/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9371910]

ITT: Post shit-tier textbooks

[Anonymous No.9371911]

[Anonymous No.9371917]

[Anonymous No.9371926]

[Anonymous No.9371927]

[Anonymous No.9371930]

[Anonymous No.9372011]

[Anonymous No.9372153]

i got you senpai

[Anonymous No.9372162]

>>9371911
>>9371917
>>9371927
fuck you

[Anonymous No.9372168]

>>9372011
asking for trolling like this faggot here.

[Anonymous No.9372174]

[Anonymous No.9372177]

[Anonymous No.9372193]

[Anonymous No.9372199]

[Anonymous No.9372209]

[Anonymous No.9372232]

>>9371910

[Anonymous No.9372283]

>>9372177
yeah, ¬blue cover suxx ass

[Anonymous No.9372292]

[Anonymous No.9372305]

>>9372232
GURIFIIIIIIIIIIIIIISU

[Anonymous No.9372314]

>>9371910
Horribly written

[Anonymous No.9372322]

>>9372283
pajeet edition is disgusting too

[Anonymous No.9372463]

[Anonymous No.9372572]

>>9372463
if unironic then why

[Anonymous No.9372588]

>>9372463
there's worse

[Anonymous No.9372747]

[Anonymous No.9372764]

>>9372011
unironically this. why bother with it when you can read an easy book like stewart then an analysis book like rudin or tao

[Anonymous No.9372785]

>>9372764
spivak and tao are on same tier (introductory analysis)
rudin is beyond

[Anonymous No.9372811]

>>9372232
the front cover alone is already a good reason to trash it

[Anonymous No.9372813]

>>9372572
because it sucks, my dude

[Anonymous No.9372870]

>>9372764
stewart is unreadable, it's just practice, I had to rely on the lectures to understand the theory.

[Anonymous No.9372921]

trash

[Anonymous No.9372935]

[Anonymous No.9372948]

>>9372199
I've read the JPS commentary on the Song of Songs and it was quite fun. It was for a neat religious studies class that compared interpretations from Christianity and Judaism and how they competed with one another and took radically different directions over hundreds of years.
>>9372209
Goldstein makes me feel happy. He's the one who pointed out that relativistic hamiltonians only make sense for single particles in a field, which blew my mind like nothing else. Nice problems, too. Jose and Saletan on the other hand, I rather disliked.
>>9372232
I disliked Griffith's "humor" if it could be called that. I like Sakurai better, though I'll need to try Shankar eventually.
>>9371930
My highschool education was perhaps not the strongest, so K&K made me work for it in my first mechanics class in university. I look at it from time to time.

[Anonymous No.9373076]

>>9372785
>spivak and tao are on same tier
no

[Anonymous No.9373101]

>>9372011
I'll have to agree with this. This book is pure autism.

There's no fucking reason to make a calculus book that hard, the only people that say that this book is great are those who ALREADY KNOW calculus. The objective of a book is to fucking teach, not to melt your brain on a few pages.

Just a regular calculus book will do the work, after that, just go to analysis and you can use good books like Tao's or even Rudin.

[Anonymous No.9373232]

>>9373101
Thank you so much I thought I was retarded trying to understand it as an intro to calc

[Anonymous No.9373239]

>>9372322
i have the pajeet edition. why is it bad?

[Anonymous No.9373242]

>>9372870
How? They have the simplest explanations for concepts I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.9373271]

>>9372232
This is true

[Anonymous No.9373288]

>>9372948
You are a jew, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.9373292]

>>9372572
General physics courses are complete ass.

[Anonymous No.9373332]

>>9372314
Dat ominous cover tho

[Anonymous No.9373334]

>>9371926
Why is this shit-tier.

[Anonymous No.9373486]

>reading textbooks in the first place

[Anonymous No.9373542]

These meme threads about listing all of the best textbooks in the world and saying how bad they are are great for advertising some nice stuff. Also for picking up the images and creating a "best textbooks" graphic. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.9373728]

You could probably eliminate 80% of bad math textbooks just by requiring professors to not teach out of things published before 1980.

[Anonymous No.9373742]

>>9372935
In what context are you saying it's shit? It's not great for a first learner, but it is the best reference text in EM

[Anonymous No.9373759]

>>9373728
Not really.

[Anonymous No.9374041]

>>9372011
Quite some years ago (2009 or something) I checked out this book while I was in high school because I had an interest in mathematics and it has quite a decent reputation form what I could tell.

