Spivak's Calculus is a god-tier book Post god-tier books

>>6798518
>god-tier
>god
plz op we use sagan-tier here at /sci/

>>6798518

Massive fan of Discovering Statistics using SPSS by Andy Field.

Also Optimization using Operations Research by Ronald Rardin comes very highly recommended.

Ron Larson, Calculus, 10th Edition

>spivak calculus
>stewart calculus
>thomas calculus
>larson calculus

What are the main differences between these?

>>6798672
i only know spivak and stewart

spivak is a theory book suitable for math majors
stewart is for people who just want to know how to calculate something and don't care how math works

What do you think of Simmons Calculus with analytic geometry? Is it good for understanding the math, not the way Stewart does?!$-$

>>6798689
Will a course in real analysis make up for using stewert in place of spivak, or has the damage been done?

>>6798720
wow, stewart*

>>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
>calc is a totally bullshit course that you just have to get through to take real math classes

what's sci opinion on anton's calculus? thanks

>>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.

>>6798753
Why is Stewart's Calculus awful? I'm not defending it, just genuinely curious.

K.A Stoud Advanced Engineering Mathematics is great.

Stewart's calculus and early trascedentals
Linear algebra by Gilbert Strang
Topology James Munkren
These three are and will always be in my heart.

>>6798754
did you have a problem with that statement?

>>6798859
you misunderstand

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

>>6799790
Calc is the most fun part of Mathematics, anon.

Stewart? Awful.

Why

>>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.

>>6799948
only in the same sense that being brutally anally raped is the most fun part of prison

File: 203654.jpg (220KB, 960x1229px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 960x1229px

God tier biochem + phys chem.. Amarite?

what's wrong with stewart?

>>6800005
jesus what a drama queen

>>6798518
>Spivak's Calculus is a god-tier book for Mathematicians.

>>6800196
I'm an electrical engineer undergraduate and like Spivak's Calculus more than Stewart's book.

what's your opinions on anton's calculus?

>>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.

some book on power electronics, drives and motors written by a guy named wildi.

it was great, i got a really good grade in that subject.

>>6799790
>did you have a problem with that statement?
Yes.

Now get your head out of your ass, you freshman maths major.

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.

File: Big_Red.jpg (86KB, 319x483px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 319x483px

>>6798518

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.

>>6800008

>>6800948 here.
I had another edition of Lehninger for biochem. There were no p-chem topics outside of basic thermodynamics for plebs and biologists (same thing, really)

File: kline.jpg (20KB, 243x346px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 243x346px

if you want to apply it this is superb.

>>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.

Has anyone experience with the (now somewhat oldish) calculus books by Richard Courant (or perhaps his book "What is Mathematics" which also has some chapters on calculus)?

>>6800948
This really is a spectacular book.

>tfw those neat little chemist and physicist biographies at the start of each chapter

>>6799423
>>6799961


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.

>>6800301
im in grad school

if you ever take a math class past linear algebra, diff eq and calc 3 you will understand

>>6798518
Link to this specific edition?

>>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.

ITT only shitty non god-tier books are discussed.

File: john.jpg (22KB, 260x321px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 260x321px

i love this book

>>6801306
Verwachtte hier geen Nederlandse boeken te vinden. Of is het een vertaling?

>>6801309
Vertaling, geniaal boek. Ik kan het originele niet echt vinden.

Anyone else use Paul Dawkins' Math course notes to learn everything they know about undergraduate math?

Jesus jackrabbit, that shit is amazing. I can only imagine how awesome it would be to have someone who can explain math in such a succint and reasonable way as a prof.

Michael Sipser - Introduction to the Theory of Computation. While not really interesting topic for me, it's hands down probably the best textbook I have ever encountered.

>>6801034
Sure you are, bucko.

>>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

>>6801431
dude calc *is* bullshit math unless you are an engineer, in which case it is the pinnacle of mathematics and the highest level math you will know

>>6801437
engineers usually learn up to at least linear algebra and ODE, often PDE

>>6801437
I take offense.
Calculus is the absolute minimum for doing engineering.
Unless you're doing civil where nothing moves.

>>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.

Org. Chem by Clayden

>>6801534
Considering that you end up with math majors taking calc for engineers, I'd say that having your curriculum set is far better.

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.

>>6800301
>Gets annoyed at someone rightfully asserting that calculus is a boring branch of maths.
>Calls him a freshman

Never change, sci.

>>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)

>>6801644
In what country anon?

>>6801746
Belgium

>>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.

>God tier books thread
>ctrl f
>No rudin

FFS /sci/

File: Soil_Mech_terzagui.jpg (27KB, 358x475px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 358x475px

Soils are awesome.

>>6801900
>mathfag
>doesn't know about strokes and divergence theorem.
Good job anon...

>>6801916
for some reason a lot of people on /sci/ don't like rudin. I'm not sure why

>>6801956
Heh, I'm in Mesri's 500-level class right now.

