ITT: /sci/ approved books

[Anonymous No.15187016]

[Anonymous No.15187020]

>>15187016
>i shill for the jewish publishing industry
nice try shlomo

[Anonymous No.15187025]

>>15187020
>not getting them off of libgen
ngmi

[Anonymous No.15187132]

>>15187016
I prefer Apostols Mathematical Analysis book

[Anonymous No.15187137]

>>15187020

[Anonymous No.15187139]

[Anonymous No.15187342]

[Anonymous No.15187373]

[Anonymous No.15187961]

[Anonymous No.15187965]

>>15187961
Its a good book, but its a graduate level text. Your first QM book needs to be something like Giffiths

[Anonymous No.15187975]

>>15187965
Nah. Dirac's book is perfect for undergrads

[Anonymous No.15188123]

>>15187975

[Anonymous No.15188137]

>>15187975
>>15187965
Between Griffiths and Dirac which is better as an introduction? Which is easier to understand?

[Anonymous No.15188179]

[Anonymous No.15188235]

[Anonymous No.15188239]

>>15187016
Deep Hot Biosphere is kino.

[Anonymous No.15188376]

>>15188137
Griffith's is better as an introduction because of the surplus of exercises which can make learning easier as an introduction whereas Dirac's book doesn't. Dirac's is much more thorough being both more mathematical as well as more in depth as to the mathematical development of the theory.

[Anonymous No.15188391]

>>15187016

[Anonymous No.15188396]

>>15188376
Would you recommend covering classical electrodynamics fully before attempting quantum?

How do you feel about the Griffiths book on EM?

[Anonymous No.15188401]

>>15187016
10 years later i still have nightmares with that book

[Anonymous No.15188434]

>>15188396
That reminds me

[Anonymous No.15188438]

>>15188396
Griffith's EM book is good too. However, you really don't need any EM to read Griffiths QM book.

[Anonymous No.15188444]

[Anonymous No.15188449]

[Anonymous No.15188450]

>>15188396
>Would you recommend covering classical electrodynamics fully before attempting quantum?
It helps to be familiar with Classic EM before going into Quantum, but you don't need to have an exhaustive understanding of it before hand.
>How do you feel about the Griffiths book on EM?
I liked it when I took my junior level Electrodynamics class, but you could use the text on its own as an autodidact.

[Anonymous No.15188462]

[Anonymous No.15188468]

[Anonymous No.15188494]

>>15188391

[Anonymous No.15189264]

[Anonymous No.15189312]

>>15189264
>precalc
>1000+ pages
This is braindead

[Anonymous No.15189349]

>>15189312
For what reason? How many pages would it need then?

[Anonymous No.15189378]

>>15189349
>For what reason?
Highly inefficient
>How many pages would it need then?
It should definitely have fewer than 500 pages. After that it's debateable depending on content, rigor, eloquence, quantity of exercises and solutions, etc.

[Anonymous No.15189512]

>>15189378
It's about that big if you don't count the exercises and things like table of contents. Even so, you're being overly judgemental for a book you've never even read.

[Anonymous No.15189518]

>>15189512
>It's about that big if you don't count the exercises and things like table of contents.
I find that hard to believe.
>you're being overly judgemental for a book you've never even read
I judge a textbook by its number of pages, yeah.

[Anonymous No.15189531]

Is there a chart for operations research/stats/CS/AI?

[Anonymous No.15189560]

>>15189512
Not that anon but, that doesn't justify shit not to mention, I've read parts of it since I was looking for a book to give to my little cousin, and I can confirm it is trash, bloated like Stewart's other books.
There's no point in doing a billion exercises, many of which are just copy-paste, in fucking PRECALC. At a certain point, one should actually learn NEW shit; concepts that may appear daunting at first but, once mastered, allow you to reduce those "exercises" in Stewart's books to trivialities.
People here love to hate on concise books that "symbol-push" but I find writing a book that is so disingenuously bloated a far worse sin. No student should be lead to believe 1000 pages is really what one would have to go through to learn fucking precalc. Like imagine giving that to a clueless beginner: Would they know how much of that garbage is actually necessary to proceed with math?

