/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8446562]

So is this the official approved /sci/ reading list?

[Anonymous No.8446569]

>a bunch of low-tier/entry-level books for 1st year classes
uh, no

[Anonymous No.8446572]

>>8446569
Its required reading otherwise youre not even close to 1st year

[Anonymous No.8446574]

No. The Bible is all you need.

If you disagree with me you're a fedora nerd.

[Anonymous No.8446595]

>>8446572
ive never read any of them and im in grad school

trash the whole list and start again

[Anonymous No.8446605]

>>8446562
If you read and work through all those books, you've wasted your valuable time.

[Anonymous No.8446627]

>>8446605

>provides no argument

I see...

[Anonymous No.8446649]

@8446595

>ive never read an...

Stopped reading there. I don't even consider brainlets like you humans anymore. Heres your ''(you)''

[Anonymous No.8446676]

>>8446574
Lol, amen brother. You deserve an upvote.

[Anonymous No.8446677]

>>8446574
>t. shlomo goldberg

[Anonymous No.8446782]

>>8446562
for underage b&s to read before posting here.

[Anonymous No.8446786]

>>8446595
>trash the whole list and start again

[Anonymous No.8446791]

>>8446782

>still not providing any argument as to why the list is bad

Opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.8446800]

Can we stop with the textbook threads? Use the recommended text, do the problems, ask questions to the TA. That's all you need to do.

[Anonymous No.8446804]

>>8446800

There are many ''recommended texts'' on many different topics on OPs list, whats wrong with it? Did you even bother to look at it?

[Anonymous No.8446899]

>>8446791
I'm not saying the list is bad, just that it's the basic prerequisite material everyone on /sci/ should already know.

[Anonymous No.8447011]

>>8446804
> Lang
shit. use Gelfand
> Keisler
For retards. Use Spivak if you're slightly competent. Pugh or Tao if you're more so.
I guess if you're a retard, Keisler is fine.
> Young
Gen phys books are always shit.
Use Hartog for basic mechanics.
Move on to any of the freshman classical mechanics books.
> Stroustrup
C++ a shit.
book looks fine though
> Oxtoby
> Carroll
No comment
> Horowitz
> Cambell
Good books
> The Bible (any version)
Shit book. Start with the Greeks
> Meyer
Looks like engineering shit. Engineering shit without decent applications.
> Simmons
I prefer Zill
> Bereken
no comment
> 3 books on basics of proofs
shit
>>8446791
check the archives

[Anonymous No.8447082]

>>8446677
>implying Jews don't hate Xians and wouldn't do everything to rid the world of them

[Miniature Spacecraft No.8447092]

>>8446562


Campbell Biology is shit.

[Anonymous No.8447096]

>>8447011

>Zill

Are you talking about pic related?

I have it, never really bothered to try it tho, is it good?

[Anonymous No.8447098]

>>8446649
>doesn't even provide a (you)
You magnificent son of a bitch

[Anonymous No.8447106]

>>8446562
is that c++ book the best

[Anonymous No.8447107]

>>8447106

Its good from what little I read, it's praised by most on the programming generals over /g/

[Anonymous No.8447118]

>>8447096
It's short, and if you're just doing applications of differential equations, you shouldn't need too long a book.
Most differential equations you'll end up solving will be linear anyway.

[Anonymous No.8447124]

>>8446786
This nigga knows

>>8446562
>Any /sci/ reading list
>No Landau

lol

[Anonymous No.8447200]

>>8447124

Tell me about this Landau guy

are his books good?

[Anonymous No.8447204]

>>8446562
>Needing two entire books on proofs
The fuck kind of brainlet shit is this?

[Anonymous No.8447205]

>>8447200
They're considered the best in physics, but they're graduate level books.

Personally I prefer more mathematical books like Arnold, Marsden, Chorin...

[Anonymous No.8447207]

>>8446562
>yet another "freshman wastes hours compiling a list of books he's never going to read" thread

[Anonymous No.8447208]

>>8447207

>projection

[Anonymous No.8447210]

>>8447205

So what if I am a complete retard and would like to learn physics from the ground up? Do you recommend those you just listed?

[Anonymous No.8447211]

>>8446562
>Lacking Organic/Biochemistry/polymers/ Recombinant Protein production/Biotech
Shit list 2bh

[Anonymous No.8447212]

>>8447208
>implying it's any less true even if I am

[Anonymous No.8447214]

>>8446786
First time I hear about that biological physics book. Is it any good?

[Anonymous No.8447217]

>>8447214
Unless you've been versed in Biochemical functions in and out its a load of jargon

[Anonymous No.8447218]

>>8447210
If you're a literal retard, I'd recommend watching pop-sci shows like Carl Sagan's Cosmos.
But if you're merely a /sci/tard, maybe something like Hartog's mechanics book.

[Anonymous No.8447225]

>>8446562
>C++ book
>not The C Programming Language

[Anonymous No.8447234]

>>8446562
Bjarne Stroustrup is a shitty author. Despite being the creator of C++ originally, there are far better texts on C++ than the ones he has written.

>Bible
troll harder

[Anonymous No.8447254]

>>8447234

>t. person who has never tried his magnus opus the c++ prog language

[Anonymous No.8447263]

so is anyone gonna post the definitive list or what

[Anonymous No.8447273]

>>8447225
>>>/g/tfo

[Anonymous No.8447290]

[Anonymous No.8447292]

>>8447263
>>8447290

whoops. posted it here.

