Calculus for beginners, including god apostol.

>>8769516
>calculus starter pack
what? that implies that you should read all of them

>>8769523
Only brainlets wouldn't know they need only one.

File: 2017_03_22_18_56_26_Amazon.com_calculus_courant.png (88KB, 623x343px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 623x343px

>>8769516
fixed

>>8769536
Only autists don't know what starter pack means.

>>8769544
is that or inclusive?

>>8769544
Picking one out of 3 books still does not make it a "starter pack."
It's like labeling a single card a deck.

>>8769516
I don't understand why everybody has such a hard on for the "rigorous calculus" meme

Whether you use Stewart or Spivak you're still going to re-do everything you did properly in a year when you get to real analysis
Why waste time and effort doing everything pseudo-properly?

>>8769661
As someone learning from stewart and moving slowly towards an introduction of real analysis by Bartle/Sherbert, is considered acceptable by the normal, non-autistic community?

File: howtocalculus-for brainlets.png (76KB, 1740x515px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1740x515px

>>8769516

>>8769743
>someone screencapped and reposted my advice

I'm pretty humbled senpai

>>8769516
Don't Americlaps learn this shit in school? I wish uni math were as easy as calculus.

>>8772039
Yes, they do. All real high schools (read: not inner-city daycares for black teens) offer calculus and getting into a STEM program basically requires that you took it

It's not a very _good_ calculus course but they do take it in HS.

>>8769516
>God tier
John + Courant
>Top tier
Apostol
>Mid tier
Spivak
>Bohemian tier
Keisler
Hamming
>Normie tier
Simmons
Lang
>Low tier
Kline
>Weeaboo tier
Manga Guide to Calculus
>Shit tier
Stewart

>>8772101
What is the difference between the top 3?

>>8772039
Brainlet here
In my cunt only the chosen fews are allowed to take “module mathematics”(I.e. calculus and statistics and shit) in highschool, cunts like me who're deemed not worthy of school resources are taught core mathematics (think of precalculus) instead.

File: 414d20DkHfL._SX401_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (35KB, 403x500px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 403x500px

>>8769516
No thanks, Im going to stick with the book that literally every calc teacher on the planet uses.

>>8773168
This is so bad that it doesn't even make the list here >>8772101

Dude seriously do yourself a favor, if you don't want to use a rigorous proof-based book like Spivak/Apostol that's fine, most people don't use these books as intros either because it's simply inefficient to teach high school students from Apostol, but at least use Stewart

For all the hate stewart gets, it is blatantly the best book for nonrigorous calculus. Especially multivariable calculus. Most people will never reach the sophistication of proving and using the generalized stokes on manifolds, but it is very useful and an order of magnitude easier to understand vector fields/functions of multiple variables/lagrange multipliers, optimization, all that stuff in R^n nonrigorously

File: STOP.jpg (27KB, 486x486px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 486x486px

>>8772101
PUT SPIVAK AND APOSTOL IN GOD TIERA

File: Courant,Richard_1930_Jena.jpg (4KB, 200x250px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 200x250px

>>8773219
No.

>>8769647
kek, op confirmed for brainlet

>>8771888
How does it feel knowing that you won't ever read those books?

>>8769661
Why do Americans first are taught calculus just so that they be taught the very same things in real anal classes, just slightly more rigorous. Wouldn't it make more sense to just start with analysis and not bother with calculus?

>>8773213
Dude stewart is worse than that book, stewart doesn't even teach limits right.

File: 400.jpg (15KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x400px

>>8773262
>real anal classes

>>8769516
what sort of retarded fuck needs 3 calculus books

>>8772101
>>8769516
>>8769544
Only brainlets debate about this stuff.

File: 127.jpg (39KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x404px

>>8773262
>real analysis classes

>>8773263
Good to know it's the book and not me, well it's probably partly me since I'm not very diligent

Anyway yeah the book sucks at explaining calculus honestly

>>8769803
why Beecher? I know that the HBPMS used to recommend it

Any opinions on Anton, Bivens, Davis? It's what my university uses.

>>8773290
correct.

a book that you've actually read, navigated through and can precisely reference upon at will is 100x more valuable. Spending this time finding the "god tier" book could've been spent learning.

so, in essence:

>read a book, nigger

>>8773448
it's you. How far into it are you?

>>8773540
He doesn't need to go that far to realize Stewart doesn't explain limits right. God, even precalculus textbooks do a better job than Stewart.

wow, thanks! time to download all 3, then jerk off to the idea of reading them while making textbook tier lists on /sci/!

File: 1483696039560.jpg (46KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x602px

>>8773262
>Real anal classes

>>8773464
It has good exercises. It also provides proofs in places, which is nice.

Tbh the algebra and trig you need to begin learning calculus is just the shit you should have learned in the typical high school Algebra II/Trig class. Beecher is great for the average brainlet because it IS a high school classroom text, just a very good one. As a result, it's written and formatted in a way that is familiar to literally anyone.

Contrast that with Lang's Basic Mathematics (which is also recommended here often) which is too comprehensive and rigorous for someone who hasn't had much exposure to mathematics but wants to begin learning calculus.

Something I didn't mention in my guide: one doesn't even need to read all of the Beecher text to move into Calculus I and II. One can omit the last three chapters on systems of equations, conics, and sequences, series, and combinatorics.

>>8773901
can you then precisely tell me what makes his explanation inadequate?

probably not, memer

why do people even learn "calculus"? I just started with baby rudin

>>8774892
>can you then precisely tell me what makes his explanation inadequate?

Try to find a formal definition of limits in Stewart's book, good luck.

>>8771888
You already read all book of that pic?

File: 41QqS1SM2mL._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (24KB, 325x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 325x499px

What do you fags think of this one?