/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9679915
why?

Not the worst but I dislike this one

>>9679915
There's far, far worse for pre-calc math.

>>9679938
"Lang is a meme" is a meme.

>>9679912
Thought Stewart was an alright calc 2 book

>>9680019
>saying " "Lang is a meme" is a meme. " is a meme

>>9680025
>>saying " "Lang is a meme" is a meme. " is a meme
Who are you quoting?

>>9680025
saying " saying " "Lang is a meme" is a meme" is a meme" is a meme.

>>9679918
Why? Doesn't this book have a good reputation?

Every time I read one of the stupid fucking quotes littered throughout this piece of trash I want to punch Gallian in the face repeatedly.

>>9680094
Why are you reading an abstract algebra for retarded cs majors book?

Shriver and Atkins Inorganic Chemistry

>>9679912
I was really underwhelmed by Strang's "Linear Algebra and Its Applications." Don't get me wrong, it's a decent textbook for engineers and computer scientists, but, as a mathematician, it was WAY too hand-wavy for me to feel comfortable about anything in it. Could just be my math autism and the fact that its an an introductory-level text, though.

Not the worst choice for a first-exposure to these topics, however.

>>9680095
I knooooooow. It is literally the worst shit ever. The course that uses this book is for the math major which I'm in, but it is misleading to call this math. I've been reading Dummit and Foote instead and doing the exercises from Gallian. Can't wait until this hell is over.

>>9680099
I had to suffer through Leon's "Linear Algebra with Applications". A lot of intro LinAl texts are horrific

>>9680037
Whom*
and I'm not a "you", my preferred pronoun is "xhou"

Krantz's Complex Analysis

Is there a more useless book?

>>9680142
Daily reminder that these people are subhuman and should be exterminated from the gene pool as soon as possible.

>>9680097
Fucking this. Terrible explanations, and hair brained problems. Just a shitty book that tries to cover too much with not enough substance.

>>9680163
>Daily reminder that these people are subhuman and should be exterminated from the gene pool as soon as possible.
What do you mean?

>>9680227
with that kind of title, what else could you expect?

>>9679918
stop being edgy

There are no good differential geometry texts. The best are notes on the interntet. Refute this. Pro tip, maybe you can.

>>9680259
Who are you quoting?

>>9680333
do Carmo? Lee?

>>9680384
Try again.

>>9680333
Spivak 1-5

>>9679915
whats the best precalc book to read ?

>>9680425
It's called, "paying attention in high school".

>>9679918
what undergraduate electrodynamics textbook do you prefer?

>>9680464
Jackson or Purcell.

>>9680433
too late for that brainlet

>>9679912
Shrek is love, shrek is life

>>9680770
back to 9gag

>>9679912
I kinda want a Shrextbook

>>9680097
I'm using this right now. My professor loves it for some reason, but I just don't get it. It's like she doesn't even try to explain the material.

>>9680598
>Purcell
Doesn't cover a lot of material Griffiths does
Purcell seems okay for a first or maybe even a second year course, but it's too sparse on the mathematics for an advanced undergraduate course
>Jackson
I said undergraduate

I was hoping you might have suggested a reasonable alternative, but Jackson is too advanced and Purcell too introductory. Griffiths is about the right level.

>>9680094
Oh... I have that book. I read it and it seems good, what would you recommend?

Something cheap or online preferably as I stole that book

>>9680097
This book is a reference guide, nothing more. And for that reason it is a horrible textbook

>>9680998
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~rse/algebra_book.pdf

Some people swear by Dummit & Foote, but I can't stand it. I like Artin's text a lot. Jacobson is a little verbose. If you're advanced you can pick up Lang.

>>9681006
I don’t know if I’m advanced but I’ll definitely look ya this book after finals. Guess I’ll return the other one, or sell it

>>9679912
I mean, it was just lacking substance

>>9680425
Axler's

>>9680097
Every single book with that same blue-red cover is shit, especially the fluids one.

>>9679912
How the fuck would one know, if the textbook is good or not? Then people read textbooks, almost always they don't have the required understanding of the subject to judge if the information presented is valuable or not. That's why they read the goddamn textbook in the first place, they don't know shit about something and wish to learn it.

