-Calculus: Stewart, Apostol.
-Linear Algebra: Lay, Friedberg.
-Vectorial calculus: Marsden-Tromba.
-Differential equations: Zill, Tenenbaum.
-Complex variable: Ahlfors.
-Probability and Statistics: Evans.
-Topology: Munkres.
-Analysis: Sherbert, Apostol.
-Physics: Sears.
-Thermodynamics: Callen.
-Programming Language: C, by Ivor Horton and Herbert Schildt.
-Mechanics: Landau-Lifshitz.
-Abstract Algebra: Fraleigh.
-Differential geometry: Do Carmo.
-Galois theory: Rotman.
-Electromagnetism: Reitz.
-Optics: Hecht.
-Quantum Physics: Eisberg.
-Electric circuits: Nilsson.
Discuss (other better books, opinions, experiences, etc).
we already have a textbook thread
see
>>16666400
>>16672714 (OP)>Thermodynamics: Callen>Mechanics: Landau-Lifshitz>Electromagnetism: Reitz>Quantum Physics: Eisbergthis is the worst physics textbook list i've seen maybe ever
>>16673022Schroeder is mid. Some of the explanations are fine, and it does an *okay* job of diving into some of the stat material, but the problems are fucking useless. Less an assessment of your understanding of the concepts and problem-solving strategies and more an exercise in tedium.
>Chapter 3, Problem 4, Part N: Repeat the problem again, but this time use the values from the twelfth column of Table 3.72 instead of the eleventh.
>>16672714 (OP)3/10 list
I feel like you just tried to make it 100% Jewish
>>16672714 (OP)>2 calc booksthis is how I know you fags don't actually read books. You aren't an LLM, you don't need to read 2000+ pages, most of them repeating the same shit, to grasp fucking calculus. Amann Escher and Zorich both cover Analysis and Calc very extensively in about 1200 pages
Also the complete lack of any more advanced math texts is just the cherry on the top: where's K-theory? commutative algebra? Algebraic topology or geometry? Actual differential geometry (no, do carmo is not a text on diff geo)? Functional analysis? PDEs? Lie theory? Rep theory? QFT? Stat phys? etc.
And why only take Landau for mechanics and not electrodynamics and QM too? It's not like the books you've listed cover much more
>>16681651>>16680491>>16679029KYS Nigger you already were told there's another thread for this
>>16672714 (OP)>-Physics: Sears.Bro why are you buying a physics textbook from a bankrupt appliance retailer?
>>16672714 (OP)>Vectorial calculusAt least get the name right
I corrected your selection to better books, there's plenty of room and there's plenty of more to explore but i am in a fucking train to Netherlands so i couldn't remember and come up with all the good shit:
-Calculus: Spivak, Hille/Salas, Piskunov and maybe Apostol
-> Special mentionening Munkres and Spivak for Calculus and/or Analysis on Manfolds, maybe also Hubbards "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms"
-Linear Algebra: Hoffmann/Kunze, Halmos for Linear transformations, Mirsky
-Vectorial calculus: Murray Spiegel (Watch at his other Schaums),
-Differential equations: Tennenbaum and Pollard, Boyce DiPrima
-Complex variable: Ahlfors, Kunihiko Kodaira, maybe also Cartan, and Stein & Shakarchi
-Probability and Statistics: Dwass, for Probablity only Kolmogorov and Kiyoshi Ito, for more mathematical Eisen
-Topology: Munkres, Threllfall
-Analysis: No such a thing like "Analysis", it can be Real Analysis, Advanced Calculs.. You call it. At this point: Princeton series in Analysis by Stein and Shakarchi, special Mention Choquets "Lectures on Analysis", and the german goat Amann and Escher
-Physics: Sears & Zemansky, Halliday & Resnick if you want it to be a huge ass motherfucking single book. Anything else go for a series:
-> Feynmann lectures
-> Pauli Lectures
-> Sommerfeld
-> Landau/Lifschitz
-> Berkley physics course
-> If you know German: Demtroeder and Willhelm Macke
-Thermodynamics: Enrico Fermi (There's only a tiny dover paperback), including Statistical Mechanics maybe also Reif
-Programming Language: The C Programming language by Kernighan, Ritchie
-Mechanics: Classical Dynamics of particles and systems by Marion
-Abstract Algebra: Dummit & Foote
-Differential geometry: Kobayashi, Loring Tu, Spivak, Do Carmo
-Galois theory: Literally useless, but get Artin instead
-Electromagnetism: Either Griffiths or Jackson
-Optics: Max Born,
-Quantum Physics: Dirac, Albert Messiah, Cohen-Tannoudji, Sakurai, Bethe
>>16685670-Piskunov: avoid.
