/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6127572
>Not liking based McQuarrie

No textbook thread is complete without the inclusion of the second most circlejerked math text of all time.

>>6127602
that's was an interesting textbook but Sean Carroll knows fuck-all about QM.

>>6127572
>Dummit & Foote's Abstract Algebra

Dummit & Foote suck.

Dummit & Foote sucks.

My girlfriend bought me this for my birthday last year.

I'm a math major.

>>6127670
what would you recommend instead?

>>6127672
Holy shit that's hilarious.

>>6127649
I thought it was first.
What is the first? Spivak's calculus? Dummit's Algebra? Munkres' Topology? I wanna know.
Also, Rudin is low tier. With free access to most textbooks, I found much better ones which are unfortunately less popular either because they're new or they didn't gain momentum early enough.

>>6127572
SHITTY quantum textbook, have you actually used it for a course? have you ever used another quantum textbook?

Best Algebra book

>>6127703
using it for a course right now. I started out with Griffiths and that was a good intro

A classic

>>6127702
Euclid.

Literally hundreds upon hundreds of years of anyone who tried to use anything else for geometry being ridiculed.

>>6127709
first year grad? buy Zettili, you will thank me later, i promise

>>6127709
Griffiths is by far the worst quantum mechanics book I have ever read. But I guess its good if you have never taken a linear algebra or differential equations course and never plan on ever being good at math.

>>6127748
top kek, many of the problems are good, but many of these problems are also in other textbooks, plus bra-ket notation is introduced in Ch 3, but never used afterward

every time i read a book by griffiths, i feel like he was just jacking himself off while typing it up

>>6127721
second year undergrad actually
>>6127748
It gave me an ok intuition for QM which is all I really needed.

Dummite and Foote; gives some good examples reasonable problems and is very thorough.

>>6127764
second year undergrad? did you actually do the problems in griffiths, or did you just read it? professors are lying when they say you need to do the problems to learn the material

1st year grad student in mathematical physics here (at an Ivy league school if that matters) Interesting thread… few observations:

- my fav calc book was not mentioned
- 2 of my fav algebra books not mentioned
- my fav QM book not mentioned
- my fav QFT book was not mentioned

I've gone through dozens of books when learning new material and have found books that are absolutely best in their class and allowed me to grasp the subject faster and better than my classmates and allowed me to be top student in almost all of the classes I took.

if no one mentions them, I'll list them later on. don't want to feed the trolls.

>>6127775
List them. Also, please give me the best undergraduate book for QM (I'm a mathematics major, but I want the one a physics major would use). One that is as dumbed down as possible would be great (while still being mathematically rigorous, I just want every step explained to me).

Also, are there good books for someone interested in mathematical physics? What do you think of the book "The Road to Reality"?

My recommendations: As mentioned, Munkres for topology of course. I've explored books for undergraduates in classical mechanics, the best by far is Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow.

>>6127775
>mathematical physics
are you in a math or physics department? or does your school actually have a program for mathematical physics?

>>6127773
read it and did a couple of the important problems. Most of the exercises seemed like a waste of time

>>6127775
May I ask, how did you get into a mathematical physics program? Is it actually called that or are you in the physics or math department with mathematical physics being your specialty?

I'm super interested in getting into this field, but it seems like in the U.S. there are almost no "mathematical physics" programs, just one or other. Should I try to find the university with the most mathematical physicists and apply there?

>>6127775
>not just listing them instead of writing a bunch of stuff

>>6127786
>>6127788

Shit, we posted the same question lol

>>6127782
before I answer, how much modern physics do you know?

>>6127786
It's inside physics department.

https://www.physics.harvard.edu/research/facresearch

>>6127785
not all of them are very worthwhile problems, but they would only be a waste of time if you already knew how to do them, did you work most of the chapters? zettili is almost all examples and problems, MANY of which are in other textbooks, no bullshit, which is why i HIGHLY recommend it

>>6127794
I'm an EE/mathematics major. I've taken basically the first two of the three usual introductory calculus-based physics courses. Mechanics and E&M. No maxwell equations and no lagrange or hamilitonian notation. Just the very basic calculus based stuff.

If you could go ahead and mention all the books you mentioned that be really awesome. I'm actually looking for a good calculus reference book since the one I have is a POS rip-off.

The Early Universe by Kolb and Turner is one of my favorites.

>>6127794
i wanted to go into mathematical physics, but i couldn't cut it when it came to topology and abstract algebra, but now that i have worked as an experimentalist, i don't want to go back

>>6127796
I had a pretty strong linear algebra / diffeq background when reading Griffiths so I figured if I could do a few problems from each chapter I'd have a pretty good handle on it. Zellini sounds nice, I'll have to check if it's in our library

>>6127800
you should get more acquainted with differential equations and linear algebra first, you can essentially go as far as you want with either of these, so it will give you a good idea of how much you will like it

>>6127804
>Zettili
http://lib.free-college.org/search.php?search_type=author&search_text=Zettili&submit=Dig+for

>>6127804
>>6127808

Can you just post the list of books m8?

And I've actually taken linear algebra, diff eqs, and PDEs. Taking proof linear algebra next semester. Will be taking graduate level diff eqs before I graduate.

Always interested in good book lists though.

>>6127786
I don't know about him but we have a mathematical physics program here. You get a BSc once you graduate so it's in science. Also, it is more mathematical than a regular physics program but it still isn't very rigorous. All the math courses they need to take are applied mathematics(differential eqns, a 4th calc course) and applied complex analysis.

>>6127810
oh sweet thanks

>>6127822
That doesn't sound mathematical at all. Sounds like average physics program. Mathematical physics is the synthesis of proof mathematics used to discover new physics. If it doesn't have any proof stuff it really isn't mathematical physics.

>>6127822
>>6127828
this is true, as any "mathematical physics" book that i have read, and any seminar that i have attended, it is basically just mathematics using axioms given by physics

>>6127775
Can you pleaseeeee list those books?