The reality is, precalc is something one can learn in a week. Nobody should spend hours of their life memorizing and tediously, geometrically deriving trig identities when all of this is trivialized using complex numbers; in fact, that time should be spent studying the latter. Same shit goes for long division algorithms, or a lot of those algorithms in general. Mathematical reasoning and proving shit is what one should train, and one should begin as soon as possible.

[Anonymous No.15189642]

>>15189518
>I judge a textbook by its number of pages, yeah.
Whatever works
>>15189560
The book is not meant to be studied like that, you just read the chapter, do the marked exercises and move on, and you can skip the ones that you already know

[Anonymous No.15191087]

[Anonymous No.15191638]

>>15188391
>kjv

[Anonymous No.15191639]

[Anonymous No.15191676]

>>15187025
rip z-lib :,(

[Anonymous No.15191911]

>>15191087
Are there other /sci/ approved linear algebra books? Shilov maybe? I kinda dislike Axler's "down with determinants" notion, dismissing determinants like that sounds like a very religious thing to do.

[Anonymous No.15191941]

>>15191911
Fucking autocorrect

[Anonymous No.15192040]

>>15191911
Analytische Geometrie und Algebra I–II by Emil Artin, Finite-dimensional vector spaces by Halmos
Axler is definitely not /sci/ approved

[Anonymous No.15192097]

>>15191911
Shilov is good,Hoffman and Kunze are also top tier.
Hefferon's Linear Algebra and Treil's Linear Algebra Done Wrong are also worth looking at.

[Anonymous No.15192151]

>>15191676
Anon, https://z-lib.is/

[Anonymous No.15192178]

[Jealous No.15192191]

>>15192178
good book

[Anonymous No.15192214]

[Anonymous No.15192260]

there's a companion mooc on edx.

[Anonymous No.15192267]

>>15191911
great for self studying

[Anonymous No.15192270]

>>15187016
I am on /sci/ and I don't approve of this book.
Use Pugh instead.

[Anonymous No.15192290]

The rational is the actual and the rational is the actual bros. We're all going to make it (to the Absolute)!

[ESL No.15192316]

>>15188450
Can you recommend YouTube video lectures to complement with this book? I'm not intelligent enough to solve the problems after every chapter.

[Anonymous No.15192319]

>>15192316
Check out the MIT opencourseware, iirc they have Quantum Mechanics 1 course. Though you'll want to look at the book(s) they're using.

[Anonymous No.15192340]

[Anonymous No.15192344]

[Anonymous No.15192375]

>>15192344
>>15192340
>>15188462
Garbage books for brainlets.

[Anonymous No.15192392]

>>15192375
Found the seething hohol.

[Anonymous No.15192407]

>>15192375
I wonder's behind this post

[Anonymous No.15192411]

>>15192375
I wonder who's behind [math] \mathcal{this} [/math] post

[Anonymous No.15192831]

1. Don't become a book/pdf collector. Your assigned textbook works just fine. It's procrastination to find a better classic textbook on the subject.
2. Don't waste money buying extra books from amazon, bookdepository, blackwell's, abebooks, etc. Chances are you ngmi, and will leave academia. They will be very expensive and heavy garbage. Just go to your local library.

[Anonymous No.15192888]

>>15192831
I collect because I can afford it. Just bought a textbook on immunopsychiatry and a book titled 'jungian psychiatry.' I'm studying infectious disease primarily, by psychiatry does fascinate me.

[Anonymous No.15192970]

>>15192831
are you poor?

[Anonymous No.15193220]

>>15192831
rate my stack

[Anonymous No.15193559]

>>15192831
Jokes on you, I'm not a category theorist

[Anonymous No.15193985]

>>15192831
>Category theory guide
>Doesn't end with reading The Science of Logic on a loop out in a cabin alone until you expire from forgetting to eat or drink.
Clearly not going far enough.

[Anonymous No.15194011]

Btw anyone else read the math books guide on /sci/ fandom wiki. It's actually good, wtf. Why is this board so retarded every time we touch math then?

[Anonymous No.15194041]

>>15194011
probably written by oldfags smart enough to abandon ship when this whole site went to shit

[Anonymous No.15194091]

>>15194011
It's good but it is missing a learning path.