>>9681031
Whats wrong with them?

>>9681252
If it helped them learn the material, they're actually ideally placed to say whether it's good.

Every single book ive read

FUCK Folland's Advanced Calculus. Real Analysis isn't very good either

What topics do you all think should be included in an introductory book on linear algebra in order for it not to be tossed right away?

>>9680333
Intro differential geometry like beginner riemannian geometry? I’d say there are tons of good texts. Or do you mean more Intro to Smooth manifolds texts with a more geometric rather than diff topology flavor, like lee? There I’m inclined to agree with you. They all suck, including lee and spivak vol I. But idk of anything better. What notes do you speak of that you think are the best?

>>9679912
That's the book my brother's Cal3 class uses, lel

>>9679912
the bible.
*tips fedora

>>9679912

>>9681252
Perhaps one read a poor textbook only to at a later point read a good one on the same subject, thus giving them solid grounds on which to make an evaluative judgement. Also for math textbooks if one has experience with rigour one can immediately tell whether a book is rigorous or not; if it's not it's a piece of shit.

>>9681027
axler's is worse than lang's

>>9681262
Read them and find out.

>>9680097
That book simply exists to teach you how to do math. Not how to apply it.

>>9681252
>How the fuck would one know, if the textbook is good or not?

The same way I know when I'm reading a well written book when I haven't read it before. If the author makes too many logical jumps and the book is poorly formatted its a bad textbook.

>>9680097

I get bored to death by this and other reference books

Maybe I'm just a brainlet, but I found that I learned more from physics textbooks on the matter rather this.

>>9679912
I thought this text was pretty good

>>9681665
ETH differential geometry notes.

>>9681639
UW?

>>9681849
Wow, thats the last book i would have expected to see here.

It was ok, but if you're still doing econometrics and want to get really deep into the nuts and bolts I suggest pic related.

It was only like 30$ to purchase and it has everything from cross section methods to time series, panel data, monte carlo methods, and a shitload of depth.

It'll literally be the last reference you ever need to buy

>>9682431
I'll look into it. This book wasnt that that bad, it just pissed me off cause it treated everything like a black box. Also I felt like I was using half of my brain to find out what I could skip cause the damn thing repeats itself so much. IIRC only ch.18,19 got into the weeds at all.

>>9681849
Mah nigga

>>9681031
Jay, pee then heart hug

>>9679912
>"it's easy to show that ..."
>spends 3 hours to prove the equation
>tfw im a brainlet

>>9682110
oh did you take 33x too?

>>9681639
>Folland
errata errewhere

>>9683319
> He can't read Landau

>laughinggirls.webm

>>9681655
classification of finitely generated modules over PIDs

Literally pure cancer. Take every condescending passage in existence, condense them into mathematical form, and you have this book. Literally, every other sentence contains "it is clear" "it is easy to see" "obviously" "anyone can see" "clearly" "trivially"

>>9679912
I remember reading this when I was a freshman last year

>>9683496
Yeah 3-4 years ago.

>>9683843
yea we know it's real, congrats on admitting you bought that pos textbook

>>9679912
Some physishit book about complex analysis, it was atrocious. No wonder physishits are so terrible in rigorous math.

>>9679912
hahah I remember making fun of that page when i saw it

>>9680019
>>9680025
>>9680037
I tried his linear algebra book and didn't understand shit desu. Had to take a course (elective since it's not mandatory for biofags even though it should and will be in the future) in actual linear algebra to get that shit under my belt.

spivak.
what a fucking meme

>>9681849
>>9682431
>>9683256

always nice to see econometrics pop up on /sci/

>>9684295
I heard bad things about Lang's linear algebra books but Lang's basic math and his 2 calculus books are fine.

>>9684364

>>9679912
Physics, Serway

Never again

>>9684364
The structure id god tier, but the exectution is poor.

>>9680987
seriously? Jackson is standard reference for senior undergrads in the uk. I got through it okay after some work on Purcell and I’m legitimately retarded

Have you tried Principles of electrodynamics by Schwartz? Not used it myself but I’ve heard it’s pretty readable

Anyone have recommendations for Fourier analysis?

