[ 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

File: 44 KB, 389x499, 513Llr2MbpL._SX387_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

/tbg/ - Textbooks general. Anonymous Sat Oct 10 12:02:28 2015 No.7581245 [Reply] [Original]

>General recommendations:
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki

>--

Is pic related any good for someone that already has an extensive background statistical mechanics? I've found that in general these books tend to have an annoying habit of dedicating the majority of the text towards superficial review instead of the applications I'm actually interested in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 17:41:24 2015 No.7581882 Bump

Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:50:02 2015 No.7582150

Why would there be any application beyond proving our macroscopic laws follow directly from the group behavior of many particles? Don't get me wrong its a beautiful theory but it doesn't seem very useful talking about a mole of molecules in terms of their individual movements over taking the group behaviour as a whole unless your modeling very small systems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 20:52:12 2015 No.7582156 >>7582150 >unless your modeling very small systems. Bingo

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 10 21:03:08 2015 No.7582172 Can you tell us more about this book OP? What are the contents?

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 04:07:44 2015 No.7582727

>>7582150
>Finding parameters to unknown reaction kinetics.
>Finding VLE parameters for an EOS to unknown systems.
>Finding catalysts and enzymes.
>Developing new EOS when needed.
.

Don't get me wrong, using more fundamental theory is certainly not the norm, but there are many cases where the macroscopic experiments aren't viable.

>>7582172
I think it's on google books if you want to skim through it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 04:47:25 2015 No.7582771 How suitable is the book in the OP for learning in depth about receptor-ligand interactions for drug design?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 07:25:46 2015 No.7582936 >>7582771 OP here. That's what I'd like to know to be honest. There are so many sources in this field and this text is recommended a lot, but I don't know if there are any better ones.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 11:24:24 2015 No.7583206 >>7581245 My prof. is shit and his accent is completely unintelligible. Does anyone know a good text on group theory that I can use for independent study?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 12:15:15 2015 No.7583280 >>7581245 What's your major OP?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 11 12:24:15 2015 No.7583289 >>7583280 I'm a ChemE postgrad, my stat. mech. background is from self-study of Pathria's amazing textbook and from my chem. mol. thermo from my undergrad.

Anonymous Sun Oct 11 21:43:23 2015 No.7584078

I can't seem to find any 3rd or 4th edition copies of Housecroft's inorganic chemistry text, or any copies of Lee's concise inorganic that don't inexplicably cut off around page 300. Is Housecroft 2nd edition nearly the same as the more recent ones? I have up to date books on computational chemistry, which i suspect to be the most changed aspect.

Going to specialize in organic, so less current inorganic literature is alright unless there were some relatively major, broadly relevant developments since 2001.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 12:30:36 2015 No.7585092 Bump.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 14:32:22 2015 No.7585248 File: 39 KB, 421x637, Nakahar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Thoughts? Can anyone recommend a similar text over this to me?

>>	H Mon Oct 12 14:52:00 2015 No.7585280 >>7585248 It's a good book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 14:53:12 2015 No.7585282 >>7585248 >Thoughts? Wew lad. >Can anyone recommend a similar text over this to me? Maybe "A course in modern mathematical physics" by Szekeres.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 15:02:00 2015 No.7585298 >>7585280 Thank you. >>7585282 Is "wew lad" meant to have negative connotations? I'll check out that text too thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 15:04:27 2015 No.7585300 >>7585298 >Is "wew lad" meant to have negative connotations? I honestly have no idea, what I'm trying to say a tour de force, at least imo. I don't know if it's what you're looking for.

Anonymous Mon Oct 12 15:25:55 2015 No.7585336

>>7585280
>>7585282
>>7585300
Sorry to hog the thread.

After reading the preface and reviews I think this text is too advanced for me. I've never formally studied group theory and topos I'm not really confident as I took a lot of shortcuts in undergrad.

Does anyone happen to have good recommendations for introductory texts to these topics (or maybe just a simpler text aimed at applications rather than pure mathematics students).