This shit was retardedly hard, and I kept telling myself, "Ha, sure is tough to truly understand how mathematics works" and I trying to force this shit down my throat, finding it difficult to read page by page, and failing my attempts at almost any exercise. I tried to trudge through this book gradually over a few years (into my first year of university), and I felt like I understood fuck all even after spending minutes more than i've probably spent on any other book.

I eventually did a normal mathematics education in university supplemented with some occasional reading of standard analysis, abstract algebra texts. I also grew a lot of interest in theoretical computer science, which my school is very well known for, and have taken such and such courses and solved my problem sets in there.

I'm a grad student and I can read through the basics of most slightly less basic mathematics topics very smoothly now (AG, topology, operator theory, etc), and I can safely say nowhere did this fucking book help. It has complexity with little motivations, and exercises which I can now evaluate easily as relying on silly gimmicks that are irrelevant to the chapter topic, to obtain results which are for the most part, give very little insight on the topic.

I wasted so many hours trying to read this book when I was younger thinking it was some kind of rite of passage and first step towards "real" mathematics and that it would put me above the plebians who studied normal calc.

It tries to bridge a gap between calculus and introductory, but ends up having the worst of both worlds. In particular, it does away with much of the abstraction in real analysis, abstractions which actually make the topic more intuitive and approachable (e.g. balls).

This book is a fukcing meme

[Anonymous No.9374051]

This book is fucking garbage. Any alternatives?

[Anonymous No.9374094]

>>9374051
The easiest one is Pressley if all you know is calculus. If you know linear algebra, use O'Neill's free one. Both are titled 'Elementary Differential Geometry.' Then you can go on to something more advanced.

[Anonymous No.9374101]

>>9371910
Fuck this faggy-ass book. Tons and tons of exposition that ends up making you confused, no solved exercises, and tons of fucking bullshit exercises that range from "plug and play" to "if Bobby and Sally both have a charged Rod then what's the Electric Flux of an apple that falls downwards and impales itself on the Rod the moment when an Electrical Field pops up from the anus of a rotting corpse; Find the molecular density of the corpse's rotten dick, if it still exists".

[Anonymous No.9374108]

>>9374101
It's not the book... you're just stupid.

[Anonymous No.9374133]

>>9374108
You have experience with it then?

[Anonymous No.9374270]

>>9374108
he's right though. the book confuses the fuck out of me. There are cases were they just do things to fuck with the student like say the spring force equals -kx when compressed but when using potential spring energy in the conservation of energy equations the value is always positive when compressed as 1/2kx^2.
Also they just like to randomly add a negative sign to many equations where you have shit like (random number)-(-(-random number)).

[Anonymous No.9374448]

>>9372011
Spivak is a meme

[Anonymous No.9374497]

>>9374101
fuck off this book is great

[Anonymous No.9374522]

>>9371910
Which one is harder, Spivak or Apostol?

[Anonymous No.9374538]

This is a terrible Data Structures & Algorithms book. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

[Anonymous No.9374855]

>>9374497
Really? What makes I so great, oh glorious PHENOTYPE? Because this anon here >>9374270 brought up some good examples. I've even noticed typos in it.

[Anonymous No.9375119]

>>9371926
This is actually the most helpful book of these all.

[Anonymous No.9375122]

>>9374101
>>9374497
The book posted by >>9372463 is actually way better for an introduction to university-level physics, since it is way more straightforward in explaining without sacrificing detail

[Anonymous No.9375130]

>>9374101
>>9375122
oh and Serway does have solutions to it's exercises, though separate from the book. You can find them in Lib Genesis

that doesn't mean it doesn't suck ass however

[Anonymous No.9375143]

>>9375122
Thanks for the suggestion anon.

>>9375130
Yeah I know, I found the Solution Manual for the first volume, but can't find the second one. My deal is that it drones on and on about the theory, complicates things, and doesn't offer any examplary exercises.

[Anonymous No.9375209]

>>9373101
It's pretty clear expositionally, I think. Lots of really great examples and motivation for definitions.

[Anonymous No.9375256]

>>9374538
lol

They might as well have called it

"Data Structures and Algorithms: The Pajeet Edition"

[Anonymous No.9375342]

>>9374041
Are Apostol or Thomas Calculus better?

[Anonymous No.9375354]

>>9374101
>>9372588
absolutely shit tier. It does a perfect job of making you not understand simple shit.