>>9679912
Holy shit, that was my freshman multivariable calculus textbook

>>9684771
Lol the physics department at my uni hails this as the bible.
I actually like it a lot. Problems are good as well as the explanations.

>>9684771
Brainlet spotted.

>>9685122
nah, picked up taylor's classical mechanics and griffith E&M and loved them

>>9679918
I have an autographed copy of this. Met the legend himself c:

>>9684068
I learned I wasn't ready to receive the gift of knowledge yet, sadly

Everyone seems to recommend this book but I can't see why. If you're a brainlet you can get much better explanations elsewhere and if you want to go over the fundamentals it doesn't go in depth enough

>>9681006
>>9681007
lang has an undergraduate algebra book
IDK if it will help you understand his graduate book
anymore then any other undergrad book

>>9686015
it's just an alternative to aops algebra

>>9679912
>americlaps pay $100 for this crap

>>9679912
DUDE MICE LMAO

>>9684959
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics#Fourier_Transforms
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics#Fourier_Analysis

>>9679944
It was pretty mediocre

>>9687611
agreed, it sucks

>>9679912
ITT butthurt undergrads post textbooks from classes they've failed

Basically Calculus for Babies. At least it was free

>>9679912

To summarise, every book in the /sci/-wiki is shit?

>>9687611
I unironically loved this one. Maybe it was because my prof was good

>>9680094
>>9680095
>>9680109
What makes this book bad? The algebra class I'm taking next semester uses it, and it's the math majors one.

>>9687742
It's way below Artin/Herstein level and doesn't come close to preparing you for grad school.

>>9680163
The need for a gender neutral pronoun is real though. What else do you do but guess when you’re unsure? It seems pretty objectively beneficial to a language and no I’m not a sjw, yes a cis white male n proud but it only makes sense to have a smoother word for “him or her”, “his or hers”, “he or she” etc

It’s always struck me as a defect so profound it’s almost primitive

>>9683880
sounds like it was written by /sci/

>>9684768
When I was reading Spivak I found Calculus for dummies in my grandpas closet

>>9684959
if for DSP related things yea

>>9687806
>What else do you do but guess when you’re unsure

Default to He/Him like everybody used to do.

>>9687796
I have a copy of Artin I can read alongside it. But will the course mean less to grad schools because it "officially" used a weaker book, and if so how do I get around that?

>>9687888
Have fun with the course. I would rather shoot myself than do "computations with matrices" abstract algebra edition again.

>>9687900
>"computations with matrices" abstract algebra edition
Uhhh please tell me you're exaggerating

>>9687909
Seriously this is what you're getting yourself into. Don't make the mistake I did anon.

>>9687924
There's no "more advanced" version of this course at my school. It's my only option if I wanna do algebra at all. So how do I work around this non-ideal situation? Ask the prof to advise an independent study for me, or what?
I'm a chem major who wants to go for a research career, so it might not be fatal, but I really want to leave open the option for a lateral move to math/statistics.

>>9687942
Look up what book they use for the graduate course. Some shitty schools use Artin and Baby Rudin for their "graduate" courses.

>>9687968
>graduate course
We don't have one.
see >>9687942
>There's no "more advanced" version of this course at my school.

I'm fine with working through a harder book because I'm mostly self-taught anyways, but what can I do to compensate for a weaker course specifically as far as my records (transcripts, course descriptions, etc) are concerned? If I want to go further I need some kind of objective evidence I'm qualified.

>>9679915
>>9680425
Axler is the best. He assumes you know 0 math and it’s written similarly to LADR

>>9683880
I wonder if you could pass refereed papers of a non-obvious proof where anytime something difficult comes up you use "it is clear" "it is easy to see" "obviously" "anyone can see" "clearly" "trivially" (when it isn’t clear and you as the author have no idea how to make the jump from one to the next so you just use those words) and have the paper published because the referees don’t want to look dumb?

>>9687694
Literally the best pchem book I've ever used

>>9688359
>Literally the best pchem book I've ever used
Sad!

My teacher literally said she only chose this one cause it's free.
It's not so much the problems as the actual wording is a wall of text

>>9680037
Xhe wasn't quoting anyone, xhe was rhetorically distancing xherself (xhimself?) from the statement to convey---instead of the statmement itself---a whole class of statements extending ad infinitum from the original statement in the specified pattern.

