ITT: Your favourite math or science textbook

[Anonymous No.10167129]

[Anonymous No.10167144]

>>10167129

[Anonymous No.10167150]

[Anonymous No.10167155]

>>10167150
get out

[Anonymous No.10167157]

>>10167155
another fav of mine desu

[Anonymous No.10167158]

>>10167155
Why?

[Anonymous No.10167170]

>>10167158
from what i gather people don't like lang's terse style

[Anonymous No.10167183]

>>10167170
Most textbooks I've read have been pretty terse so I don't really mind that. I also like his definition - theorem - examples style. It's also a pretty good reference

[Anonymous No.10167188]

>>10167183
>it's also a pretty good reference
i agree completely, i think it's better as a reference book than an introductory one.

[Anonymous No.10167633]

>>10167129
Is this a good textbook for an introduction to linear algebra? I have not taken a course in LA yet as I had a combined course with ODE. The book’s description says it’s for a second course though.

[Anonymous No.10168473]

>>10167633
Nope, a good linear algebra introduction is "finite dimensional vector spaces" by Halmos

[Anonymous No.10168517]

[Anonymous No.10168523]

>>10168517
>Anal Mathematics
Does this include the mathematical model of my cock sliding in and out of your Mom’s stinky asshole?

[Anonymous No.10168526]

[Anonymous No.10168554]

>>10167144
cringe
>>10168526
based

[Anonymous No.10168559]

>>10168554
>cringe
what did the brainlet mean by this? ptsd from hartshorne?

[Anonymous No.10168594]

>>10167129
>Linear Algebra Done Right

Hold my vodka

[Anonymous No.10168698]

>>10168594
based

[Anonymous No.10168993]

>>10168594
Is THIS a good book for a rigorous introduction to linear algebra? I’m still looking for one senpai

[Anonymous No.10169011]

>>10168594

[Anonymous No.10169028]

>>10167129
is this book good?

[Anonymous No.10169031]

>>10168993
Just read the original work by Grassman. Apparently the way he first published it is still more or less the same way as it is taught now.

[Anonymous No.10169054]

>>10168993
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10169072]

>>10167129
no contest

[Anonymous No.10169075]

Not a textbook, but a compliment to one that saved my GPA more times than I can count.

[Anonymous No.10169190]

[Anonymous No.10169233]

>>10169072
that book is so surface level i don't know how that can be anyone's favorite

[Anonymous No.10169245]

>>10169233
well it covers a lot of stuff and cites further reading

[Anonymous No.10169256]

I lost it lads, I can't find it fucking anywhere

[Anonymous No.10169278]

[Anonymous No.10169304]

>>10169075
it is actually a good introduction for high school students, but did you ever make it past org 1?

[Anonymous No.10169306]

>>10167129
eh?

[Anonymous No.10169313]

Harris & Bertolucci is considered to be the bible of vibrational and electronic spectroscopy by chemists and physicists alike. It's also written in a really friendly, sometimes funny tone, which anyone who's ever read "Quantitative Chemical Analysis" will immediately recognize.

[Anonymous No.10169318]

Ahlfors Complex Analysis

[Anonymous No.10169323]

Kreyszig - Introduction to Functional Analysis is the gold standard for me. Such a clearly written textbook that an undergraduate should be able to grasp the main concepts. Compared to Reed & Simon, Kreyszig is just so lucidly written.

I also like Ahlfors - Complex Analysis mostly for the subject matter but also because I appreciate the antiquated connections to geometry. I also really liked the textbook Quantum Probability by Stanley Gudder.

Also for shits and giggles Stein - Harmonic Analysis is one of the most difficult texts I have ever read.

[Anonymous No.10169426]

>>10169323
I really don’t care for Kreyszig’s diff geo book. Is that one different?

[Anonymous No.10169457]

>>10169313
Nice, I will have to take a look. Working on writing a mass spec synthesis engine. Is your name Sam by any chance?

[Anonymous No.10169575]

Yeah I know, what a stupid physishit, but the half that deals with tensors really helped demystify tensors to me, and gave me a good foundation for understanding them from the more algebraic viewpoint, instead of the fuck-ass retarded "a tensor is a collection of numbers that transform according to this autistic way."
Haven't checked out the group theory part much, though.

[Anonymous No.10169590]

for me, it's pugh. the best undergraduate analysis textbook.

[Anonymous No.10169683]

>>10169590
I kinda like this one. It was my cheat code for baby rudin

[Anonymous No.10169698]

[Anonymous No.10169726]

>>10169457
Yes, Sam Hyde.