[Anonymous No.9375407]

>>9374538
>java

>>>/g/tfo

[Anonymous No.9375608]

>>9371930
This book is retardedly hard for a fucking first class in mechanics and does not cover all the shit you're supposed to learn

[Anonymous No.9375617]

Do not even download the pdf of this garbage

[Anonymous No.9375672]

>>9375122
I don't get it, I've used both and found them to be almost identical. I did like the amount of examples there were in the allegedly shittier one. What exactly are your issues with it?

[Anonymous No.9375675]

>>9375672
>>9374270

[Anonymous No.9375683]

>>9374101
I got B+'s in my Physics 1 & 2 classes using this book.

All you really need to do is do the example problems and have an outside source that works out the problems so you can dissect the problems you don't understand.

It sucks that it doesn't come with those solutions but it makes sense because instructors assign the examples as HW problems.

I used chegg to get all the solutions and it helped a lot when I was studying for exams.

[Anonymous No.9376120]

>>9372011
everyone who complains about this book came at it sideways.

this book was the textbook for my calculus class in university (already had taken calc 1 in high school) and while challenging has taught me a lot. Don't read this book unless you are being taught by the professor.

[Anonymous No.9376309]

>>9375683
Dunno anon. I try and do 20-25 exercises per chapter, and that's still not enough. Exams here are pretty demanding. Problem is, even then I manage only a 7/10 and it takes up a lot of time. I'm not saying I'm some super-genius who's getting blocked by the book, but it is making things harder, not easier.

[Anonymous No.9376364]

Everything published by Jones&Bartlett is a stealing pile of shit. As is any book that exceeds 4 editions in 40 years.

[Anonymous No.9376580]

>>9375683
The book is shit because it says one thing then the following page it contradicts itself or goes through a stroke in an equation like>>9374270
said. It's insulting to my intelligence when publishers let shit like this pass through inspections of the book. The only explanation is that they don't give a shit or the people who proofread it are math/physics illiterate to begin with. I can picture some liberal arts major who only dealt with algebra proofreading this shit.

[Anonymous No.9376822]

>>9376364
>As is any book that exceeds 4 editions in 40 years.

wew lad

[Anonymous No.9376861]

[Anonymous No.9376887]

>>9373288
Why the judeophobia?

[Anonymous No.9376907]

>>9376861
What's wrong with it? I was going to pick it up because all linear algebra I know is from Linear Algebra Done Wrong which I've heard is less than perfect.

[Anonymous No.9376910]

The shittiest of them all, like just use serge lang and oakley instead of this piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.9376912]

>>9376887
your noses scare me

[Anonymous No.9376917]

>>9376910
Hey anon! i'm so glad someone posted this, gelfand's algebra book is horrible!

[Anonymous No.9376919]

>>9376917
Thank you kind anon, welcome to the club!

[Anonymous No.9376925]

>>9376907
You shouldn't take anything in this thread seriously.

[Anonymous No.9376967]

>>9372588
Fucking piece of shit, used this horrible shit through mechanics and E&M

our prof also created his assignments using this 20-lb monstrosity.

[Anonymous No.9376978]

Is Herstein's Topics in Algebra any good? I grabbed it because it's in the sticky but I never see anyone talking about it.

[Anonymous No.9376983]

>six editions in
>still makes a mistake in the electron transport chain shit

[Anonymous No.9377105]

>>9376983
Lippincott Illustrated Reviews is much better

[Anonymous No.9377188]

>>9376967
>>9372588
THICC

[Anonymous No.9377285]

This book is not rigorous enough.

[Anonymous No.9377564]

>>9373076
They are, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.9377649]

>>9376907
>which I've heard is less than perfect

From where?

[Anonymous No.9377756]

I have fallen for the meme so hard. It goes over introductory stuff in the first three chapters in autistically painful detail. Why doesn't it dispense with the car / cdr nonsense after lists are introduced? And so much annoyance comes from using mixtures of append and cons. Just pick one.

[Anonymous No.9377772]

>>9376978
Good for first exposure to algebra. Lots of long explanations. You'll outgrow it and switch to Artin or Dummit and Foote eventually.

[Anonymous No.9377778]

>>9377285
>wanting rigor in fucking bio texts
holy shit
/sci/ has flayed your mind

[Anonymous No.9377784]

>>9372588
So it's not just me. Ah fuck it, still got 100 on the final.

[Anonymous No.9377792]

>>9372588
>>9377784
Okay then, which physics book do I read as an engineering student? Are there any good calc-based physics books geared towards engineers, or am I stuck with shit like KnK?