>>6127828
I know, that's why I wasn't very impressed. I do go to Waterloo so I would think it's more mathematical. The difference it has between a regular physics program is the math courses you take in mathematical physics are in the Math department while if you're in just physics, you take the math courses made specifically for physics.

>>6127788
>May I ask, how did you get into a mathematical physics program? Is it actually called that or are you in the physics or math department with mathematical physics being your specialty?
>I'm super interested in getting into this field, but it seems like in the U.S. there are almost no "mathematical physics" programs, just one or other. Should I try to find the university with the most mathematical physicists and apply there?


I actually went to a pretty mid-range US college but have worked hard, wrote a few papers as an undergrad and have corresponded with few profs that are big names in physics and two of them agreed to write me letters of recommendation.

Then I started applying to grad schools and Harvard program seemed interesting and I accepted. It's a lot of hard work but if you're serious, don't waste your time on bull and start hitting the books and TALK to people over emails or in person if you can.

>>6127803
>but now that i have worked as an experimentalist, i don't want to go back

I plan on going into academia and it's incredibly hard to get tenure as an experimentalist. Heck, even Nobel committee didn't want to give prize to CERN for discovering Higgs. They gave it to people who proposed the idea.

>>6127800
>>6127800
>No maxwell equations and no lagrange or hamilitonian notation. Just the very basic calculus based stuff.

Get Omnès' book. You should be able to handle it and it will put you on the right path.

>>6127822
We do mostly phenomenology at Harvard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(particle_physics)

It's pretty rigorous and some of the stuff will melt your brain. But hey, it's fun and you get better at it.

>>6127860
>Get Omnès' book. You should be able to handle it and it will put you on the right path.

I think he has two on QM, which would you recommend?

>start hitting the books and TALK to people over emails or in person if you can

What do you mean by this? You mean you emailed big names in physics? What did you say to them? Also, why did they agree to write you LoRs, did you meet them in person?

>>6127870
Introduction to QM. Understanding QM is great if you don't know any math.

I was glad I discovered Omnes early on. He got me to think properly about QM.

I find a lot of QM books written from the point of view of people who don't really understand QM very well but can explain equations and math decently and are good physicists. Issue is that they don't really give you wisdom.

it's easy to calculate stuff and solve problems given those textbooks but they don't give you intuition needed to figure things out and to create new theories.

I'm now taking a lot of ST stuff and find it relatively easy.

>>6127881
This one?

http://www.amazon.com/Interpretation-Quantum-Mechanics-Roland-Omn%C3%A8s/dp/0691036691/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383280324&sr=1-2

The reviews aren't great, but I'll take your word for it and check it out.

>>6127870
>What do you mean by this? You mean you emailed big names in physics? What did you say to them? Also, why did they agree to write you LoRs, did you meet them in person?

Read papers on arxiv. Think about them. Talk to people at your school about them. Then talk to people who wrote them and ask them pointed questions about why they did things the way they did them. Offer help of some kind and if they share what they're working on, drop all of the side projects and work your ass off to get your name on that paper! That's how I got credit.

>>6127887
>The reviews aren't great

well, 4/5 is quite good but that 1/5 is by some idiot. you might as well pick up the other one… Understanding QM since you know little math.

at uni now, but i'll post the torrent to Berkeley's/MIT physics and math undergrad books

>>6127890
>Offer help of some kind and if they share what they're working on, drop all of the side projects and work your ass off to get your name on that paper! That's how I got credit.

So you worked with people via email? How do you work with these people when so much in physics is so heavily mathematical and your mathematics just don't compare to theirs?

Another question, is there a certain field of physics I should look into to publish (or obviously, help someone else publish)? I mean, I obviously can't do mathematical physics or string theory. Is there a field I start reading papers and get into relatively fast?

I don't really have a favourite book, but this book was cheap as fuck and an amazing book for an introduction to functional analysis/operator theory in QM. I'll be reading Reed and Simon and Ballentine when I have time, I've heard good things about those books.

>>6127894
So first that, then Zettilli?

Also, you mentioned your fav. calculus book isn't listed. What is it, I wouldn't mind a good calculus reference.

>>6127692
This here, 10/10 textbook.

Although it would be nice if he just called inner products inner products rather than "symmetric positive definite bilinear forms" I get he was trying to be general and talk about all the different bilinear forms giving no particular attention to the most commonly used one but that was annoying

>>6127895
Berkeley math
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:02FE0D59722A2C8A99F61A32E1D17C319C56A03A

Berkeley physics
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:67F6C2C5C4C2FA51D5FA59DD5C2CD509CEE211F6

MIT math
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:959C4BF9C714FF32705993C2FE51A0CBEEE28E42

MIT physics
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:EB50C5836AE938A9EB57CB09DECD5EE9DA390250

>>6127887
>http://www.amazon.com/Interpretation-Quantum-Mechanics-Roland-Omn%C3%A8s/dp/0691036691/
>A whole book on the Copenhagen interpretation

What a piece of crap.

>>6127881
>He got me to think properly about QM

Obviously not if the above is what you're talking about. Ontology of the Copenhagen interpretation is hopelessly illogical and all the majority Physicist of the day it was being formulated that didn't join the SUAC (shut up and calculate) camp, hated it.

>>6127721

Strocchi's quantum book is better.

>>6127902

Calculus on Manifolds by Spivak.

>>6128030
>I don't understand it, therefore it's illogical

Favourite Functional Analysis: Kreyszig
Favourite Real Analysis: Stephen R. Lay (beginner book, but very good)

>>6128016
thanks

>>6128036
He's actually right.
Pic related, it's the Copenhagen interpretation.

Prepare your anus for the most hardcore quantum book: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Mathematicians-Graduate-Mathematics/dp/0821846302

>>6128030
Copenhagen interpretation is the the best QM interpretation that we have. All other ones are nonsensical and have issues. MW is probably the worst of them all.

