>>6798720 of course anon, don't listen to /sci/ they are elitist as fuck and think anyone less autistic than them is inferior, calc is a totally bullshit course that you just have to get through to take real math classes, spivak might be beneficial to you if you were using it as the textbook and on your own time going through and reading it and making sure you understand the proof for every assertion and everything but that is on you and is absolutely not going to be included as a required part of the calc course, you are going to learn calculus either way. and most schools do not use spivak as it's aimed at math students rather than engineers or physical scientists and the vast majority of students taking calc at almost every school are engineers or physical scientists.
that said stewart is a pretty fucking shit book and worse than even larson. dunno about thomas though. but calc is basic shit and you should be able to learn it easy even without very good sources.
Stewart's books are really awful for a variety of reasons. I'd rather teach based on cryptic, alien glyphs etched on glowing hot stone tablets that slowly give you radiation poisoning as you read. I can't imagine trying to learn from them.
I didn't truly appreciate Spivak until grad school.
This thing isn't bad: http://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-18-001-calculus-online-textbook-spring-2005/textbook/ It looks sort of backward compared to many other setups (limits introduced after derivatives?), but eventually you realize that the order makes a lot of sense, and there are some practical bits that maybe will help some people.
>>6798745 >and is absolutely not going to be included as a required part of the calc course >american education system Spivak is used for calculus courses, heck in some of them they already recommend basic real analysis books. Stop spouting bullshit.
the text might well be required in a good course the professor will even work through the proofs in class and assign some as homework but, unless you're at MIT or something, or at a school where math is a lot bigger than engineering and the focus on all classes including calc is prepping math majors for real math classes, ultimately, the content on the exams is going to be the computational side of calculus and you will be able to get an A in the class just zoning out for all the proofs based stuff as long as you are good at doing the computations
>>6799961 Perhaps because it contains close to zero paragraphs longer than one or two sentences? It kind of just throws identities at you with very little explanation, and makes practically no attempt whatsoever to explain any concepts verbally. I don't know, it's the only book I really have any experience with, so if I'm missing something, I don't know any better.
>>6799991 Stewart's book is more of a reference text in my opinion. When I took Calc II and III we used this book and I had professors that REFUSED to lecture so I had to LEARN Calc II and III from that book. It's so goddamn bad at explaining things to someone who has NO background in the subject already.
In a typical math class, you probably have a professor who lectures and goes over a few examples. So you should at least have an idea of what the hell is going on by the time you get to the textbook. Me on the other hand, my classroom experiences were either filled with convoluted proofs that taught nothing or we were told to answer questions on the chalk board without going over the topic beforehand. So teaching myself those two classes was a challenge through that book. Would much rather prefer a book that provides clearer explanations for procedures and examples.
Or maybe I'm just an idiot to /sci/'s standard since I like a little bit of guidance when it comes to learning math.
Stewart just glosses over shit all the time and the proofs are straight up badly written. The problem set is good for learning calculation but his explanations are shitty and the theory is super shitty. My college switched from swokowski to Stewart as I went into calc iii. Nobody has ever heard of swokowski and his book is nothing spectacular but I thought it was so much better than Stewart in all these areas. Still basically no proof problems but the proofs were readable instead of trying to convince the reader to skip them.
I've had this book for 2 years since I took undergrad P-chem. Never had to buy another p-chem book, and also more than sufficient in teaching symmetry operations and group theory for mathematicians/ inorganic chemists as well.
>>6800208 No, that's actually how a university is supposed to work. You learn on your own, and then the professor covers stuff and fills in the gaps in your knowledge.
The chalk board method is good if and only if the person doing the writing is not required to do any of the thinking. The rest of the class should be telling that person what to write. It's actually quite effective.
>>6800917 I'll add to this and say that Stewart is badly laid out. The important theorems are given the same prominence as minor things that you will never use or can easily derive. Part of the reason that it glosses over stuff is that the order in which concepts are introduced is ugly.
Finally, the problems are repetitive and just plain bad. They don't teach anything... just give you some busy work to do. It feels like a high school text. A book like Spivak, for instance, actually teaches through the problems, which is a bloody effective learning tool.
as someone who had to learn from it, it comes off as a textbook written for reference rather than instruction. Problem-solving/deriving steps are never fully delineated, and explanations are not thorough. I learned the main topics almost exclusively from other textbooks and used this book for homework only.
A recurring theme after the first few chapters is something like, "which is beyond the scope of this book." or , "which we will not prove here."
As you can imagine, this is frustrating if you are the type who has to know WHY.
