Calculus Texbooks

>>9158272
Not a bad book but if you're smart you could just read Spivak or Apostol instead to save time

What's the difference in early transcendentals and the standard calculus book by Stewart?

For an engineer, or just general STEM person who needs math, Stewart is hard to beat to be honest.

For a math major, Spivak, Apostol or Thomas

>>9158375
And also 'Calculus Essentials".

>>9158375
It teaches transcendental functions earlier

>>9158586
whats the difference between using stewart and the spivak etc books? i learned using stewart in uni

>>9158272
If anyone tells you to use Spivak or Apostol, don't listen to them. While you should learn real analysis at some point, Spivak and Apostol assume knowledge of basic calculus already. Stewart is fine for a first time.

>>9158724
What are those? Does the standard book cover them at all? How do these books differ from "Calculus Essentials"?

>>9158743
Well, I assume you took basic calc in HS like any student with motivation to go onto STEM.

>>9158769
Ideally, yes. However, many times that is not the case. If someone is taking a calculus course that isn't called real analysis or advanced calculus, then one should assume that it is because they never took AP calculus or IB calculus or whatever in high school. OP could be a first semester student at college or perhaps they are behind in courses. It happens.

>>9158272
Differential and Integral Calculus: N. Piskunov

File: 1504417984317.gif (456KB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 420x315px

>>9158586
>Thomas
>better than Stewart
Stop being fucking retarded, memeguy

>>9158778
I don't think you need ap calculus ti start with spivack, just motivation to learn by your own merit. You just need a basic calc book that teaches geometric and intuitive calculus to get an idea and to practice all the operational shit (learn your derivatives your anti derivatives proper integrals improper plus optimization problems).

>>9158769
In my high school they didn't teach calculus

My uni uses this textbook, and my prof hates it so much that he wrote his own textbook and hand out each lesson to us instead. Dude is based as fuck.

>>9159361
I mean you didn't even had the option? Calculus is so fundamental for everything, I can't understand why we have these standards.

Why would you use something else than Spivak? I mean ok fine if your course teaches from a specific text, but if you have a choice why spit on your luck? Serious question.

>>9159494
Some people hate rigor in all forms and just want to be proficient at solving a lot of tedious calc problems. For many technical jobs it's perfectly fine, though I believe any serious engineer who wants to do more than meme jobs and paperwork should have a strong basis.

>>9159482
The math course was statistics at my school
Poor schools don't have calculus in final year math course like rich schools do

>>9158375
>>9158604
>>9158748
bump

>>9158375
>>9159687
as the other anon said, it teaches transcendental functions earlier, which are basically [math]e^x[/math] and [math]\log x[/math]. Instead of teaching them to you as [eqn]\log x=\int_1^x \frac{1}{x}dx\;\;\;\; e^x=\lim_{x\to\infty }\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)^x[/eqn]
and then showing you that they are inverses of each other, they teach you that [math]e^x[/math] is the only exponential function that after you take a derivative it gives you no extra constant, and then telling you that [math]\log x[/math] is the inverse of this specific function.

Pros of early transcendentals:
>a lot more examples and exercises can be worked out early on
>a lot more useful functions can be defined

Pros of later transcendentals:
>a firmer footing/better understanding on the log and exponential functions

>>9159723
oops, I meant [math]e[/math] not [math]e^x[/math] in that definition

>>9159723
>>9159725
Thanks for responding. Since early transcendentals defines more useful functions does it cover more than the standard book or are those functions there in the standard one but just explained later on?

>>9159739
It doesn't cover more per se, as in, both books will define the functions, one later than the other, however you may get more lackluster exercises in the "later" transcendental books, given that you will be missing a lot of identities and functions in the earlier exercises.

For example, in the later transcendentals, until they explain [math]e[/math] and [math]\log[/math], the only functions you can work with are polynomials and trigonometric functions, while in the early transcendentals you will also get exercises using log/exp as well as hyperbolic trigonometric functions earlier, which make part of the bulk of the more interesting examples.

>>9159753
So which one would be better for a beginner trying to learn calculus right after Stewart's precalculus book?

>>9159776
Early transcendentals. You won't have a very solid understanding of the functions anyways until you do real/complex analysis, and the ability to do more exercises involving them gives you a head start in "mastering" their algebraic manipulation.

>>9159789
Thank you.

>>9158778
In the us, you don't take real analysis untIL after you finish Calc 1-4.

Non math stem don't have to take it at all.

>>9159402
Do you know why your prof hates this textbook?

>>9160278
He's a brainlet.