[Anonymous No.8447295]

>>8447263
Rudin - Mathematical Analysis
Artin - Algebra
Munkres - Topology
Morin - Classical Mechanics
Chorin - Fluid Mechanics
Marsden - Elasticity
Shankaar - Quantum Mechanics
Tong - Statistical Physics

[Anonymous No.8447304]

>>8447290

Wait I sure hope you are not implying theres something wrong with those texts right?

Demon haunted world was goat.

[Anonymous No.8447310]

>>8446786
>Landau's series next to a shit chem 101 book I've never heard of
The laziness makes me madder than anything else
weak af bait/10

[Anonymous No.8447321]

>>8447310
>Oxtoby
>shit
(You)

[Anonymous No.8447394]

>>8447254
I've read it. It's bad. Especially so if you like to stay up to date with modern languages and practices like a decent human being.

[Anonymous No.8447398]

>>8447295
the ridiculously fast paced and almost unreadable rudin along with the silly, slow munkres? yeah, no. change it to Tao-Munkres.

[Anonymous No.8447404]

>>8447398
>unreadable rudin

t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.8447411]

>>8447011
Gelfand is absolute garbage, all 3 of his books

Spivak is terrible for learning calculus. Rigor doesn't make a good book, retard. If you want something that's a good calc book AND more rigorous than Spivak, do Courant.

Campbell is horseshit jesus christ dude what the fuck


>Zill
I'm done

Kill yourself, you dumb freshie

[Anonymous No.8447418]

>>8447404
t. Freshman that fell for the meme

[Anonymous No.8447422]

>>8447411

>no arguments

Ok...

[Anonymous No.8447424]

>>8447411
> Rigor doesn't make a good book, retard.
> more rigorous than Spivak
didn't say it was rigorous, retard.
Courant is absolute shit, worse that Spivak and Apostol both.
Can't believe you can stand that.

[Anonymous No.8447425]

>>8447418
More like someone who's actually been through analysis?
Rudin's a great book if you know what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.8447431]

>>8447424
>Courant is absolute shit
Nice meme, faggot. Was it too hard for you? Is proper pedagogy not quite your taste?

And of course I'll bring up the rigor meme. The only reason why people praise that god awful book is because of impressionable brainlets like you that get led astray by /sci/ and physicsforums.com into thinking that it's the be-all end-all of introductory calculus/analysis, when it can't even handle one correctly. The only thing Spivak is good for, is for identifying the memers like you.

And Apostol is good, too.

[Anonymous No.8447434]

>>8447424
what's so bad about courant

[Anonymous No.8447446]

>>8446562
>>8446786
>>8447295

>make a long list of books
>post it on /sci/
>feel smart
>never read the books

[Anonymous No.8447463]

>>8447418
Not him, but I actually did fall for the Rudin meme as a freshman.
Went to the campus bookstore and got a copy of Rosenlicht for ten bucks, read them together, and stopped having problems.

[Anonymous No.8447473]

>>8447290

Those books are trash

[Anonymous No.8447506]

>>8447321
Don't be a cunt for red oxtober, mate.

[Anonymous No.8447513]

>>8446562
babby's first books

[Anonymous No.8447547]

>>8446786
>>8446562
Fixed

[Anonymous No.8447549]

>>8447547
Cooking some meth?

[Anonymous No.8447550]

>>8447547
>Marxist
>Druggie

Why aren't I surprised

[Anonymous No.8447553]

When are you faggots going to post the REAL reading list?

[Anonymous No.8447554]

>>8447550
>>Druggie
Huh?

[Anonymous No.8447561]

>>8447547
>chemistry

ew

[Anonymous No.8447569]

>>8446562
>bible

fucken what?

[Anonymous No.8447581]

>>8447569
It's an academic study bible.

[Anonymous No.8447654]

Bumping for this.
I'm gonna ask - Is there any good reading list for getting better fundamental knowledge on diverse subjects on which whole of sci can get a general consensus?

[Anonymous No.8447667]

>>8447654
Bumping for this too.

Brainlet here and I'd like to get into physics and mathematics, but I only have the will to learn and elementary knowledge of the two.

[Anonymous No.8447696]

>>8447667
Get young and freedman for physics for diverse knowledge

Pinter's algebra is made for brainlets and really easy to understand

If you want more specialised physics, both the electrodynamics and quantum mechanics book by Griffith's is also for brainlets

Calculus by spivak is also intro real analysis for brainlets

[Anonymous No.8447780]

>>8447092
I'm reading through it right now. What's wrong with it?

[Anonymous No.8448143]

>>8447696
Thanks, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.8448184]

>>8447696
>Pinter's algebra

No. If you abstract algebra for children then get one of these
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics#Group_Theory_Teaser

[Anonymous No.8448186]

>>8447696
>Pinter's algebra

No. If you want abstract algebra for children then get one of these
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics#Group_Theory_Teaser

>>8447654
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/

[Anonymous No.8448205]

>>8448186
Thanks, anon. It's a huge list and will take a lot of time but it's worth the effort, I presume. I'm in highschool right now.

[Anonymous No.8448312]

>>8447011
Holy shit you're a fucking retard. I've never witnessed a bigger dumbass than you.

[Anonymous No.8448332]

>>8447290

This is the best desu. It provides a well-rounded collection of accessible writing.

by the way, if you're looking for /sci/ence fiction you can not do better than Hitchhikers Guide. You'll have a towel on hand forever after.