[Anonymous No.9377807]

>>9371911
(You)
>>9371917
(You)
>>9371927
(You)
>>9372174
(You)
>>9372193
(You)
>>9372011
Why bother with this (or any calculus book) if you can pick up Tao or Zorich? Never understood why ameritards learn calculus instead of analysis right away.
>>9372232
Very true. I can't understand how this shit is still used, even among engineers. For undergrad intro class, Shankar is the way to go. For grad, Landau.
>>9374051
I'd try Kobayashi or Bishop. It might be a bit too advanced for undergrad though, but not unreasonable if it's something you're interested in. Alternatively, you might try more focused book - some undergraduate introduction to Riemannian geometry, these build up the required skillset pretty well.
>>9376907
He's baiting, it's a good book, but the author has some prejudice against determinants so he doesn't introduce them until later which kind of fucks you up in terms of intuition. For linear algebra, nothing beats Shilov imho (but i'm a physishit), expect Hofman,Kunze.

[Anonymous No.9377870]

>>9377807
>Never understood why ameritards learn calculus instead of analysis right away.

Physics professors threaten to just teach calculus in intro physics if they did. Mathematics departments caved in.

[Anonymous No.9377908]

>>9377870
That's retarded, it leads to situations where students are robbed of basic insight into the principles which they use to solve problems. Result of this madness is recent resurgence of advocates of Bohmian mechanics and other bullshit that was busted long time ago. But people still can't understand how to use conditional probability so they fuck up. This would be mitigated with rigorous treatment of these topics. I hope all STEM students have the option to skip these castrated courses and take their rigorous analogies.

[Anonymous No.9378009]

>>9377908
>recent resurgence of advocates of Bohmian mechanics and other bullshit that was busted long time ago

Are you fucking retarded? Bohmian mechanics hasn't been "busted".

[Anonymous No.9378026]

>>9378009
You're the retard that doesn't understand conditional probability. It was busted ever since Landau's reformulation of Bell's inequality, Bohm shifted goalpost, but ultimately still failed because of his sub-par understanding of probability. Medical students have better understanding of it than you brainlet Bohmians.
Streater has written way too many pages on this, so many in fact that it has been printed as a book. Do read it as it will cure you of your retardation, if it doesn't the last bastion of hope for retards if Landau's bible of theoretical physics. If even after Landau you still think there's nothing wrong with BM, you're hopeless retard as are all the undergrads and pseuds that believe it.

[Anonymous No.9378039]

>>9377870
Source:
>In 1953, the MAA formed the Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics (CUPM). Its initial focus was a common first-year mathematics syllabus for all students, paralleling the common syllabus for introductory courses in the natural and social sciences. The course, called Universal Mathematics, consisted of one semester of functions and limits, the real number system, Cartesian coordinates, functions (with focus on exp(x) and log(x) ), limits, and elements of derivatives and integrals, followed by one semester of mathematics of sets, logic, counting and probability. Note that this syllabus was very similar to the first-year mathematics syllabus proposed by E. B. Wilson in 1913. The second semester component was based on the expectation that newer areas of applied mathematics, such as statistics and operations research that were so useful in the war effort, would become a major part of the mathematics used in many disciplines. There was also a proposed ‘technical laboratory’ for engineers and physicists with more extensive work in calculus. The CUP-prepared 1954 text for the functions half of Universal Mathematics offered a highly theoretical approach on odd-numbered pages (e.g., replacing sequences by filters) along with a traditional approach on even-numbered pages. The theoretical approach was laying the foundation for a more theoretical mathematics major to prepare students for graduate study.
>CUPM’s proposal, with textbook, for an important new college course appears to have been without precedent. Professional academic organizations make reports about high school preparation but normally stay clear of telling their members what to teach, much less proposing a major organization of the introductory course in the discipline. However, the Association for Computing Machinery followed the CUPM example in 1968 with recommendations for a curriculum to define the newly emerging computer science major.

[Anonymous No.9378043]

>>9378039
>Universal Mathematics was doomed, no matter what its reception might have been by mathematicians, by the decision in the mid-1950’s of physicists to use calculus in their freshman physics course for engineers. These physics courses started with supplementary workshops on basic calculus formulas. Mathematics departments, wary of losing calculus instruction, quickly made a full-year course in calculus the standard freshman sequence for engineers and scientists. As calculus came to be appreciated as a foundation for the modern world and one of science’s greatest intellectual achievement, a number of selective private institutions instituted a general education requirement that all students take three semesters of calculus or else, for the math-phobic, three semesters of a foreign language. Calculus, or preparation to take calculus, was thus firmly established as the primary focus of first-year college mathematics.
>http://www.ams.sunysb.edu/~tucker/MathHistory.pdf

[Anonymous No.9378051]

>>9378026
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/dBBarguments.php

[Anonymous No.9378073]

>>9378051
Cool, more goalpost shifting. Now let's see a relativistic version of your BM :^)

[Anonymous No.9378098]

>>9378073
Now let's see a relativistic version of your Schrödinger equation :^)

>Cool, more goalpost shifting

[Anonymous No.9378107]

>>9378098
It's one of the many arguments of Streater that our dear Ilja (conventiently) didn't bother to answer.

