What would be the best textbook for teaching myself calculus?

Spivak or Stewart

Manga Guide to Calculus

Ignore people who say anything like Rudin, they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>8278566
I have read conflicting things about Stewart. Is it a good or bad text?

File: 1470083841329.gif (379KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 500x300px

>>8278603
Depends on what you're after. I'm studying Biotech, and I enjoyed his book "Biocalculus" because it teaches how to apply mathematical & statistical models directly to biology. However, I've heard Stewart lacks mathematical rigor, and people who are studying pure mathematics sometimes prefer authors like Spivak and Apostol. Those are more difficult, but will teach you how to think mathematically.

So, the main question to ask yourself is this: Why am I studying mathematics? How does this book further my long-term goals?

Spivak
You can learn computational calculus in 4 days
Achieving problem solving proficiency takes no longer than a week
However, if rushed like this you will certainly forget all of your skills quite quickly
Spivak is a drawn out ride that keeps the shit and its inner workings in your brain

>>8278612
this. considering I study for every test for a single day and still pass with A (gotta love no homework professors), it's really not hard to pick up. but your retention will be shit.

>>8278569

Ignore this poster, he's a classic example of a brainlet who needs to be spoonfed.

Rudin is the answer, unless you want to learn calculus on the level of a 10th grader.

>>8278623
rudin isn't calculus, genius

Thomas or Stewart are pretty decent

>>8278549
Spivak if you're a math-minded person, or Stewart if you're an idiot.

>>8278634
Analysis is rigorous calculus. Rudin covers the concepts of limits, differentiation, and integration.

Maybe if you actually picked it up instead of complaining that it's too hard you'd know this.

>>8278648
shut the fuck up you stupid underage imbecile
he's asking for calculus and not analysis, fuck off with your retarded advice.

no one gives a fuck that you heard from people that rudin's the only analysis book, there are a fuckload of analysis books and many of them are far better to use for self teaching than that overly concise, slick shit

>>8278549
I went through Spivak's Calculus as my first treatment to the subject. It was very difficult at first, but after a while I got used to it. The payoff from this text is amazing if you're willing to work.
Plus Spivak has a good sense of humor.

P.S. Anyone know how Apostol is as an Alternative to Spivak? I have his Volume II and Analysis text. I really like his Calc Volume II wehreas his Analysis text is alright.

>>8278672
I used Apostol for a review of calculus before analysis. It was great.

>>8278549
What is OP fag's goal?

If general CS/Bio/Physics/Chem/Engineering/Applied Mathematics: James Stewart will be fine
If theoretical math,physics or CS
Use spivak

>>8278683
>theoretical math
>in theory we have proved the conjecture...

>>8278716
some people refer to Pure Math as Theoretical Math, just like you have Applied Physics and Theoretical Physics.

>>8278609
The rigor helps retain it. you'll need it for understanding higher math anyway.
Also drilling is why most people hate "math"

t. engineer who retained only the most useful stuff from calc

>>8278754
>engineer who retained only the most useful stuff from calc

you mean taylor expansion? because once you take numerical methods engineers never solve anything analytically ever again.

>>8278658

You could have saved a lot of characters by just saying "I'm a brainlet".

I would also recommend watching PatrickJMT on youtube. He explains things very well.

>>8278787
I wish he had more organized playlists. His "Calculus II" playlist doesn't even explain what an integral is and just jumps right into mechanical methods of integrating, even though he does have that video on his channel. Books are better because they're usually laid out so that they can be read sequentially.

>>8278568
Ignore this guy, manga guide to calculus isn't made for beginners.

>>8278763
No I didn't remember taylor expansion until linearization in control theory
> using taylor expansions in numerical methods
Uh I guess if you're in the 16th century.
Personally I like Runge-Kutta which I have no idea how to derive

Taylor expansions show up everywhere except numerical methods

>>8278890
Seriously? Did u not have to derive the order of the error for any of the methods? My numerical methods course may as well have been called: Application of Taylor's Theorem

>>8278549
>What would be the best textbook for teaching myself calculus? Thank you
1) Read Courant
2) At the same time read and solve exercises from Stewart (because it has full solution manual). Stewart has very concise chapters, so it takes a little time to read them.

I'm studying CS, second year.

My course did involve math, but no calculus. I know jack shit about calculus. How fucked am I?