/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12700406
Lang's.

Francis and Flanigan (1983) was pretty good when I took complex analysis.

>>12700406
niggers

>>12700406
You are a *theoretical* physics grad student and don’t know complex analysis? How?

>>12700406
I don't think there's a single good theoretical physicist who hasn't gone through Whittaker and Watson.

>>12700728
did you speak with them all? if not , then why do you make such a claim?

>>12700759
Amazing how just one post tells me what an insufferable needle-armed faggot you are irl.

>>12700779
you dont know and will never know my dude, you cant just assume things

>>12700759
If you're OP and you're asking for more information, just ask in a normal way which makes it clear what you're looking for. There's really no need to be smarmy and make it harder for people to give help when I gave a perfectly legitimate recommendation.

>>12700406
something like Arfken or Boas is probably sufficient if you're just doing computations. But i have no idea, i haven't done QFT or really used complex analysis after i learnt it.

>>12700406
I don't know what a contour integral is and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Am I right in thinking, for pic related, each arc segment is approximated by a triangle?
So [math]d \theta *radius = base[/math], [math]radius = height[/math], and the area of each chunk is [math]\frac{1}{2}base*height[/math]?
Therefore, the integral from 0 -> θ is just [math]\frac{1}{2}\theta * radius^2[/math]
Is that right?

>>12701314
No, you're not even particularly close.

>>12701363
dang

>>12700406
If you can borrow it : Real and complex analysis, Rudin (Chapter 10 to 16 in the third edition)

Ahlfors, Rudin.

I also had some PDF in my language to assist, pretty good and 259 pages.


Remember: complex numbers are fake numbers and Quantum theory therefore too.

>>12700759
what a faggot lmao

>>12700413
This. Lang's book is pretty good.

>>12701451
>Rudin
I doubt OP could handle Rudin

>>12700413
fpbp

>>12700406
>So I would prefer something not too meta,
https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics#Complex_Variables
>but I don't want none of that oversimplified engineer-tier garbage either
take an engineering course and stop being ignorant

>>12701157
>Arfken or Boas
oversimplified garbage
>>12700728
... from the early to mid 20th century.

You don't need complex analysis to understand the residue theorem.

>>12700406
If you're theoretical physics, then focus on Boas or Arfken, both titled Mathematical Methods for the Physical Sciences. Math books are too proof based. You need to know how to do integrals

>>12703476
Neither Arken nor Boas are oversimplified, pseud. You didn't even read them, faggot. They're rigorous in proofs for physicists, whereas math textbooks focus too much on epsilon Delta proofs which are useless for physicists.

>>12700406
A Comprehensive Course in Analysis by Barry Simon, Part 2A, 2B
Link:
https://www.ams.org/publications/authors/books/postpub/simon

>>12703526
They're shallow surveys for people that can't be assed to actually learn the subjects. You should read a book on each topic.

>>12703636
What separates a physicist from a mathematician is the lack of strict rigor. Whilst mathematics requires strict, rigerous proofs we rely on hand-waviness and so-called physical intuition to get things done in physics. There's no need to understand every single proof rigorously for a physicist unless it is somehow necessary to understand how to USE the concepts, which is ultimately the only thing a physicist should care about. If physicists pursued mathematics at the same level as mathematicians we would never get anything done.

>>12703476
>from the early to mid 20th century
Drastically underestimating how influential Whittaker and Watson has been in theoretical physics.
Easily one of the top references along with Arfken, if not the top.

>>12700759
>tfw too intelligent

>>12700759
nigger

>>12700406
Did anyone read visual complex analysis from needham i think?

>tfw there's no LaTeX'ed version of Whittaker and Watson 4th edition

Just the residue theorem will get you through 99% of QFT complex analysis. The Wiki is sufficient for that.

>>12706354
I had a look at it, didn't read past the first chapter because it seemed like a load of shit and progressed painfully slowly

>>12706467
I have a latex'd solution manual to several chapters which I wrote myself. I can't guarantee answers are correct in all cases but if this is helpful I can post it on /sci/ some time down the track. I've been considering doing this for several upper level textbooks but never knew what would be worthwhile and what wouldn't.

>>12706754
>several chapters
*by which i mean everything post chapter 5 on analytic functions, so intro concepts are skipped

>>12706354
I thought that book was great, as I'm very much a visual learner.