[juiceandjuice]

Comparing basic calculus to number theory is like comparing long division to calculus. Saying "oh I know how to take the derivative" is a bit different than knowing how to take the derivative of a complex expression by applying a taylor expansion to estimate the rate of change within .01%.

For number theory, there's a few things you could pick up fairly easily, like understanding what 1 and 3 mod 4 primes are, but there's no way you could do the homework in 1 weekend unless you've aced real analysis, and then maybe you could finish 10-20% of the homework (proofs) in a book in a weekend or so.

Many engineers I've met can't even handle using proof by induction to solve a proof.

[vinceguidry]

If you read his words carefully, he said he "read a book on number theory." He didn't claim mastery. Ditto for differential geometry. He simply absorbed source material and took notes. Quite feasible.

[Glyptodon]

It's not the proof by induction is a hard concept, though.

Rather, writing out any formal proof is monotonous, tedious, lengthy, and prone to minor screw-ups, and to someone with an engineering mindset, not useful in any practical sense.

[reycharles]

How does »acing real analysis« help understanding number theory? As far as I'm aware they're not really related at all.

[eru]

I agree.

One thing: How does acing real analysis help with number theory?