Textbooks

atkins, jones & laverman - chemical principles: the quest for insight

8/10 for learning the basics

>>8128611
Bumping new textbook thread

>>8128611

>Lehninger, principles of biochemistry

You can read just the comments and still learn something usefull

>Gary G. Brusca, Invertebrates

people are still amazed when I told them that snails like sadomasochistics sex, and I learn that from this book so... even if you aren't interested is still a good read.

>Adrian Slater, plant biotechnology.

A very good read if you want to know about these things in short with everything explained, might even be usefull for social sciences since it also explains things like laws in the US and how biotechnological bussiness operate although is not the main thing of the book.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6905040-107-stories-about-chemistry
I want more fun books like this.

Pharmacology Recommendations?

I'd be particularly interested in a book that individually discusses the pathway of actions of all major drugs, without excess fluff.

Hello I have a question that is very important for me.

I am consider to do either Advanced Calculus book by loomis and sternberg or Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential forms a Unified approach by hubbard. it seems that the vector calculus one is a bit easier and shorter which i would prefer. anyways the real determining factor is that although i found an edition of advanced calc and i found the first edition of the vector calc titled book, i cant find solutions manuals for either of them, which really sucks since i have no idea if my proofs are correct. for advanced calc i dont even know if a solutions manual exists since its a book from the 60s, and for the other one i know it exists but it is of course premium and i cant find a pdf anywhere. what should i do?

>>8129599

not pharmacology but:

Lubert Stryer, biochemistry is more about biochemical pathways and the chemistry behind it, although idk if its what you're looking for it wouldn't hurt to give it a short look.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 352x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 352x499px

I've been reading this recently. Unfortunately, it has *many* typos. Still, I really like the style, there is a noticeable effort from the author to make everything as clear as possible. It feels like he is talking to you.

any neuroscience recommendations?

any good macroeconomics textbooks? preferably not complete intro shit

>>8129609
If you look at your own proof and you have no idea if it's correct or not you don't belong anywhere near a calculus on manifolds textbook.
*Most* books past a very elementary level don't have solutions manuals. Learn to check your own shit.

Loomis+Sternberg is a god-tier textbook, one of my favourite of all time (might actually be my favourite) but it is notoriously hard. If you prefer easier books you should probably stay away from it.


>>8129627
Springer and child companies are absolute shit for quality control; I don't even think they bother editing most stuff they publish.

So you end up with that situation a lot, great manuscripts with 200 typos that were never fixed.

>>8130527
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Economics_Textbook_Recommendations#Macroeconomics

>>8130540
This is terrible advice. The rewind they don't have solutions is because they assume a certain level of mathematical maturity on top of the course being taught in a classroom with guidance of a professor that will provide proper feedback.

What your suggesting would be like taking an analysis course with Rudin, doing the home works and exams and never receiving them back and having your grade withheld during the semester because if you did the proofs correctly you'd know your overall grade in the class and which problems you got right or wrong and wouldn't need the professor to point this out to you.

>>8130823
On mobile not the best way to respond due to autocorrect changing my words. By you get the gist of what I am conveying

Any recommendation of a book/books where I can learn sequences and series from scratch?

>>8131303
Rudin

desu

>>8131303
if you have time then apostol or spivak

if you're strong then Rudin but I'm pretty sure people pretend that they've learned from rudin just for posturing. In reality Rudin is not a good book to learn analysis by yourself from scratch.

Piskunov is really good for self study. It's what I used to learn calculus back when I was in highschool at the ripe old age of 15.

Someone who knows math wanna recommend me a good text that talks about the relation between vector bundles and topology?

Just finished Lee, and Milnor's Differential Topology.

>>8131358
I'e never understood why people think rudin is so hard.

It's a little more succinct than most intro analysis textbooks and suddenly everyone loses their shit. Really tired of this hyping up of an average textbook from both sides.

Probably both sides are full of shit and neither of them have actually worked through it.

>>8131396
It's not "too hard," but it's needlessly terse when people understandably prefer textbooks to explain new subjects to them.

>>8131396
It's the book one writes by an expert for students who already seen analysis to some extent or are mature, not for an average IQ student transitioning from Calculus sequences to their first course in proofs with Analysis.

>>8130540
>Loomis+Sternberg is a god-tier textbook
This looks like a really good book, but holy fuck the printing is terrible. I wish I could buy TeX source code for this and unfuck it.

Any recommendations on beginner differential geometry

>>8131446
Kühnel

I saw someone posted Sedra/Smith Microelectronic circuits. I want to learn it, but I find the book pretty advanced. I haven't done circuits before. Any advice on where to start from the ground up in this interesting topic? so I can finish Sedra later?

>>8131509

Most people like "Fundamentals of Electric Circuits" by Alexander and Sadiku:
http://www.portcity.edu.bd/ELibrary/EEE/fundamentalsofelectriccircuits.pdf

And if Sedra and Smith is too hard, "Fundamentals of Microelectronics" by Razavi is a gentler introduction.

hi

>>8130823
>The rewind they don't have solutions is because they assume a certain level of mathematical maturity on top of the course being taught in a classroom with guidance of a professor that will provide proper feedback.
This is completely untrue though. Do you think grad students only look at one book a semester because they only take one course on top of their research?
Do you think PhD students and professors just stop learning altogether because there's nobody to grade their problems anymore?
How do you think people figure out stuff from sources like lecture notes and monographs where there aren't any problems at all?