[Anonymous No.9378108]

>>9371910
Anyone else balls deep in this fucking shit?

[Anonymous No.9378139]

>>9372292
I need to study this shitty book but it's like one hundred bucks to rent.. u or anyone have a PDF?

[Anonymous No.9378290]

>>9371926
....Whats going on here. Am I a brainlet if I thought Stewart was a really really good textbook?

[Anonymous No.9378295]

worst book I've ever had to use.

[Anonymous No.9378303]

[Anonymous No.9378635]

>>9378290
>Am I a brainlet if I thought Stewart was a really really good textbook?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.9378641]

[Anonymous No.9378742]

>>9377285

[Anonymous No.9378838]

>>9378139
You can find 2nd ed on libgen

[Anonymous No.9379909]

[Anonymous No.9380316]

[Anonymous No.9380325]

>>9373288
The fellow who responded to this wasn't me. I don't think I'm jewish. Raised Catholic, Irish/French/Dutch background. However, sometimes I wonder.

[Anonymous No.9380347]

>>9374270
Wait, are you serious right now? in 1D, Force is the NEGATIVE derivative of the potential energy with respect to position. In 1D, Potential energy is the NEGATIVE integral of force. So if a force is -kx, the potential energy up to a constant is 1/2kx^2. If the force were kx, the potential energy up to a constant would be -1/2kx^2.
This just demonstrates that you don't understand that the negative sign is built into the relationship between potential energy and force, not some evil convention in the book.

[Anonymous No.9380352]

>>9375617
I like Purcell quite a bit. It felt like a good first read before I took on Jackson. Problems were challenging, but they had so many nice explanations in the back of the book, helped clear up a lot of confusion.

[Anonymous No.9380362]

>>9378295
I'm frustrated by this book. Writes way too much on simple topics, bogs down the reader. Not enough challenging examples like Ross.

[Anonymous No.9380424]

[Anonymous No.9380435]

>>9380347
Maybe if the book explained that I would understand but (((jewett))) just wants shekels.

[Anonymous No.9380444]

[Anonymous No.9380539]

>>9371917
I learned to like Hartshorne's book after hating it for a while. It's just not suitable for beginning with algebraic geometry. But when you start developing some intuition you really get into it.

[Anonymous No.9380542]

>>9380444
Wow... somehow that's pretty fucked up...

[Anonymous No.9380546]

>>9380435
Engineers man. Faggot probably just used chegg and blamed the book when he fucked up on the tests.

[Anonymous No.9380551]

[Anonymous No.9380635]

>>9380546
>Faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.9380660]

>>9380542
What?

[Anonymous No.9380671]

>>9380660
Combining college maths with a manga theme... I don't know but I find that just weird...

[Anonymous No.9380680]

>>9380671
"""""""college maths"""""""""

[Anonymous No.9380700]

>>9380635
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.9380710]

[Anonymous No.9380767]

>>9380362
This book was extremely frustrating for me too. Shitty explanations and the practice problems just jumped into high difficulty with no build up in the examples. Also the book itself was physically pathetic, I use all my books lightly but this one's binding broke after like 3 weeks of use. Overall pain in the fucking ass.

[Anonymous No.9380782]

[Anonymous No.9381177]

>>9376910
I should agree with you. Not only this book, but many of soviet and russian math and physics textbooks are unspeakable horseshit. This one made without any purpose, there is no system or logic, just chaotic pile of examples and tasteless problems.

[Anonymous No.9381183]

[Anonymous No.9381186]

>>9371910

[Anonymous No.9381211]

>>9380782
i loved that book! but maybe it's just because i had a great professor for that class

[Anonymous No.9381277]

[Anonymous No.9381286]

>>9381277
What didn't you like about?

[Anonymous No.9381291]

>>9381286
It uses Python 2 instead of 3

[Anonymous No.9381356]

>>9381291
>print "so what?"

