Is this a good book for the summer? (hs student) Which books

File: Required Reading.png (3MB, 1360x2765px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1360x2765px

>>8139787
Get a real textbook.

>>8139808
Almost every one of those books are shit.

>>8139810
>I can't understand then
>Therefore it's the books' fault

way to fail

>>8139810
Got any better than

>>8139813
Every one of them is dumbed than you should ever have to read.
And if you have to read 4 books on how to prove things, you might be clinically retarded.
>>8139814
Check the wiki.

>>8139813
Well a textbook that is not easlly understandable, especially an introduction, IS shit.

>>8139808
Thanks

>>8139787
american psycho
lolita
dune
how to avoid huge ships
greek rural postmen and their cancellation numbers

>>8140332
>how to avoid huge ships
>greek rural postmen and their cancellation numbers

Iliad and Odyssey?

File: Screenshot_2016-06-13-16-18-17.png (409KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1080x1920px

>>8139787
I'm a math major that used to be a physics major, basic mechanics bored the fuck out of me in University Physics, but I still have interest for some reason, so I bought that book, got bored, retired it to my shelf and never picked it up again.

It's fairly thin and spends half of the book teaching you how to integrate, differentiate etc. And spends the other half talking about shit no one cares about(physics).

On a serious note it isn't too bad, but if you have time just learn from a real physics book.

Our uni used Wolfson but it was dogshit. I'm using Freedman/Friedman idk what his name is and it's good. You can get both volumes on eBay for 5 bux each.

Maybe try Feynman lectures?

Also I did just buy this Like 20 minutes ago though, so hopefully this is good.

Inb4 the lectures are all online

>>8140332
>dune
My nigga.

>>8139813
I agree
Out of those ones I've skimmed, I like almost none of those books and think there are better authors on every single topic. Although, I admit I'm unfamiliar with the astrophysics book and that basic mathematics book is decent.

File: 9780195105193-us-300.jpg (29KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 300x450px

>>8139787

>>8140332

> fiction

lmao, no

Ringworld

>>8139787
Selfish gene is a must
Anything you find from Asimov & Arthur Clark
The parrots's theorem is a cool story
Miles Davis's biography is autism cure
Stephen Hawking maybe?

I'm going through Spivak's calculus this summer, and in 5 hours today, I almost did jack shit. The problems take me ages to do, I force myself to do all of them without skipping. Does anyone recommend a better way?

>>8142250
Switching to Apostol

>>8139787
start with the greeks

"quantum physics for poets," by Christopher Hill and Leon Lederman, is a great primer on quantum physics for non-physics majors.

>>8139787
Does anyone think Susskind's books or lectures are good? I found him to have a sudden jump from trivial to over my head with insufficient explanation, but am unsure if it's because of my shitty self-education.

>>8142250
You don't need a sophisticated texts for calculus. Build an intuition and computational skill with a basic text or, how I learned, something like Paul's Online notes (search with Calc III to find them). Get the hang of the theorems, the uses, etc. Then come back to the sophistication when you learn analysis and rigorously see stokes, green's, etc. theorems from exterior calculus of forms.

Your goal in learning this material is from an application perspective. If you're a math major, you'll have plenty of time to develop the rigor in courses other than introductory calc. Take this time to teach it to yourself so you don't need to spend much time on those courses and can take other stuff.

>>8142250
Keep at it an you'll get better. I was in your position last summer, and when I first started, it took me about a week to do a chapter. There were days when I was able to do only 2 or so problems. By the end, I was able to cover a chapter in about 2 days. It's taking a while for because this is the first time you're this sort of math, and that's to be expected.

Learning how to read math well is sort of a personal process, but here are some guidelines:
1) Make sure you understand what you are reading. If you don't believe/understand something, you need to stop until you do. This is especially pertinent if you've never done proof based math before.
2) When reading, always have out pen/paper. Often authors will leave gaps in their arguments, and if you don't understand on sight how a statement is true, you need to work it out.
3) Feel free to play with the material (find examples of X, or show that Y does not hold if a condition is removed), often the best understanding comes from playing with it on your own rather than doing things in the book.
4) When it comes to problems, do a lot, but don't get carried away. Make sure you are getting something out of the problem your doing. If it's getting repetitive or too easy, move on. If you're struggling, it means you need to do more.
5) If you are stuck on something, get help (after a serious attempt!), /sqt/ or other online math communities are often helpful.