P.S. 42

[Anonymous No.8448488]

>>8448332
Don't listen to this guy

>>8447667
>>8447654
Smith's Introductory Mathematics: Algebra and Analysis is a nice gentle intro to rigorous proof-based math with an unusually broad scope for its level.

[Anonymous No.8448571]

>>8446562
Here's the official /sci/ list, in the only subject that matters.
>Basic Mathematics by Lang
>Calculus: A Physical Approach by Kline
>Calculus by Spivak
>Literally any intro linear algebra textbook that focuses on computation
>Literally any intro differential equations textbook that focuses on computation
>How To Prove It by Velleman
Are you ready? Here comes the first drop off.
>Linear Algebra by Hoffman and Kunze
>Literally any intro complex analysis text with a focus on computation
>Literally any discrete mathematics text with a focus on computation
Here's the second drop off!
>Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Rudin
>Topology by Munkres
>Complex Analysis by Stein and Shakarchi
>Linear Dynamics and Chaos by Strogatz
>Literally any text on ODEs with a focus on computation
>Literally any text on mathematical modeling
>Introduction to Enumerative and Analytic Combinatoris by Bona
>Real Analysis by Stein and Shakarchi
>Lectures in Algebra by Elman (or Algebra by Artin if you want something easier)
>Numerical Methods by Burden and Faires
>Differential Geometry by Petersen
>Notes on Set Theory by Moschovakis
>Absolute C++ by Savitch
>Algorithm Design by Kleinberg
>The C++ Programming Language by Stroustrup
>Machine Learning and Pattern Recognition by Bishop

There's nothing explicity here on probability, but you'll know your way around if you finish this stuff.

[Anonymous No.8448574]

>>8448571
>Bona instead of Stanley
>Moschovakis instead of Jech
>Elman/Artin instead of a book for each algebraic theory
this list might get you to the end of your first year but then what?

[Anonymous No.8448576]

>>8448574
For at least two of your greentext statements, I know that you don't know what you're talking about.
After these textbooks, you can apply for graduate school.

[Anonymous No.8448580]

>>8448576
maybe a very low-tier graduate school, but certainly nowhere respectable

>not even the most elementary number theory
>nothing past basic topology
>no homological algebra
>not a single synthetic subject listed (i.e. algebraic geometry)

[Anonymous No.8448582]

>>8446786
God damn. Some of these books in the list are extremely good but the collection is not perfect.

[Anonymous No.8448587]

>>8448580
Whatever you say, kid :^)
Algebraic Geometry, Homo Algebra, anything beyond that Basic Topology, even a single text in Number Theory specifically - those things are entirely unnecessary to get into a good grad school. If you're trying for something specific, then perhaps your application would benefit from having those additional texts. Of course, an application would include things other than textbooks, too.

[Anonymous No.8448750]

Marxists, Socialists, Jews and antitheists need to stop polluting this mongolian science preservation board.

[Anonymous No.8448770]

>>8446782
Thanks for being useless. Enjoy what's left of your career

[Anonymous No.8448821]

>>8448770
???

[Anonymous No.8448827]

>>8448571
>>Literally any discrete mathematics text with a focus on computation

EPIC FAIL

[Anonymous No.8448892]

>list of books i will never read but pls tell me how smart and motivated i am because of what i listed
Oxtoby - Principles of Modern Chemistry
Stewart - Calculus: Early Transcendentals
Halliday - Fundamentals of Physics
Solomons - Organic Chemistry
Nelson - Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry
Tenembaum - Ordinary Differential Equations
Lay - Linear Algebra and Its Applications
Patrick - An Introduction to Medicinal Chemistry
Bishop - Group Theory and Chemistry
Levine - Physical Chemistry
Harris - Quantitative Chemical Analysis
Miessler - Inorganic Chemistry
March - Advanced Organic Chemistry
Spessard - Intro to Organometalics
(forgot the author name) - Introduction to Strategies for Organic Synthesis
Yuru Yuri

[Anonymous No.8448906]

>>8447547
you forgot this

[Anonymous No.8448988]

>>8446786
Is this astrophysiscs book really good?

[Anonymous No.8448990]

>>8448892
babby tier books

[Anonymous No.8449000]

Apart from subjects listed in this book what areas of math should a modern theoretical or mathematical physicist know? Like topology, etc.

[Anonymous No.8449016]

>>8449000
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_Textbook_Recommendations#Mathematics_Resources

[Anonymous No.8449029]

>>8447290
winrar

[Anonymous No.8449068]

>>8447780
this desu senpai not a mathematician don't know or care about the math books everyone's talking about here. What's wrong with Campbell, the prose is clear, it contains enough info, the illustrations are very pretty

[Anonymous No.8449077]

>>8449068
>it contains enough info
Not for everyone. That's the real sticking point here, it's fairly elementary and watered down to stretch out the page count.
It's certainly good enough for many purposes, and I think its popularity as an assigned text for introductory bio attests to that. But for motivated self-study with a direction in mind and any real preparation you'd reach for something else, denser and more substantial.
It's just fine for general interest reading, and it can pinpoint what you're most interested in pursuing further, though there are more efficient ways of going about that

>>8448892
>March
>not Carey-Sundberg
Yeah keep cucking for the hardcover jew, fampai

[Anonymous No.8449145]

>>8449077
Rather than Campbell what would you suggest then?

[Anonymous No.8449878]

>>8449145
the post office, lots of stamps

[Anonymous No.8450039]

>>8447547
>Molecular Driving Forces

Oversimplified and used non-standard notation. It may be my least favorite text from undergrad.

