>>9372349You seriously think you should read 7 books before learning basic analysis? I think the two proofs books are fine if you need them. Then you can start learning analysis from Rudin, Rosenlicht, Spivak, Pugh, Tao, etc....
The placement of basic mathematics by Lang makes no sense because all it covers is high school math. Foundations of analysis has no reason to be a necessary book, literally no one I know, analysts even, has bothered to read it. If you don't know what it is, it's literally just all the theorems and proofs necessary to construct the number systems, not especially useful to study from. Similarly set theory and logic are not a required tool for mathematicians to know. If you don't believe me please take a look at the preface to Halmos's book on set theory, where he recommends students to be interested in it, learn it, then forget it.
The list is too slow. By the time you've finished, you could have read a book on analysis, a book on linear algebra, and a book on real analysis or abstract algebra. Don't spend your time with a bunch of undergraduate books when you could push to grad level material where it actually gets interesting.
