[ 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: 16 KB, 362x436, 31ESrmEz0-L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6819956 No.6819956 [Reply] [Original]

Let's have a masterrace book thread. Name a better book(on the same field of study of course) than Spivak's. Terence Tao's analysis books are pretty solid too, even though they're not so famous.

>> No.6819972

why does /sci/ love to jack off to spivak? i get it it's a great book but it's babby tier
there are like 10 spivak threads for every rudin thread, and let's not get started on other authors like munkres or jaynes

>> No.6819974

Calculus, A Complete Course by Adams and Essex. It has everything that book has plus more, for example differential equations and calculus up to 3 dimension.

>> No.6819977

A P O S T O L

>> No.6819994

>>6819972
Munkres's topology book is in god-tier. Spivak is not about quantity.
>>6819977
Spivak is for smart students. Apostol is for student's that lack intelligence but have patience and determination.

>> No.6819999
File: 17 KB, 317x475, rudinbook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6819999

How can you call yourself a mathematician if you don't even own this.

>> No.6820009

>>6819999
doesn't have pictures

>> No.6820109
File: 134 KB, 571x707, book_cover.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6820109

Why not this? All of the information in one place.

>> No.6820117

>>6819956
Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus Thompson
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33283/33283-pdf.pdf?session_id=f9bc2d183d067798e814528d59d75103b86044f5

shit was published in 1914 and hasn't been topped since

>> No.6820130
File: 17 KB, 249x400, Folland.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6820130

>>6819999
Baby Rudin sucks.

This is The analysis textbook.

>> No.6820145

>>6820109
Artin is better

>> No.6820178

what do you guys think about books on calculus on several variables? there are many that seem to be good, like spivak's, hubbard's, munkres'...

>> No.6820183
File: 48 KB, 573x609, 1412553208827.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6820183

>>6819999
haha liking this pos

>> No.6820191

>>6819999
nice quads man

i own it. i'm majoring on mathematics. it's too much for me. i'm not too smart. sorry

also, why don't people ever recommend this book for learning calculus on euclidean spaces?

>> No.6820211

>>6820117
it uses infinitesimals

>> No.6820222
File: 14 KB, 259x346, 41SB5wny0eL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6820222

Any book recommendations for physical chemistry? Everyone I've talked to so far has agreed that the book they use in class doesn't help them at all

>> No.6820235

>>6819999
Book's section on Dedekind cuts and Topology can be had elsewhere. Ok for other things I guess. The book as a whole could be way more readable ( type-set wise ) in my opinion.

>> No.6820247

What's a good book for Topology?
What's a good book for Relativity?

>> No.6820259

>>6820247
A good introductory book on topology is Munkres. Choquet is good too.
A good book on topology is Dugundji.

>> No.6820283
File: 11 KB, 197x255, squat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6820283

After the Bible, this is everything you need to become topgun like me.

>> No.6820304

>>6820283
This is such an overrated book. It's full of "bad programming practices" like declaring global variables and using arrays of fixed size instead of re-sizable containers. And why no dynamic memory? It's a nostalgia trip, and that's it.

>> No.6820345

>>6820191
because they're shit

>> No.6820347

>>6820304
Are you a girl?

>> No.6820354

>>6820145
Not the same guy, but no, not really. Dummit&Foote is much more complete, and I tried both.
The thing that is good in artin though is his examples, his concreteness (linear spaces especially) and his early treatment of Representation/Character theory, which Dummit leaves to the last chapter.

>> No.6821209

>>6819999
This is a shit book. You literally pay $150 for a book filled with copypasted proofs and theorems which any retard could write. The only thing good about it is the exercises, which you can find on the internet for free. Yes, I know a lot of upper division mathematics books are like this, which is why you don't pay for them.

>>6820247
If you're looking for just an introduction to both subjects then Munkres is good for topology. For relativity you can get Sean Caroll's book on general relativity (you can learn special relativity in about a week or so, there isn't much to it, Caroll's book has a chapter or two on special relativity).

>> No.6821222
File: 11 KB, 255x300, Free-Download-Calculus-By-James-Stewart-7th-Edition-PDF-Ebook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6821222

>> No.6821227
File: 34 KB, 300x482, 0470232889.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6821227

What we use in class

written by the professor

>> No.6821241 [DELETED] 
File: 25 KB, 639x493, 435345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6821241

>>6820109
>David Dum
>Dick Foot

nah man

>> No.6821251

>>6821222
Hahahaha hope it's bait

>> No.6821253

>>6821251
nope. some people actually like a challenging textbook with challenging problems to learn the operations of calculus.

>> No.6821257
File: 175 KB, 472x633, townsend3_cov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6821257

makes quantum almios too easy

>> No.6821277

>>6821227
I used this last semester. It's a piece of shit.

