>reading Landau-Lifshitz, Vol. 1 >"As you can easily

File: IMG_5841.jpg (33KB, 1136x246px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1136x246px

I've never seen such a flawless argument. It is funny because I actually like the author but without context he seems like an asshole by writing this "proof".

>>9105404
"The proof is trivial". Oh, I lost count how many times I've seen that line without understanding the proof in question.

Hey, is the Landau-Lifshitz series any good?

I'm a EE freshmen and I'd like to have a better understanding of physics in general if I ever want to do a PhD or something.
Or is there an alternative like chicago math.

>>9105404
>No matter how big K is
>if you like
I don't really like when authors are so familiar in their papers.

But it depends on how complicated [math]\tau(n)[/math] is.

>>9105419
i n c r e d i b l e - but maybe not for your first foray into a topic

>>9105419
Vol 1 is by far simpler than any of the rest and I'm already struggling with the maths (elliptic integrals). I get the physical sense most of the time, though.
Basically they do a lot of complicated maths, but they prove some really interesting theorems and results, in a somewhat intuitive way.

Just don't try to do the problems without being ready to spend a lot of time on them.

>>9105424
I had a course on classical mechanics as part of the admission course, but I'll look into it.
Considering this book seems to dwell into proofs, I think I'll read about that before.

Thank you.

>>9105419
Chicago guy write recommendation on physics
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicphys.htm

>>9105430
Alright, that's more to take into account, Thank you as well.

>>9105419
>>9105430
And to precise, Vol 1 is about Mechanics (with Lagrange functions), which I had touched before. I agree with >>9105424, L&L is not for a first approach, but for the complex, tricky and interesting details, such as how to mathematically prove Kepler's laws.

>>9105421
The function is the divisor function. He writes so informally because his book's goal is to make analytic number theory (a grad subject) to be accesible to undergrads. I am but a humble brainlet who attempted Apostol and ended with 5 brand new assholes and now I lowered the intensity while my new assholes heal so that I can attempt Apostol after I know more complex anal.

He says you should write the details if you like because he already did the proof for the case k=1 and k=2 and it was noticeable that it can trivially be extended to arbitrary k.

>[J.W.] Landau writes the kind of books that you read the first time and think, "What does this have to do with anything?" Then, once you really know the subject, you read it again and think, "Wow, that's really brilliant!!!" Landau's book on mechanics, like many of his books, is not a good first book. However, once you're pretty comfortable with mechanics, it's deeply insightful and a real pleasure to read.

Couldn't have said it better, although I'm not that familiar with mechanics.

>>9105433
>>9105436

I feel silly for saying thanks too many times in a thread, but I appreciate it.

By the way, I've downloaded a torrent on chicmath and it got some books missing, I'll try to find the missing ones, perhaps they're on genlib and make a small neocities blog with links for each book. (also I'll post a new magnet link with the complete, I hope, collection)

>>9105454
Another guy
http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/~jchan3/bibliography.html