>>9680904
>she

there's your problem.

>>9679912
This piece of s**t.

It was used as the textbook for my "Complex Variables" class, an obvious stepping stone into further complex maths. The book is DRY. It's touted as a textbook more geared towards engineers, but it's too dry to even be a good fit for them.

>>9688794
Oops.

>>9679912
What's with all the complex analysis books on this thread by the way

>>9688794
I didn't enjoy this book at all either. Really hard to learn anything from it, usually I get a lot of out books but in this class I learned almost everything from the lectures and random online notes from other classes

>>9688794
yeah this book is trash

>>9687942
So basically your school doesn't have a real math program is what you're saying? wtf. But if you want to get into math and be prepared you'll need to read something else. Like another anon suggested grab a "grad level" textbook and read that.

On a side note you're majoring in stamp collecting so I'm sure you can stomach the course itself.

>>9688814
Fucking christ this book is so bad. Dropped that course like a bad habit.

>>9687694
Kill yourself!
No seriously I mean it, you're not worth the life that you have!

>>9689560
It's not [math]that[/math] bad, it's just meh.

>>9680025
>turning ""Lang is a meme" is a meme. " is a meme" into a meme

>>9688795
Eh, I didn't mind it. It was way better than shit like Griffiths E&M.

The worst textbook I can think of is 'To Measure the Sky' by Chromey. Only value is the illistrations if you want to steal them for lecture slides.

>>9680037
Instead of asking stupid fucking questions do something much more important and check your fucking pronouns you oppressive tyrant.

>>9681680
This cover makes me smile

>Taylor's mechanics hasnt been posted

BASED

>>9680094
agreed

>>9689599
It's pretty damn bad. No motivation for material, huge leaps in logic, and best of all selected answers which are flat out incorrect

>>9687611
This
goddamn I hated that class

>>9679912
Some nursing text book in me loft. Horrible

>>9686015
Not trying to get off topic but Shen has an 'intro set theory' book that looks pretty good. It's a class I really wanna do well in (I'm taking it in the fall). Could anyone recommend? I'll probably be using it mostly as a supplement to my main book, whatever that is.

>>9688359
Trump's the art of the deal

It was required in Trump University

https://youtu.be/d0mzeGaMDH8

>>9680433
le funny and snarky comment ecks dee!!

back to plebbit pls

>>9691951
Not even in spic countries they have "pre calc". Its a fucking joke.

>>9680142
there's no such pronoun, freak

>>9687611
this this this THISSS made me hate DEs

this piece of shit
Even though I'm german, some of the sentences struck me as being written with blatantly bad grammar.

Material is not particularly well explained, with some important steps in proofs or explanations being skipped over, and weird anecdotal schematics that are redundant after some explanations on things that really don't require that much attention.

>>9679915
reminder that the guy spamming Lang is a meme does it because he was too stupid even for Basic Mathematics:
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/9462625/#q9466184
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/9462625/#q9466272

>>9681849
MC?

>>9690311
Kibble's is better

>>9692078
lol i remember that thread I was No.9466352

>>9691536
> second law of thermodynamics

>>9692078
>reminder that the guy spamming Lang is a meme does it because he was too stupid even for Basic Mathematics:
I'm not a "guy", nor are either of those posts mine.

>>9692946
>I'm not a "guy"
so post tits with a timestamp. until then you're a guy
>nor are either of those posts mine.
suuuure

>>9693336
>suuuure
The burden of proof is on you to show they're mine.

>>9687712
I really liked it too, and my prof was bad. I just thought the book was very clear

>>9687611
this book sucks, objectively

theres an essay somewhere about how the intro to diffeq and advanced diffeq classes they have everyone take in undergrad have been literally unchanged since cauchy

its a compendium of the differential equations we have closed forms for and the bullshit formal symbolic manipulation you wave your hands to get there

>>9683880

>>9693388
>theres an essay somewhere about how the intro to diffeq and advanced diffeq classes they have everyone take in undergrad have been literally unchanged since cauchy

Link? Also bullshit since dynamical systems wasn't a thing yet.

