| American graduate mathematics student here at a US university, speaking from my perspective. This is perhaps not useful with respect to high school or first/second year undergraduate mathematics, but I choose to include this for sake of another perspective many may not be aware of. Whenever anyone says something is "trivial" -- I understand that to mean simply "it is obvious to me." I try to NEVER explain things in such ways -- to say things are trivial because it is very clear to me that is NOT trivial to many other people. And there has to be some respect given to this idea. I abhor when professors use this sort of language -- instead of stating it is trivial, explain using an extra sentence or two why it is so. If it takes more than that, it is likely not trivial. The best way for me to learn new concepts (in my graduate classes, for example) is as follows. And it is the method all of my professors currently use whether they know it or not. First, they begin with the definition of something. For example (one of my classes last week expressed this idea in particular): in metric spaces they say "A function is upper semi-continuous at x_0 if for all x approaching x_0 the limit supremum of f(x) is smaller or equal to f(x_0)." But what does this mean? You can use the "epigraph" as a way to explain this idea in a different way, explaining what it means to be a u.s.c. and/or a l.s.c. function in a more understandable way. From here, then, after understanding this, I was able to go through the strict mathematical notation of these concepts and follow it more clearly. Instead of starting from the mathematically "rigorous" notation, I am able to jump to a more familiar idea and proceed to link it back to the notation and rigor described in the definitions and associated theorems. This is a much more "efficient" way, in my opinion, than staring at the notation and trying to decipher it for hours. Having examples makes it easier to understand the context of the symbols and rigor involved: by having a specific example of a general form. Is there a lack of rigor in American math education? In general I would say yes -- especially in high school/undergraduate mathematics. But how do people most easily learn? Through examples tying back to definitions. This is more of the American way of teaching in my experience. Furthermore, you state "American textbooks on mathematics" are "softcore." I think this is true for a lot of the lower-level material, but if you pick up Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis I do not think you will feel the same way. |
Hmm are you in Applied Math? Or by "graduate" you mean perhaps some kind of terminal (non-PhD track) Masters program? Because "staring at the notation and trying to decipher it for hours" (when lucky; sometimes it could be days, or even weeks) is precisely the bulk of the Math graduate experience IMO --especially after quals...
Also, do know that after a certain point, the whole "examples then general form" approach is not just barely applicable (e.g. the 'example' alone often requires so much setup that it ends up being harder than the formal statement itself!) but is also a serious handicap to your capacity for thinking 'syntactically' from formal statements alone. Terry Tao has an excellent post on this[1]; although it might or might not be exactly applicable to your situation...
[1] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/there’s-more-to...