[Anonymous No.15195256]

>>15189560
agreed with everything
but for context those 1000 page tomes are really designed for classroom instructors as they get to pick and choose whatever they need

in the context of self learning, sheldon axler's precalculus is 500ish~ pages and was so cracked in terms of its brevity in explanation

[Anonymous No.15195377]

>>15194091
Literally just read it in order from top to bottom. How retarded are you? Stop cooming so much, it's bad for your brain.
https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics
Anyways, the math guide is the exception, the other ones are trash.

[Anonymous No.15195416]

>>15187016
Principia Qualia

https://opentheory.net/principia-qualia/

[Anonymous No.15195517]

Best flow chart for learning math from the beginning as an adult?

[Anonymous No.15195527]

>>15195517
You could do much worse than picrel.
But imo just visit your local (university) library. Pick something interesting, try to finish it. Drop it if it gets too boring, difficult. Try easier books or more fun books.

[Anonymous No.15195561]

>>15195527
Let me put the request in context. I left uni for a few years and went back right into grad level medical theory courses, like medical microbiology, parasitology, etc etc. There's barely any math involved, and I just want to sharpen myself again, and I'm the kind of student who likes to start from the beginning and get everything.

[Anonymous No.15195600]

>>15195561
Why are you so dumb? You do realize math majors study this full-time, and most of them don't even manage to "get everything", right?

[Anonymous No.15195623]

>>15195600
Ew, a nigger.

[Anonymous No.15196341]

>>15187965
If that's true what was the prerequisite book back when Dirac's book was released?

[Anonymous No.15196353]

>>15188462
I love this one, it's the best. Are there any other books that integrate relativity so well with E&M?

[Anonymous No.15196370]

>>15195561
How many books have you complete? Math textbook tends to be dry until it is not. Also, I'm doing reading in machine learning, so there is almost no time to study anything outside of current course work. How do you find time to study on the side? Do you naturally find time after you finish your job?

[Anonymous No.15196386]

>>15192290
hegel was a faggot, like all the modernists pseudophilosophers motherfuckers

[Anonymous No.15196423]

http://hbpms.blogspot.com/?m=1

[Anonymous No.15196427]

>>15187342
Ooo, neat subject.

[Anonymous No.15197082]

>>15196341
QM wasn't taught to undergrads back then

[Anonymous No.15197182]

>>15196370
None in years. I just bought a book on algebra, but I'm the same as you, for the most part. I can find some time to read on other subjects like psychiatry, math, physics for a few hours out of the week, but the majority of my time is spent on material for my microbial pathogenesis and endocrinology courses this semester.

[Anonymous No.15197367]

>>15197082
So what you're saying is there's no quantum mechanics book you're expected to know prior to it. It's a first QM book.

[Anonymous No.15197426]

>>15191911
manin linear algebra and geometry

[Anonymous No.15197492]

[Anonymous No.15198772]

bump

[Anonymous No.15199384]

>>15195377
The order is awful. There is no separation of grad and undergrad.
>Linear algebra before Calculus
Lol.
>Probability before Analysis.
Lmao.
>Partial differential equations before proofs & logic.
KEK.
This is the problem with /sci/. People will recommend something before reading it themselves and then call others retards for criticising it. I won't be surprised if the list is made by someone hasn't even read any of the books.
Here's a real list:
https://hbpms.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous No.15199901]

>>15193220
> Targ
good
> Treves
looks difficult, but good I assume
> the rest
Larp I assume, you won't read those either way.

[Anonymous No.15200056]

>>15187016
Someone told me this book is really good because this guy wanted to apply this sort of thinking to other fields.

[Anonymous No.15200091]

You wouldn't think so from the cover, but it is a book about the secret ancient math "religion" of western civilization.
Some things in The Matrix and Deus Ex will make more sense.
My main criticism is he doesn't do a good job of differentiating between platonism and gnosticism which are practically opposites.

[Anonymous No.15200386]

[Anonymous No.15200493]

>>15193220
I guess you stole them from your library? Looks like ex-library books.

[Anonymous No.15200500]

[Anonymous No.15201082]

>>15199901
>Larp I assume, you won't read those either way.
I am working through them rn
>>15200493
>I guess you stole them from your library? Looks like ex-library books.
I didn't, i bought them knowing they are ex-library. They are stamped to be withdrawn so i assume its legit, if not then i don't care lel didn't pay much

[Anonymous No.15201097]

I bought a meme but at least it wasn't expensive

[Anonymous No.15202357]

Hello,
I'm trying to diy into signal processing and would accept any book recommendation to skill up

[Anonymous No.15202405]

[Anonymous No.15203565]

[Anonymous No.15203661]

[Anonymous No.15203664]

>>15187132
>>15187016
For me, it’s Royden.

