Physics/Math Textbooks recommendations

File: 22 KB, 382x299, main-physics.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Physics/Math Textbooks recommendations Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:12:33 2014 No.6328999 [Reply] [Original]

I'm trying to build a list with the very best textbooks for each area of physics and the very best math textbooks that are needed for physics.

No baby-tier or hand-holding shit.I want the very best for people that are willing to commit the time.

Now my idea is to make the list, find the textbooks and then upload a torrent with it.

So just give the area/textbook name/authors/few pre-req.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:20:32 2014 No.6329005 File: 12 KB, 230x300, 71XTRDP9PEL._SY300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:22:03 2014 No.6329013 >>6329005 >No baby-tier or hand-holding shit.I want the very best for people that are willing to commit the time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:22:03 2014 No.6329014 File: 12 KB, 300x300, 1391437328903.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:23:02 2014 No.6329017 Feynman lectures on physics

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:23:32 2014 No.6329018 >>6329013 They are good introduction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:24:02 2014 No.6329021 File: 26 KB, 316x475, 410G100DBGL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:24:33 2014 No.6329020 File: 20 KB, 316x500, 41VWUcyr1BL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:30:03 2014 No.6329025 File: 20 KB, 420x551, 2850-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:34:33 2014 No.6329029 File: 9 KB, 202x250, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:36:32 2014 No.6329032 If someone can find linear algebra by fraleigh and post a dl link, I will forever be endebted to that hero of a person

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:41:03 2014 No.6329041 >>6329025 lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 09:59:02 2014 No.6329069 >>6329041 Is it a bad book ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 10:02:32 2014 No.6329074 File: 29 KB, 301x400, 1391439736847.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is the required book in my diff eq. class. Is it good?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 10:05:33 2014 No.6329078 >>6329074 >required book The fuck? Doesn't your professor create his own lecture notes?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 10:08:02 2014 No.6329082 >>6329078 Yes he does. The book is more for the exercises and of course reference material just in case though in general I always use my notes and slides from class before I'd go to the book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 10:08:02 2014 No.6329083 >>6329078 This, what is wrong with merican unis?

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 10:13:32 2014 No.6329088

Can you guys help me out?

I had shitty teachers, and a bad learning environment and learned nothing in school in terms of math.

Can you guys recommend a book that teaches the basics to calc? I'm wanting to go back to school but I don't have a lot of money to pay for it so any thing I can learn on my own will help my wallet a lot!

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 10:17:02 2014 No.6329095 >>6329088 Read the Bourbaki series. They should be in any university library. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89l%C3%A9ments_de_math%C3%A9matique

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 10:22:02 2014 No.6329102

>>6329014
>>6329021
Came in here to say this.

Additionally, "Topology from the Differential Viewpoint" by Milnor is a good Differential Geometry introduction. Dummit and Foote's "Abstract Algebra" has probably reached classic status by now. Tenuously mathematical is the "Art of Computer Programming" series by Knuth. If Rudin weren't included, I would add Munkres "Analysis on Manifolds" book.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 11:12:08 2014 No.6329154
File: 2.10 MB, 1089x1554, cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6329088
Elementary Calculus - An Infinitesimal Approach
by Keisler

Teaches calculus the way it should be, using nonstandard analysis to justify infinitesimal logic that's always hand waved in calculus but not get too sidetracked into analysis. You can find the book free (public domain) online.

If you looking for standard rigorous approach then Apostol's Calculus is your best bet albeit harder.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 11:19:39 2014 No.6329166

>>6328999
Calculus Vol I & II by Apostol
Ordinary Differential Equations by Tenenbaum
A Transition to Advanced Mathematics
Advanced Calculus of Several Variables by Edwards
Linear Algebra by Shilov
Probability and Random Processes by Grimmett and Stirzaker
Complex Analysis by Bak
Visual Complex Analysis by Needham
Applied Partial Differential Equations by Haberman
Partial Differential Equations by Strauss
Calculus of Variations by Elsgolc
Variational Principles in Dynamics and Quantum Theory by Wolfgang Yourgrau, Stanley Mandelstam
Introductory Functional Analysis with Applications by Kreyszig
Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces by Do Carmo
Algebra by Artin

Young and Freedman's University Physics with Modern Physics
Brown's Chemistry: The Central Science
Taylor's Classical Mechanics
Griffiths' Intro to Electrodynamics
Fowles' Introduction to Modern Optics
Carroll's An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics
Shankar's Principals of Quantum Mechanics
Schroeder's An Introduction to Thermal Physics
Goodstein's States of Matter
Reif's Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics
Ashcroft & Mermins, Solid State Physics
Schutz's A First Course in General Relativity
Goldstein's Classical Mechanics
Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics
Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics
Peskin & Schroeder, An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory
Weinberg's The Quantum Theory of Fields Vol. I Foundations
Weinberg's The Quantum Theory of Fields Vol. II Modern Applications

