex analysis",{{r|hunacek}} and Burn concludes that "the republication is welcome".{{r|burn}}

==Related reading==