How good are these?

>>8508428
If you need them you shouldn't be doing maths.

>>8508428
The logic one is surprisingly good. Goes through natural deduction, truth table and trees including first order logic. Hurley doesn't even do that!

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-01 at 5.07.29 PM.png (274KB, 1238x1256px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1238x1256px

linear algebra one

For dummies books are usually surprisingly good and written by experts. They are not as rigurous as Rudin but will cover the very basics.

They're better than most textbooks.

Are there ebooks of these?

>>8508432
hurr durr looking for other angles into understanding subjects is stoopid

>>8508544
All that is literally like 2 chapters in any textbook

dumb books for dumb fellas

>>8508428
Schaum's outline series is better in my opinion--terse with lots of exercises. For Dummies series is okay; bit too hand-holdy and chatty for my preference, though good if you absolutely lack any sort of abstract thinking capacities, as it creates a nice jumping stone for more challenging texts.

Give them a try, not like they'll break your bank.

They are shallow as fuck and not sufficient for any college level class

>>8508960
you've got a weird textbook then. stop trying to act cool or smart. nobody gives a shit because by virtue of being a textbook, your textbook will likely go more in depth amd have more to offer than any "for dummies" iteration. you're not impressing anyone.

i haven't read the books myself, OP, but generally for dummies is a nice series for casual introduction. if you think math is something you might like after reading a few, you should probably pick up some textbooks to ensure that you have the right knowledge

>>8509470
lol. roasted

>>8508428
I have a couple of these books. I like them. I would never suggest using them as anything other than a supplement though. They are good for getting work on additional problems. Also good for just getting a basic intuition on a subject your're unfamiliar with. I would highly suggest using a rigorous textbook alongside these though, like I said above. They shouldn't be used as an only, or "primary" source.

>>8508912
those are not "other angles"
those are halfassed pieces of rethoric. cleverly crafted to convince the reader of the statements contained in these popsci magazine equivalent "books".
these monstrosities you refer to as an "other angle" are merely instructions for a mindless reader to follow. talking them through an calculation algorithm without providing he reader with knowledge how and why it works.
Solely done for the purpose of making the reader feel "smart".
These "other angles" are just compact pieces of the "smart feel" pill.
IT EVEN FUCKING SAYS IT ON THE COVER
>FOR BRAINLETS

I seriousy fucking bet you own these books and read them and feel smart as fuck afterwards so you can then later come to /sci/ to shitpost about it and feel like you are part of the elitist click that "know" mathematics while you jerk off on pictures of smug anime girls.

KYS seriously.
reading that garbage is mental masturbation for narcissists and I think less of you for doing so.
piece of trash

>>8510521
see
>>8509912

>>8510573
>not realizing its bait