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 11:57:02 2014 No.6329214 bump

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:01:02 2014 No.6329221 >>6329166 Isn't Rubin's Math Analysis better then Apostols' Calculus ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:13:33 2014 No.6329238 File: 19 KB, 300x300, quantum enigma.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:15:32 2014 No.6329239 >>6329005 >>6329014 >>6329021 >>6329025 >>6329029 >>6329074 >>6329154 What part of "No baby-tier or hand-holding shit" did you not understand? Please read the OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:16:32 2014 No.6329242 File: 13 KB, 200x295, 1391447772876.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Best physics books. Requires at least graduate level knowledge of QM.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 12:17:32 2014 No.6329243 >>6329166 Please stop spamming that list. More than half of those books are shit tier. I bet you didn't even read. You just mindlessly copypaste what some trolls and retards recommended in a different thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:11:35 2014 No.6329449 File: 525 KB, 1600x1200, NT6i0gs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html This list should give you more then enough material.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:15:03 2014 No.6329453 File: 71 KB, 1024x683, 1371111694860.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What are the best GERMAN textbooks you can get on these subjects? Sure the english textbooks can't be the best.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:16:37 2014 No.6329454 File: 128 KB, 817x514, 1373849672707.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6329453 Bumping this out of interest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:20:04 2014 No.6329459 File: 46 KB, 470x600, leskov-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6329453 They are not. Russian are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:21:04 2014 No.6329464 >>6329459 Lay some great Russian literature on me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:21:34 2014 No.6329465 File: 24 KB, 504x504, ising.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6328999 What's the best statistical physics book?

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:24:32 2014 No.6329469

>>6329088
I have the same delima as this person except for one crucial exception. I'm trying to find top tier books that cover

1. All the main subjects taught in highschool
2. Up to a level that hits AP/Honors or really a standard of understanding the material that raises attention from the people at the college i'm attending to. I want to be well studied in all of these areas and am willing to put many hours a day for most of this year learning it before I apply

I've been out of school for many years. My google fu cannot give me good books or even a grasp of what IS taught in highschool anymore. I drove around for hours today going to different libraries but I just couldn't figure out which books at those libraries were at the appropriate level of running me from the basic understanding up to pre college and even if I found some good books they aren't the top tier ones so i'm still getting quantity over quality

I would love some one here to give me a complete list of the top tier books for all this material so I can finally get my life back on track

Favoriting this thread and will be coming back to on it on the daily to see if there is a response. Thanks. I'd post a thread about this but I don't have a computer or device capable of posting threads

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:39:02 2014 No.6329484

>>6329469
Here. Really any book/s that comprehensively runs me through and allows me to learn understanding of any of the subjects taught in highschool up to a level of pre university will help. I do apologize for the obnoxious tone of this request, i'm in very dire need of some assistance. I'm still trying to find books and such through google while I type this. This will be the last post from me unless I get a response, thanks again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:45:02 2014 No.6329492 >>6329469 I can't help you, but why are you doing this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 14:49:02 2014 No.6329496 File: 823 KB, 1250x2020, 1374307337215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6329453 >pls respond

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 15:33:03 2014 No.6329539 >>6329453 What topics are you interested in?

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 15:36:02 2014 No.6329549

>>6329539
real and complex analysis
linear algebra
hilbert spaces

this is the stuff I need for uni, other stuff I'm interested in
spheres, manifolds, group theory

I don't know that much yet so I don't know everything I could be interested in, as long as it's top quality I'll always be able to appreciate it

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 15:49:32 2014 No.6329575

>>6329549
>H. Amann, J. Escher - Analysis 1-3
3 books covering real and complex analysis as well as basics of measure theory, functional analysis and manifolds.

>S. Bosch - Algebra
Introduction to group theory, polynomial rings, fields and Galois theory.

>W. Lück - Algebraische Topologie
homology theory and manifolds

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 15:52:33 2014 No.6329578

>>6328999
I'd say start with the sticky.

Anyway, realize that the problem you face is the same problem every university's administrative department deals with. There's not really any consensus.