[anon ver 1.65 No.9381373]

>>9381356
>no parenthesis

im fucking shaking... fuck off python 2

[Anonymous No.9381604]

FUCK pearson

[Anonymous No.9381664]

Best thread on /sci/ in my opinion. Thanks OP

[Anonymous No.9381678]

>>9376907
Linear Algebra Done Wrong is pretty damn good.
Also, algebrists often hate Axler's book.
n-category cafe has a discussion about the book.

[Anonymous No.9381716]

I was going to start on Lang's Basic Mathematics or Gelfand, but now people are saying they're memes. WTF now I'm lost for precalc

[Anonymous No.9381810]

>>9381716
Peiple either love Serge Lang books or they hate them (probably because they are incredibly dry).
I think you should give it a shot, but I like Lang so there's that.

[Anonymous No.9381818]

>>9381810
>People*

[Anonymous No.9381868]

>>9381716
Sheldon Axler's Precalculus

[Anonymous No.9381884]

>>9372588
>Tfw all your physics courses use this.

[Anonymous No.9381972]

>>9381884
The book is a huge piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.9382277]

>>9378139
You want a really shitty protip? Buy the book, find a DRM -> PDF ripper, then return it. Free book, limited uses though.

[Anonymous No.9382300]

>>9372747
I liked this book

[Anonymous No.9382303]

>>9374538
this was the decided text at my uni, professor said it sucked and told us not to use it. opened it once found out he was right

[Anonymous No.9382322]

>>9372588
I hate this book with a passion

[Anonymous No.9382443]

>>9379909
this

[Anonymous No.9382450]

>>9381183
This book is indeed fucking garbage. Takes subjects that should be explained in the most simple way and makes them unnecessarily complex.

[Anonymous No.9382481]

>>9380539
What intro book would you rec? (For a grad student)

[Anonymous No.9382496]

>>9382481
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics#Algebraic_Geometry

[Anonymous No.9382503]

>>9382481
gortz wedhorn

[Anonymous No.9382603]

>>9381884
>see meme with this guy all around 4chan
>think it's just a guy taking a shot of alcohol
>look up on it
>it's poison

[Anonymous No.9382691]

This book.
Bought it cos I wanted to learn some number theory and it was highly recommended and couldnt get past the first page....

[Anonymous No.9382818]

>>9381884
>all

[Anonymous No.9382892]

>>9380551
I have the newer edition of this. It still writes things like the functional model of progression and cadential 6-4 chords in a retarded way that only the book's authors use.

[Anonymous No.9382924]

>>9382691
Isn't it that one book that opens with a discussion about Haar measure?

[Anonymous No.9383014]

>>9382924
yes

[Anonymous No.9383158]

>>9382691
Didn't you read a single review?

[Anonymous No.9383381]

>>9376910
What the fuck? What's wrong with this book? I actually checked out method of coords and his functions book, too.

Aren't they supposed to be the best supplemental texts? Why the hell does /sci/ dickride Gelfand so much, then?

[Anonymous No.9383592]

>>9383381
The vast majority of books in this thread are good.

[Anonymous No.9383650]

>>9383592
>The vast majority of books in this thread are good.
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9384049]

>>9382818
Only Physics majors need more than Physics 1,2 and 3.

[Anonymous No.9384073]

>>9372588
>>9377792

Not him but pls recommend.

[Anonymous No.9384076]

>>9382603
He was a great man.

[Anonymous No.9384078]

>>9376910
pls, I'm about to read this one, why is it so bad?

[Anonymous No.9384209]

>>9384073
>this question gets asked reopeatedly here
>no one answers
/sci/ finally reveals itself to be brainlets who never even took a physics class. hell I bet the only people here who did take a physics class are the engineers /sci/ loves calling gay.

[Anonymous No.9384229]

>>9382450
>subjects that should be explained in the most simple way and makes them unnecessarily complex.

[Anonymous No.9384235]

>>9384209
Calm your tits. This is a slow board.

In my uni Young & Freedman is the core physics book for all engineering students.

[Anonymous No.9384237]

>>9371910
>post bad textbooks
>accidentally create a thread with all of best best textbooks

[Anonymous No.9384242]

>>9384229
Is this book good for a HS review? I was planning to do the following: >>9384057

[Anonymous No.9384258]

>>9384235
I am willing to bet a majority of who browse this board have never even went to college. They just love memeing it up by calling others stupid. Most people here are probably high school kids asking for help on homework.

[Anonymous No.9384260]

>>9384258
There haven't been many homework threads lately. Don't act like you come here all the time if you don't actually

[Anonymous No.9384395]

>>9384242
Gelfand and Lang are both awful outdated ways of learning basic math and pre-calculus. They use terms and methods that haven't been taught in 40 years.
Just do Khan Academy up until calculus and then get the Stewart book.