>>6801028 >A recurring theme after the first few chapters is something like, "which is beyond the scope of this book." or , "which we will not prove here."
God, I hate that. He'll also just prove special cases and go "well that's that" or say "you can see it should work this way by analogy", or the proof will be worthless in some other way. And of course everything can be done in n dimensions is done in three.
For example in the section on langrange multipliers I remember he mentions another page in another chapter, then goes right into a proof using objects from the page previous to the mentioned one without indicating he's doing so. Wtf is "S"? I had to rewrite the section to make any sense of it.
>>6801431 are you really the same guy insisting I must not be in grad school and am actually a freshman because I said calc is bullshit you need to get through to do real math? seriously? or are you just shitposting for no reason because that would be slightly less pathetic
>>6799790 Which is why it's a good thing when you pick your course and they're completely set on that. If you're doing math, your calc classes are going to be proof based, instead of computational, no such thing as a math major taking engineering classes, unless they want to.
>>6801490 Eh On the one hand, you're definitely right On the other hand, most schools teach multiple sections of calc because of all the engineers and would only teach 1 section for math majors and math departments seem to have a thing for scheduling classes at 9 or 10am and being able to sleep in is IMO worth getting a slightly more rigorous treatment of a subject you're going to go back through in detail in analysis anyway.
Also, as far as the "pick a major and every class you take in college is set except for a handful of electives" system, it's utter shit compared to the American system.
electronic structures by Martin: best introduction to density functional theory I've read. succinct chapters, tons of references.
condensed matter physics wise: the ashcroft is still the best book i've read on the subject. It's old, it's outdated in the subject it chooses to deal with, but it's very detailed and clear. Kittel's still a good book too but it's more succinct and a bit lower level. So far I haven't read a recent book on the subject that I've liked completely: I've gone through parts of the Marder one in my grad condensed matter course and I didn't like the second quantization treatment so much.
in classical mechanics everyone seems to use the Taylor but I had the Kleppner Kolenkow. Great book with some issues though: some of the problems could be much clearer.
and of course there's also the ubiquitous Griffiths on various subjects. His two best are probably the electrodynamics and the quantum theory ones. Clear treatment, not overloaded with formalism, good variety of problems (from easy to rather hard), and the choice is subject in either is pretty uncontroversial for the first 3/4 of the books.
>>6801437 I'm doing engineering. Second year of 5 year course. First year we got discrete math, lineair algebra, analysis I and II, statistics and 6 more non math courses. Some topics we had in the math courses: Logic circuits, graphs, coördinate transforms, eigenvectors, finding and solving multiple integrals, laplace/fourier discrete/continuous transforms, beta and gamma function, chain rule in multiple variables, finding min/max of multivariable functions, ODE's, transforming differential operators,...
Now I'm in the second year and the math continues, mostly vector analysis tho. Today we saw greens theorem. And last month stuff like \vec\nabla \times(\vec\nabla \times) =-\vec\Delta + \vec\nabla (\vec\nabla \cdot)
>>6800953 >>6800953 Yeah, Lehninger might not be the best p-chem book, you're right. But to me, Lehninger is superior god tier amongst biochem books. For pchem i use Kuriyans 'Molecules of life' and Atkins 'Quanta, Matter and Change'. What do you think of those?
>>6801644 That sounds cool and all but judging from the topics you listed what you call "analysis" is mostly covered under American calculus courses. And linear algebra and discrete math aren't really more advanced than calc, they're on the same level, statistics is definitively lower level at least if its the same as the bullshit 200 level class they have in the US and not actual math stat.
>>6801848 The statistics isn't on a lower level tbh. The easiest was discrete math. Keep in mind, this was only the first year. This year we'll do all the math behind maxwell equations in our course vector analysis.
>>6801874 >The statistics isn't on a lower level tbh. Then your "analysis" classes are even easier than they first sounded
>Keep in mind, this was only the first year. That's the point, though, you'll only have maybe 2 or 3 more math classes in the rest of your course, I'm a mathfag so dunno much about maxwell equations but they're some physics shit and the math behind them is probably just applied vector calc and linear algebra, aside from that and maybe similar stuff in the same vein you're not gonna take any other math other than PDEs.
When I took p-chem, my professor listed Atkins and De Paula'a "Physical Chemistry" as the "required" text. Good thing I borrowed the book from another professor, because I hated it. Atkins, in my opinion, was OK for understanding basic concepts, but did not treat problems with the same mathematical rigor of other texts. I guess it depends on what you prefer to read; I like to see the math. MacQuarrie makes it very easy to follow. Atkins reminded me more of an "advanced gen-chem" text, rather than a genuine physical chemistry text. P-chem SHOULD be mathematically rigorous, and is best taught in that fashion as in MacQuarrie and Simon.