J.D. Jackson Electrodynamics

Anything by Serge Lang

>>6128048
Many Worlds is laughably worst than Copenhagen but that is not the only other main interpretation out there. Bohmian Mechanics correctly (and deterministically) reproduces all of Quantum Mechanics while logically defining what particles and the wave function guiding them all are physically with the most intuitive equation coupling their evolution together.

Nearly all the Mathematical Physics professors, that care about such things, favor the Bohmian interpretation in my University.

Any Biochemists have favourite textbooks?

>>6128097

>>6128016
are these actually textbooks or just a bunch of notes compiled from different courses?

>>6127692
>>6127707
>mfw americans need a textbook for algebra

Come on guys, using letters instead of numbers and solving equations for x isn't that hard. Your middle school teacher's explanation is all you need.

>>6128107
are you this ignorant?

>>6128108
I am not ignorant. I know algebra and I learned it without a textbook. Dude, solving a quadratic isn't hard.

>>6128110
Sad that you're not even trolling

>>6128110
>groups, rings, modules, Galois theory, polynomials, linear algebra, and associative algebra
>"quadratic"

THE CLASSY PHYSICIST APPROVES

The chapters on modeling spindles are clearer than any review article

Richard Dawkins (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
Richard Dawkins (1982). The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-288051-9.
Richard Dawkins (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
Richard Dawkins (1995). River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.
Richard Dawkins (1996). Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-31682-3.
Richard Dawkins (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-05673-4.
Richard Dawkins (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.
Richard Dawkins (2004). The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-00583-8.
Richard Dawkins (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
Richard Dawkins (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
Richard Dawkins (2011). The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True. Free Press (United States), Bantam Press (United Kingdom). ISBN 978-1-4391-9281-8. OCLC 709673132.
Richard Dawkins (2013). An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist. Ecco Press (United Kingdom and United States). ISBN 978-0-06-228715-1.

>>6128097
reported

>>6127572
>Dummit & Foote's Abstract Algebra is great as well.
I just bought that, only skimmed through it but looked more like a reference book than anything. Not read it though

>>6127775
After talking so much trash, did this guy really leave without listing those books?

Haha, I'm kidding.

>>6128161
*tips fedora*

*shines monocle*

A&M of course. Contains most commutative algebra that you will need (unless you are an algebraist) in 100 pages. One has to fill in the details of the proofs, but that is how maths should be done anyway.

>>6127572
>Dummit & Foote's Abstract Algebra
Good for killing somebody with one blow to the head.

>>6127702
>Also, Rudin is low tier. With free access to most textbooks, I found much better ones which are unfortunately less popular either because they're new or they didn't gain momentum early enough.
Like which ones? This is relevant to my interests.

>>6127692
>>6127707
Say that to my face not online fuckers and see what happens.

>>6128380
Starting Dummit Foote Abstract Algebra now. Hoping you're right OP

GOAT mechanics book.

>>6128178
Why the fuck did the janitor delete that instead of the atheism spam? They should have at least deleted both

>>6128380

Artin >>> Dummit & Foote

Herstein is good too

>>6127700
>Not Tenenbaum/Pollard

Truth be told, if you're poor and a wannabe mathematician, get Dover books. Good shit right there.

John Taylor's "Classical Mechanics" is a great textbook, if you're looking for a more thorough insight into mechanics and physics.

>>6128449
Because reporting a report is an offense and being a idiot is normal.

>>6128464
Tenenbaum/Pollard is the best intro undergrad book
Arnold is the best 4th year undergrad/1st year graduate book

curently reading this

>>6127572
ECONOMETRICS

Neil Tyson inspired me to read this textbook

>>6128460
Herstein is the best.
Just reading his book, he sounds like the best teacher ever who knows his student's questions, needs, hopes and inquisitions. Imagine being in his classroom.
It's too short and not thorough enough but it's the best quality I found.

>>6128512
>>6128506
>>6128495
>>6128490
>>6128483
>>6128481
>>6128480
>>6128477
Nice job shitting up the only decent thread on sci.

>>6128418
>Starting Dummit Foote Abstract Algebra now. Hoping you're right OP
It's rather dry I have to say

>>6128506
seen this one?

I'm in first year undergrad and I've just been learning from a set of lecture notes. They're pretty good especially the abstract algebra ones (the lecturer has a good sense of humor).

Anyway, am I missing out on a lot if I don't use proper text books etc? Or should I just download them and use them for the exercises when revising?

>>6128107

> Hurr durr everyone look how retarded I am!

>>6128476
My obvious undergrad is showing.
My mistake, apologies.

>>6128104
actual textbooks

don't want this thread to die

Hungarian fag here.

Hello!

This is a very, very fine textbook.

Best!

>>6132130

thanks

>>6132130

any other good books on AG?

>>6132176
Ravi Vakil's lecture notes on the foundations of AG are bretty good. (I'm not the guy who insists on breaking rule 13, btw)

>>6127782
>the best by far is Introduction to Mechanics by Kleppner and Kolenkow
Uh, it's definitely not good if you've never seen the material before. The problems are indeed interesting, but the text just doesn't really give you all you need to solve every problem. It requires more than just a creative leap of imagination...

I have a lot of math books but this is the only one of which I'm truly fond.

>>6132130
For all of their faults I think Ravi's notes are better. It would still be nice if G&W finished the second volume sometime soon so there would be a bound book that one could recommend.

>>6128416
Lol, Lang is an alright book but Artin's just way more accessible and definitely GT.

Also, my advisor told a hilarious story that some Berkeley prof got his book, when it appeared, from Lang in person. Every time he was visiting, he'd, once left alone, take the book from the shelf and check if it had been read. Annoyed by this (and probably the French prick himself) the prof wrote "Stop writing books, you arrogant shit" inside the cover. The next time he checked the book after Lang had left, the guy had answered with "FUCK YOU".

>>6132223
What's your suggestion then for an intro to mechanics book?