[Anonymous No.15203670]

Still.

[Anonymous No.15203671]

[Anonymous No.15203726]

>>15203671
This is so plain. Like, those are very standard textbooks used in a physics curriculum. No jokes or meme.

[Anonymous No.15203789]

>>15203726
>>no jokes
>>no memes
>>it’s used in a physishit curriculum
Particle/Quantum and GR are jokes and memes funded by PBS-watching nerd children having influence over funding the same way sports teams who sell more tickets are richer,
They’re literally just making shit up based on hundred year old equations and spending billions to do the occasional experiment to test this or that falsifiable tweak to the formula or take pictures from space of this or that distant object at this or that frequency range to see if we can make it explain the meaning of life.

[Anonymous No.15204647]

>>15203670
after some guy shat on this book, i feel like its wrong to read it.. but its the best overall GR introduction i've seen so far and even covers entirely differential topology

[Anonymous No.15205659]

>>15204647
Who shat on it?

[Anonymous No.15205664]

>>15204647
>differential topology
The fact you used that term instead of differential geometry makes me think you're larping.

[Anonymous No.15206753]

>>15191676
Don't cry about it, it's not even dead yet.

[Anonymous No.15206896]

>>15199384
Your entire critique stems, ironically, from you not having read the wiki at all. The order is implicitly flexible. For instance, under chapter 10 for proofs, it says:
>They also make excellent next steps in getting better at proofs and abstract mathematics in general before moving on to the much more difficult subjects like algebra and analysis. combinatorics, graph theory, linear algebra involving vector spaces, and number theory textbooks would then be the next level to practice on and are fairly easy to read at this stage of mathematical maturity.
Notice how it includes linear algebra, which is at chapter 6. If you go to chapter 6, you'll find:
>To get started on the theoretical side of linear algebra you obviously should be familiar with the basics of proofs. Once you are, theory side has a lot of classic and well loved textbook to choose from: [...]
But even worse, your first point is just wrong:
>Linear algebra before Calculus
What sort of braindead schizo are you? Pic related.

[Anonymous No.15207046]

>>15206896
Yeah so you don't read it from top to bottom. Next time, don't be a retard.

[Anonymous No.15207070]

>>15205664
Thanks for letting us know your expertise level disgusting undergrad

[Anonymous No.15207293]

>>15207046
>Yeah so you don't read it from top to bottom.
It's as if you don't grasp that there can be a general guideline without being autistic about it.

[Anonymous No.15207447]

>>15207293
Cool but it has no relevance with what I said. You can't read it from top to bottom, it won't help anyone who doesn't have any idea where to start, end of story.

[Anonymous No.15207644]

>>15207447
It demonstrates how needlessly autistic your critique is. You absolutely can read it from top to bottom. Those who don't have any idea where to start are properly instructed right at the beginning and pretty much throughout the entire wiki.

[Anonymous No.15208611]

>>15205664
Chapter 9 is titled Differential Topology, larper.

[Anonymous No.15208616]

>>15203664
Royden is great but covers different topics from baby rudin. Royden is in between baby rudin and papa rudin

[Anonymous No.15208624]

>>15187016
really solid book for beginners you can jump to any page and learn something new without 2 pages of prior context, doesn't use symbols that it wont explain in the same paragraph or so, and doesn't explain things in the most niggerlicious way possible my only issue is that it does not elaborate on some of its topics too well

[Anonymous No.15208829]

>>15202357
If you're comfortable with some of the basics of Matlab and EE Signals/Systems, Applied Digital Signal Processing by Manakolis and Ingle is pretty good. Might be butchering the spelling of the first last name but if you search "Applied Digital Signal Processing" you should be able to find a pdf of it for free.

[Anonymous No.15211230]

I want to learn number theory. is this a good start?

[Anonymous No.15212256]

>>15211230
Read #2 first then #3, #1 is the hardest so you'll want to save that for last for when you are comfortable with the subject