[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.01 MB, 250x250, 1334377734453.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4620857 No.4620857 [Reply] [Original]

Hey, /sci/, can we get a thread started with our favorite textbooks/learning materials for any given subject? The guide is woefully inadequate and says nothing about actual quality, so I thought it would be nice to start a thread just for this to add to the others that end up on the archives. I apologize for not having any of mine own to contribute, however this will be mitigated in the long run as good posters post quality works for the rest of us to benefit from.
Good day/afternoon/night to you.

>> No.4620862

>>4620857
I honestly hate Stewart's Calculus textbook. Fucking hate it. What bugs me the most is that he decides to put volumes and areas between curves BEFORE any integration technique discussed excluding substitution. I would really prefer to cover the appropriate techniques and then do applications with harder integrals.
Another pet peeve is that he released the seventh edition way to soon with not enough changes.

>> No.4620867

>>4620862
It's a start.
We need more people.

>> No.4621118

http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gu/the_best_textbooks_on_every_subject/

>> No.4621128

Peter Atkins comes out with a new textbook for Physical Chemistry every few years or so - been doing it since the 60's and the book is a pretty good text for informative topics covering the derivation of all thermodynamic, kinetic, quantum, and any other P-chem topic that you will discuss in any given class you take on the subject - or not (It'll even help if you take a QM course)

>> No.4621158

>>4621118
What a shitty link. It has lots of "someone recommends book 1 over book 2" where books 1 and 2 have completely different goals. For example, griffiths over jackson (one is an undergrad text, one is a grad text), munkres over an algebraic topology text, etc.

>> No.4621288

bump

>> No.4621301

can someone recommend me any books/articles about astrophysics?

>> No.4621321

>>4621158
They can only recommend a book if they have read 3 books on approx. the same subject. So, ur description is lacking.

Anyway, even tho this method is somewhat flawed, do u have a better method for finding the best textbook on a given subject? I usually check LW and check Amazon scores and read the reviews.

>> No.4621712

bamp

>> No.4622919

bump

>> No.4622955

>>4621712
>>4622919
This has been up for two days and you are still having to bump. People are clearly not interested in your thread.

>>4621321
Lol I don't think you understand the significance of what that guy said. The guy is basically comparing two different courses and saying which one is better.
Example:
>Comparing one type of topology to a different kind
>Comparing a elf help book to an applied psychology textbook

The distinguishing factor between textbooks (specifically for me) is how the information is presented and laid out. The mission statements or preface section usually outlines what the author is consciously trying to do.

>> No.4622983

>>4621301
you should visit this site :
http://eknigu.org/

>> No.4624428

>>4622955
YEAH?
WELL
HOW ABOUT
FUCK YOU

>> No.4624444

For combinatorics I keep a copy of Sagan, Stanley and Flajolet at hand at all times and then Google everything else. This question is far too broad. The right book for you will depend on what questions you want to answer, and how you want to answer them.

>> No.4624782

Okay, here is a bunch of physics books: Feynman lectures for basic physics, no real competition. For quantum mechanics I like Shankar and dislike Griffiths (dumbs it down a bit too much). Landau-Lifschitz volume 1 is brilliant (and short!) for classical mechanics. Wald is the bible of GR, but maybe one needs to read say Sean Carrols introductory text first. For QFT go with Peskin and Schroeder. Becker-Becker-Schwarz is good for string theory. Whatever you do, don't get Kadanoffs book about statistical mechanics, it is horrible. Don't really even know of a good one though. John Baez book "Gauge fields, knots and gravity" is a really good and understandable introduction to theoretical/mathematical physics, and for more serious stuff Nakaharas tome on geometry and topology in physics is also really good.

>> No.4626611

>>4622955
>"People are clearly not interested in your thread."
>In my watched threads

>> No.4626699

I was wondering what people thought of Connect? I have many science courses that uses Hill-Mcgraw. I am also wondering what good books for General Chemistry and Physics I would be so I can get walk into my fall classes with some knowledge.