>>6132398
Taylor or Goldstein's

My hands down favorite textbook ever is vibrations and waves by french. It is a slim 300 pages, about the dimensions of a small novel, priced at a modest $30, but is jam packed with information. It can be used to learn from, and is also an excellent reference

I also really like taylor's classical mechanics. I like how it is organized - there are 10 chapters or so of 'must know' material, and then 7 or 8 chapters which can be taken in any order, which are supplemental, and talk about topics which are nonconventional but nontheless cool, like classical mechanics and chaos theory

Has anybody posted a mathematics for physics textbook? I've been looking for one

>>6132416
>mathematics for physics

Hassani, Mathematical Physics: A Modern Introduction to Its Foundations
Arfken, Mathematical Methods for Physicists
Denneiy & Krzywicki, Mathematics For Physicists
Szekeres, A Course in Modern
Mathematical Physics: Groups, Hilbert Space and Differential Geometry
Nakahara, Geometry, Topology, and Physics
Frankel, The Geometry of Physics: An Introduction
Whittaker, A Course of Modern Analysis

>>6132451

I'm capable of looking up a list of every mathematics for physics textbook as well, I wanted some singular recommendations

>>6132325
I think this was Ken Ribet.

>>6132407
>Says Kleppner is too hard for undergraduate intro to mecahnics
>Lists an advanced undergrad and a graduate-level book

Can someone recommend a signal processing text that doesn't suck?

For the record, if it denotes the convolution of f and g evaluated at x as f(x) * g(x), that would qualify as "sucking."

>>6128460

This semester our prof is using Modern Algebra with Applications by Gilbert, with Herstein as a supplement.

I find that the Gilbert text is surprisingly good, if you skip all the chapters on applications (which are dull). It's concisely written and quite lucid.

>>6132398
Classical Mechanics by John Taylor is like KK but with more examples, a less informal writing style, and covers a bit more. In other words, it's a reader-friendly KK. When I was taking Honors Classical Mechanics at my school, we used KK but I found out about JT and that helped tremendously as a reference.

Also, another good book, though I think it's kind of rare to find (it's not being sold anywhere I know of; I found a copy in my University library) is Fundamental University Physics by Alonso and Finn. It's a bit computational (A bit higher than the level of Young and Freedman but definitely lower than KK or JT) and hard to read (notation and it's riddled with formulas because they derive EVERYTHING) but its qualitative explanations of some topics are pretty useful.

Whatever you do, avoid Thermal Physics by Schroeder. Fucking christ, that is a terrible text.

>>6132697
That wasn't me. I'm this guy: >>6132715

Also, if you just want to be like everyone else, just use Young and Freedman as an intro and move from there.

(Oh, also, I should mention that by "covers a bit more", I meant JT covers everything KK does, but also includes things like Langrangian, Hamiltonian, tensors, etc.)

>>6132716
Every Thermodynamics book is utter shit.

>>6132732

That's not a thermodynamics book, it's a stat mech book.

Even the title is shit.

>>6132732
thermodynamics is utter shit

>>6132733
First part is thermodynamics. Calling it "statistical physics" or "thermodynamics" would be a misnomer. Hence thermal physics. Anyway, I quite liked it. What would you recommend instead as an intro to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics?

>>6132733
It's a Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics book.

The statement still holds.

>ctrl+f
>no based Cohen-Tannoudji
>mfw

>>6132740

Teach thermo separately, use a real textbook like Pathria for stat mech.

The Schroeder text tries so damn hard to be "approachable" and "informal" that it ultimately just ends up being unreadable; you can't follow any of the authors derivations easily because they're constantly interrupted by superfluous discourse. He also has the nasty habit of telling you the name for a certain quantity without bothering to explain what the quantity is or why it's important.

>>6132715
>>6132719

I could be wrong since I haven't read the JT book, I own a copy of KK...but I thought that JT was advanced undergraduate since it covers hamiltonian/lagrangian and that KK was not as advanced.

My thought was that someone would read KK first then go on to JT. Let me know if I'm wrong though, since you're saying that JT includes everything in KK.

>>6132760
You're willing to move a subject as important and fundamental as statmech to grad level? Why?
Also, what book would you recommend for thermodynamics?

>>6132176
Liu's book is very good

>>6127672
top lel.
does she actually think calc is hard?

>>6128107
you must be joking.

>>6127572
>>6127670
>>6127768
Dummit & Foote is great if you have to prepare for a qualifying exam in algebra, and horrible if you actually want to read a book and learn something new.

Algebra: Chapter 0 by Paulo Aluffi is superior in every respect

>>6132799
>You're willing to move a subject as important and fundamental as statmech to grad level?

There's no reason you can't use Pathria in a senior undergrad course. You shouldn't be teaching stat mech before thermo and quantum, anyway.

>>6132823
>Algebra: Chapter 0 by Paulo Aluffi is superior in every respect
This.
Also, the introductory part on category theory is very well done.

>>6128412
I picked up Kolmogorov and Fomin's real analysis from Dover. It cost like $15 and it is excellent. Small issues with the translation, though. It has the bonus of being written by a brilliant analyst, unlike Rudin. You can usually tell when it's written by a genius. As Abel said "I read the masters, not their pupils." I think Rudin would fall in the "pupil" category here.

>>6128105
top lel.

>>6132176
AG book list: (assuming familiarity with undergrad analysis, algebra, topology)

ALGEBRA PREREQS: Atyiah-Macdonald "Introduction to Commutative algebra"
LEVEL 0 AG BOOK (algebraic): Shafarevich "Basic Algebraic Geometry, vol 1"
LEVEL 1 AG BOOK (algebraic): Q. Liu "Algebraic Geometry and Arithmetic Curves"
LEVEL 2 AG BOOK (algebraic): Hartshorne "Algebraic Geometry" + "Deformation Theory"
LEVEL 3 AG BOOK (algebraic): Fulton "Intersection Theory"

COMPLEX PREREQS: Ahflors "Complex analysis"
GEOMETRY PREREQS: Kuhnel "Differential Geometry"
COMPLEX GEOMETRY: Huybrechts "Complex Geometry"
AG BOOK (analytic): Griffiths-Harris "Principles of Algebraic Geometry"

May god have mercy on your soul for Hartshorne will not

>>6132871

thank you very much

Entymology fag here

Can you fellas please recommend some insect/arthropod related books for me?

thank you

>>6128464
I mean, Tennenbaum/Pollard is okay, but V. I. Arnold's good too. He was a mathematician in his own right. And he had a very strong pedagogical sense.