[Anonymous No.9384408]

>>9384395
Don't listen to this guy. There's nothing outdated about these books, and they provide some elucidating problems.
Khan Academy is braindead easy. You won't learn anything from it, Anon.

[Anonymous No.9384436]

>>9384395
>>9384408
Don't listen to any of those guys, just read that you want, do exercises you want, and make up your own opinion about books.

[Anonymous No.9384438]

[Anonymous No.9384439]

>>9384436
Woke.

Anyways, thanks everyone for the replies.

[Anonymous No.9384450]

[Anonymous No.9384556]

>>9384408
Everything before calculus is supposed to be braindead easy though. You should get through it as quick as possible and not focus on it too long.

These books take 20 pages to explain concepts that can easily be explained in 1 or 2.

[Anonymous No.9384568]

>>9384556
I will add, Gelfand isn't that big of an offender in this regard. But Lang's book reads almost like a parody of what a math book should be.
Also, maybe it was just my copy, but the font choice is fucked up and I couldn't tell what was supposed to be what (x's and y's were almost impossible to tell apart, so were minus signs and equal signs, so you would have to triple check everything).

[Anonymous No.9384915]

>>9384568
Do you suggest any other book? I'm not that fond of khanacademy.

[Anonymous No.9384950]

>>9377285
It's an introduction book for freshman. Read Albert's Molecular Biology of the cell. That's what most people reference.

[Anonymous No.9384953]

>>9380542
It's not bad.

[Anonymous No.9384968]

>>9376983
I like Mathews better. Berg is good too. Voet is amazing but too much detail for a class 15 weeks long.

>>9378108
Good book.

>>9372747
Good book.

[Anonymous No.9385438]

>>9383381
Gelfand doesn't prove anything and do not even explain what is going on in a rigorous way, he teaches in a rote memorization method for the layman, do yourself a favor and start with Lang's Basic Mathematics and after that use Principles of Mathematics by Oakley.

[Anonymous No.9385447]

>>9382603
Heroj

[Anonymous No.9385956]

>>9372011
What about Apostol? Is it worth reading or is it just another meme book like Spivak?

[Anonymous No.9385995]

>>9385438
I actually checked out Principles of Mathematics at my library. Could I just jump straight in?

[Anonymous No.9386204]

[Anonymous No.9386208]

>>9384209
>>9384258
t. soyboy

[Anonymous No.9386337]

>>9386208
Paul Ryan is a soyboy.

[Anonymous No.9386414]

Are Shen books really that bad?

[Anonymous No.9386429]

>>9379909

Don't get me even started on the method they use for resolving examples exercises. Who is so reatrded to write down all that passages anyway? omfg

[Anonymous No.9386440]

>>9375617
Care to elaborate on that? I was planning on reading this, but it seems like a polarizing book

[Anonymous No.9386640]

>>9372011
this tbqhwy

[Anonymous No.9386676]

>>9385995
Hmm not recommended if you don't know at least precalculus material.

[Anonymous No.9386688]

>>9377285
Wtf have you been smoking? It's an intro bio book

[Anonymous No.9386945]

>>9386640
He's not wrong.

[Anonymous No.9386962]

>>9371930
how do you write an intro book to mechanica?
skip all the math,the derivatives and just put the formula?

[Anonymous No.9386972]

I wanted Hibbler

[Anonymous No.9387002]

>>9371926
What the fuck Stewart is great

[Anonymous No.9387050]

>>9382481
The thing is... I indeed learned algebraic geometry from Hartshorne's book... but it was a bad decision, for the book is actually not suitable for beginning. He doesn't really explain what the theorems are about... he wants to show Grothendieck's approach to the reader, and he succeeds with that.
It helped me to learn something about Riemann surfaces - if you want to understand features such as ampleness, you should have seen them in this easier case where they occur naturally. It might also be of use to look slightly longer at projective algebraic varieties - these ARE analyzed in Hartshorne but just shortly - the first chapter is more of an introduction to Hartshorne's book, not to algebraic geometry itself.

Later I thumbed through Mumford's "Algebraic Geometry I" and I regretted not to have read it before Hartshorne - for it also draws connections to analytic methods which are in a sense more graspable.
I've also heard that Shafarevich's book might be good, too. But I cannot really say much about it...

And as a last hint - to really learn algebraic geometry, you should not start with "pure" algebraic geometry at all... knowing some elementary functional analysis, geometric topology and complex analysis helps you getting into it more smoothly.