[Anonymous No.8450041]

>>8449000
are books like this even worth it? it looks like they barely ever go deep on any subject

[Anonymous No.8451180]

>>8449077
Eh it's good enough for me desu desu, don't need to get any deeper rn senpai

[Anonymous No.8451209]

>>8450041
It doesn't. I use it for reference.

[Anonymous No.8451210]

>>8451180
They have pretty similar sophistication and content. Having a set of two volumes with a bitchin color scheme is more an aesthetic choice.

But you can learn a lot about yourself from whether you come to see A as an "extended introduction" to B or B as an "extended appendix" to A.

[Anonymous No.8451724]

>>8446562
>>8447106
That C++ book is atrocious for beginners. The "Hello World" program it offers won't even compile as is.

[Anonymous No.8451754]

>>8451724
>lieing on the internet

[Anonymous No.8451755]

>>8451724
>The "Hello World" program it offers won't even compile as is.
That's a good thing. I would always break code I send to others so that they won't copy and paste and compile. Instead, they need to fix it themselves as a little test to see if they know at least something.

[Anonymous No.8451761]

>>8451754
>keep_window_open()
How old is this shit?

[Anonymous No.8451965]

>>8451761
Do you mean that actually happens on earlier windows systems or that it's the oldest hazing trick in the book?
I genuinely don't know, can't be arsed.

[Anonymous No.8452552]

>>8451965
The latter. I can't believe they aren't using system("pause"), as horrible as that may be. Or something like std::cin.get().

[Anonymous No.8452566]

>>8452552
>std::cin.get()

He wants to hide that shit.

[Anonymous No.8453669]

>>8452552
What do they do?

[Anonymous No.8453833]

Thank you based John D. Anderson

[Anonymous No.8453908]

>>8451755
Won't they just think you don't know how to code if your shit never works lol

[Anonymous No.8453996]

>>8453833

kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.8454058]

>>8446562
>NRSV
>With apocrypha

[Anonymous No.8454102]

>>8454058
The apocrypha includes books not in the catholic canon.

[Anonymous No.8454506]

>>8453669
Same thing as the archaic keep_window_open() that's referenced in the book. Only works for console applications though, but you don't even need anything like that if you have a GUI.

[Anonymous No.8454517]

>>8446786
"Your list is dumb. Here is my dumb list"

[Anonymous No.8454650]

[Anonymous No.8454696]

>>8450041
They are great for doing exercises, if you don't want to do billions of them from standart textbooks, but you need to cover all important subjects. Also they have solution manuals.

[Anonymous No.8454856]

>>8454650
Where are:
"Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code"
"The Mythical Man-Month"
and
"Test Driven Development: By Example"?

[Anonymous No.8455168]

[Anonymous No.8455173]

>>8447398
You got a faster paced topology book?

[Anonymous No.8455174]

>>8447431
Seeing as I've actually read Spivak and Apostol (only started Courant), I can tell you're full of shit.
Don't be such a contrarian.

[Anonymous No.8455297]

>>8455173

[Anonymous No.8455621]

[Anonymous No.8455640]

>>8455621

those actually good?

[Anonymous No.8455654]

>>8455640
sure why not. it's my autodidact meme series. still need a couple more, the art of learning being one.

[Anonymous No.8455655]

>>8455640
The Adler book is very mediocre (his other books are good, though). Haven't read the others.

[Anonymous No.8455659]

>>8446574
Only the New Testament, though, I don't bother with the kike shit.

[Anonymous No.8455662]

>>8455654
>>8455655

Would you like to recommend one in particular from those in the picture? What will I be learning with it?

[Anonymous No.8455702]

>>8446562
Trash the C++ shit and replace it with pic related

Also, include Holman Thermodynamics if you want the list to be anywhere near /sci/ approved.

[Anonymous No.8455720]

>>8455702

>holman
>not cengel

Kys

[Anonymous No.8455722]

This is a legit intro book. Very pleasant read.

[Anonymous No.8455726]

>>8455722
>intro book

>to fucking discrete math

brainlet

[Anonymous No.8455727]

>>8455720
Enjoy your brainlet textbook

[Anonymous No.8455731]

>>8455727

>t. person who didn't learn thermodynamics the right way.

[Anonymous No.8455755]

>>8455726
Check out the content before making dumb assertions like that.

And I meant intro as in something you'd be reading during your first year of study.

[Anonymous No.8455855]

I have always enjoyed mathematics but have only a rudimentary knowledge, and now I want to improve my abilities because I don't want to be mathematically-challenged for my entire life.

Can somebody recommend me some books for learning ahead of the basics?

Much appreciated.

[Anonymous No.8455878]

>>8446649
wow rude

[Anonymous No.8455881]

>>8455855
wtf you're being incredibly vague. how basic is basic? high algebra and geometry? integral calculus? differential equations?

[Anonymous No.8455896]

>>8455881
My basic, unfortunately, is very basic. I'd say I learned incredibly simplified versions of all topics. This was at a secondary school level, so I have almost no knowledge of the different subjects they branch out into.

I'd appreciate any book recommendations for any of those topics you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.8455907]

>>8447290
Well memed anon.

[Anonymous No.8455913]

/sci/ gets more heated in these threads than /pol/ does in theirs.

[Anonymous No.8455919]

>>8455896
Get these books and go through them in order as followed:
Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction
A Mind for Numbers
Speed Mathematics Simplified
Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell
Elementary Calculus
How to Lie with Statistics
Principles of Statistics

After, you should figure out what you want to do because there's a lot of different paths open. I consider these prerequisites to basically any successful math career.

