/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5926891]

Fuck

[Anonymous No.5926895]

you payed for the book? becausei ts online for free pleb

[Anonymous No.5926909]

>>5926895
Parents said I pay for college, but they pay for the books.

[Anonymous No.5926923]

>California Edition

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.5926931]

You should post that picture on your facebook and watch the pussy roll in

[Anonymous No.5926939]

>>5926895
Not him, but I hate using ebooks for courses.
But you know, not enough to warrant spending hundreds of dollars a semester.

[Anonymous No.5926951]

>>5926891
I feel your pain this book sucks and some of the problems are hard as fuck. But I also have a shit prof so it's hard to say.

[Anonymous No.5926961]

>>5926951
I had Thomas' Calculus and a prof who was a total hand holder.
Just pick up Spivak/Apostol on your own after you get comfortable with the basics.

[Anonymous No.5926974]

>>5926951

Didn't seem too difficult to me. I've had a really nasty textbook filled with near-impossible problems for freshman statics, though: Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics (Ferdinand Beer). Goes for over $200 and has an error-filled answer key.

[Anonymous No.5926975]

>>5926961
Thanks for the advice, but this also brings up something I'd like to ask. I notice that there are some questions that are just too hard for me in this textbook. Usually my prof didn't mention anything like it, but assigned it for HW, and I can't figure it out.

I'm afraid that I will develop into a shabby scientist or mathematician because I fear that I still won't know how to do some of these problems in the future.

Obviously I've had problems in math before that I couldn't solve but don't have trouble with any longer (e.g. not knowing how to do a calc 1 problem).

Do I actually have to pick up a new textbook and study to iron out these faults, or will it go away with time? Should I know how to do every question in the textbook?

[Anonymous No.5926980]

>>5926974
Honestly it's hard for me to remember if most of my difficulties were with problems from the book or if they were actually with supplementary problems that my prof assigns. The latter are very difficult and I'm afraid that if I can't solve them that I won't be a good sci/mathematician.

[Anonymous No.5927025]

>>5926891
calculus is pretty easy

[Anonymous No.5927024]

>>5926975
Clearly, the more viewpoints and practice you pick up on a subject the more strategies you'll have to attack an unknown problem.

It's pretty nifty to keep a notebook with problems you just can't figure out, and to periodically come back and take another crack at them.

[Anonymous No.5927055]

Fuck

[Anonymous No.5927067]

Get a better book on Calculus, PLEASE!

[Anonymous No.5927072]

>>5927055
Agreed, that book is awful.

[Anonymous No.5927094]

>>5927072
Did you fail your Real Analysis I class that used Rudin?

[Anonymous No.5927093]

>>5927072
>retard detected

[Anonymous No.5927101]

lel

[Anonymous No.5927103]

>>5927094

not who you quoted, but my professor used rudin and I hated it the first time through, but ever since I've been thankful we did.

[Anonymous No.5927107]

>>5927093
>>5927094
Rudin writes a very introductory subject like you already have experience. I've never understood why it's worth making a beginner struggle when there are much easier places to start, you'll make progress and understand much more quickly. If you're already familiar enough with mathematics, you should be reading measure theory, not a kiddie subject. Many of his proofs are like magic tricks, leaving you with little intuition for how to solve a similar problem. It's very impressive that he can obfuscate the proofwriting process so elegantly, but that doesn't belong in a book for kids.

[Anonymous No.5927105]

>>5926895
LCD screens are bad for the eyes pleb.

[Anonymous No.5927111]

>>5927105
>2013
>not using a Kindle DX, or a regular Kindle in landscape orientation

[Anonymous No.5927112]

>>5927107
Interesting. What is your suggestion for a starting point book for real analysis?

[Anonymous No.5927113]

I only really found calc 2 to be difficult to wrap my head around (infinite series and sequences). got out of it with a B. Calc 1 and 3 were pretty simple.

This book has been the bane of my existence for the past 8 months. Goddamn actuarial exams

[Anonymous No.5927115]

>>5927112
I used Marsden and Hoffman but wasn't too impressed by the exposition (although I'd recommend it over Rudin). From what I've heard, both Abbot and Pugh are very good though.

[Anonymous No.5927116]

I know what youre going through OP
Current summer sesh

[Anonymous No.5927120]

>>5927111
but muh investment incentive!

[Anonymous No.5927126]

Fuck

[Anonymous No.5927151]

Never browse this board, but you guys might find this useful. (several variable calc and eng maths)

http://www.youtube.com/user/DrChrisTisdell/videos?view=1&flow=grid

Good shit.

[Anonymous No.5927155]

>>5927116
Please take care of your books

[Anonymous No.5927169]

>>5927126

LOL, leck Moredick

[Anonymous No.5927170]

>>5927126
> Mac Lane

The same as the Category Theory Mac Lane?

[Anonymous No.5927176]

>>5927170
Correct. A topos is a special kind of category. (One that is cartesian closed and has finite limits and a subobject classifier) It's fun stuff.

