Is Calculus Early Transcendental Functions a Good Self-Study Text?

[Nano-Passion]

Hey I'm self teaching myself calculus. I have the book "Calculus Early Transcendental Functions," by Larson, Hosteler, and Edwards. It is the 4th edition. I did some searching on good calculus books and I never seen this book listed. I don't have the money to go out and buy a different book, this one was my brother's.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618606246/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Is it terrible?

 

[brocks]

If it was terrible, it probably wouldn't have made it to the fourth edition.

As it happens, I like Larson's textbooks. But if you don't, there are many free books available, just Google around. Strang and Crowell are two that come immediately to mind. And you can pick up a used older edition of almost any text for five or ten bucks or so (I got a fourth edition of Stewart for four bucks on Ebay, and it's just great). The only thing different between a calculus book 10 years old and a brand new one is the computerized homework, which you won't be using if you're doing self study.

Edit: By the way, did you look at the link you posted? 16 of the 20 people who reviewed it rated it good to excellent.

 

[TylerH]

That's the book used with AP Calculus (at least, in NC, I don't know if the book is decided by state or the College Board).

 

[Nano-Passion]

If it was terrible, it probably wouldn't have made it to the fourth edition.

As it happens, I like Larson's textbooks. But if you don't, there are many free books available, just Google around. Strang and Crowell are two that come immediately to mind. And you can pick up a used older edition of almost any text for five or ten bucks or so (I got a fourth edition of Stewart for four bucks on Ebay, and it's just great). The only thing different between a calculus book 10 years old and a brand new one is the computerized homework, which you won't be using if you're doing self study.

Edit: By the way, did you look at the link you posted? 16 of the 20 people who reviewed it rated it good to excellent.

Okay thanks, I just wonder how my book compares to that of Spviak's. I hear a lot about his book. But I guess I'll stick with this one.

 

[brocks]

Spivak's book is very popular among PhDs who have forgotten what it was like to be a freshman, but most people consider it too hard for a first course in calculus. And that includes the faculty at MIT and CalTech, who use easier texts even with students who presumably aced calculus in high school. Same with Apostol and Courant.

Spivak is also an exception to the rule that you can find an old used copy for ten bucks. The cheapest I've seen even 30 year old copies is around $45.

All the major texts --- Larson, Thomas, Stewart, Anton, etc. --- cover the same material at about the same level. It's just a matter of whose style you find easiest to understand. If you get cheap old editions of any two of them, and go over the same subject in the second text when the first is hard to understand, you will probably be better off than with anyone book you can find.

And if you're not aware, there are free video lectures on the web that are a godsend for people doing self study, like here:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-01-single-variable-calculus-fall-2006/video-lectures/

You can also use google to find colleges that are using the same book you are (search on something like
syllabus calculus larson site:.edu
and you will only get hits from colleges). Look at the syllabus for their calculus classes; many of them have homework assignments and exams that you can use to check your progress.

Good luck.

 

[hitmeoff]

I like Larson's book, in fact..I have the fourth edition. I've had it with me since I bought it brand new in 1996. Thats damn near 15 years ago! I still refer to it ALL THE TIME. Honestly, I've had a hard time coming across a better book, to learn out of and to reference (I've tutored college kids who use the much more popular Thomas Calc, honestly, I think Larson is better).

 

[osnarf]

Spivak's book is very popular among PhDs who have forgotten what it was like to be a freshman, but most people consider it too hard for a first course in calculus. And that includes the faculty at MIT and CalTech, who use easier texts even with students who presumably aced calculus in high school. Same with Apostol and Courant.

I disagree. If you have basic knowledge of calculus, you are ready for a book like Apostol, Courant, or Spivak.

From MIT's website, the rigorous track of calculus (which is intended as a first course at the university for people who aced calculus in high school, not a course to follow 18.01):

Course Highlights

This is the first course in a two-part sequence on Calculus with Theory, 18.014 and 18.024. The course is taught using the textbook by T. Apostol, "Calculus" Vol. I Second Edition (1967) and the additional course notes by James Raymond Munkres, Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus.

Course Description

18.014, Calculus with Theory, covers the same material as 18.01 (Single Variable Calculus), but at a deeper and more rigorous level. It emphasizes careful reasoning and understanding of proofs. The course assumes knowledge of elementary calculus.

---

If it was terrible, it probably wouldn't have made it to the fourth edition.

Stewart is on edition 7.
---

To the OP: I don't know anything about your book so I can't say anything about it, but if you don't like it you can always check out the local library.

 

[bcrowell]

Why in the world would anyone pay money for a calculus textbook to be used for self-study in the year 2011? There are lots of good free options: http://www.theassayer.org/cgi-bin/asbrowsesubject.cgi?class=Q#freeclassQAmg The only reason to use a commercial book is that you're enrolled in a college class and it's the required text.

 

[brocks]

I disagree. If you have basic knowledge of calculus, you are ready for a book like Apostol, Courant, or Spivak.

Read the OP. He does not have a basic knowledge of calculus; he is trying to learn it by teaching himself.