If you really wanted to go about this the right way, you could write a program to crawl .edu pages/syllabi by subject, compile a set of tuples (subject, book), and see which pairs occur most frequently.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 15:53:32 2014 No.6329581

>>6329575
>3 books covering real and complex analysis as well as basics of measure theory, functional analysis and manifolds.
How do these books rank up against the Rudin? I'm 3/4 through the baby rudin and I planned on reading the next one

for linear algebra I wanted to work through (already read half of it) halmos' finite dimensional vector spaces

have you read any of these? would you say the german books are better?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 15:56:02 2014 No.6329585 >>6329581 Sorry, I never read Rudin and in linear algebra I never needed more than my lecture notes.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:22:32 2014 No.6329729

>>6329492
I want to empower myself to become a learned succesful man who can provide a quality and quantity of service to mankind with integrity and know-how so that I may help development of technologies and other innovations for the future of mankind. I would like to start companies that will have a far reaching impact in places that need help and in subjects that need advancement. I would like a mind of my own that is capable of helping others.

For the time being, I am focusing on the now which is that I must develop an understanding of each main highschool subject from the ground up. I must understand this material to a level of understanding that matches the maximum difficulty that is taught from the toughest highschools in the world so that I can best be prepared for college. Doing the more difficult work will be very beneficial for me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 17:40:32 2014 No.6329754 >>6329729 I have finally stumbled across the information I was looking for and can use this information to chain to a discovery of all the other information I need. Thanks for putting up with me and i'll be leaving the thread now for now.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 19:09:26 2014 No.6329889

>>6329549
Get "tutorium analysis 1 und lineare algebra 1"

Every single one of us mathstudents (freshman though) has that book. It´s my main source of math-knowledge so far and the first thing I take into my hands if I want to know something.
Without that book I would have probably failed my first year.

It has way too many smileys (more than one is too much) and doesn´t go very deep, but they know exactly what a student needs to hear to understand something. Once you understand it you´ll want to read something of this >>6329575 list and learn to use it in a more mathematical and rigorous way.

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 19:41:56 2014 No.6329949

what I'm using on my undergrad course on physics is:

Griffiths D.J. Introduction to quantum mechanics (2ed)
Griffiths D.J. - Introduction to Elementary Particles
Griffiths D.J. Introduction to electrodynamics (3ed)
Goldstein H., Poole C., Safko J. - Classical mechanics

and a book that gives an intro to the basic of every field:
College Physics 7th Edition - Serway

this are the books that my Professors recommend, the thing is that sometimes I find it difficult to understand somethings on these books without my teacher lecture beforehand, it's just to much theory without some practical examples

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 19:43:56 2014 No.6329955 >>6329949 and for calculus : Calculus 5th Edition, James Stewart pretty much covers everything needed for an undergrad course, easily explained with lot's of examples

Anonymous Mon Feb 3 20:26:50 2014 No.6330017

Rudin is absolute fucking trash other than the exercises. It's not that it doesn't hold your hand, it's that it doesn't even mention what a goddamn Banach space is IN AN INTRODUCTION TO METRIC SPACES. I mean, how the fuck do people still think that's acceptable? Not only that, but it leave BAIRE'S THEOREM, yes I'm not fucking with you, BAIRE'S THEOREM, as an exercise. I'd understand leaving the open mapping theorem or the Banach-Steinhaus theorem (lol as if Rudin mentions either) as an exercise to have a cool application of Baire's theorem, but barely even touch Baire is laughable.

Carothers - Real Analysis makes Little Rudin look like it was written by a pretentious first-year math undergrad who thinks books should be "elegant" and "concise" and "[insert buzzword of the day here]".

>>6329021
This book is actually pretty good.

>>6329029
Meh. Good if you've already taken a course where the author/instructor/etc doesn't avoid determinants in situations where they're really useful. Linear Algebra Done Wrong by Treil is better IMO, and it's free.

>>6329465
Not really answering your question, but I like Cowan - Statistical Data Analysis which has lots of examples from particle physics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 3 21:44:19 2014 No.6330111 >>6329889 >smiley what is a smiley? you mean like an actual smiley face? Is german your first language? If not, how did you learn it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 07:42:27 2014 No.6330790 bump

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 07:54:58 2014 No.6330800 File: 76 KB, 1321x446, solid edgy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6329239

Anonymous Tue Feb 4 08:09:27 2014 No.6330813
File: 514 KB, 1459x1497, Rudin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6330017
>but it leave BAIRE'S THEOREM, yes I'm not fucking with you, BAIRE'S THEOREM, as an exercise. I'd understand leaving the open mapping theorem or the Banach-Steinhaus theorem (lol as if Rudin mentions either)

Rudin proves Baire's theorem, the open mapping theorem and the Banach-Steinhaus theorem in his Functional Analysis book.

http://www.amazon.com/Functional-Analysis-Walter-Rudin/dp/0070542368

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 08:10:28 2014 No.6330815 File: 259 KB, 347x500, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] love this book

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 08:25:28 2014 No.6330823 pretty sure weinberg is the authority on QFT. most of my professors own a copy or two.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 11:07:28 2014 No.6330934 >>6330823 Is that so ?