>>6802582
>doesn't know about strokes and divergence theorem.
>the math behind them is probably just applied vector calc and linear algebra

>>6802712
Rudin fanboys don't know the difference between elegant rigor and obfuscated rigor.

Hodges' Model Theory. It's pretty much THE book if you want to enter the field.

anything by klein in organic chem

>>6801829

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.

Never heard of the other one. Title sounds gay.

>>6802732
>probably
It's like you're proud of your ignorance.

>>6798525
underrated post

File: 584620.jpg (23KB, 259x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 259x400px

>>6800998
So nobody here has any experience with or opinion on this book? From what I gather it *is* considered "god-tier" by many.

>>6803060
The cover looks fugly. le not judging tho

File: 75755.jpg (81KB, 565x1024px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 565x1024px

>>6803109
It's from the latest revision (done by Ian Stewart in 1997, the original author Richard Courant passed away in 1972). Pic related is an older edition.

>>6803132
That's better I guess.

>>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.

File: Quantitative-Chemical-Analysis-9781429218153.jpg (42KB, 336x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 336x400px

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.

Marsden and Tromba Vector Calculus.
hated it at first but it grew on me. I already knew vector calc from stewart but this gave me a more thorough understanding of it.

File: best book ever.png (90KB, 197x256px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 197x256px

Name a better neuro book

> you cant

>>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.

>>6798518
>>6798753
So I had had the sneaking suspicion that my Calc book was kind of a pile of hot garbage and after checking it, I found it was a Stewart.

Should I go ahead and get Spivak's 4th ed.? The Stewart reads as a painfully barebones text despite its heft.

>>6803060
I got a copy when I was about 12 and really enjoyed it. It is not a text book more a hard popular book.

>>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.

>>6803321
Man I'd take pchem over ochem any day.
>learning a few principles/models and applying them realistically
>memorizing 6 trillion reaction mechanisms and checklisting them for reactions

>>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.

>>6803431
Find me the proof of funbini's theorem on stewart.

File: lol hands.jpg (92KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 300x300px

>>6803436
>Is surprised that a proof requiring measures isn't included in a calculus textbook.

nigga u dum as hell

>mfw skim through Spivak djvu file and see that Fubini's theorem is incorrectly used to refer to multiple Reimann integrals.

>>6803452
>mfw skim through Spivak djvu file and see that Fubini's theorem is incorrectly used to refer to multiple Reimann integrals
>yfw you don't even know what fubini's theorem is

>stewart
>the proof of this theorem is too advanced for this book
That is fubini's ther

>apostol
>proof provided

>spivak
>proof provided

>marsden
>proof provided

>munkres
>proof provided

>edwards
>proof provided

>courant
>proof provided

>keisler
>proof provided

Guess which books besides stewart doesn't include it? All these new "calculus" books for engineers full of pretty pictures that retards keep clueless retards keep recommending.

>>6803475
that retards keep recommending*
I need some sleep I guess.

>>6803475
Spivak doesn't even cover measurable spaces, none of those textbooks do. None of them have a proof for Fubini's theorem. At best they're proving some special case.

>>6798518
Spivak is just a babby math tier calculus book that tries to pass itself off as an analysis book. Anyone interested in doing real analysis (pun intended) would read Rudin.

>>6803475
Rudin actually contains an actual proof of Fubini's theorem since it actually covers the material required to do the theorem.

>>6803483
>says that after spivak enunciates measure zero 2 chapters before

File: woman-6-plus.jpg (15KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 360x480px

>>6803002
>anything by klein in organic chem
All 5 star reviews. On my wish list.

>>6803787
>All 5 star reviews
Almost all...

File: MWG.jpg (454KB, 1486x1883px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1486x1883px

>>6798518

>>6803949
Is it better than Varian?

>>6803492
It still doesn't have a proper proof of Fubini's theorem. Only multiple reimann integration.

>>6803963
Different purpose
It's more of a reference book for gen eq, producer and consumer theory
Jehle-Reny, big Varian, and big Rudin are good books as well.

File: QM.jpg (48KB, 331x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 331x500px

Come on, fur reel

>>6798689
Thomas is another Stewart, I prefer it. Larson is just shit imo.

File: book_cover.gif (134KB, 571x707px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 571x707px

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.

>>6798518
Gustave Le bon - The crowd : A study of the popular mind.

File: jackson0.jpg (410KB, 2481x2814px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 2481x2814px

what's your excuse for not reading Jackson's classical electrodynamics yes physics fags?

Irodov's problems in general physics. You haven't seen physics 'till you've tried this guy.

>>6805654
math grad student here, electrodynamics confirmed for hard as fuck. dunno how you physics people do that shit.

>>6805917
>on the internet no one knows Im actually a physicist

>>6803238
I have it, it's good.

>>6800008
Best Biochem book. No doubt.

>>6803238
Purves or Kandel

I'm using Stewart's for calculus and I am really missing on a good book with worked examples and problem sets.

Do you guys know of any?

File: limits.png (105KB, 667x379px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 667x379px

>>6802742
Little Rudin is the best analysis book if you actually take your time to understand what you're reading.

