/sci/ - Science & Math

I hate his way of writing. Also, it's expensive as fuck.

>>7449603
>This
The best book of human knowledge....if you know when and how to apply it.

The last I used.

I really like this book on statistics

Ye olde bible.

very tiresome to study but fun when you can apply the knowledge

next semester

>>7449668
Ah Dover. Just got three of those (Linear Algebra by Shilov, Fourier Series by Tolstov, Ordinary Differential Equations by Tenenbaum & Pollard).

Why do you like Principles of Statistics?

I just bought this. Christ the cover is ugly.

>>7449705
You're doing ANAL.

>>7449587
> Michio Kaku
> Textbook

>>7449561
Is it good?

Does anyone know a good book for Gymming ?

>>7449855
Pretty interesting read though sometimes they like to do some things that really piss me off. Like at one point they straight up claim that 1+2+3+4+...=-1/12, not that it's regularized value is -1/12. Obviously anyone seriously reading the book will know QFT and know regularization, but still it just seemed sloppy.

>>7449874
>Like at one point they straight up claim that 1+2+3+4+...=-1/12, not that it's regularized value is -1/12.
No they don't?

>>7449743
Haven't read much statistics but this book builds everything up very nicely starting from basic probability. It gets straight to the point without rambling on.

It explains why things work and why for instance the standard deviation is defined as it is and why the normal distribution is so useful, without getting too deep into stringently proving everything (many "proofs" are more of intuitive arguments). This doesn't mean it skips out on mathematics though, as there are exercises where you should prove things and rigorous proofs for things like the central limit theorem are included.

ANY GOOD STATISTICS BOOKS

that cute motherfucker

>>7449884
Not that guy but here it kinda seems like they did (I mean they justified it but they still wrote 1+2+.. = -1/12 in the last equation)

>>7449940
See
>>7449668

>>7449976
Yeah they justified it properly, thats the point.

>>7449707
Ach Bernd.

>>7449884
Wow, I completely misremembered that one, never mind.

>>7449885
Sounds good. I like when authors go straight to the point and not babble about anything, as if they were paid by the word.

Haha, books.
I have the internet, faggot.

We practical now

>>7449815
He actually has a legit textbook on QFT, apparently it's middle of the road.

>>7450328
Ruin your eyesite

>>7450328
It's always nice to have the physical book tbh.

>>7449834

>>7450328
I can't focus if I read from the computer thingy

>>7449587

i've been a jaded faggot all day today and that made me laugh

thanks m8

>>7452741
How do you like it? I've used Hughes and Cresswell's book and it's alright but probably outdated (revised version from the 90's). I've had my eye on that book but haven't bothered to find a cheap copy yet.

>>7452744
Pretty good, I would recommend it over the Hugh Cresswell, but the difference isn't too substantial. I would also recommend pic related, even though it doesn't just cover modal logic.

>>7452741
>philosophy shit

>>7452783
>>philosophy shit

>>7449673
Er det en bog til civilingeniorer, din bosserov?

>>7452753
Couldn't resist posting this in yet another bookthread, could you? Phaggot.

>>7452926
Just let him do his thing, he's the one nuke I know who has a massive ego. His recommendations on atomic physics and QM aren't half bad though, but Griffiths is just an intro.

>>7452933
I meant it in an endearing way.

>>7452753
I know this is a meme pic but where would I start with something like this? Shultis and Griffiths?

>>7453094
shultis, lamarsh, griffiths, and callister are all good intro books

>>7453111
I have access to Shultis and Griffiths, does it matter which one I read? do they overlap?

>>7453128
i'd read both. theyre different in a lot of the stuff they cover

>>7449855
>string and m(eme) - theory
>at any point in time, especially this year

>>7453644
Have you even studied it seriously or are you just being a faggot like most of /sci/?

>>7453665
the latter, mostly

>>7449668
>>7449885
Thanks. I am a third guy who was also looking for a good statistics book. Checking it out right now.

>>7453665
>>7449855
>String Theory

Quantum Field Theory is better.

>>7454767
It can't be better at anything considering string theory contains Qft.

>>7452753

>>7454791
>A bastardized expansion of an original thing can only be better than the original.

I bet you mix vodka with shit.