From MIT's website, the rigorous track of calculus (which is intended as a first course at the university for people who aced calculus in high school, not a course to follow 18.01):

Almost everybody who gets into MIT aced calculus in high school, and not many of them take that course.

I heartily endorse Spivak or Apostol for a *second* course in calculus, for those with the aptitude. But you guys who act like an average kid can handle the same stuff, *learning on their own*, as the very brightest students being taught by MIT professors and tutors, are just not being realistic.

And that is the very kindest spin I can put on some of the recommendations I see on this forum. IMO some people do more harm than good by recommending Apostol for a first text in calculus, or Landau for a first course in physics, to students who will very probably get discouraged and give up on math or physics if they follow such advice.

 

[hitmeoff]

Read the OP. He does not have a basic knowledge of calculus; he is trying to learn it by teaching himself.



Almost everybody who gets into MIT aced calculus in high school, and not many of them take that course.

I heartily endorse Spivak or Apostol for a *second* course in calculus, for those with the aptitude. But you guys who act like an average kid can handle the same stuff, *learning on their own*, as the very brightest students being taught by MIT professors and tutors, are just not being realistic.

And that is the very kindest spin I can put on some of the recommendations I see on this forum. IMO some people do more harm than good by recommending Apostol for a first text in calculus, or Landau for a first course in physics, to students who will very probably get discouraged and give up on math or physics if they follow such advice.

Wow, can't agree anymore. I've danced around saying this by basically replying as quickly as possible to a lot "book rec" threads by saying: "Before someone starts recommending..." because I do find some silly recommendations.

I don't think people do it for the sake of misguiding people. I think the issue is one of two things:

1. The person doing the recommending is just parroting what he/she's seen being recommended a bunch of times before.

2. People recommend books, forgetting what it was to be a new student of the subject. Alot of people doing the recommending, have a different level of mastery of the subject. If you've seen Analysis before, then Rudin may be exactly what you want because is clean, tidy and to the point, you don't want your hand to be held, you just want to get straight to the point, so this makes it seem like Rudin is perfect.

To a person whose already gone through UG analysis (maybe eve Grad Analysis) Ross's Analysis book seems "too easy," "doesn't go deep enough"...etc etc etc. Certainly to a person with a familiarity with Analysis, Ross doesn't offer much, but to a beginner, especially a self learner, jumping straight into Rudin is like begging to fail.

 

[Sankaku]

Why in the world would anyone pay money for a calculus textbook to be used for self-study in the year 2011?

Well, unless you pick up an old edition for $2 because you like reading on paper. Your point is well made, though. There are many good introductory texts available for free.

 

[brocks]

I don't think people do it for the sake of misguiding people.

No, I don't either. But I do think there is a lot of showing off.

There seems to be something about the internet that makes people want to act like tough guys. In political forums, you see people who want you to think they are Rambo. And unfortunately, in Math forums, you see people who want you to think they are Gauss.

The fellow above made a snark about Stewart's text. Well, Stewart isn't my favorite author, but to say his book sucks, when it's by far the most popular text out there, is just being a snob. I guess he thinks that all those profs who use it are either fools, or are getting a kickback for using it.

All it does is confuse the people who are just starting out. The OP in this thread is clearly a guy who needs encouragement, and he is essentially being told that there's something wrong with him if he can't match the very brightest students at MIT, without all the advantages they have wrt the help they get from their tutors and classmates.

Not everybody is cut out to be a mathematician, but I believe everybody of normal intelligence *can* master calculus, and I further believe that those who don't will be at an intellectual disadvantage throughout their lives, and may even vote for Palin. So I don't want to see people scared off because they can't go from high school algebra to Rudin in one step.

 

[Sankaku]

The fellow above made a snark about Stewart's text.

Being the dreaded "fellow above," I am a little mystified by this remark. I don't think anyone in this thread had anything bad to say about Stewart. In fact, in other threads I have defended it as a reasonable textbook. It is not my favorite, but it works fine and I have a copy on my bookshelf.

The good thing about it is that you can find the 5th edition for about the same money as a roll of paper towel.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?&kn=0534393306

The OP already has a book, but if someone is buying this one, make sure you pick up the solution manual as well. Stewart's question sets are pretty good and it is particularly important for self-study.

 

[brocks]

Being the dreaded "fellow above," I am a little mystified by this remark.

There are several fellows above, and you are not the one I was referring to.

 

[osnarf]

Sorry I should have directed the post more towards the OP, i wasn't implying they should go read spivak, i was disputing the claim that you have to be an out of touch phd to like the text. Your right its probably not best for a first course, and I never said that. I also never said anything negative about his book, i said I haven't read it, and if the OP doesn't like it to check out the library.

And I'm not "parroting" I've worked through spivak, and taken a course using stewart. Stewart was way too wordy and had a formula for every different case of everything, which i didn't like. I don't comment on things I don't have personal experience with, or say that I don't if i do comment on something like that and quote people when appropriate (or try to anyways).