Anonymous Tue Feb 4 11:34:57 2014 No.6330959

I feel like the /sci/ sticky, and the internet in general, is really missing out on guides on how to learn things

Most guides basically just give a big list of topics, with little information about how to progress

I have a great idea, but I don't know enough to do it by myself

Basically, it's a big network graph of topics and books/resources

It would show the order of what to study in order to learn something

For example, the "mathematics" topic might begin with some precalculus texts / videos, and then this might branch out into some basic linear algebra, basic calculus, etc, and these could then branch off into things like topology and analysis

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 11:41:27 2014 No.6330963 >>6330959 Ye but who will do that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 11:59:58 2014 No.6330973 >>6328999 Quantum Mechanics cohen-tannoudji

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 12:17:57 2014 No.6331000 >>6329464 Ландафшиц

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 4 15:43:27 2014 No.6331258 >>6330111 >what is a smiley? ;) :D :) >you mean like an actual smiley face? Yes, actual smiley faces. >Is german your first language? Yes, German is my native tongue. It´s a really good book though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 04:48:19 2014 No.6335355 >>6328999 beemp

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 05:14:20 2014 No.6335378 >>6331258 i refuse to believe that a serious book has smiley faces.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 05:40:19 2014 No.6335410 >>6335378 It's real http://en.bookfi.org/book/1369839 A quick Ctrl+F search reveals that it has 36 smiley faces.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Wed Feb 5 05:53:19 2014 No.6335421 File: 258 KB, 1280x1023, 1372159198108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6331000 ^_^

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 06:01:19 2014 No.6335436 >>6335421 I wish my Russian was better so I can read Landau in original. I also wish I could speak it along with passive understanding.

Anonymous Wed Feb 5 06:20:49 2014 No.6335460

>>6330017
>Meh. Good if you've already taken a course where the author/instructor/etc doesn't avoid determinants in situations where they're really useful. Linear Algebra Done Wrong by Treil is better IMO, and it's free.
Holy crap, thank you. I forgot what that book was called and had been looking for it for ages. I kept running into Axler's book which is not only not free but weird in a lot of ways (his treatment on dual spaces is some weird applied stuff I didn't get)

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 06:23:19 2014 No.6335463 are there any physics/math/science audiobooks that you guys recommend?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 09:32:19 2014 No.6335669 >>6335421 >dat pic топ лел Saved for reposting on /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 09:33:49 2014 No.6335671 Does anyone knows which is the Goldstein or Jackson of statistical mechanics?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 11:13:50 2014 No.6335847 >>6328999 This seems to me to be a colossal task, but I'd love you for it. Bump for interest.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 5 11:48:19 2014 No.6335899 >>6335669 Heh I get it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 6 01:37:19 2014 No.6337680 >>6328999 DO IT NOW!Q22!!1!

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 6 01:40:19 2014 No.6337686 >>6328999 Young and Freedman is basically the ultimate undergrad guide for physics. Everyone uses it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Physics

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 6 05:59:19 2014 No.6337939 Any good books out there on optics besides "Intro to Modern Optics"? I'm looking for something tied in to computer technology.

Anonymous Thu Feb 6 06:15:49 2014 No.6337947

>>6337686
Young and Freedman sucks.
Physics for Scientists and Engineers is a very good book. (by Serway)
Also Halliday, Resnik Physics 4th edition is a good book which was used back when the starting Physics classes were made to tear people up.
Basically anything Halliday, Resnik, or Serway. They are the main ballers of the physics books. Schools usually get a little dividend from promoting books and I heard Young and Freedman are pretty aggressive with that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 6 07:18:19 2014 No.6337992 >>6337686 Y&F is terrible. They hardly go into any of the maths and only look at the easiest things possible. Don't waste your time or money.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 6 10:17:19 2014 No.6338160 >>6337947 >>6337992 contrarians ITT

Anonymous Thu Feb 6 23:50:19 2014 No.6339543

>>6330813
Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about Little Rudin that whole time. His other two books are pretty good but Little Rudin is so incredibly overrated, and I'd argue (as I did semi-coherently above) that it's simply not worthy of being called "real analysis" today. Carothers has a whole chapter basically devoted to Baire's Theorem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 00:34:49 2014 No.6339653 OP will deliver

Anonymous Fri Feb 7 02:17:29 2014 No.6339780

I don't know how necessary they are for physics, but Do Carmo is great. I liked his short book on differential forms, and his Riemannian geometry text is nice.

And if you went through both the Reed&Simon and Stein&Shakarchi analysis series you would be an analysis god.