[Anonymous No.10169771]

>>10167129
I've heard some Soviet physics/math textbooks are top tier, anybody have experience in this matter?

[Anonymous No.10169783]

>>10169771
Some of the old Dover reprints of Russian stuff are still legit, like Kolmogorov's coauthored Functional Analysis. Terminology and approach may be a bit outdated.

[Anonymous No.10169794]

>>10169771
>>10169783
Dagnab it I can't believe I forgot to mention Shilov Linear Algebra when >>10168594
already mentioned it, and rightly so.

[Anonymous No.10169800]

Russian here.
>>10169771
Several disciplines were well developed back then including functional analysis, complex analysis, probability theory, and many algebraic fields. Personally I like Pontryagin's works on group/representation theory and Arnold's various works on differential/symplectic geometry.
Physics - Landau-Lifshitz is generally viewed as the best course in theoretical physics, but from a pedagogical perspective I think it's a trap. You are either at a level where you can comprehend it and would be better of with introductory English books aimed at undergraduates, or you are at a level where you can delve into much more up-to-date (wrt bith maths in physics) literature.
Nevertheless, some outstanding books do exist, like Faddeev/Yakubovski's introduction to quantum mechanics for mathematicians.

>>10169783
>Kolmogorov
Might as well go through something readable and useful such as Simon/Reed. Russian books are not selfstudy-compatible I'd say.

[Anonymous No.10169803]

>>10169800
>can comprehend
Meant "can't" obviously.

[Anonymous No.10169835]

>>10169457
Mass spec not spectroscopy. What's a mass spec synthesis engine.

No, but I have a friend called sam.

[Anonymous No.10171193]

>>10169575
Haven't read that book, but yeah, I fucking hate pretty much every physics explanation of tensors. I don't get why they have to mystify them so much, they're actually incredibly simple when you just view them as multi-linear maps on a vector space and its dual. Then you know exactly what properties they have, exactly what sort of inputs to feed it, and what all this (r,s)-type terminology means from a meaningful level. And the whole "hurr transformation laws" bullshit becomes reduced to "I can input (dual) basis elements to obtain the collection real numbers. I can then input (dual) basis elements of a different basis and obtain a different collection of real numbers. Obviously they're the same things but in different bases because that's literally what I just did to obtain them in the first place."

On topic, here's one of my favorite intro yellow books. A classic for sure.

[Anonymous No.10171355]

>>10169683
For me it's Ross

[Anonymous No.10171921]

>>10171193
Strange, because all the physics courses I've been to and all 'math for physics' books I've read introduce tensors properly, and that's in Russia where coordinate definitions are still popular. But that's theoretical physics and not engineer-tier physics.

Lee is good, his Topological Manifolds is also enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.10172373]

>>10169683
god tier book

[Anonymous No.10172387]

>>10168473
what if you're not a brainlet and have an understanding of matrices already?

[Anonymous No.10172428]

>>10169256
http://download.library1.org/main/228000/44c27cea0eb60e94f830085475d5a842/Herman%20Chernoff%2C%20Lincoln%20E.%20Moses-Elementary%20Decision%20Theory-Dover%20Publications%20%281987%29.pdf

[Anonymous No.10172471]

>>10169800
which physics books would you recommend for undergraduates?

[Anonymous No.10172500]

>>10169683
>>10171355
>>10172373
Absolutely shit taste. Pugh and rudin are the only two books which measure up to a standard of rigor and mathematical maturity, and pugh has better exercises and is also fun to read. Abbott is a meme and R*ss makes me sick to my stomach.

[Anonymous No.10172595]

Thinking of buying this as I saw it recommended in the Wiki. I am new to math, and is still going through the basics on Khan Academy.

Question is this book of value or only meme?

[Anonymous No.10172602]

>>10172595
the cost isn't your money, but your time: http://lib1.org/_ads/BE09DD54DB09072FA11747674EADB582

[Anonymous No.10172611]

>>10172602
Worth it?

[Anonymous No.10172668]

>>10172611
Yes. How much math did you learn in school?

[Anonymous No.10172689]

>>10169278
This cannot be recommended enough

Also, here's a very nice intro to representation theory and operator algebras. All is done in the finite-dimensional setting but it really gives all the important ideas in a very accessible book .

[Anonymous No.10172740]

>>10172668
Not much. 0 interest. Now I am almost obsessed.