A few books I have in my room.

>>7454812
String theory can do everything QFT can do and also things involving gravity. That is why it can't be worse. Even if the gravitational predictions are wrong it is still able to do everything Qft can.

These :^)

This is what I have with me atm. I have more at my new apartment

>>7454935
that from from Bolobas is 10/10 stuff

dover books have saved me a lot of cash

if half these posts were legit /sci/ wouldn't be nearly as shitty as it is

>>7455803
Nah, even the smart people just come here to shitpost and laugh. All of 4chan is really just a giant pile of shit.

>>7454833
That complex analysis book sucks. It is literally child level.

>>7455803
I mostly lurk and tend to my own business. I *maybe* answer on some threads but that is rare for me, such as is now.

>>7455828
And what do you recommend? Class work and material came out of it so I used it. I didn't find it a bad textbook at all.

>>7455833
My complex analysis course used it too, and assigned homework out of it. I just felt that it (the problems especially) was presented in a manner that felt dumbed down. It made things like branch cuts and Riemann surfaces harder to follow.

>>7455847
I should add that I'm not attacking you for it. I just really didn't like that book.

>>7455847
>>7455849
Fair enough, knowing the people on /sci/ I wasn't sure if it was an attack or not. The questions were alright in my opinion, nothing difficult but I do agree in that they could have added some harder questions for fun. Sometimes, the authors get lost in their own writing, which didn't translate well to me, especially on some of their proofs and, notably, on the section for solving improper integrals using residue theorem.

all so cool...

Hopefully class will be fun

>>7455796
BASED DOVER

I got some Sylvia Mader Biology book. I bought a used copy because they wanted four hundred fucking dollars for a 100-level book. And the thing is written like /x/ trying to explain how aliens killed JFK.

>>7449561
Pic related

>>7452768
This book looks pretty interesting.

Are networks /sci/ enough?

>>7456002
It won't

Our programming assignments have to be in haskell. Its a lot of fun.

>>7455796
How is "Theoretical Physics"? What are the pre-requirements?

This class is a bit boring

>>7456965
its not fun if you don't pay attention
if you actually try to learn things from the beginning it is ez pz

>>7457021
I've been trying to read and get through the intro of it. I also bought Rudin's just in case I want more practice. But coming from a person who's already taken a proof based abstract algebra (pic related), will this class be as difficult as all you say it is?

>>7457029
It's not that bad, honestly

>>7449587
Gave me a chuckle

>>7456040
that's not a textbook, it's a monograph.

>>7457001
>haskell
my nigger

How does that book compare to Sipser?

>>7449561
What edition is that? I'm using the 9th edition for emag this semester that I used for mechanics last semester.

This ones pretty good. QM is so fuckin weird.

Amen.

>>7449855
good use of capo

>>7449665
I actually used this book before as well, I thought it was pretty solid

I'm doing a dual degree in math and physics, pure math, pure physics.

This is for my advanced calculus class

>>7458436
This is for my mechanics II class, which introduces the euler-lagrange equation and other things.

>>7458440
For modern physics.

>>7458441
For discrete math.

>>7458444
Holy shit man, Taylor is god-tier but what is this? Is it something you use to learn formal Math? I know there's a course on Discrete Math in my uni people take in place of the Foundations of Math class, but not with this book. It looks funny.

>>7458452
No fucking clue, I have the textbook they used in all the previous years for this class, but they changed it to this one for the coming fall. I am partially excited to use it, it better have an "inducktion" joke.

Haven't bought it though.

>>7458436
>pure math, pure physics.
>pure physics
u wot m8

>>7458475
Instead of astrophysics, or any other specific concentration. Pure physics. "To set up the student for grad school"

>>7458444
Holy fuck, this is an actually real book..

>>7458458
>it better have an "inducktion" joke
kek

Has anyone here ever had a hilariously bad textbook?

>>7449561
>>7458441
>General Physics Books
Disgusting

>>7458804
Dummit and Foote's Algebra book

Received these today \o/

>>7459182
>pure math
looks like you couldnt cut it in engineering bud

Chapter 6 now. I should be trying to figure out its proof of the Hahn-Banach theorem instead of dicking around on the internet right now honestly.

>>7459216