>> No.6821329

>>6821251
Why do you people hate Stewy?(just curious)

>> No.6821333

>>6821257
Does it have any more of such visualisations in the book? I am a right brain oriented kinda guy(figuratively speaking)

>> No.6821339

>>6821253
Baito-desu?
>>6821329
Two reasons; Even though it's supposed to be a mathematician's book, it tends to the engineering side a lot more, doesn't want you to be a mathematician but a calculator(yes, a fucking calculator), gives literally no space for your own intuition to find something out, the exercises are lame for a mathematician.

The above are ONE reason because it falls under the category of the quality of the book. The second reason is that Stewart became a businessman. Each new edition has literally LESS meaningful material than the last one, and he publishes a new edition WAY too often. It became obvious to the academia that he's more interested in making money than sharing the mathematical spirit to students, and many professors have already criticized badly his stance.

>> No.6821342

>>6821333
Not really. It's mostly blocks of text, lines of algebra and the occasional R3 plot

>> No.6821354

>>6821339
But you guys are recommending his pre-calculus book on the 4chan wikia. Is it any good? Basically Im looking for a good book about everything pre-calculus. Really want to freshen up on the basics, cause ive been out of practice for a few years

>> No.6821362
File: 15 KB, 300x300, 41aAG1bjJOL._SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6821362

Not going to lie, this book is the greatest gift my father has ever given to me.

>> No.6821378

>>6819956
Apostol is a similar book, but way more complete. I guess the what constitutes a "better book" really depends on what you're looking for in the book.

>> No.6821477
File: 73 KB, 500x281, youGottaBeSquiddingMe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6821477

>>6820283
>not SICP
K&R is good as a manual for C, I guess. Hardly transcendent though.

>> No.6821512

>>6821362
who dat

>> No.6821806

>>6819972
>why does /sci/ love to jack off to spivak?
Looks like Spivak Calculus is to /sci/ what SICP is to /g/ (or similar).

>> No.6821931

>>6821222

Wait, what's wrong with Stewart?

>> No.6821962

>>6821277
w-wait what

>> No.6821963

>>6821962
It's a terrible book. We used it for real analysis (not sure if you're a undergraduate or graduate taking real or linear analysis). The book just did not help.

I really like "Mathematical Analysis" by Apostol.

>> No.6821966

>>6821963
yeah, an undergrad for intro to real analysis, lol

aw man that sucks to hear lol (we're...not far in it. it's been half a semester and we're just on chapter 2)

>> No.6821968

>>6821966
We also had a terrible teacher. A graduate student who pretty much copied the book onto the board, so maybe you have a good professor (hopefully since the guy wrote the book, he can teach from it well).

The book I mentioned is good. I've also heard that "Elementary Real Analysis" by Thomson and Bruckner is good as well. I think the authors even have it for free on Thomson's website (also cheap).

Good luck, analysis is tough in general.

>> No.6821976

Foundations of analysis. Landau.

Rudin might be a great book, but it is a shitty textbook.
Spivak is a nice textbook.

also, the mathematics content & meaning russian textbooks in 3 volume.

>> No.6821991

Recommend me the best book you know on combinatorics.

>> No.6822082

>>6819956
>tfw getting BTFO by spivak when he starts with limits
kill me

>> No.6822099

>>6819956
Is it possible for a layman to read and fully grasp Spivak's book (as an introduction to calculus) or do you have to read "easier" books on calculus and intro to proof books?

>> No.6822120

>>6821339
Stewart was a professor at McMaster University, where I go. Another prof named Maung Min Oo used to go to his office and hassle him about his shitty textbook all the time.

>> No.6822132

There are some nice analysis books from germany, e.g. the ones by Amann/Escher and those by Königsberger. Don't know if they have all been translated to English though.

For special relativity I just discovered the book "Special relativity in general frames" by Gourgoulhon and it seems to be breddy amazing. And yeah, there is more to SR than you can learn in two weeks >>6821209

>> No.6822306

>>6821991
The best I know is Combinatorics: The Rota Way. But the content is probably not what you're looking for.

>>6822099
It's good to spend some time to get an intuition for the subject before going through all the proofs and formalism... But you don't "have" to, Spivak start's from the beginning.

>> No.6822488

>>6822306
This is my first "proof based" textbook I have ever read and I do not understand it. How would you recommend getting an intuition for the subject? Of course the answer is to practice, but any specific books, or something else?

>> No.6822695

>>6821257
tfw you get to take classes taught by him

>> No.6823089

>>6821477
Is this the rudin/spivak of the CS world
?

>> No.6823130

>>6823089
yeh

>> No.6823132

>>6823089
SICP is intended for intelligent freshman, so it's more like a Spivak.

>> No.6823181

>>6823132
Then what would classify as the CS rudin?

>> No.6824132
File: 121 KB, 401x630, Fichtenholz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6824132

>Calculus textbook
>not written by russian jew

>> No.6824187

This may seem like a silly question... What are some recommended readings for someone starting university after leaving school early? I have some fairly substantial gaps in my knowledge. I was considering getting Euclid's elements to read while continuing to brush up on khan.

>> No.6824413

>>6821209
The softcover is $30. Protip. I still think it is a massively overrated book. The chapter on topology and the section on Dedekind cuts are just unreadable.