When reading the text, I find the following strategy works best for me. Copy down definitions and proved statements (theorems, lemmas, etc.). When the author states something for proof, do no read the proof at first. Instead, attempt to prove it yourself. If a reasonable amount of time (~30 minutes) has been spent on it with no progress, go ahead and read to proof. If the author gives an example of some sort, try to work out why the claim is true on your own.

Overall, just try to make sure your learning. If you are, don't worry about how long it takes.

>>8142747
I already took AP Calc in high-school. It may have only been AB, but I have a general grasp of what is going on. Thanks however, but I'm holding to doing Spivak this summer.
>>8142754 Thank you, it helped encourage me. It helps to know there are others who had some difficulty as well. I'll write down your recommendations, and I'll follow them. That last statement I'm printing and making my bookmark.

>>8139810
Go ahead and point out which ones, you enormous faggot.

>>8139817
Those are from the wiki, cretin.

>>8141950
give some recs for diff eqs, basic math, and proofs, please

>>8143005
Not him, but Keisler, Young, The Bible (what does this have to do with /sci/?), Stroustrup, Carroll (why this branch of physics and none of the others?), the two engineering math books, and the three books on how to solve math problems.
I can't speak for the Chem or Bio books, but seeing as the rest of them are shit, I question the maker's taste.

Why you so butthurt about this, did you make this piece of shit?

>>8143017
>Stroustrup

What's wrong with Stroustrup?

>Carroll (why this branch of physics and none of the others?)

Because astronomy is popular and no one normal like geology?

>>8142764
Calc ab lacks any rigor

>>8143154
>> What's wrong with Stroustrup?
>using a book to learn to code

> Because astronomy is popular and no one normal like geology?
more people should understand material science/solid mechanics
it's incredibly useful with very little work
> no fluids
> no thermo

>>8139787
Textbook-wise,
>Riley, Hobson, Bence - Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering
>Morin - Introduction to Classical Mechanics

I could upload some lecture notes if you want; the lecturers did a good effort in some of my courses.
>Linear Algebra
>Complex Numbers & ODEs
>Multiple Integrals & Vector Calculus

>>8144509
>>using a book to learn to code

People who try to code after reading a single webpage are fucking terrible.

>>8144651
It's the easiest things to find tutorials and references for:
http://c.learncodethehardway.org/book/

>>8144683
>disses Bjarne
>recommends lol xD swearing is cool webpage
Yeh, nah, your taste a shit

>>8144725
>swearing
lolwut?

There's a million others, that's just the one that /sci/ has a hard on for. I used Udacity, but there's also Coursera, codeacademy, that one youtube channel I can't remember the name of.

>>8144509
>>> What's wrong with Stroustrup?
>>using a book to learn to code
This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. I taught myself PHP as a preteen and spent years of my life using le internet to learn more but it wasn't until I bought a C textbook that I started to learn actual concepts. You sound like one of the idiots who learned to script and now thinks you've mastered CS.

>>8144683
>It's the easiest things to find tutorials and references for:
>http://c.learncodethehardway.org/book/
Regardless of your taste, THIS IS A FUCKING BOOK.

>>8144745
> Regardless of your taste, THIS IS A FUCKING BOOK.
yeah, now you're getting it

>>8142250
greeks

>>8144627
Yes please anon

>>8140498
...Feynman?

>>8140338
Those two are actual book titles, not references to something.

>>8140498
Shankar's lectures are pretty fuckin good, anyone have an opinion on his textbooks?

>>8142754
Did you do every single problem?

File: 2016-06-17 15.13.24.jpg (1MB, 1537x1075px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1537x1075px

>>8147274
It came in yesterday, but I haven't started to read it until today as I have been swamped with homework. I finished the first chapter and it's very straightforward, and clear.

Here's the first, most basic problem in the book.

>>8147274
Having followed his lectures and having read lecture notes, I can attest that the book is mainly a collection of his lecture notes.
Good but terse, some compare to Landau-Lifschitz.

Imo great teacher, but the material isn't the easiest either. Apparently his take on Stat Mech is very modern.

>>8147274
>>8148797
Oh no wait I'm thinking of Kandar, kek

>>8139817
What wiki?