-Any huge huge ass motherfucking single book: not needed, better if organized in volumes.
--Galois theory: useful in criptography, quantum physics', to classifying complex algebraic structures in geometry, etc.
-K&R: kind of outdated, but still useful.
>>16672714 (OP)>Electric circuits: NilssonThis is a great introduction and quite essential.
>>16690653i really don't understand how people learn from these dense textbooks. it's informational overload.
i learn much better doing a thing.
>>16691957Read paragraph, absorb it, understand it, move to the next paragraph, this can take years, I saw a man who learned multiple languages using books and instruction pampleths, once you understand language you understand were it all goes, is not violence
And for everything else, there's Master Card.
>>16691957A lot of denser textbooks are intended as a reference material, something to use for finding specific, deeper analysis or information than a primary text can or should. Horowitz and Hill's Art of Electronics, for example, is regarded as one of the best and most thorough reference texts on the subject of electronics, and almost any electrical engineer you talk to would agree that having a copy on your shelf is the equivalent of an English professor owning a dictionary.
... but, it's also fucking *appalling* as a primary text for actually learning fundamentals of, or even advanced topics in, electronics; it's too dense and it's not structured for it, and the authors even spell this out in the preface, and yet, in spite of this, I know several instructors who insist on using it as a primary text for teaching electronics to undergraduates.
>>16672714 (OP)>Galois theory: RotmanFinally a decent recommendation
>>16685670>ReifI rather enjoyed Reif
>Electromagnetism: Either Griffiths or JacksonThat's just standard fare, going through Griffiths in undergrad and then Jackson in grad and I'm inclined to agree with some of the criticisms of Jackson.
>>16677890>Any online sources?hownew.ru
>>16686309>Piskunov avoidWhy? I have this book with me kek, and my only issue that for understanding it you already have to know how to do proofs lol
Pic related the only textbooks u need for undergrad math major
>>16702770>Why? [...] kek-Poor esthetics
-Bad definitions from the very beginning; almost no inequalities, no sequences
-Bad order of contents
-Worst definitions of functions, limits
-No deep understanding of integrals: the question 'is this function integrable or not?' doesn't appear
-The book works with obsolete, poor definitions in general
Any recommendations for number theory?
I feel like every algebraic topology textbook I've ever looked at kinda sucked. Does anyone here have any recommendations?
>>16705300Maunder maybe, there is a Dover reprint. Also Munkres has a book on Algebraic topology which i've found ok
>>16701399NTA but that shit was written in the 60s and covers the bare minimum
>inb4 GoldsteinTrash as well, but for the diametrically opposite reason. Tries to cover way too much and some chapters (relativity, action-angle variables, canonical perturbation theory, field theory) are unreadable useless garbage as a result.
>>16672714 (OP)As a nuclear engineer, I'd add Todreas and Kazimi since it's the bible of thermohydraulics and nuclear reactor design, and it has everything about heat transfer that a person would possibly need for any PWR analysis
Now for reactor physics. If you are studying nuclear engineering and reading this, just don't be a pussy and go with Duderstadt and Hamilton. All tears will be of joy
>>16672714 (OP)- Vector Calculus: Schaum's Outline for practice
- Topology: Munkers is a great starting poiny
- Analysis: Spivak Calculus, Terence Tao
- Thermodynamics: Blundell, Garg-Bansal-Ghosh
- C: don't use Schildt, worst possible books. Use K&R or Modern C.