[Anonymous No.8455954]

>>8455896
> I want to improve my abilities because I don't want to be mathematically-challenged for my entire life.
I'm responding cos I identify with that sentiment. Two years ago I decided to make a change and at the time I literally couldn't even recall how to add and subtract fractions properly or how to factor polynomials. I didn't know trig or anything. However I've worked extremely hard these past two years and I've gone from being a borderline retard to, now, finishing up multivar calc and differential equation courses at uni. I'm excited to be finally moving past baby maths and onto the proof heavy stuff, rings, fields, abstract algebra, topology, etc. Anyway, I'll share what I've done so far and the books I've used. I don't know your current level so I'll just assume you were at the level I was at(there's no way you're in a worse off position than I was).

Most people would scoff at this suggestion, but when I was first making my way out of the stoneage I was using khan academy. I'd recommend going back as far as you need and covering all the basics up through algebra II, geometry, and trig. In retrospect, khan academy's exercise sets are complete garbage(they aren't challenging enough). I'd recommend just grabbing any decent highschool textbook you can find through googling opinions and use them as supplementary stuff with khan academy. Make sure you understand the elementary functions well(addition, multiplication, e, log, trigfunctions, and any combination of them). Also make sure you can do the algebra involving them.

> cont..

[Anonymous No.8455958]

>>8455954
> ...
From there you move on to calculus, I'd recommend Stewart's Calculus: Early Transcendentals. A lot of people hate this book cos it's 'for brainlets' but this is precisely why I'd recommend it. It covers the material sufficiently enough without losing you. If you want to cover calculus more in depth later, after you've become more accustomed to and comfortable with reading math books(parsing through math books effectively is a learned skill), choose betweee Spivak or Courant's Calculus books. Both are considered classics, but in my view they are also for people who have a good foundation already.

In general, a typical path before it all really starts diverging goes something like(these are all the baby maths which prepare students for the sciences and engineering):
high school algebra and geometry > trigonometry > precal(optional really) > differential calculus > integral calculus > multivariable calculus > differential equations > linear algebra

Statistics belong in there, but personally I haven't dived into it past the non calculus basics. At my uni, 'intro to statistical inference' is a course which requires differential equations as a prerequisite so I have to assume a lot of calculus is involved.

Differential equations and linear algebra is really where it starts to get fun imo. It's around this point that you're beginning to actually do and understand real, practical problems. But anyway those are basically the essentials. From there it depends on what interests you cos it can branch out into more pure maths, statistics, or physics. From there your path of understanding isn't so linear, it must be tailored to your interests.

> cont..

[Anonymous No.8455960]

>>8455958
> ...
It's also good to understand a bit of the history and what different maths are used for. For example in physics, multivar calculus is used a lot in electromagnetism, and linear algebra in quantum mechanics. Along the way, ask questions like, "what is this used for?" and find the answers. Find what interests you through becoming acquainted with the applications of the maths you're learning, for this is where a genuine excitement and fascination with mathematics will blossom. Take responsibility for understanding how things actually work, not just how to apply algorithms to solve problems. Eventually you will stop being a calculator and have to actually think, so it's better to start good habits now(probably not possible to move on to more advanced subjects anyway, if you move through basics as an algorithmic calculator).

Also, this is a good link to broaden your inquiries: http://lesswrong.com/lw/3gu/the_best_textbooks_on_every_subject/

good luck anon

[Anonymous No.8455982]

>>8446562
many terrible books and a couple of good books on introduction to proofs? no

[Anonymous No.8456218]

>>8455168
What's wrong with Sipser's 'Intro to the Theory of Computation'?

[Anonymous No.8456367]

>>8449878
Is this a reference to something? Legitimate question

[Anonymous No.8456372]

>>8456218
It's written at the 9th grade level.

[Anonymous No.8456373]

>>8456367
>All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
>As quoted in Rutherford at Manchester (1962) by J. B. Birks
>https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

[Anonymous No.8456439]

OPs is unironically high school level shit.
Here's the best body of work I've come across in undergraduate and graduate studies. Even the /pol/ tier eugenic stuff is highly informative

[Anonymous No.8456830]

>>8456439

>OPs is unironically high school level shit
>provides pol tier shit

[Anonymous No.8456853]

>>8456439
>eugenics is highly informative
From a historical perspective, but genetics is a constantly advancing field much beyond to be calling moralistic choices based on 'good' and 'bad'. Often, what an era of doctors considered to be 'malignant genes' have come later to be understood to have different benefits/advantages in the right context of other genes and environment. But >>8456830 is right.
Falling for /pol/-tier nonsense is below high school level.

[Anonymous No.8456856]

>>8456830
it's called baiting, anon

[Anonymous No.8457032]

>>8455954
>>8455958
>>8455960

Not OP but thank you so much sharing your story and giving such a nice advice. Highly appreciated.

[Anonymous No.8457042]

[Anonymous No.8457094]

Here's a list for mathematicians and theoretical physicists. Assuming you've taken basic calculus and linear algebra.

Linear Algebra by Hoffman and Kunze then move on to Abstract Linear Algebra by Curtis. Some people like Axler but I don't. I think H&K's motivation and methods are much more algebraic and let's you move on to abstract algebra easily.

Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Rudin. Many people on this board don't like this book. I took the plunge halfway through my undergraduate analysis course and I loved it. It cleared up so much about analysis for me. I'm not sure if it would have the same effect on someone without the experience I had with Bartle's book and the class but I think it would. The chapters on topology and multivariable analysis are its weakest points.

