Shankar or Griffiths for self studying quantum mechanics. Will

Sorry for the errors i am on mobile

>>8503818
my school uses Griffiths but gives a lot of assignments out of Shankar
My experience is admittedly limited (14 weeks of Griffiths with sporadic Shankar assignments) but while I truly prefer the Shankar text, but see how it would be harder to self study out of (relative to Griffiths). I'd chose Shankar.

My $0.02, take it for what you will

>>8503830
Thanks

>>8503818
Have you never learned Quantum before?

>>8503818
Shankar, Shankar, Shankar.

There's one productive way to learn Quantum as a first timer and that's the linear algebra formalism.

>>8503896
Nope

>>8503915
How can you learn quantum mechanics in a formal way with only linear algebra?
I'm a math guy trying to get into it and the books I got start with some operator theory, spectral theory, projection value measures, etc.

File: ayyant.gif (839KB, 450x402px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 450x402px

what about Townsend?

>>8504553
you cant you faggot
you need a math methods course for qm

I thoroughly enjoyed Griffiths, and I'm a brainlet when it comes to maths. It's one of the few texts that I had fun reading.
Pick up a used copy. It'll hardly cost you anything, and it's worth checking out.

>>8503818
follow what mit ocw uses
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/Syllabus/

>>8504605
They use shankar but they also recommend griffiths. Lol. I guess I'll just use shankar cause it is longer and seems to go more in depth than an introduction, which is what I want. That damn cat on griffiths book looks sexy af tho. Oh well.

>>8505118
Griffiths also uses cats to illustrate some of the concepts ^¥^