[Anonymous No.10172954]

>>10169683
I love this book. Never mention it on /sci/ because I thought they would think it's for brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10173644]

>>10167144
I really can't get into Hartshorne's book, but Bredon's "Topology and Geometry" is amazing imo.

[Anonymous No.10173883]

>>10172500
Cool. I aced my classes so suck my dick, /sci/ memelist drone.

[Anonymous No.10173889]

Is this book another russian meme, or is it actually good for technical students/engies?

[Anonymous No.10173906]

>>10169426
If I recall, the diff geo book has a heavy reliance on R^3 and is really un-modern. In his functional analysis book, he takes a decidedly "easy" approach by nowhere using Lebesgue integration. But you really don't need it, and he makes everything seem so obvious because it is so well written. Reed & Simon in comparison leaves a ton of detail to the exercises and in general the book does not seem like it was written for someone to understand it easily

[Anonymous No.10173915]

>>10171193
>>10171921
I took a differential topology course my first year in grad school with next to zero understanding of topology. as such, I've always had a negative impression of this book, but I bet if I looked back at it I would like it better

also all of the people (faculties/students) who studied differential geometry at our school were potheads who would just claim shit was obvious and look at me with wide eyes and dilated pupils if i had a question. this compared to the number theorists who were fidgety spergs

[Anonymous No.10173921]

>>10173883
You aced children's calculus, while I got the highest grade in my rigorous Rudin class at a top university. Congratulations.

[Anonymous No.10174005]

>>10169771

I have no experience on their output, but hearsay.
I heard they had the best analog spacestation there ever was. As such it would not be wasted time to find out how that was achieved.

Their measuring capabilities in some cases exeeded same cind of digital equipment many times over. though that has litle to do with linear math, I suspect getting to such equipment must be that the ground work has been solid, and easy to understand. That was the soviet way at the time. There fore I would think such basic level stuff as linear algebra would sertainly be top notch stuff, if you can get your hands on 30 years old soviet math literature.

[Anonymous No.10174019]

>>10167633
>finite dimensional vector spaces

when I took the "honors" LA at my school we used this as a book for the first course, it starts of right from the basics of fields and vector spaces and builds up, covering a standard course in linear algebra without resulting to using the determinant to prove everything. I would recommend it, if you already have some background then it should still be a refreshing look at some concepts you're already familiar with

[Anonymous No.10174039]

>>10172689
What is the price range on this? 10, 20, 30, 100... €, $, £...?

>>10172602
I lke this price:
>the cost isn't your money, but your time

[Anonymous No.10174042]

>>10172602
Obviously there is that cost in every product discussed here. Is that somehow more signifigant in this case or just that there is no other price.

[Anonymous No.10174136]

>>10172954
Of course they will, but they’re faggots.

[Anonymous No.10174217]

Looking for a great Control Systems book. EE here looking to go deeper

[Anonymous No.10174472]

>>10167129
>no bourbaki
plebeian as usual, i see

[Anonymous No.10174488]

>>10169457
Yes, my name is Sam Hall. And I hate you one and all. Yes, I hate you one and all.
Damn your eyes!

[Anonymous No.10174489]

>>10174039
I don't own a physical copy of it. It costs about $70 softcover and $80 hardcover. As for all books, I would advise to first borrow a copy from the uni library or download it, either from link.springer.com if you have institutional access, or gen.lib.rus.ec , at least to see what you put your money into.

[Anonymous No.10175511]

i am bumping this awesome thread

[Anonymous No.10175521]

>>10174217
http://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~sontag/mct.html

[Anonymous No.10176136]

>>10174472
>t. undergraduate LARPer

[Anonymous No.10176505]

>>10172428
lords work, anon

[El Arcón No.10176508]

[Anonymous No.10176534]

[Anonymous No.10176682]

Really great reference if you're looking to implement some quantum chemistry code.

[Anonymous No.10176888]

>>10167129
kys

[Anonymous No.10176946]

I had some legit fun reading it. It would be a lie to say that I fully understood everything, though.

[Anonymous No.10176954]

Polytopes!

[Anonymous No.10176958]

[Anonymous No.10178377]

[Anonymous No.10178813]

>>10176954
polytopes are bretty nice

[Anonymous No.10179150]

>>10178377

[Anonymous No.10179243]

[Anonymous No.10179264]

>>10176958
dummit and "foote" is a meme

[Anonymous No.10179333]

>>10176958
Kys

[Anonymous No.10179373]

>>10176508
based and Griffith'd