Basic Topology by Armstrong. A topology book which isn't boring. Gets into the actual content of topology, algebraic topology, instead of focusing on general topology.

Calculus on Manifolds by Spivak then Topology From the Differentiable Viewpoint by Milnor. They're just good.

Algebra by Artin. There are tons of algebra books but this one is probably the best because it uses linear algebra and focuses on useful geometric stuff like groups.

Real and Complex Analysis by Rudin. I like this one less than principles. However, it's written in the same style so it's easier to read than other measure theory books.

[Anonymous No.8457106]

>>8457042
I had a hearty kek at this

[Anonymous No.8457172]

>>8456853
I recommend reading it to get a feel for the history of genetics. Why would a historian recommend reading 'Das Kapital' or 'Mein Kamph.' I'm not endorsing eugenics, just interesting how scientists looked at human genetic upon its discovery. None of it is really /pol/ tier, they talk about improving the species via specific breeding not abortion or forced sterilization and none of it is tied to race.

[Anonymous No.8457199]

>>8456853
>pol boogeyman
post ignored.

[Anonymous No.8457236]

Can anyone recommend some general chemistry textbooks? I've been reading Zumdahl and enjoyed it so far but the structure of Atkins book seems more appealing, should I switch books? Or is it not a big deal?

[Anonymous No.8457243]

>>8457236
General Chemistry: Matter and Energy by Dr. Evelyn J. Biluk

[Anonymous No.8457248]

>>8457094
>Here's a list for mathematicians and theoretical physicists

Have any recommendations for physics textbooks?

[Anonymous No.8457268]

>>8447290
Bait but still made me gag

[Anonymous No.8457437]

>>8457248
>>8457094


To be honest the physics books you use to learn undergrad physics don't matter as much. There are fewer topics in physics than in math, the books for each one are fewer, and almost all of them are good for something. Keep in mind that physics is much less structured than math. To become a theoretical physicist you have to push through undergrad physics for a few years, then learn some quantum field theory. From here you read up on whatever you want to learn about. I can give a few comments on this stage of learning the basics.

Classical Mechanics. Landau&Lifshitz is the best. Lagrangians and Hamiltonians are the core tool for analyzing any physical system. They are easy to modify for symmetry considerations, are coordinate free, and are required to do anything in quantum mechanics. The Schrodinger equation is just a statement about time-evolution of a system with regards to it's Hamiltionian. Goldstein and Arnold are fine. Goldstein is just not as good, too simple. Arnold uses too much math for most of it, though it does contain some things which the math is useful for. You'll probably want to look at Arnold eventually but not for a while.

E&M. Honestly I don't think you need a book just on this. There's not much that is really needed for further study. Jackson is the canonical standard. It's mostly used in courses to familiarize one with classical field theory and introducing gauge theory and math like Green's function. L&L is once again very good, but the topic isn't as important as mechanics so it's not mentioned often. A big problem is that undergrad books use classical vector analysis which is not how modern theoretical physics does things. It can all be formalized much more simply using manifolds and differential geometry.

[Anonymous No.8457444]

>>8457248
>>8457094
>>8457437

Cont.

Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics. One of the most important topics a physicist must learn. The principles of thermodynamics are so solid we don't even call it a theory. Why call it a theory when every single experiment in physics ever done follows its laws? That being said, I literally can't recommend a really good book on it. Your best bet is L&L for this one, if only due to lack of competition. Walecka/Bloch is fine. The rest are mediocre as far as I know.

General Relativity. The big idea behind GR is that all objects, regardless of mass, react the same way to a gravitational source. Thus we postulate that gravity is not a force. Instead mass generates curvature in the geometry of space around it in some way that objects look to be falling as time passes. So comes the 4vector (t,x,y,z) and the idea that space and time are unified as a 4 dimensional manifold called spacetime. The eucliden metric(length) for 3-space, x^2+y^2+z^2, becomes the spacetime metric(interval), -c^2*t^2+x^2+y^2+z^2. Note we can also work in natural units where c=1, thus saying time and space are actually the exact same thing, 3*10^8 meters EQUALS 1 second. Then the interval is -t^2+x^2+y^2+z^2. In spacetime, length IS NOT invariant between observers, but the interval is invariant. Thus time-dilation and length-contraction must happen to keep the interval the same. For books there are a ton of good ones. Schutz, Carroll, D'Inverno are good first books(Schutz is my favorite). Then use Wald. Wald is where a physicist will learn differential geometry and how it's used in physics.

[Anonymous No.8457464]

>>8457248
>>8457094
>>8457437
>>8457444

Cont.

Also forgot to mention. The above stuff is just special relativity. GR is the fact that the stress-energy tensor(determined by mass) can be put in an equation with tensors which only involve the metric(geometry). These are called the Einstein Field Equations.

Quantum Mechanics. In order of recommendation Weinberg, Shankar, Townsend. I hate Sakurai. Townsend covers too little but its treatment of the matrix methods for QM is very sensible. Shankar is a nice book. Easy, fairly rigorous, and covers most of what you need to learn. Once you know QM it's a poor reference because of how easy and long it is. Weinberg is my favorite, if only because he assumes at least some familiarity with GR which I think a physicist should have.

Quantum Field Theory. I like Zee. Read that first. Peskin&Schroeder and Srednicki and Ryder are others. From here you should be able to understand modern theoretical physics enough to look up stuff to learn on your own.

