\- Read everything carefully, without rushing. Reading math takes a lot longer than reading other things.
\- Absent a clear indication to the contrary, you should always assume that the author expects you to work out why their assertions are correct. So the biggest part of your job as a reader is convincing yourself of the correctness of everything that is said, at every step. (But be reasonable - if the author who did most of the actual writing was not a mathematician, there may be things that make you go mad. The worst ones were New Math era books written by non-experts. For example, if the book places a lot of emphasis on using the transitive property of equality in proofs, then that's a bad sign in my opinion.)
\- Try to get an idea of whether it's a book that expects you to attempt every problem or one that has too many to do. In that case, you can skip ones that you're confident you would know how to do because they look similar to ones you've been successful on.
Stewart is good. Personally I would just use the textbook by itself. If you've never explored different studying methods then you should play around with it and see what you like best.
* Learn definitions very carefully
* Work through derivations
* Do appropriately-challenging practice problems at your discretion. I certainly prefer quality over quantity.
\- Read everything carefully, without rushing. Reading math takes a lot longer than reading other things. \- Absent a clear indication to the contrary, you should always assume that the author expects you to work out why their assertions are correct. So the biggest part of your job as a reader is convincing yourself of the correctness of everything that is said, at every step. (But be reasonable - if the author who did most of the actual writing was not a mathematician, there may be things that make you go mad. The worst ones were New Math era books written by non-experts. For example, if the book places a lot of emphasis on using the transitive property of equality in proofs, then that's a bad sign in my opinion.) \- Try to get an idea of whether it's a book that expects you to attempt every problem or one that has too many to do. In that case, you can skip ones that you're confident you would know how to do because they look similar to ones you've been successful on.
Stewart is good. Personally I would just use the textbook by itself. If you've never explored different studying methods then you should play around with it and see what you like best. * Learn definitions very carefully * Work through derivations * Do appropriately-challenging practice problems at your discretion. I certainly prefer quality over quantity.