>> No.6824442

>>6819999
What's an alternative to baby Rudin to use in a course that's using baby Rudin?

>> No.6824444

>>6824442
Pugh

>> No.6824492

>>6822120
This makes me happy, I've heard he's a prick and that book is shit

>> No.6824532

>>6819956
Spivak is an okay Calculus book, but I wouldn't use it for an analysis course.

>> No.6824539

Landau's Foundations of Analysis is a good book supplementary book. Very fun and very thorough. My only complaint is that for all of its rigor it kind of handwaves the underlying system of logic.

>> No.6824545

>>6820222
McQuarrie. Pretty much all of his texts are damn good.

>> No.6824627

>>6821354
Check out basic mathematics by Lang. Also I've used Cohen's precalc book an it is decent.

>> No.6824666

>>6821339
He has multiple myeloma and will be dead very soon.

>> No.6824688
File: 181 KB, 1200x900, artofelectronics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6824688

I love this one

>> No.6824703

>>6824688
good taste, sir!

>> No.6824733

>>6824703
I just realized I didn't post the actual book but the supplementary manual thing.

But seriously this book got me through so much tinkering and circuit building when I was in high school. My dad gave it to me (he had it from college) when I tried to get him to help me fix an old oscilloscope and I swear by it. The books I had to buy were nowhere near as comprehensive and easy to understand.

>> No.6825331

>>6819956
maybe a very stupid question, but to learn calculus, does one really need a textbook? Or can it be learned using khan academy (or something similar)?

>> No.6825410

>>6824627
Sweet, thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for

>> No.6825574

>>6825331
I think that for basic calculus you can use khan academy. But make sure to not get stuck on calculus too long, regardless of what you want to use it for. Calculus is something you will get to practice simultaneously as you do higher mathematics.

>> No.6826457
File: 15 KB, 217x346, AbAlF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6826457

Any opinions on this? I've been enjoying it for my abstract algebra course, wanna know what other people thought about it.

>> No.6826508

>>6823181
The Art of Computer Programming or An Introduction to the Theory of Computation

>> No.6826587

Allen Hatcher's Algebraic Topology is pure goodness

>> No.6827059

>tfw Stephen Wolfram intended his "A New Kind of Science" to appear at the very top of all "masterrace book" lists but it actually hardly appears in any such list at all

>> No.6827071

>>6827059
How do I smarandache?

>> No.6827084

>>6822120
KEK, I hope its true

>> No.6827382

Purple dragon compilers book. I forget the title but it's 2nd edition and one of the writers' name is monica

>> No.6827417
File: 58 KB, 454x648, roloff-matek-maschinenelemente-mit-cd-rom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6827417

>> No.6827447

>>6819974
Wow, 3 dimensions? So it got triple integrals? Hardcore stuff, breh

>> No.6827458

>>6827447
I know right. I will have PhD from them some day.

>> No.6827470

>>6827458
What's a good book to inttroduce me to calc-based physics

>> No.6827473

>>6827470
randall knight, physics for scientists and engineers. straight up sesame street explanations.

>> No.6827506
File: 17 KB, 241x230, 149.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6827506

>>6822695
HMC guy? Same here :3
Enjoying the fall break?

>> No.6827566

>>6827059
I wonder if his work would be more popular if it weren't for his well known gigantic ego.

>> No.6827570

>>6826508
That book is insanely huge, insanely comprehensive, and will not be finished in the authors lifetime. I don't know of any math book that matches that and I'm a pure math student(for what that's worth).

>> No.6827601

>>6820304
Let me guess? 28 year old transgender bi-sexual otherkin Django/Python developer who commutes between Portland and San Francisco?

You know I'm right.

>> No.6827739

What does sci think of

Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming

>> No.6827747

Anyone got some nice advanced chemistry (any field) or catalysis books ?

>> No.6828526

Halliday, Resnick, and Krane (not the Walker abomination).

>> No.6829592

Mein Kampf > Calculus > Bible

>> No.6829810
File: 14 KB, 128x202, books.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6829810

<--- Theroetical Aeordynamics by Milne-Thompson

>> No.6829938

>books
>2014
Why not watch some vids of a mathematician on youtube?

>> No.6829944

What's a good book for basic calculus? They're using "Calculus" by Deborah Hughes-Hallett and it's probably the worst thing I've ever seen

>> No.6829976

>>6829938
post a link to a non-shit quality channel with lectures that aren't 5 hours long

>> No.6829987

>>6829976
inb4 Khan Academy

>> No.6830227

kljhjgfvh

>> No.6830259

>>6829976
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNsqZ_ZzO1Q

this guy is god tier when it comes to teaching in video format

>> No.6830277

>>6829976
Harvard's Abstract Algebra is pretty good. I wish Harvy Mudd's Analysis vids were better because they seem pretty solid.

>> No.6830281

>>6830277
http://youtu.be/EPQgeAz264g?list=PLA58AC5CABC1321A3 relevant