>>9679912
I unironically own this textbook and use it in my calculus 3 class.

>>9693777
Please tell me there's an onion analogy.

>>9687611
This really wins
Had this book + a really autistic foreign professor that couldn't explain shit
Like 80% of the class failed the exam and it made me hate differential equations with a passion

In retrospect I should have dropped all the lectures and just studied with a different book.

>>9693410
https://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/lg5/Rota.pdf

>>9688814
It's hard to write a good complex analysis text. Only Ahlfors pulled off an excellent text, Sarason's text is Ahlfors lite, Donald Marshall's notes are on par with Ahlfors for creativity. Stein and Shakarchi is ok at best.

>>9693785
You see Flux integrals are like onion,

>>9693808
Shoulda used the one by Zill he's GOAT for brainlet like me

>>9684909
yes seriously
>The book originated as lecture notes that Jackson prepared for teaching graduate-level electromagnetism at McGill University.[1] Intended for graduate students, and often known as Jackson for short
and it states it's intended for graduate students in the preface
maybe it's okay for you and maybe I'm just a dumb dumb but whatever. Both it and Griffiths were recommended for a 3rd year electrodynamics course, and while I could understand sections there was plenty of sections I couldn't understand. Particularly since we hadn't yet studied Green's functions.

>>9693346
You wouldn't be defending yourself so hard if they weren't yours. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

>>9696306
>You wouldn't be defending yourself so hard if they weren't yours.
What do you mean by "so hard"? Someone replied to me implying I had written those posts, and I said I didn't.

>>9680987
Jackson is undergraduate level. Or graduate level in the U.S. but in a graduate course that it is relatively common for undergraduates to take. Maybe it was for graduate students in 1962.

>>9697449
>undergraduate level
>graduate level in the US
explain
I thought burgerland was the land of $70,000 a year universities, surely they don't teach undergraduates to a lower level than elsewhere in the world?

Please end the suffering.

>>9697457
>$70,000 a year universities, surely they don't teach undergraduates to a lower level than elsewhere in the world?
Hahaha, no. The personal costs of education in a country have little to do with the quality. Costs mostly depend on how much tax money goes to universities.

As for the qualities of US undergrad, it depends. It most certainly doesn't dominate, but I don't think any particular region does.

However, graduate studies in top US uni's are generally considered the most "prestigeous".

>>9697478
spot the brainlet

>>9697611
>you know what would be a good idea? if we taught quantum mechanics before thermodynamics to unsuspecting undergrads
>but let's make it worse, let's not stop at particle in a box and rigid rotator to define the partition function, let's go all the way to spherical harmonic functions to classify the shape of orbitals
>better yet, let's teach group theory which takes weeks of time but only has a single application in understanding intermediate states by knowing the number of CO and H stretches, and then let's skim over the application of that so you have no idea how to apply what you just wasted weeks of time doing

I'm going to use this book extensively over the summer to study for grad school, but this is a terribly evil book to use for first time undergraduate chemistry students.

>>9697628
I mean, thermo isn't all that well motivated/comprehended if you don't base it on statistical mechanics. Doing quantum first is definitely the more pedagogically sound approach for serious students.
>spherical harmonics
Hm? The exact solutions to the hydrogen atom are a standard part of any pchem sequence.
>group theory
This complaint has some merit. Of course, professors are free to de-emphasize such areas in their courses, and more extensive treatments of the applications are had elsewhere (Bishop, etc) but I'll admit Simon and McQuarrie don't seem to have a clear story they're trying to tell with this chapter.

>>9697636
The worst thing about the group theory chapter is that they inconsistently swap around what they're basing the symmetry off of. It confused my entire class and the professor when they would casually decide to swap from group point groups to orbital point groups, and then to group-specific point groups, and then just throw in a random example where a lone electron pair would suddenly be part of the symmetry.

>>9696285
yeah, senior undergrad is third year in the UK. i'm not saying the book was a cakewalk, though. the pass rate for the advanced electrodynamics module (where jackson was reference) was like 30%, with only 7% getting a top grade.

tbf my course is focused on theoretical physics, so our mathematical understanding is a bit more developed than the average physics student. i'd recommend a combination of Arfken and Byron/Fuller for mathematical methods