- Mechanics: Takwale-Puranik, Berkeley Physics
- Electrodynamics: Griffiths
- Quantum: Eisberg, Resnick
- Electronics: Millman, Halkias
>>16712275In one of Newtons famous letters to Richard Bentley he talks about gravity as if it is "absurd".
<<[...]The last clause of the second position I like very well. It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers. [...]>>
Some of my favorites.
-Klenke's book I like because it is not handwaving the measure theoretic aspects away and you get a handle on the nitty gritty. Don't read the whole book, some of the later chapters are better developed in other books. And I don't like some of his proofs. On the spectrum of Rudin's elegant but coming out of nowhere proofs on one side and straightforward but ugly proofs on the other side, Klenke falls too much on the latter side IMO.
-Aluffi is a hard book, but I like how category theory is used to streamline arguments. Some of it can feel unmotivated or needlessly abstract at first, but that was my mediocre algebra background probably. This book introduces you to how modern mathematicians think about algebra supposedly.
-Le Gall I like because Karatzas & Shreve was too hard for me honestly ha. The construction of Brownian motion via white noise is elegant IMO, though not classical.
-Boyd & Vandenberghe. Really nice examples and intuition. I understand it's not a definition theorem proof type book but I would like it to be slightly less conversational and prove some more things because results can drop out of nowhere.
-Stroock is a peculiar and also difficult book, he presents some unique viewpoints and results and his writing style is funny to me. If nothing else, the prefaces are entertaining. E.g. : "My decision to publish a third edition was motivated in part by the hope that its contents might cause indigestion in the memory bank of an AI system (...)".
-Wainwright I like because the classical asymptotic results felt inadequate to me, statistics is a fundamentally empirical discipline so we cannot always rely on asymptotics. You also get a nice but not overly reductive overview of the subject.
>>16672870I'm curious what the other versions were because the thread says "V1.3" anyone know?
Looks like the usual places to download stuff are being attacked.
https://open-slum.org/
A lot of them are down. On top of shitton of DMCA.
>>16716450When you say attacked, do you mean law firms acting on behalf of publishers or the publishers themselves working with authorities are requesting take downs or are there people sad enough to ddos servers and shit?
>>16716450The fake libgen with harmful popup ads (Library Genesis +) also fails from time to time these days. The publishers are pretty serious imo.
>>16673704nobody "reads" a calc book tho. you learn on it. You don't understand something on it, check another one on same topic.
>>16673123are all those jew names? lol
>>16672714 (OP)The best research paper I read was Slepian on the concept of "indistinguishable".
I found it easy to read. If you dont I am probably smarter than you.
>>16729167Applied math slant. Who made this?
>Set theory: Kunen
>Model theory: Marker
>Computability theory: Robiฤ
>Category theory: Awodey
>>16727300Why do people say Basic Mathematics by Lang is a meme?
Any recommendations for an algebra book? I will attempt to learn calculus from Lagrangeโs Theory of Analytic Functions. Why were his algebraic methods not adopted?
>>16731988Have you read the book? I personally don't think it does a good job preparing students for a real calculus book like spivak. Basically, smarter kids don't need that book, and dumb ones/adult learners need more.
>>16672714 (OP)what's the book that is basically diff eq for retards?
>>16732298No such thing. But I like Tenenbaum's ODE book reprint from Dover. Iirc it was complete and straightforward.
>>16732248Then which one is a good replacement?
>>16714224Now probability books are mentioned.
If, big IF, I want to learn chaos theory... what books should I study?
What books are included in the Chaos Theory core library?
>>16732913You don't want "chaos theory", you want Dynamical systems and related topics