Anonymous Fri Feb 7 14:36:47 2014 No.6340581

These are my favorite expository math books. Most of these are gentle and relatively easy to get into, without being boring or too unrigorous. Note: I'm not a physics guy.

>Precalculus
Basic Mathematics - Lang
>Calculus
A First Course in Calculus - Lang
The Calculus Lifesaver - Banner (supplement)
>Multivariable Calculus
Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra and Differential Forms: A Unified Approach - Hubbard, Hubbard
>Intro Analysis
Understanding Analysis - Abbott
>Linear Algebra
Linear Algebra - Hefferon (free)
>Discrete Math
Mathematics: A Discrete Introduction - Scheinerman
>Probability
Understanding Probability - Tijms
>Statistics
All of Statistics - Wasserman
>Abstract Algebra
A Book of Abstract Algebra - Pinter
Visual Group Theory - Carter (supplement)

Also, I will specifically UNrecommend Stewart and Baby Rudin. The former's gone to shit in later editions, and the latter is too abstruse for an introduction to analysis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 14:46:17 2014 No.6340603 >>6340581 Now that I think about it, you should probably avoid the Hubbard book if you're an applied math guy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:03:46 2014 No.6340629 >>6340581 what exactly is so abstruse about the baby rudin? you just have to take a pen and paper sometimes and visualize that shit and do the exercises maybe you're just lazy

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:04:16 2014 No.6340631 File: 147 KB, 640x974, 1391803454037.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] > ctrl+f > no principia > mfw

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:13:46 2014 No.6340645 >>6340581 Why Rudin's book is called Baby Rudin? Because it is the first part of his analysis thing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:25:47 2014 No.6340656 >>6340645 yes

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:29:16 2014 No.6340660 >>6340629 I don't really feel like arguing it. Here's a forum thread instead: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=505161

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:35:47 2014 No.6340671 I didn't read the entire thread so apologies if this was already posted, but this list is pretty much all /sci/ will ever hope to need. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:40:16 2014 No.6340678 >>6340671 that list is shit though plus who gives a fuck about free books if they aren't better, you can pirate all that shit anyway

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:42:46 2014 No.6340681 was Rudin a good mathematician or particularly smart?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:46:46 2014 No.6340687 >>6340681 Yes; but being a good mathematician doesn't necessarily make you a good teacher. Some mathematicians have a particularly bad habit of writing as tersely as possible for the sake of "elegance".

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 7 15:50:46 2014 No.6340691 >>6340687 That's the students' fault for not being geniuses.

Anonymous Fri Feb 7 16:31:46 2014 No.6340753

The best way to learn calculus based intro physics is to get a good traditional textbook like Ohanian or Halliday/Resnick or Knight. Anything that goes through the topics in their proper order (kinematics-->forces-->energy-->rotation--->E&M) and doesn't suck at explaining things. Don't get some bullshit experimental 'new' ways of teaching crap that I had to learn out of when I first started physics.

Get a standard textbook and work problems out of them, and watch the MIT Walter Lewin lectures. That is the correct way to properly learn basic physics very well.

Anonymous Fri Feb 7 19:28:35 2014 No.6341010
File: 87 KB, 518x648, 0321584759.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm taking a 300 level stats sequence at the moment. The textbook we're using is

Hogg & Tanis- Probability and Statistical Inference

and, though it's manageable, it's certainly not baby-tier-hand-holdy.

Requirements: Calc/Multicalc

It doesn't make any references to physics but I'm positive that it's relevant.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:07:46 2014 No.6341535

semi-topic related. currently doing a chemistry degree, and chemistry's interaction with biology has always fascinated me. I was looking into what texts would give me a comprehensive view of biochemistry and biology, so my question is how much overlap is there between these books and are there better alternatives?

Biology, 7th Edition - Neil A. Campbell
Molecular Biology of the Cell - Bruce Alberts
Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, Fourth Edition - David L Nelson
Gray's Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Clinical Practice 40e - Susan Standring

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:42:17 2014 No.6341609

I can give you a list of books that I thought were really good (compared to lectures that I've had on that topic or other books on that topic):

>Physics
Physics, Volume 1 and 2 - Halliday, Resnick and Krane (a first year undergrad physics book)
Feynman lectures vol 2
Special relativity - Woodhouse
Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics - Reif
Principals of quantum mechanics - Shankar
Linear operators for quantum mechanics - Jordan
Spacetime and geometry: an introduction to general relativity - Carroll

>Mathematics
Linear algebra - Shilov
Calculus - Spivak
Group Theory: A Physicist's Survey - Ramond
Complex analysis - Howie
Functional analysis vol 1 - Reed and Simon

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:51:27 2014 No.6341849

I've worked my way throught the first 8 chapters of the Baby Rudin. I've written out the most important theorems, summed them up, visualized them and did about 90 of the exercises or so.