>>6132115
As much as I appreciate Hungarian contributions to mathematics, I do not particularly want to learn Hungarian.

>"Muh binary manipulation"

>>6132886
>Entymology

You can't even spell your own field correctly? Looks legit.

>>6132130
>with examples
>algebraic geometry

>>6132398
Theoretical Physics by Joos or Variational Principles in Mechanics by Lanczos. Lanczos has to be supplemented by something on a more rigorous approach to the calculus of variations, however.

>>6132903
Don't get too excited, "with examples" means there's literally a short chapter called "Examples" right at the end, and pretty much no examples throughout the rest of the book.

There's a sweet diagram of properties of morphisms right at the end though, in case you ever wondered if open immersions are quasi-separated etale

>>6132732
try thermodynamics by Fermi.

>>6132902

Lol. I'm drunk and at work, in a hurry. Also I never said I was a professional speller. Judgemental prick. I hope you feel superior to more strangers on the internet.

But seriously, i wish you well in all of your endeavors.

>>6132948
Why are you drunk at work? Do you want to lose your job?

bump for gud thread

I know it's a REALLY basic undergrad book, but it was the first textbook that I actually read cover-to-cover. My high school chem teacher was a bad teacher, but I read this entire book and got a 5 on the AP chem exam. Good read.

>>6133010
seconded (also read cover to cover)

Best book on classical Mechanics is Arnol'd. Very well-explained, deeply mathematical and good overview over continuative topics.
Currently im looking for something comparable in QM.
>>6128041
this looks good, ty!

>>6132176
>>6132217
>>6132871

Hello!

In my opinion, the good algebraic geometry textbooks for a beginner are the following: Gortz, Ravi Vakil's Notes, Gathmann's Notes, Fulton, and Bump's book.

These all depend upon what you're interests are:

Vakil's Notes: Everyone says that they are the best notes ever. This is contentious. They are really, really good at having a lot of material on a topic. I mean, Vakil's content on any one topic, say closed embeddings, is SO much more vast than most other books that when you go look at something like Hartshorne you say "there is nothing in this book!" This is good, and this is bad. It's good because this learning by deluge really forces you to see it all, so that you don't leave with a cursory knowledge of anything. It is bad because, well, it's a deluge. Vakil wants to set up everything very carefully. He wants you to really, really have seen/learned every bit of material before you move on. Consequently, it takes FOREVER to do anything. It can be almost discouraging at points. You may say to yourself "I want to learn about____ [vector bundles, cohomology]" this term! 300 pages later and you're still two chapters away from vector bundles, and 150 pages away from cohomology. But, if you have the time, the effort, and the willingness to go through everything in detail, then yes, I may admit it is one of the best texts.

Gathmann's Notes: These are just a good, quick and dirty, set of notes that's supposed to cover roughly Chap I, II and III of Hartshorne with a little extra. It's terse, terser than Hartshorne, but with all the clarity that Hartshorne lacks. In a lot of ways, Hartshorne is a digested EGA, and Gathmann is a digested Hartshorne.

>>6133461
(cont.)

Fulton's book (on curves): This is a really, really solid introduction to the subject. It really only covers curves, but manages to get to a lot of the hard topics (e.g. RR) fairly quickly. If you have time to kill, doing this before you learn about varieties in general, and then about schemes, is helpful--it will set up great intuition for later. Let me warn against "I need to prepare myself for AG by reading these 6 books". This is a prevalent mentality. One which can cause you to spend years preparing to actually study what you want to study. Unless you have infinite time (in which case, share) just get to what you want to do.

Bump's Book: This is a super terse, super condensed book just on varieties. It certainly will not give you much geometric background, but will quickly get you into the algebraic side of things. This book is almost more like a commutative algebra book where everything is phrased entirely geometrically. This is good though, since most newcomers to AG really lack the commutative algebra background to be successful. This is an excellent primer.

Books I did not include: Hartshorne, Liu, Eisenbud and Harris, EGA, amongst others.

>>6133465
Hartshorne: This is a classic, but really is kind of terrible. It's not the terseness, or the fact that most of the important theorems are exercises(this is also true of Vakil!), but it's lack of clarity. Some of the proofs in this book are entirely overcomplicated, and, in fact, wrong-minded. He often times doesn't develop the machinery to make a theorem "obvious". For example, Vakil's so long and drawn out that by the time you need to prove Big Theorem X, you have seen soooo much material, proved sooooo many would-be lemma,s that the theorem is now obvious. Hartshorne's more like "Uh...let's just uhm...prove this big thing" and then proceeds to give this unmotivated, very sloppy and technically opaque proof. Not reccomended as a text. It's good to look up some things though. EGA is actually clearer.

Liu: Liu is really, really, really good. Just not as a first time book (or at least not in isolation--it should go along with another more didactic book). The problem is that Liu is technically perfect. In complete opposition to Hartshorne's proofs, Liu's proofs are one-hundred percent on the up-and-up. There is no touchy-feely "so, you see where to go from here? Right? Ok...end of proof". The man has a perfect understanding of the technical underpinnings of AG and they are on display in his book. He even has some pretty good examples. The only problem is that the pace, and in fact the same technical excellence that makes the book good, can be intimidating for a first time through. But, if you want a slick proof of something, or are already familiar with AG, Liu is a great book to have.

>>6128319
Actually, I have to say, EGA is pretty readable. The pace is pretty pedestrian (not too difficult as there are 2000 pages of it)

>>6133470
Eisenbud and Harris: This book is truly excellent as a source of motivation. It has great pictures, great examples, and great exposition. What it lacks is the technical underpinnings. Like some other books (e.g. Hatcher) you can read a chapter in E&H, feel like you "get" everything, but can't do a single problem in Hartshorne or Liu. This is a great second read, to fill in some missing intuition, once you understand what's technically going on.