More books that are very useful but don't fit into a category

Geometry, Topology, and Physics by Nakahara
Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity by Baez
Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics by Schutz
Linear Operators for Quantum Mechanics by Jordan
Note on Differential Geometry by Hicks
Mathematical Physics by Geroch

The Road to Reality by Penrose. This is a controversial book because it's written under the guise of being a popular book. It's advertised as The diligent reader can learn all there is behind modern theoretical physics from this book regardless of what they know. This is just false. All the reviews you see on Amazon or elsewhere are from people who don't know enough math and physics to read this. But once you do, say you are familiar with all of my recommendations for math and the physics above, it's actually a very interesting book to explore what you know and see Penrose's intuition. He was a great physicist once even if he may have lost his mind now.

[Anonymous No.8457483]

>>8457094
>>8457437
>>8457444
>>8457464
This is pure gold. Thanks, anons!

[Anonymous No.8457502]

>>8457464

Hey dude, what do you recommend somebody thats trying to learn from Calc to Vector Calculus for Electricity and magnetism? I also wanted to understand analysis.

So right now I am using Stewart Calc and also reading How to prove it for both subjects.

[Anonymous No.8457515]

>>8457437
>>8457444
>>8457464

Nice. I recently finished my undergrad in physics and I'm taking a few months to go over things more in depth. I don't feel strong enough to fully tackle grad texts just yet but if you had to do it all again in the most efficient and useful way, how would you start and lead yourself up to things like Goldsten, Jackson, QFT, etc? I ask because your recommendations assume that whomever is reading your post is actually adept at the udnergrad level (which I will admit I'm not there just yet).

[Anonymous No.8457606]

>>8457502
The thing to understand is that if you learn analysis, you'll relearn all of the same theorems you're learning right now from Stewart, except there will be a focus on rigor and proving the theorems, instead of applying them to solve computational problems. Stewart should be fine for all the Calculus through vector calculus from the computational perspective.

Once you've finished how to prove it, I would a linear algebra text before diving into analysis for two reasons. The first is that you'll want to build up more mathematical maturity (particularly with proofs) before tackling an analysis book, and the second is that a linear algebra background is necessary for multi-variable parts of analysis. Both of the linear algebra books the other anon mentioned: Hoffman and Kunze and Axler, are good. I've read both of these, so I'll digress briefly to compare them.

Hoffman and Kunze is definitely the more comprehensive and difficult book. As the other anon pointed out, it's more grounded in Algebra, while Axler tries to avoid making things too Algebric. Axler does have some strengths though. Axler is more streamlined, and focuses more on what is purely linear algebra. I think this also helps with building a more cohesive understanding of the subject, and helps build intuition. I think Axler's book is probably better as a "transition book", for someone who has been exposed to proofs, but not really ready for heftier books such as Rudin.

After this, I would read Baby Rudin (Chapters 1-8 are good, but at least 1-6 for what you want), and then Calculus on Manifolds by Spivak. This will give you a full rigorous coverage of all the Calculus you might ever use in E&M, and by this point, you'll be more than ready to begin tackling other topics in pure math.

[Anonymous No.8457915]

>>8457606

Thanks anon, will save you reply for when I am finally done studying stewarts and how to...

[Anonymous No.8458029]

>>8455659
>christianity
>anything BUT kike shit

[Anonymous No.8458143]

>>8447225
what does C have that C++ doesn't [genuinely curious, I only know C]
I thought C++ just added or oop stuff

[Anonymous No.8458204]

>>8458143
Lambdas, templates, standard library, move semantics, and tons more. A quick Google search will turn this stuff up.

[Anonymous No.8458222]

>>8458143
VLA (but that's now optional in C11)
well defined ABI (not that 99.99% of programmers will care)

>>8458204
That's what C++ has over C

[Anonymous No.8458273]

>>8458143
it's not about the features, it's about the quality of the language.
c++ sucks because they keep adding features without deprecating anything, since deprecation is bad for industries. it's just a mess of features that doesn't fit well together.

[Anonymous No.8458274]

>>8457502
Original anon here.

Learn non rigorous calc by finishing up Stewart. Sequences and series are useless but the multivariable stuff is not. This is enough for any E&M you're likely to do.

If you want to continue mathematical studies then follow this guy's advice >>8457606

I concur that Axler is a better choice if you want to learn analysis. First of all it's much shorter and much easier to boot. It was the book I first learned how to prove things from back in high school. So it probably makes a good transition book for Rudin. He's right in that it treats linear algebra as a topic standing on its own, rather than a subset of abstract algebra. For example Artin or Herstein basically treat all the same linear algebra even though the books themselves have nothing to really do with linear algebra itself. This viewpoint of linear algebra is not useful for analysis.

>>8457515
I prepared myself for grad physics texts by studying undergrad math like in my post above
>>8457094
In particular H&K and Rudin. After that grad physics wasn't a problem. I was a double major in math and physics. I can imagine this path doesn't make too much sense for someone only interested in physics. If you are interested in modern theoretical physics then you should follow this path because you'll need very advanced math eventually. If you aren't, then I can't give the best advice but i can try. Basically instead of reading math books, look through more elementary books on physics. For classical mechanics I think Goldstein is perfectly readable and you should strive to read L&L. For E&M try Griffiths book and push to Jackson. For QM I recommend learning linear algebra and using any of the texts I recommended besides Weinberg. Both Townsend and Shankar are friendly books. For GR I should mention that Schutz was the book I learned from freshman year and it's very good and accessible(only need non-rigorous calc and LA). It's treatment of tensors is the best I've found in any physics book.

