[casey2]

A few hours per week simply isn't enough, the best success I've had studying was 6 hours a day, resting for 3 (leisure activity), "working" for 3 (class, commute, chores, related reading) and sleeping 12 hours.

In books like Stewart, staring at a theorem until you can write it's proof should trivialize most problems in the book.

If a method for solving a particular problem is too difficult for you maybe consider researching and/or inventing some new method to solve these problem. People created these methods in the first place because earlier methods were too tricky

Or just focus on work that doesn't require hundreds of hours to gain proficiency. As long as you have time every day to stop, think, and come up with an idea that solves a problem you won't become intellectually unfit.

[jamesliudotcc]

Maybe your problem is Stewart? I used that textbook and was successful, but it's not for everyone. For example, beginning calculus with limits is another bit of misguided conventional wisdom. I still don't get limits, really. Serge Lang's calculus book takes the approach to just roll with an intuitive notion of limits, saving rigor for analysis. Which seems better.

Gilbert Strang has a textbook, also more intuitive and applied. Free PDF provided by MIT. Sylvanus Thompson's book is recommended here, again, intuitive, applied.

Other comments here, 3 hours isn't enough, use Math Academy, nobody gets it on the first approach, all seem relevant. One of the textbooks recommended here says in the preface that it's for a second course in Linear Algebra. Analysis is just calculus the second (or third) go round, and it's said to be the hardest class in a math major.

I am in your boat, but about linear algebra instead of calculus. This is what I try to get myself over the hump.

[caspper69]

Thank you. I appreciate the feedback and the pointers.

[caspper69]

I honestly don't think the problem is the textbook.

I have Stewart (both the standard version and Early Transcendentals), and I also have a book from 1967 by Tom Apostol (the 2 volume set that covers single & multivariable calculus, linear algebra, a subtle introduction to differential equations and some probability as well).

My gut feeling is that I just don't know the correct way to study math in general. I have no problem doing the work. But it feels more like mechanical or algorithmic solving than it does like true understanding. There is a difference. I can't deconstruct a problem and think in the abstract to come up with a different method to solve it.

And there always seem to be some fundamental truth that I'm always missing. A part of a proof here or an axiom there that seems obvious to other people who study these subjects that I just don't "see".

It's incredibly frustrating, because deep down I know I have the aptitude for this stuff. I guess that most subjects have always been easy for me. I could ace exams without cracking the book (or just skimming).

Math is not like that. You need to read. And then re-read. And then do. And then do some more. And then go back and re-read again to see what you missed. And there's a lot of things that are between the lines, and if you're not following it, those things fall by the wayside.

I just need to learn how to learn math. I need to learn how to deconstruct notation and proofs to truly understand them. And there's no shortcut. It's grind and grind until it all becomes clear. That sort of thing is just difficult for me.

[jamesliudotcc]

I feel what you're describing very viscerally. I have tried so many times as an adult to finally get linear algebra. Worked my way through Strang to eigenvalues and eigenvectors repeatedly. Still feel like I am failing to see something.

---

I hear Apostol is hard. Like Spivak-level hard.