I heard the following chapters aren't as good, so I thought before finishing it I might read Spivak's calculus and then probably return to the Baby Rudin.

But if it doesn't explain the Lebesque theory very well, maybe I should something else? I definitely want to read the Big Rudin though.

As for Linear Algebra I planned on reading Halmos' Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces. Is that a good idea?

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 07:00:57 2014 No.6341854

>>6341849
For linear, the approaches in different books vary so much that it really comes down to what you want to get out of it. At least In my opinion.

If I were you I'd blast through one of those elementary textbooks on linear algebra and practice a bunch of computations just to build up some internalized intuition with them and then go back and read a more rigorous textbook.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 07:10:58 2014 No.6341863

>>6341854
I already had a semester of Linear Algebra ranging from vector spaces to differential equations, so I guess I'm fit to tackle Halmos' work, so I think I'ma just do that

it's hard find something that deals with differential equations though, but as a physicist I really need it

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 07:18:27 2014 No.6341866

Can someone give me a list of the "bibles" on this topics.

Finite mathematics (combinatorics)
Calculus
Multivariable calculus
Linear algebra
Ordinary differential equations
Partial differential equations
Complex analysis
Real analysis
Topology
Set theory and logic
and
Abstract algebra

I want to know the standard, not what you think is the best.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 07:57:57 2014 No.6341895

>>6341863
Why not just read through the diff eq section on paul's online notes. I had a diff eq for engineers course that covered pretty much the same material (though our book was utter garbage). You don't need a whole lot of linear algebra to be able to handle it and you can move through it pretty quickly.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 08:08:57 2014 No.6341907

>>6341866

>Finite mathematics (combinatorics)
probably Concrete Mathematics
>Calculus and Multivariable calculus
Either Stewart's or Spivak
>Linear algebra
possibly Hoffman and Kunze
Linear Algebra Done Wrong seems standard amongst non-algebraist types
http://www.math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/LADW/LADW.html
I think everyone you ask will argue for a different "standard".
>Real analysis
Baby Rudin
>Topology
Munkres
>Abstract algebra
Hungerford or Dummit and Foote

I left out the ones I don't know a standard for.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 08:14:27 2014 No.6341912

>>6341907
I should add that Concrete Mathematics is a very applied book but popular amongst computer science students. The only math courses I've had on combinatorics have been as parts of other courses (my university doesn't offer a counting class, but there is one on MIT OpenCourseware). Either way, the book seems both modern and thorough and by no means easy.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 08:26:57 2014 No.6341929

>>6341907
>Linear algebra
possibly Hoffman and Kunze
Linear Algebra Done Wrong seems standard amongst non-algebraist types
http://www.math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/LADW/LADW.html
I think everyone you ask will argue for a different "standard".

What will be best for physicist ?

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 09:25:28 2014 No.6341978
File: 26 KB, 350x500, munkres_topology.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

studying pic related right now. it's slow going because i get stuck on some exercises. i am also studying lee's introduction to topological manifolds and then i'm going to study introduction to smooth manifolds. the end goal is to study general relativity. any suggestions?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 09:42:29 2014 No.6341991 >>6328999 If you don't need babytier handholding, just look up everything you need on the web, if you're such a genius.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 15:25:28 2014 No.6342491

>>6341929
I honestly don't know enough about how Physicists use Linear Algebra to answer that question. It's not as simple as pure vs applied like it is with other topics. Some books cover determinants early on, some cover them at the end, some books focus on computations, some focus on a geometric perspective (linear algebra in R^n), some care a whole lot more about polynomials, some work from an abstract algebraic standpoint as vector spaces over fields (or even R-Modules over Rings), some focus on word problems for practical people, it really varies wildly.
That said, there are books on Linear Algebra aimed specifically at physicists. If you're planning on taking the course at a University later on then you may want to read through whatever book is on their syllabus and afterwards read one aimed at physicists. The field (like many fields of mathematics) is broad enough that some mathematicians spend their entire careers studying linear algebra so different intro books may at times cover different material.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 15:28:28 2014 No.6342498 >>6329102 I prefer John Lee or Jeffrey Lee for smooth manifolds and differential geometry, personally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 15:29:28 2014 No.6342508 >>6329221 > Rubin Fucking pleb

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 15:31:59 2014 No.6342513

>>6341978

After Lee, check out O'Neill's book on Semi-Riemannian Geometry With Applications to Relativity.