[Anonymous No.5927191]

Fun fun fun.

Fixing up my basic linear algebra because I suck at Math.

[Anonymous No.5927193]

>>5927112
>>5927115
Rudin is compact but you can't deny the beauty and rigor in his "magic tricks"
As someone who has had a good time with Rudin, I highly recommend using Bartle/Sherbert or Abbott first.
Bartle has good problems/organization, and Abbott has good exposition/intuition (especially for how to think about proofs).

[Anonymous No.5927199]

>>5927155
>s
I'm thinking it was used.
I'm hoping it was used.

[Anonymous No.5927203]

>>5927113
I this any good? Its a prescribed text for a statistics subject I'm taking, will buy if its decent

[Anonymous No.5927211]

>>5927116
Math 1A and 1B weren't that bad with Stewart's book, imo

[Anonymous No.5927217]

>>5927107
The fuck are you smoking? Rudin was my 1st book on Analysis and I didn't have any trouble following any of the material. You just suck at math.

>Many of his proofs are like magic tricks, leaving you with little intuition for how to solve a similar problem

Just because the exercises aren't "change one line a little from a proof in the book and you're done!" doesn't mean the book is bad. There are only a small handful of equations that are used in the middle of the proof that solve multiple cases that leave you wondering where he pull them out of but you shouldn't have trouble coming up with a set of your own equations for each case.

[omnomnomnom No.5927218]

I had a pretty good experience with Carothers' text on real analysis, you might want to look into that

[omnomnomnom No.5927219]

>>5927112
I had a pretty good experience with Carothers' text. Compared to other texts, I find it relatively readable.

[Oilerscup20014 !S0ooHAHDTU No.5927223]

>tfw

[Anonymous No.5927224]

>>5927223
Even Descartes wouldn't ask you to give the dick to that.

[Anonymous No.5927226]

>>5927223
faggot

[Anonymous No.5927227]

>>5927191
I don't know why everyone likes this book
Some of the problems were too computational, others abstract or otherwise tedious
The exposition wasn't even that motivated. Even Schaum's had better explanations.

[Anonymous No.5927228]

>>5926891
my community college used that book

I thought it was alright, but as someone said once you get more into each chapter the problems can be unforgiving.

I love how it starts out with baby stuff then 3 problems later youre like wtf...

[Anonymous No.5927229]

>>5927223
lewd

[Anonymous No.5927235]

>>5927227

I paid 15$ for it so whatever.

I checked the Amazon reviews afterwards; some people said it was *the* book, other had critiques a bit like yours.

I can't really say, honestly, it's the first time I really sit down and *do* abstract algebra.

I just went through a section where he basically did the simplex with polynomials without using matrix because he didn't want to introduce them right now.

I don't know.

Either way I'm happy because I hate reading textbooks on my computer.

[Anonymous No.5927237]

>>5927067
I just started on Apostol Vol 2 after working through the first 14 chapters of Vol 1. I took Calc 2 last month as a summer course and we used Thomas 12th edition, it was a joke in comparison.
I know some people don't like Apostol because they find his writing too dry but I think it's clear and to the point so I like it.

[Anonymous No.5927240]

>>5927223
reported

[Anonymous No.5927244]

>>5927235
Damn I paid like $80 so I'm biased against it
I'll admit it's better preparation for real linear algebra than, say, Strang, Lay, Anton, or whatever engineering/intro books people use
But if I wanted something rigorous and motivated, I'd go to the classics like Axler, Halmos, Shilov, or the great Hoffman/Kunze (the real "the book")

Sometimes I'm doing a problem I can intuitively answer but can't rigorously write a solution for based on the material they teach you in the previous sections. To be fair, Friedberg has strong sections on Jordan forms and determinants and doesn't have bad problems; they're just poorly organized and not without several questionable moments of handwaving.

Schaum's Outlines does canonical forms just as good with better problems and even Axler did determinants better (and he's the guy who wrote this: http://www.axler.net/DwD.pdf).).

[Anonymous No.5927256]

>>5927235
>abstract algebra
That's <span class="math">\bf{LINEAR}[/spoiler] algebra, abstract algebra is completely different.

[Anonymous No.5927260]

>>5927256

Ok, gimme a sec;

Abstract algebra + set theory = linear algebra, am I right?

[Anonymous No.5927273]

>>5927260
For a troll-like answer, fundamentally this is not too far off
Vector spaces are over a field, whose properties are used to prove almost everything about the spaces, polynomial properties are used to prove canonical form stuff, and basic results about spaces and bases amount to knowing the underlying definitions and set theory

The thing is abstract algebra has a much stronger focus on abstraction and structural results, while you can teach basic matrix stuff to someone who doesn't even know what a field is. Linear algebra also can be much more computational; just plug the thing into MATLAB and get your rref or determinant and a good grade, but you can't calculate your way out of abstract algebra past a certain point.

[Anonymous No.5927291]

>>5927155
This.
Have some respect for the author, for fuck's sake