>>6799756 I hated Strang but love Munkre. I'm digging Numerical Linear Algebra by Trefethen and Bau this semester. It's the first linear algebra book I've ever liked. Or maybe linear algebra finally clicked after 4 courses in it.
Pretty awesome book in my opinion. The fact that it comes with a lot lab techniques/preparation is really nice. For example, it will list a table of indicators, their pKa's, and how to prepare them in lab. It looks like some other Chem undergrads/grads are here in, so I would like to ask you guys a question. Currently in quant and O chem II at the moment. I enjoy both classes, but I'm finding it pretty stressful to keep 100% kept up and be ahead in both classes. I've been doing well in both classes so far, but the whole week before each O chem test is a crammed, stress filled, anxious week of hell and I'm very burnt out from it. Since every pre-med and their mother takes O chem, it's talked about a lot, but I never hear anyone really say anything about physical or inorganic chemistry, so I would like to hear people's opinion on that. I don't mind hard classes, but O chem at my uni is very stressful and I don't like it.
>>6803060 It's the best "pop" mathematics book there is. It doesn't treat you like a fucking retard, you are actually expected to do mathematics and to read actual mathematics (some arguments are not proven as rigorously as you would find in a math textbook, but hey! there they are!). It's a good work for popularization.
It's a book that understands that "little background" or "elementary" doesn't mean non-challenging. It's a challenging read and it's full of beautiful results.
>>6803224 It depends on what you like really. A lot of chemistry people end up doing what they are good at. Here's how I feel about them after finishing my chemistry undergrad.
Physical chemistry: lots of math, physics and computation. It will probably have more math than you are used to - nothing difficult though just some linear algebra, differential equations, multivariable calculus. Typically does not require much lab technique, but there are exceptions. I like it a lot since you do a lot of problem solving as opposed to regurgitating information.
Analytical chemistry/instrumentation: lots of statistics. Requires impeccable lab technique.
Inorganic/bioinorganic: Requires good spatial reasoning. Really broad field though, so it depends on what you do.
Organic Chemistry: rote memorization and following lab procedures like they were cookbooks (even at the research level).
I know I'm biased, but Physical and inorganic were my favorite subjects. A lot of people in chemistry hate them but it seems like a lot of people who go into organic chemistry are allergic to basic math.
Also, I read that book. It is a pretty good reference like you said, but I felt a lot of the methods were just thrown at you to use without explaining where they come from or why they are useful.
>>6798518 I've always heard good things about this book but never actually looked at it.So I downloaded a djvu file.
It just assumes the real numbers, doesn't construct them in any of the standard ways >Axiomatic definition of the reals >Constructed out of the Peano Axioms (expressed as either a first or second order arithmetic) using either Cauchy Sequences or Dedekind Cuts. Looking through it more carefully apparently there is a construction of the reals in the appendix (chapter 39). It doesn't use any of the standard constructions either. Instead it uses a really weird definition and never even mentions the underlying logic and axiomatic system. They're also only expressed as a definition and in the process assumes the rationals.
What the fuck is this? I could understand if this was just a calculus book but a lot of people recommend it for analysis? Seriously, for an analysis text this is babby tier. I would only recommend as a calculus text.
Me again >>6803333 Stewart is the other popular Calculus book. Stewart is actually a calculus book though. It does a lot of exercises and that's the main reason that people dislike it. Many of the exercises require you to know a bunch of "obscure" (but actually really common and useful) tricks. The book also covers proofs and introduces epsilon/delta definitions and proofs for limits/series. Stewart is great because it forces the students to REALLY be comfortable with arithmetic manipulations and techniques, something that a lot of students lack in.
I'm not familiar with any of the others you listed.
>>6803340 >Stewart is actually a calculus book though. It does a lot of exercises and that's the main reason that people dislike it. Many of the exercises require you to know a bunch of "obscure" (but actually really common and useful) tricks. The book also covers proofs and introduces epsilon/delta definitions and proofs for limits/series. Stewart is great because it forces the students to REALLY be comfortable with arithmetic manipulations and techniques, something that a lot of students lack in. is this for fuckin' real
people don't dislike it because it "has a lot of exercises". every passable calculus book has more exercises than an instructor will assign. that's so they have some choice in the matter. retard.
pretty legit lol at the idea stewart adequately covers proofs in any sense. also at the idea that stewart is unusual in requiring you to know common and useful tricks, or introducing limits or series.