EGA: This isn't quite as bad as people make it out to be. It's much clearer, than say Hartshorne. Grothendieck was actually a very good writer. The downsides for me are that it lacks exposition at some points, it has the perfect amount of generality to bring out the clarity of a theorem (this is something that is often misunderstood--Grothendieck never proved anything in excessive generality, but just enough generality where you see that the hypotheses were EXACTLY what you needed--it brings out the real nature of theorem) but more than may be healty for a first read, and well, it's in French.

I left out a couple other obvious books, but I hope the above is helpful for somebody!

Bitches, please. You would be nothing without this.

>>6133490
>that abuse of notation on the cover

Do physicists actually do this?

>>6133513
Looks like the curl operator to me.
What do you see?

>>6133012
every fucking thread.

>>6133532

A silly way of remembering how to compute the curl in Cartesian coordinates. That notation is pretty bad if you're doing anything else.

>>6133490
Best writing I've seen in a textbook

>>6133556
Shill harder. Griffiths' book is pleb tier and written poorly.

>>6133474
is it EGA that's 2000 pages or EGA plus SGA?

>>6133490
no. it's terrible if you know anything at all about mathematics.

>>6132770
>>6132719
>>6132715
>>6132697
Oh shit, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean Taylor. I meant "Introduction to Classical Mechanics" by David Morin. The confusion came about because I hadn't used the book in a while and I knew it had a red cover, same as Taylor, and I assumed it was by Taylor. Otherwise, pretend I was talking about DM in what I said in my earlier posts. It's an excellent book. Sorry again.

>>6133010
I agree. It made the material so interesting (though I only got a 4 on the exam...). Awesome book overall.

>>6133783
Oh yes, I've heard about DM's book. Is there an alternative to introduction to KK for introduction to mechanics however? I mean, in my opinion, it is somewhere in between an introduction and something like Taylor which I would describe as "advanced undergraduate". At my school, for the introductory level we used University Physics by Freedman which is a POS. So anything to replace that and KK?

>>6128416
Lang is well known for his terrible textbooks

>>6133461
>>6133465
>>6133470
>>6133477

it is helpful, thank you very x 100 much for this

giancoli

great undergrad physics book imo

This guy

>>6135164
That looks like a book I would buy. During school free read time I brought a book on the design of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Teacher didn't like it. Not much was super useful allot of talk about scroll pumps and electromechanical gyroscopes and such.

>>6134562

Hello!

You're welcome!

Best!

>>6133594
EGA is about 1500 pages, SGA is another ~2000; formatting of the originals is pretty bad, but the rewritten/republished/reTeXed versions are nice.

Honestly, the vastness of it all is very daunting.

One day, Alexander, one day I'll learn what you tried to teach the world, and what a glorious day will that be.

>>6135692
This is super relevant to my interests. Could you tell em the name?

>>6135926
Do you type that out every time?

>>6133552
I agree.
Some physics textbooks use more reasonable notation. If you're going QFT you will likely see everything as a diffy form.

>>6133920

I've heard Lang's linear algebra is good.

Anyone have a recommendation for a good linear algebra reference for a grad student? Something that's really comprehensive, preferably.

Best zoo book i've ever read

>>6127748
My QM lecturer (very smart guy, so I trust he knows his shit) had us read Griffith's as the prescribed text and to be honest I thought it was pretty good. Of course I don't really have much to compare it against but as an introduction to the topic I thought it did a perfectly good job.

>>6133552
>A silly way of remembering how to compute the curl in Cartesian coordinates. That notation is pretty bad if you're doing anything else.
Yet it's very efficient if you are working with curls in Cartesian coordinates. I don't really see what your point is.

>>6137326

welcome newfriend

>>6137634
What are you talking about?

Guys, what about derivatives, calculus books?
I dont understand that .....

>>6137378
Linear algebra and Its Applications by Lax if you're an applied mathematician or a physicist, Algebra Chapter 2 by Bourbaki if you're a pure mathematician.

>>6138146
>Algebra Chapter 2 by Bourbaki

>>6138126
Please!

>>6138170
I mean, other options are available, they're just not very good.

People should really learn algebra from Bourbaki, it's pretty great. Their topology and analysis books are too old and practically unreadable, but Algebra, Lie Groups & Commutative Algebra are well-written and as complete as anything.

>>6138187
Lurie's Higher Algebra is all you'll ever need (don't be scared by the terminology, you'll get used to it)
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/higheralgebra.pdf
For derivatives, look in the section titled "Goodwillie Calculus".

I am shocked and appalled by the lack of foundations in this thread. Otherwise well done, chaps.

Pic related. Standard reference.

Oh, and another indespensable one.

Oh, and another indispensable one.

>>6138544
While doing my undergrad math degree I have found myself thinking about set theory, since a lot of definitions use sets. Is that textbook worth reading?

I mean I know its a really dumb question since you posted it and all, what I mean is even if im not taking courses that have anything to do with set theory, is it still worth reading for interest sake, and does it help your overall mathematical understanding?

>>6138578
>>6138544
I'm also interested, as we touched on the bases of naive set theory in my discrete class, but I'm interested in learning more.

>>6138544
But foundations suck

>>6138613
it's amazing how many people sit in a dark room and think of what axioms to use

>>6137378
Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces by Halmos. That's pretty good.

>>6138613
One more reason to concern yourself with foundations, as you apparently suck, too.

>>6138578
>>6138580

Well, as so often with standard references books like this aren't always the best introductory texts (meaning here: introductory to an advanced subject). Personally, however, I found Jech's book to be quite accessible and a decent read. Let me put it this way, if you only want to take a peek into formal set theory, you might fare better with a less comprehensive work, but in case you want the platinum-iridium standard on your bookshelf, Jech is the way to go.

>>6128107
You should probably just gtfo.