[Anonymous No.9387094]

I guarantee most of these shit-tier books are nominated by tard muffins that they were too hard for and blaming the book rather than their reptilian brain

[Anonymous No.9387111]

>>9378290
The meme here is the comparison of two books with different approaches. Spivak and Stewart. Both are widely used texts. Spivak is famously arcane and rigorous and precise, and if you don't choose the least friendly book to learn from, you're a brainlet.

My opinion is Stewart is more pedagogically sound for newbies to math. Spivak should be used as a second look

[Anonymous No.9387124]

Absolute crap

[Anonymous No.9387162]

>>9371910
The complete collection of Pearson textbooks..

"Oh ama just give 20 examples and use 15 pages of slightly different ways to explain the same shit"

[Anonymous No.9387188]

>>9386640
do you have a better definition? lol

[Anonymous No.9387191]

>>9387162
They're not that bad, kinda lacking in math
where are the actual equations?

[Anonymous No.9387512]

>>9380710
Fuck this book. All the cool shit I was supposed to be learning in an intermediate mechanics was glossed over the last 3 weeks of class. But the first 6 chapters of this book are just "Here's our overly complicated notation for everything, and here are some slightly harder problems than your intro class. I feel like there were some differential equations that when solved in the text had solutions that you couldn't possibly figure out by hand without using some weird technique that you weren't even taught.

[Anonymous No.9387811]

>>9386640
If you don't want to mess with arbitrary sets and relations, there's nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.9388214]

>>9371926
This book is the GOAT text book for calculus

[Anonymous No.9388216]

>>9373101
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.9388264]

>>9387111
Spivak is a self-study text for highschool students to up the rigor of the mathematics for university, using analysis. Stewart is a text on actual calculus. Spivak's Calculus has of course, incredibly difficult exercises (in the beginning, they get ridiculously easy in some chapters) but that's the point, to get you to think.

This, is true Honors level introductory Calculus http://math.uga.edu/~pete/2400full.pdf note the chapter "Spivak and Me" where the author describes how Spivak is great for self-study, pre-university students wanting exposure to rigorous math.

[Anonymous No.9388265]

>>9373101
>>9375209
https://github.com/ystael/chicago-ug-math-bib/blob/master/elementary/calculus.md
the guy commenting (pete) has a a Phd from Harvard and in his notes for calculus he talks about his experiences before reading Spivak (AP calc and multi variable (so 1.5 years ) studies with it (presumable over his senior year) then takes first year of college analysis with Rudin for 30 weeks after that becomes a grader for a class using Spivak and notes that there is still a non negligible percentage he couldn't do.

It's safe to say that Spivak is not and introductory book in calculus. That being said you could still probably work through it with no calculus experience just doing the problems that you think you could do from reading the text

[Anonymous No.9388270]

Is this shit?

[Anonymous No.9388273]

>>9388265
>>9388264
we just posted the exact same guy.

>>9388270
>applications

It's applied LA, like reading Sheldon Axler's 'Linear Algebra Done Right' text with banishes determinants and focuses on matrix calculations.

https://www.math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/LADW/LADW.html

[Anonymous No.9388441]

>>9388273
fucking spooky

[Anonymous No.9388446]

>>9388270
>Buy new $122.90; Used from $79.90; Rentals from $44.59

It's shit. Just get a Dover matrix algebra book instead.

[Anonymous No.9388449]

>>9388446
paying for textbooks in 2017

[Anonymous No.9388526]

>>9388449
>being a pirate in 2017

[Anonymous No.9388954]

>>9388265
Some of the problems are hard, but not this is a bad thing. That has nothing to do with the exposition, however.

[Anonymous No.9389011]

>>9381183
This book is fucking great. I don't get the hate for Lang on this board at all.

[Anonymous No.9389018]

>>9388526
>this

[Anonymous No.9389021]

[Anonymous No.9389344]

>>9380710
this book is absolute dogshit for many parts

[Anonymous No.9389535]

>>9387188
>>9387811

it's a bad definition - you miss domain/codomain and image, and it makes function composition opaque

[Anonymous No.9389541]

>>9389535
you can't even distinguish codomain and image using that definition

[Anonymous No.9389753]

>>9387124
Beer's only good engineering text is....

[Anonymous No.9389770]

[Anonymous No.9389927]

>>9377285
if it were rigorous it would kick out any reference to evolution for not being falsifiable.
But its Biology after all, just be happy that they dont reinvent the integral, those bottom-tier scilets:
https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-researcher-discovers-integration-gets-75-citations/