Self-evaluation is a critical skill if you want to do more than a paltry amount of mathematics.

And even if the lack of solutions manuals was a real problem, you'd still need to learn to deal with it because you're going to be seriously handicapped in what resources you can self-study if you insist on always having the answer key.

>>8131647
Greetings Anon.

>>8131671
Your advice was ultimately unhelpful. I am a beginner and if I cannot get an exercise, there is no reason for me to spend an entire day pondering it. It would be more informative for me to read a proof from the instructor or a solution manual. Many times when i did spivak the proof I came up with was not the one in the answer book, but I read it anyways because it opens my eyes to new techniques.

many modern math textbooks have solution manuals, even for more advanced "graduate" topics

>>8131539
the instructor solutions are on library genesis for a few editions but the problems appear to be the same

is the princeton lectures in analysis series any good? i'm straight out of set theory + proofs for babby

>>8131699
>I am a beginner and if I cannot get an exercise, there is no reason for me to spend an entire day pondering it.
This is pure laziness. A day, or even 2-3 days is not a remotely long time to think about a hard problem you can't solve, and struggling with difficult problems is the only way to actually improve problem-solving ability. Without that you can learn as much math as you want but you're always going to suck at doing problems because when you get stuck your toolbox consists of "flip to the back of the book."

By the way, how do you know that "many graduate textbooks have solution manuals" if you're a beginner reading Spivak?

>>8131745
I want to read this, how accessible is it?

>>8131767
Not him, but take a beginner math student transitioning from computational mathematics like calculus and give them rudin to read with no help (internet, professor, other textbooks) and get them to do the proofs. They will most likely do incorrect proofs (with no way to check their work) or not being able to start the proofs at all.

>>8131783
I was not implying that you should never give a student any feedback at any point in their career. Proofs are obviously a thing that needs to be taught.

My original post was a reply to someone who was choosing between two textbooks on rigorous vector space+manifold calculus. By that point in your studies you should know how to read and write a proof, and once you know what a valid proof is you should be able to tell if what you wrote is one or not.

>>8131793
Yeah, I didn't see that post and don't disagree with your message.

There do exist analysis books with complete answers to the problems.

I am trying to remember their names, I know Aliprantis has a two book set - one textbook, the other solutions but others exist.

>>8131345
I'm working through that one now for fun. It's pretty challenging, since I haven't done something like that before, but set theory seems pretty cool.

I'm a grad student in CSE, not math. Hopefully my school offers a Set Theory course at some point so I can audit it.

>>8130527
https://np.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/4a1vhj/the_gold_discussion_sticky_come_ask_questions_and/d0wtd05

>>8131767
>By the way, how do you know that "many graduate textbooks have solution manuals" if you're a beginner reading Spivak?

because i looked at textbooks on amazon. do I need doctorate for this?

>This is pure laziness. A day, or even 2-3 days is not a remotely long time to think about a hard problem you can't solve, and struggling with difficult problems is the only way to actually improve problem-solving ability.

even at the real math 55 students did not spend beyond 60 hours a week doing problem sets. to spend 2-3 days doing a homework problem is simply infeasible when one has other resonsibilites and classes. your rhetoric strikes me as some faux tradionalist mumbo jumbo where everyone needs to strive to be perfect, there are better ways to learn thats what actual instructors have informed me

So, there's a national exam I want to do but I don't know many things that I need to know to pass it and get into school.
What is a good book that teach things like median, mode, mean(are these from statistics?)and arithmetic and geometric sequence. The rest of what I need, I already found good books on it. So what is/are good books on those two topics? Also, in what topic does the geometric/arithmetic sequence falls? I'd wish a book that is not "many things from high school" and something like those books that focus on only geometry, algebra. If possible, not a book that is over one thousand page, because I found good textbooks that is half that and teach me way more(like those released from MIR Publishers).

Whats the best text to self-study some Statistics?

Why are textbooks 1000+ pages each? Fuck, they are a fucking waste of time most of the time.

>>8132430
it's really a trade off between being thorough and being focused

>>8131345
Anyone have a copy for sale? :)

>>8132250
what level are you at

>>8131775
It's available for free, just leaf through it until you don't understand

>>8131462
>>8131462
read the analysis preliminaries and it seems I'm more behind than I thought, what can I read for it?

>>8132557
I already know all the basics but I would like to go over them (really deeply understand) as well as learn something new. Maybe this sounds silly but a Spivaks Calculus of Statistics of something?

>>8132250
Mathematical Statistics with Applications by Wackerly, Mendenhall, Scheaffer is what i used.

>>8131345
not really a textbook but a monograph.

>>8132250
you need probability first
both mit and harvard have full online courses

>>8133195
It's got problems in it though

File: 1940013-p07_screen01_67472_.jpg (62KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 480x360px

>>8131775
very. it only requires some topology. it takes you through their new informal type theory and takes you to the frontier of research.