>>6138638
nerd

Fields and Electrodynamics by Pieter Visscher
I have the 1988 version (solid blue cover). He uses a discrete lattice to talk about the consequences of the Maxwell equations. Written most excellently.

it's really an outside the box approach to E&M.

A Course of Pure Mathematics by GH Hardy, not for the faint of heart.

<-- this is a great textbook.

>>6138957
>pure math

hello future MickyD or Subway friend!

>>6138677
No, I just like to prove theorems that actually matter, as opposed to those that'll only be read by a circlejerk of philosophers in disguise.

>>6127672
>babby calc.

try spivak

>>6139010
"What matters" is completely relative. I'm sure you know that by now, if you're doing higher level Mathematics.
But of course, you're a troll of some kind, or a Topologist took a shit in your coffee.

>>6132812
>>6139082
wat

To answer the first post, she's an organic chemist, so maybe. :P

To answer the second, I was finished with the calculus sequence when she got it for me. Spivak is never a bad suggestion, though.

>>6139109
>calculus for infants
>babby calc
i was hoping this would go over anyone's head

>>6139125
Don't worry, I got it. But given someone already somehow took it seriously, I figured I'd answer seriously, just in case.

>>6139094
"What matters" is not relative at all. There's useful mathematics in serious fields, and then there's foundations, universal algebra, other fringe theories that no one gives a shit about, and quite rightly so.

>>6132732
I don't know.
I particularly like books by Cengel. Helped my chemE undergad life a shitload.

His diagrams are all over the fucking place though, but he's kind enough to reference them.

>>6139171
>mathematics
>useful
>implying people study mathematics searching for "useful" theorems
You, sir, are a daft prick.

>>6139222
Mathematics is useful, in other areas of mathematics at the very least; this of course doesn't apply to foundations. If you can't accept that, you're the worst kind of foundationist faggot.

CED - Jackson

You know it. Why don't you love it?

Any recommendations for a good differential geometry reference? Is Analysis on Manifolds by Munkres any good? Or is there something better?

>actually reading the books

top lel

i just download them and skim through, relying on exam notes works pretty well for me

>>6140650

> You must be some biology pleb that just memorizes shit.

>>6140650
>relying on courses to teach you everything
top lel

>>6138578
Yes, read it read it even if you aren't interest in set theory. I have found that the general method and way of viewing things is useful.
You might want to start with something more gentle if you only want to peek into the theory, like "Sets, numbers and axioms". It still gets a lot of stuff done, but is easier to plough through quickly.

>>6140631

Any good differential geometry references? Any opinions on Munkres' Analysis on Manifolds?

>>6140685

How about Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds?

>>6140631
Spivak Vol. 1, 2 and 3 is very comprehensive and useful as a reference.

If you just want to teach yourself DG, Kuhnel's Differential Geometry is a good readable book.

>>6140685
>Analysis on Manifolds

Pretty much the standard.
Although if you want a -complete- reference, look up Sternberg's Advanced Calculus. It's free here: www.math.harvard.edu/~shlomo/docs/Advanced_Calculus.pdf

>>6140872
Lee's "Smooth Manifolds" is a differential topology text mostly, although it touches on some geometrical aspects. It is very good, although some of the notation is a bit nonstandard.

He has a DG book as well, called "Riemannian Manifolds: An Introduction to Curvature," which I haven't read, but heard it's good.

>>6140685
Not a big fan, regretted buying it. It's better done elsewhere (Spivak's calculus on manifolds, for example).
It's an analysis book for people who don't like analysis, so it has its merits I guess, but it's not great.

This thread makes me curious, is there some list floating around with assorted /sci/ approved math and science textbooks?

>>6141148
you mean the sticky?

This thread. Jesus.

Where would someone start who has a background in math up to Linear Algebra / Differential Equations?

>>6141150

The sticky is useless since it actually implies you can learn Calculus from Stewart and jump immediately to Rudin.

>>6141155
What are you interested in learning?

Do you have experience with proof-writing?

>>6141155
Depends on where you want to go I guess. Analysis/topology/algebra are the usual upper-division course choices for a math major.

>>6141156
That is the path I've seen people take, and it's not the worst honestly. Rudin is a good book if you have the discipline.

>>6141168
>>6141156
I was actually considering following the sticky's advice on that matter, is there a better self-instructional guide out there? I don't really know which textbooks would be good or not or which order I should do them, etc. etc.

>>6141162
Very minimal proof-writing experience. A bit of formal logic, but no analysis or anything yet. I'm more interested in theoretical topics as opposed to computational ones, but most of what's been mentioned in this thread are above my level. I would like to get an idea of what differential geometry and topology are all about, and figure out these manifolds I keep hearing about.

>>6141163
Is there any preferred order? I mean, are any of those prerequisites for the others?

Anyone know some good books that cover Sobolev spaces? I'm familiar with functional analysis and PDE's. My functional analysis prof skipped some of the proofs when he was teaching Sobolev spaces.

>>6141171
If you have minimal proof-writing experience, it won't be an easy ride.
There's plenty of books that try to ease one into proof-writing, but I always thought that one becomes good at it by doing actually useful things. While a book like Rudin might be a bit much to start with, something like Axler's Linear Algebra Done Right should do it, it's very nice, simple, useful, and well-written. If you've done linear algebra before, don't worry, Axler's book will likely show you a different viewpoint on the subject.

>>6137378
Steven Roman Advanced Linear Algebra.

>>6128412
Rosenlicht's from Dover is pretty solid. $10 too, can't really lose on it.

>>6132823
That book is also pretty good. I was just giving my opinion anyways, having used Dummite and Foote I have had a good time with it.

>>6141150
the sticky is not as complete as this thread. The Physics and Chem sections are lacky IMHO.

Anything recommendation on Condensed Matter Physics? And some Chemestry for physicists?

>>6138957
>that typical mathematician with his smug I-drink-whiskey-and-watch-mad-men-in-my-spare-time look on his face
Perfect cover for a mathematics book.