>>6803392 Those are precisely the reasons that people on /sci/ often complain about Stewart. >Lots of exercises have no solutions in the back or solutions manual and require you to know some trick. >Why can't I just do a bunch of proofs and call the class done?
It's a calculus textbook, of course the proofs aren't going to be analysis level but the book does provide proofs for each argument.
Has all of the information in one place with decent albeit probably not the best explanations and some grad student grinded all of the exercises to the first 11 or so chapters online so you can check yourself while doing them.
>>6806348 You are a god damn retard. You are comparing a book that revolves around calculations to books on proofs. There is no logical way to compare these books. They are pretty much different subjects. Stop shit-posing you fucking idiot.
>>6806435 >Except that books revolving on calculations do not prepare you for more advanced classes and are meant for engineers.
THATS THE ENTIRE POINT. FIRST YOU LEARN TO DO THE CALCULATIONS TO GET SOME INTUITION ON THE SUBJECT. THEN YOU DO THE PROOFS WHERE YOU LEARN MATHEMATICAL RIGOR AND HOW TO SHOW WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED IS MATHEMATICALLY TRUE.
NOT EVERYONE NEEDS PROOFS. WHY WOULD A PHYSICIST OR ENGINEER NEED PROOFS?
>>6806440 >THATS THE ENTIRE POINT. FIRST YOU LEARN TO DO THE CALCULATIONS TO GET SOME INTUITION ON THE SUBJECT That's how we treat the whole of highschool, just calculations, you go through the whole of it without learning a single bit of mathematics.
Thus when you get to actual math classes you end up with a shitload of students who have absolutely zero intuition when it comes to proofs. This whole idea is the fucking problem with mathematics education.
Those books don't belong on college level and above, they belong on highschool.
And said physics or engineer might want to go into a theoretical field and learning just how to do calculations is utterly useless.
>>6806435 You need both, anon. Yes, it's possible to get by with just proofs as a math major but eventually you'll get to the point where you need to create something new and you can't because you can't even apply the shit you learned.
Consider that someone with a good background in logic can turn proof writing into simple computation and doesn't have to understand what the fuck they're actually proving.
>>6807125 That would be a valid criticism if in a proof based course you only saw proofs, but you don't, you do computations too.
However in the computation version of said course, you don't do proofs.
>>6807156 Except that in a good course you will do both, however one of these types of books is impossible to be used in one type course while the other can be used in both. The so called proof based books here have computation exercises the same way. The only difference is that you also get proof for theorems and exercises involving proofs, so yes, you can compare them.
>>6807225 In a computation based course you are shown proofs, you are just not required to work through them yourself. In a proof based course you are given a small number of computations but they all typically have some trick to them that's typically shown in an example by a TA or the book.
The big thing about computation courses is that they have you do lots of computations of lots of different types. The idea is that you're supposed to come out of the course with a solid ability to handle any type of computation. Furthermore, a computation proof also focuses on a lot of tricks and techniques for recognizing and trivializing complex computations. The type of stuff that wouldn't be covered in a proof based course because you aren't expected to be competent with computations only with proofs.
Both versions of the course contain content that the other one lacks. It's not correct to assume that one is merely an easier subset of the other. Many pure mathematics students have trouble with even basic computations. I've seen this first hand from many of my otherwise competent classmates (I am a pure mathematics student as well).
It would be good to be able to do both in a course but in doing so one would lose focus of the goal. This is why it's often difficult to even find books that do both.
In my opinion one should emphasize computations in a calculus course and emphasize proofs in an analysis course. It's not useful to students to spend a lot of time doing calculus proofs when they haven't even been given a formal introduction to the real numbers.
>>6807225 I don't know what your courses are like. In my courses, there is simply not enough time to get a large taste of a variety of computation problems and also develop the proof skills for that particular subject.
>>6807267 >In a computation based course you are shown proofs, you are just not required to work through them yourself. uh, in theory. In practice the engineers in a computation course rarely give a fuck about the proofs, and the professors, recognizing the futility of going over them, don't even describe them in class. Stewart's proofs are so bad I doubt anyone teaching from it even bothers.
>>6807336 For everything heat-related in Chem Eng, Cengel is GOD. One of his examples in trying to explain second rule of thermodynamics uses homework-first-TV-second as an analogy. It's pretty damn brilliant.
I haven't found a book like that for mass yet, though. And all the transport phenomena book I've used, while good, has some missing fundamental info that can only be found separately in mass transfer and heat transfer books.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.