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 16:01:46 2015 No.7585380 >>7585336 >There is no royal road to geometry/mathematics ~ Euclid Learn Algebra (Artin or Herstein) and Topology (Munkres and Hatcher) right first then worry about applying it second.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 16:07:00 2015 No.7585387 >>7585380 >Munkres and Hatcher Wait do you mean both of those or pick one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 16:08:37 2015 No.7585392 >>7585387 >>7585380 Also what about Conover? I can get a hard copy of it for free. Or is Mukres and Hatcher significantly better?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 16:24:56 2015 No.7585409 I'm confused. I read through the toc in Artin and it covers topics that is apparently more advanced than Nakahara according to some review I read earlier. Math is too big, I'm scared ;_;

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 12 17:27:27 2015 No.7585496 >>7585409 Do you understand proofs?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 02:33:47 2015 No.7586358 >>7585496 No, I'm not a mathematician, I pretty sure I've never done a real proof in my life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 02:42:15 2015 No.7586375 >>7586358 Then learn how to do proofs first, you're not going to get anywhere without them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 10:32:19 2015 No.7586736 >>7586375 Why do mathematicians always try to turn everyone into themselves?

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 13:32:31 2015 No.7586969

>>7586736
They're actual math zombies. Nope seriously. I work in fluid dynamics and upon hearing "how do you even know Navier-Stokes has solutions?!" I love to troll them with "cuz it's apparently a good model for nature". They just can't stand empirical/experimental arguments. It's just not how their brains were wired to think during their studies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 13:35:37 2015 No.7586976 File: 35 KB, 229x343, 1443404048363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7586969 >how do you even know Navier-Stokes has solutions?! hoky fuck

Anonymous Tue Oct 13 13:38:53 2015 No.7586980

>>7586736
Anon wanted to by a book heavy in pure mathematics, after some confusion it transpires that anon doesn't understand proofs, at which point another anon told him to learn proofs first. Some would argue that understanding how to read and build proofs would be a prudent move before buying a book heavily involving reading and writing proofs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 13 13:41:05 2015 No.7586986 >>7586736 Physics from the beginning was already mathematics. If you think it's about tipping fedoras all day long then you're in the wrong place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 02:10:19 2015 No.7588112 >>7586969 How don't you know a different numerical method wouldn't converge to a different "solution"?

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 12:43:42 2015 No.7588852

>>7588112
You do realize that there are analytical solutions to most IVPs for the Navier-Stokes right? I think that's his point, mathematicians no so little about applied math they think it's all numerical simulations. They aren't to think about or look at applications.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 16:20:16 2015 No.7589353 Are there any good books on astrophysics and astronomy without any hard math for a pleb to understand? I mean, I did high school and uni math with no problem, but astrophysics is another level of crazy and I'd like to spare myself the trouble.

Anonymous Wed Oct 14 16:26:25 2015 No.7589363

>>7586969
existance of solution of NS considers all possible instances of that problem. Just because you used these equations with some initial conditions, boundary conditions, and specific parameter values doesn't mean that the general equations always has solutions that don't blow up in finite time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 14 17:21:23 2015 No.7589470 >>7589353 >without any hard math What do you consider hard math, Riemann Geometry? PDEs? Calculus? Algebra?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 04:38:14 2015 No.7590717 >>7589470 >Riemann Geometry have no experience with Riemann Geometry, but PDE, Calculus and algebra is totally ok.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 06:52:36 2015 No.7590838 >>7589353 Astrophysics no, Astronomy yes, I don't have any good recs, but astronomy isn't math heavy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 06:58:41 2015 No.7590840 Yes

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 15:48:16 2015 No.7591814 File: 43 KB, 400x500, Book.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7581245 Does anyone know where to get a pdf for: Student Solutio>>7582156 ns Manual for Stewart's Single Variable Calculus: Early Transcendentals, 8th ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 15:51:15 2015 No.7591823 File: 43 KB, 400x500, Book.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7581245 Does anyone know where to get a pdf for: Student Solutions Manual for Stewart's Single Variable Calculus: Early Transcendentals, 8th ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 15:53:52 2015 No.7591830 >>7591814 You're joking right? You don't need a solutions manual for baby calc and this thread is not a fucking >>>/r/equest thread. Delete this post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 15:54:54 2015 No.7591835 >>7591814 Good, now delete this one >>7591823 too.

Anonymous Thu Oct 15 15:56:40 2015 No.7591840

>>7591830
>>7591835
I deleted it before your post because I fucked it up.

How about you fuck yourself if you're not going to be helpful.

I just want the manual for the sake of checking whether I have missed anything, since I'm not a massive faggot who assumes he knows everything.

Go kill yourself

Why even come on /sci/ being a little bitch, did you have a tough day in the real world with your shitty attitude which repulses other people?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 15 16:02:28 2015 No.7591853 >>7591840 This is not a request form because you're too fucking stupid to know how to find pdfs. /sci/ is for discussing science, not a pirate bay comment window.

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 ]