>>6803283
Download it, see if you like it.

Other good ones, include apostol, courant.

File: 013143506X.jpg (119KB, 464x648px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 464x648px

UIUC ECE students are cumming in their pants right now

>>6801568
I could be wrong, haven't even taken Q&M, but I heard that his best books are E&M and the particles book. Q&M jumps right into Schrodinger equation with no backround.

>>6801498
Is this good for an undergraduate who has taken proof classes before, but not abstract algebra previously?

>>6803475
Holy shit, you fucking retard. You are comparing a book focused on computation in Calculus to fucking real analysis books.

And fucking Munkres isn't even analysis, it's topology, how the fuck could you even conceive the idea of comparing those books.

>>6806268
Most of the books he mentioned are calculus book. Unless I've been learning analysis without even knowing.

>>6806277
Analysis with proofs and calculus (doing the computation) are just totally different subjects. Even fucking math majors do not do analysis in place of the computations.

>>6806268
>>6806289
Those are calculus books you fucking moron.
We use various of these in our calculus series here.

Also there's more than one book by munkres, the one there is Analysis on Manifolds by munkres, which guess what? Calculus III bibliography.

>>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.

>>6806421
Except that books revolving on calculations do not prepare you for more advanced classes and are meant for engineers.

But really, the worst is that learning from them is akin to learning highschool math, where you just learn that something is like that because the book says so.

>>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
maybe because they don't want to be philistines who'll get curbstomped if they ever go into anything resembling a real math class

>>6806440
By that argument, why would an engineer even need calculus when Mathematica can solve any integral you throw at it?

>>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.

>>6806421
none of those are upper division mathematics books

Americans are so fucking retarded.

>>6806455
Yeah, that's why America has all of the best scientists, engineers, and mathematicians right now. Eat shit, Eurofaggorpoor.

>>6806505
Because they're all immigrants, not American-born.

Your government sells out its own people on a daily basis.

MURRICA!!!

>>6806515
Only 25% of Nobel prize winners in the U.S. have something other than citizenship. Keep drinking our semen, Europoors.

File: image.jpg (56KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 768x1024px

Definitely an undergraduate textbook but still a great intro to linear algebra.

Emiliani, Cesare. (1992). Planet Earth : Cosmology, Geology, & the Evolution of Life & the Environment. Cambridge University Press. (Paperback Edition ISBN 0-521-40949-7)

>>6798518
too bad i never opened mine
>muh lamar and googled study guides
Oh and the /sci/ guide was useful

>>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
I'm the guy you responded to, I've been monitoring this thread because there have been some pretty good recommendations.

I NEVER denied you need both. My point is that the guy is comparing computation to proof/theory. They're completely different, you can't compare two totally different books like that.

File: book.png (583KB, 505x645px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 505x645px

7/10
the only pros are that they include examples on how to solve most problems

>>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.

>>6807156
Oh, of course. I agree.

>>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.

File: flying-saucer.jpg (28KB, 620x496px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 620x496px

>>6805654
This is indeed a great book. Electrodynamics is really weird. In fact all of physics is weird.

>>6807276
Well, there isn't a lot of time for them either, but doing computation is normally far easier than proofs.

>>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.

>>6798518
No, Apostol or don't bother

>>6807296
One could say the same thing about computations in a proof based course. It really comes down to what the course is ultimately interested in achieving.

>>6801401
Too watered down and hand holding

>>6807295
>doing computation is normally far easier than proofs.

Is that what you wanted to say the whole time? Ok, we get it.

>>6807319
I'm not that guy, but what would you recommend?

I'm taking an automata course that recommends Sipser but so far I've just been getting by with these lecture notes.
http://math.tut.fi/~ruohonen/FL.pdf

File: 278cf097016908d60864773914ee52d4-d.jpg (29KB, 368x475px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 368x475px

the bible of chemical engineering

>>6807326
What?

File: 51Tm9msprYL[1].jpg (51KB, 397x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 397x500px

>>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.

>>6805654
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm-4PltMB2A

>>6806260
no
better to start with pinter or fraleigh
chapter 0 is good once you get used to algebra

>>6807979
based pinter

Concrete Mathematics for CS
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
The Art of Computer Programming.

Proving CS is non-pleb one book at a time.

>>6807935

those are undergrad books, read bird and you will understand, fucking plebe

Are there any significant differences between the 3rd and 4th edition of Spivak's Calculus? I can only find the 3rd edition online. If anyone could upload the 4th edition, that'd be great.

>>6808519
Same thing here, also the third edition I found has some pages that were scanned at an angle, so you can't see half of the text.

bumpan

File: dem fish.jpg (60KB, 398x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 398x500px

CS books always have the strangest covers

File: silberschatz.jpg (46KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x500px

>>6809035
Especially OS books.

>>6805303
>Emended

stopped reading right there

>Feynman

started reading again

>>6809035
Underwater is deep, geddit?

>>6809251
>doesn't know what "emended" means
>is on /sci/