GR uses Semi-Riemannian manifolds, which aren't covered much in Lee. O'Neill covers all the math and also introduces GR.

http://www.amazon.com/Semi-Riemannian-Geometry-Applications-Relativity-Mathematics/dp/0125267401

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 04:22:15 2014 No.6343940

Would someone explain to a pleb how do matrices and determinants work in theory? I'm going to a very shitty uni and all we do is calculate 4x4 systems with parameters and honestly it seems like forcing you to do hand multiplication, totally unnecessary as there are programs to do that (and we aren't taught what the fuck is it about anyways).

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 04:40:14 2014 No.6343956

>>6343940
So if you have a matrix A and an equation of the form AX = 0. Then it will have some "solutions" for the matrix X that will make the equation true (even if it just turns out that X = 0). Furthermore, if you do row operations on the matrix A to obtain a matrix B, then we say that A and B are row equivalent. It turns out that the matrix BX = 0 will have the exact same solutions as the matrix AX = 0. So by studying the version of A that is in row reduced echelon form we can work out solutions of A much easier. Determinants are more complex, there's a couple important properties that you can use right away though. If the determinant of a matrix A is 0 then the system AX = 0 will only have the trivial solution where X = 0. Also, if you have two different matrices, A and B, then det(AB) = det(A)det(B). This is called a homomorphism in abstract algebra.

This is what they are at a basic level. However, at a more abstract level your matrices are actually functions and matrix multiplication is actually a transformation from one space to another. I'm not sure if I should elaborate on this more as it really might just confuse you (especially considering that I'm not sure I can explain it very well).

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 04:46:44 2014 No.6343960 >>6328999 If you're genuinely new to real mathematics, Velleman's is a good introductory textbook. Used pretty widely for a number of introductory courses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 04:55:44 2014 No.6343965 >>6343956 Thanks. Could you explain transponation and inverse martices?

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 05:15:14 2014 No.6343968
File: 7 KB, 465x417, elementary matrices.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6343965
So with matrix multiplication there's a special type of matrix called the identity matrix. This matrix has 1's all along the diagonal and 0's everywhere else. Multiplying any matrix A on the left or right with the identity matrix I will always produce A.

AI = A = IA

Furthermore, as it turns out we can do row operations on a matrix by multiplying it with a special type of matrix called an Elementary Matrix. There are three types. One type swaps rows, one type multiplies one row by a number, and the last type adds a multiple of one row to another row.

Refer to picture for examples of some 2x2 elementary matrices.

So the idea of taking one matrix A and obtaining another matrix B through row operations can be done with matrix multiplication via elementary matrices.

(((AE_1)E_2)E_3) = B
For example, the number of elementary matrices required is equal to the number of row operations required. Because matrix multiplication is associative then we can rewrite the above equation like this.
A((E_1)(E_2)(E_3)) = B
If we let
(E_1)(E_2)(E_3) = P
where P is just the matrix produced by multiplying those three (or potentially more, in a more complex case) elementary matrices. Then the relationship between A and B becomes simply.
AP = B

This probably doesn't seem very interesting right now, but remember what I said about the identity matrix? Well some matrices (definitely not all) are row equivalent to the identity matrix. That is to say that there exist some matrices out there that you can turn into the identity matrix via row operations. In that case you end up with something like.
AP = I
In these cases we call P the inverse of A and generally label it A^-1 ("A inverse") to avoid confusion.

The transposition really is just a reflection along the diagonal. The wiki page has a nice animation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpose

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 05:20:44 2014 No.6343970

>>6343968
I want to make a quick note about the determinant.

Recall that if A and B are row equivalent then there exists a matrix P such that
AP = B
Then we can take the determinant of both sides.
det(AP) = det(B)
but because of the property I mentioned in >>6343956 then it follows that
det(A)det(P) = det(B)
It's fairly easy to show that the determinants of the elementary matrices are NOT 1, so we can deduce that any two row equivalent matrices will have different determinants. However, since it's also easy to show that no elementary matrix will have a determinant of 0, then it follows that if the determinant of A will be 0 if and only if the determinant of B is also 0. From this it follows that if you have to row equivalent matrices, either both of them are invertible and their determinants are non-zero or neither is invertible and their determinants are zero.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 05:51:14 2014 No.6343993 >>6343970 One type of elementary matrix will have a determinant of 1. Others will be -1 and k. I forgot. You should compute these on your own though and play with them. It will make the whole idea much more clearer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 06:18:15 2014 No.6344013 Guys, I never studied in school at all but suddenly got interested in physics. Where do I start? I need an easy book, I guess. Don't really care about the topic too much, I want to learn as much as possible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 06:20:14 2014 No.6344016 >>6344013 Download the Feynman lectures on physics, probably the best you can do he makes it really interesting, plus it's more like a textbook as opposed to other physics books that are more like formularies