[Anonymous No.8458385]

>>8458274
How do you feel about Griffiths for QM? Obviously it's not as "good" as Shankar, but do you see it filling a role akin to Stewart for anyone?

[Anonymous No.8458487]

>>8458273
confirmed for not knowing what he's talking a about. have you heard of the [[deprecated]] attribute? have you heard of std::shuffle ajd std::random_shuffle? stop talking out of your ass

[Anonymous No.8458437]

>>8458385
>>8457464

I think Griffiths QM is just bad. Stewart is still fine for learning non rigorous calculus but Griffiths isn't useful for anyone. It starts off by just stating the Schrodinger equation and assuming the properties of the wavefunction for no real reason at all. The proper formalism of QM using linear algebra is only done in a single chapter. The rest of the book is just computations and pseudo derivations. The theory is not motivated. Experiments that motivated QM and how physicists explained the phenomena mathematically are just not there. Townsend explains in the first chapter how in the world an experiment could lead to the idea that matrices represent what we do to a system physically and their eigenvalues represent the possible physical measurements. Then he gives a good explanation of angular momentum and uses these methods to motivate the Schrodinger equation very well. Shankar starts off with two very long chapters on math then classical mechanics, but then uses the double slit experiment to motivate the postulates of QM(admittedly not as good as Townsend).

On second thought, Townsend is the best undergrad book on QM. Shankar should be used for assistance because his motivation for both the math and physics makes much less sense.

[Anonymous No.8458748]

>>8457606
>>8458274
Thanks anon. Do you have any other general suggestion like getting better in mathematics and physics in general?

[Anonymous No.8458848]

bio edition
Alberts - Molecular Biology of The Cell
Snustad, Simmons - Principles of Genetics
Janeway's Immunobiology
Junqueira's Basic Histology
Koolman - Color Atlas of Biochemistry
Zar - Biostatistical Analysis
Lippincott's Microbiology

[Anonymous No.8458949]

>>8446562
First year med edition:
Lewin's Genes XI
Albert's Molecular Biology of the Cell
Thompson & Thompson Genetics in Medicine
Crawley's Statistics: An Introduction Using R
Bland's An Introduction to Medical Statistics
Oxtoby's Principles of Modern Chemistry

[Anonymous No.8459232]

>>8458487
confirmed for talking just to split hairs.
random_shuffle is a very minor thing, clearly not what i was talking about.

[Anonymous No.8459780]

>>8458848
>Janeway
Take us out, Mr. Paris

[Anonymous No.8460094]

math monk edition:

>Bourbaki: Theory of Sets, Algebra, Topology, Functions of One Real Variable, Topological Vector Spaces, Integration, Commutative Algebra, Lie Theory, Spectral Theory, Algebraic Topology
>Grothendieck: EGA, SGA
>Mochizuki:
>Semi-graphs of Anabelioids
>The Geometry of Frobenioids I: The General Theory
>The Geometry of Frobenioids II: Poly-Frobenioids
>The Etale Theta Function and its Frobenioid-theoretic Manifestations
>Topics in Absolute Anabelian Geometry I: Generalities
>Topics in Absolute Anabelian Geometry II: Decomposition Groups and Endomorphisms
>Topics in Absolute Anabelian Geometry III: Global Reconstruction Algorithms
>Arithmetic Elliptic Curves in General Position

>Inter-Universal Teichmüller Theory I-IV

[Anonymous No.8461228]

>>8460094
kek. what a meme list.

there's no reason to read most of these books unless you're a gigantic mega-autist

[Anonymous No.8461561]

>>8461228
>there's no reason to read all these books unless you want to be a successful mathematician

[Anonymous No.8461811]

>>8461561

lol a successful mathematician

[Anonymous No.8462118]

>>8461561
>mathematician

>successful

>muh 200k starting

[Anonymous No.8462271]

knuth said most mathematicians seek the approval of one or two of their peers.

[Anonymous No.8462286]

>>8446562
Meyer is without a doubt the best modern Matrix Theory book. There are better ones for classical theory (or generally up to the early 1900s), but Meyer excels for modern theory.

[Anonymous No.8462327]

>>8448571
Holy Shit Lectures on Algebra by Elman. I'm in his linear algebra class now. Easily one of the best profs at UCLA

[Anonymous No.8462340]

Cant beliefe Godel, Escher Bach hasnt been mentioned yet. Must read for those intrested it if you're intrested in math, cogiative science, music, recursion or logic.

https://www.physixfan.com/wp-content/files/GEBen.pdf

[Anonymous No.8462354]

>>8462340
Assassinate yourself.

[Anonymous No.8462356]

>>8462354
why?

[Anonymous No.8462359]

>>8446562
You don't need any of those books... You can learn calc I through DiffE, Uni physics I and II on youtube for free. Even gen chem, OChem and their associated labs have been uploaded to youtube.

[Anonymous No.8462361]

>>8462327
>implying anyone on /sci/ actually goes to a good school

kek, s-sure thing kid...

[Anonymous No.8462468]

>>8461228
In my country Bourbaki is required reading in elementary school
Fuck off americunt

[Anonymous No.8463325]

>>8446562
How do i into basic physics properly?

[Anonymous No.8463331]

>>8463325
Hartog's Mechanics.

Seriously, fuck general physics books.

[Anonymous No.8463338]

>>8448892
>Lehninger
My man.