How come every time I meet a physicist or engineer he's a friendly down-to-earth guy who just enjoys doing what he does to the extreme and every time I meet a mathematician he acts like he's constantly trying to make up for something unknown.

Prime example: Feynman (bit of a character, but just enjoys the process of solving problems) vs Wolfram (total dick, completely delusional about his "breakthroughs" and constantly trying to get his names in the history-books by any means possible to the point where it's ridiculous).


PS: I know I'm being a bit cheeky here, I do realize this is a gross -and perhaps unfair- generalization, but I do seem to notice a trend here. Any mathematicians who want to refute/comment?

>>6141516

Stephen Wolfram is a physicist, you colossal retard. He did his PhD in particle physics.

>>6141516
But you never met Feynman or wolfram.

Making sweeping generalisations like that just makes it sound like you're a bit threatened by mathematicians.

While we are at Wolfram, has anybody read A New Kind of Science? I want to download and read it, but I don't know much. How complicated is it?

Far from the best book on statistics, but it's REALLY readable, and I think it just provides a really nice introduction for someone to actually get into studying statistics.

Best textbook: my favourite subject

Worst textbook: your favourite subject.

>>6138957
>not for the faint of heart.
Bollocks. It's far easier than Hardy and Wright.

>>6135926
>>6135926
W-who are you?

Any opinions on Folland's Partial Differential Equations? Thinking of picking it up as a reference for graduate PDE's.

>>6141622
Don't you hear it? The voice of god?

>>6141177
Evans's PDE book (a massive reference text revered by researchers in the field apparently) has a chapter discussing them.

>>6141606
Never read his analysis book; it's probably kind of outdated.
Hardy & Wright isn't hard though

>>6141541
His main interests and noticable work is of mathematical.nature, "you colossal retard".

>>6141546
I've read quite a bit of/on both of them, both auto-biographical and academically and even the way they describe eachother coheres to what I described perfectly.
>it sound like you're a bit threatened by mathematicians.
I'm not threatened by them in the slightest. The thing is that I've always planned on taking up mathematics as an extra major as I love maths, but as of late I'm finding a lot of mathematicians to be a bit unnecesairly elitist in a really sad way; like the type of people who would join Mensa, you know?
>sweeping generalisations
Obviously you're right there as I already pointed out in my original post, but this is 4chan and out here most of the time I just post what comes to mind. When I saw that cliche "2deep4u" picture it just confirmed an image that had been forming in my mind and I felt like commenting on it. Nothing more than that. No need to get your panties in a twist.

>>6142686

>>6142695
Very strong point.

>>6141568
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/

>>6141572
Good, because I have the best book on statistics right here.

>>6138989
Do you attend UBCO?

I use that book for my statics class.

Where's a safe place to get a pdf of Stewart Calculus, 7e?

>>6127572
Wow I didn't know that the world famous sitar player also knew quantum mechanics.R.I.P

Linear Algebra:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120227125908/http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3206

Calculus:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120227141023/http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3438

Real Analysis:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120227112601/http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3654

Also pic related.

Does anyone know any good chemistry books? I'm interested in chemical engineering.

>>6142644
>outdated
What the shit?

>>6141516
Funny, for me it's the exact opposite. Maybe it's because I meet a lot of russian mathematicians. Anyway, mentioning Wolfram as an example of a dick mathematician is a bit strange, kind of like mentioning Peter Higgs as an example of a biologist who won a Nobel prize in physics.

>>6143194
from the lin alg thread

>When finding eigenvalues, everybody in the entire world will do this by determinants, except Axler. So if you've read Axler, then you will not see the power of determinants and you will not be able to work with determinants. This is sad, because the rest of the book is quite interesting.
But that's the whole fucking point you retard


>>6143275
It's literally a hundred years old, so I imagine the notation and the terminology are out of date.
You won't see him discussing deRham cohomology or Lebesgue integration, that's for sure

>>6142644
Exactly.

>>6143213
Yunus Cengel makes great books. For someone with shit English like myself, he makes it really understandable. I know that he has a book for Thermodynamics, and Heat and Mass Transfer, but that's about it.

A pity, because all his books are layman-tier of understanding, but doesn't dumb it down too much.

>>6143284
Oh well, you might be right. I wrote that post late at night and it was a bit of a mindfart.
Either way, I don't have any disdain for mathematicians.

>>6135055
nobody?

>>6133010
>>6133787
Never heard of it.
I've actually already have a bretty good book, but still downloading for possible future reference.

What device does /sci/ read these e-books on?
Reading them on a laptop seems really uncomfortable.

>>6143917
It's fine. If you have a tablet that works a little better.

>>6133490

>>6143917
>e books
Fucking hate not being able to quickly flip back and forth. I do read textbooks on a tablet, but try to either find them in my library or buy books i use a lot.

>>6144347
That doesn't apply to fiction of course, since those kinds of books I usually read linearly, so e-readers are really nice in that case. But if your book references Chapter 5 Proposition 5.3.1 it's just annoying as fuck

>>6143917
iPad here. fucking love the screen. I've read about 14 med textbooks last year on it. saved me so much money and i can carry all of my books all the time.

>>6144347
>Fucking hate not being able to quickly flip back and forth

bookmarks, search etc. not an issue for me. plus I can always annotate and take notes.

>>6128064
Does anybody actually like this as a text book?

Keeping a glorious thread going, a great (and hard as fug) book on representations.

>>6144979

Hello!

This is a really great book--the detail of examples is stupendous.

The theory is sometimes a little hard to follow.

I would like to highly suggest the pictured book as a read-along.

Best!

>>6145365
Thanks m8, I'm actually reading Fulton-Harris along with Bourbaki; still chugging along.
Will definitely check your book out.

>>6127572

I will not let this thread die

/sci/ pls

Can anybody recommend good introductory solid state physics books? Or are Kittel and Ashcroft & Mermin good enough?

Daily bump

>>6147810
it's over the bump limit. there's nothing we can do.

>>6147811
>mfw it just got over the bump limit ;___;
We could... rebuild it. We have the technology

NEW THREAD
>>6147822