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 06:20:14 2014 No.6344017 >>6344013 Feynman Lectures. It gives you the intuitive ideas behind everything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 06:22:14 2014 No.6344019 I know this is primarily a CS website, but there are a lot of GREAT math books in here.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 06:24:14 2014 No.6344022 >>6344019 http://freecomputerbooks.com/ Oh God, I'm sorry, I forgot the link.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 06:55:44 2014 No.6344044 >>6344013 >>6344016 >Feynman lectures on physics >an easy book

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 07:01:44 2014 No.6344049 >>6344044 Only people that have never touched them say shit like this.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 07:02:44 2014 No.6344055

>>6344044
the fuck are you talking about

I actually find it a little too easy, the physics book we got from our physics lectures is 5 times as hard, as it explains almost nothing

the fuck do you want, if you find the feynman lectures hard or too hard then physics is nothing for you

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 11:36:14 2014 No.6344508 >>6344044 Sorry son, physics isn't for you.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 16:57:01 2014 No.6345204

I'm currently reading Feynman lectures volume 1 (already a little versed in the subject) and I find it a bit dumbed down

I don't know, I simply can notice than an American has written it, no offense. Only Americans constantly bring those stupid everyday analogies, because they can't think of the abstract. It is so irritating for me.

Another thing that really bothers me a lot is that he constantly uses these useless units, pounds, ounces, feet, I mean what the fuck. How can any self respecting scientist use units that aren't meant to be taken seriously?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 17:36:31 2014 No.6345268 >>6345204 Are you by any chance from Brazil? http://youtu.be/fVdMbQTiX6w?t=59m10s

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 17:42:31 2014 No.6345278 >>6345268 no, why?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 17:53:01 2014 No.6345289 >>6345278 He explains why he "constantly bring those stupid everyday analogies"

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 18:03:01 2014 No.6345302

>>6345289
it's a very American thing though in general

totally unrelated to the book, but when you watch American TV shows and they explain something remotely "scientific" and they give you an analogy that is so stupid and cringeworthy it makes me want to kill myself

almost every analogy I hear Americans talk about is either related to food or eating, related to a brand, related to god, related to a TV show or a movie or something that happened in a TV show or a movie or it simply makes fun of what has been said

I haven't seen anybody mention god (unless the subject was very related) on national TV in years, if ever

still, there's no excuse to use American units, the unit system is pathetic
a fucking pund is defined by being a fraction of a kilogram, I mean what the fuck, if the kilogram didn't exist your fucking pound wouldn't even be defined lol

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 18:06:31 2014 No.6345308

>>6345289
>>6345302
to top it off, then you get this American talk shit about the real unit system in a condescending manner:
"For a long time it has been agreed internationally
that the meter would be defined as the distance between two scratches on a bar
kept in a special laboratory in France."

you guys are the last one to open your mouths about that matter, that's for sure

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 00:42:17 2014 No.6345946 File: 25 KB, 500x500, 41-Ky4pFKvL._SS500_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 01:21:47 2014 No.6346005 >>6345946 Anyone else use this one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 01:35:47 2014 No.6346025 >>6344013 mit walter lewin lectures...i'm telling you guys that's where it's at. google that shit. I watch them for fun to relax, they're that good and entertaining, and you learn tons from them too.

Anonymous Mon Feb 10 02:35:47 2014 No.6346090

For classical mechanics I would recommend starting with "A Treatise on Analytical Statics" volumes 1 and 2, followed by "A Treatise on the Dynamics of Particles", followed by "A Treatise on the Dynamics of a System of Rigid Bodies" volumes 1 and 2, followed by "A Treatise on the Stability of a Given State of Motion" all by Edward John Routh.

They are all excellent and very comprehensive, None of them are elementary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 03:10:17 2014 No.6346118 >>6345268 That story is crazy. >>6345302 >>6345308 Why would you watch American TV? Not even math/science students living in America watch American TV. It's geared at the lowest common denominator.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 03:59:47 2014 No.6346151 >>6329166 >Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics Just got a copy of this and it was so much better than the assigned text I felt like crying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 04:06:17 2014 No.6346158 >>6340687 >Some mathematicians have a particularly bad habit of writing as tersely as possible for the sake of "elegance". You think?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 04:08:17 2014 No.6346162 >>6341010 Are there any stats texts that are good on non-normal distributions eg Levy distributions, also Bayesian inference (inb4 Daphne Koller Probabilistic Graphical Models).

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 04:12:47 2014 No.6346166 >>6344049 And no exercises.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math