- #1
Jolb
- 419
- 29
"Kind" vs. "Tough" physics/math textbooks.
I think textbooks in physics and math can generally be put into two categories: "Kind" and "Tough".
Kind textbooks are ones in which the author seems to care about explaining the subject matter so that it can be easily understood. Worked-out examples and numerous practice problems of varying difficulty can be found in this kind of textbook. Sometimes authors include a "roadmap" of which chapters provide needed background for the following chapters and which chapters are tangential, and occasionally the author will give a "difficulty" rating to sections and problems. Their drawback is that they're usually not as advanced, not as rigorous, and may seem heuristic.
Good examples:
Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (and his intro to EM)
Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical SciencesTough textbooks are ones in which the author cares most about creating an absolutely correct and incontrovertible tome, usually as concisely as possible. They usually serve as reference books for experts rather than learning tools for students (but often the "tough" professors force students to learn from them). They typically have very few or no worked-out examples. No roadmap or difficulty ratings are given. The advantage is that they usually contain the most formally correct logic/mathematics and don't rely on any heuristic intuitions.
Good examples:
Fetter and Walecka's Theoretical Mechanics of Particles and Continua
Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis
I invite everyone to discuss which textbooks are Kind and which textbooks are Tough.Also, I would like to know if anyone can tell me which are the Kind and Tough textbooks (beginning/intermediate graduate or advanced undergraduate level) for:
(physics)
fluid mechanics
general relativity
quantum field theory
and
(math)
PDEs
tensor math/differential geometry/Riemannian geometry
I think textbooks in physics and math can generally be put into two categories: "Kind" and "Tough".
Kind textbooks are ones in which the author seems to care about explaining the subject matter so that it can be easily understood. Worked-out examples and numerous practice problems of varying difficulty can be found in this kind of textbook. Sometimes authors include a "roadmap" of which chapters provide needed background for the following chapters and which chapters are tangential, and occasionally the author will give a "difficulty" rating to sections and problems. Their drawback is that they're usually not as advanced, not as rigorous, and may seem heuristic.
Good examples:
Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (and his intro to EM)
Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical SciencesTough textbooks are ones in which the author cares most about creating an absolutely correct and incontrovertible tome, usually as concisely as possible. They usually serve as reference books for experts rather than learning tools for students (but often the "tough" professors force students to learn from them). They typically have very few or no worked-out examples. No roadmap or difficulty ratings are given. The advantage is that they usually contain the most formally correct logic/mathematics and don't rely on any heuristic intuitions.
Good examples:
Fetter and Walecka's Theoretical Mechanics of Particles and Continua
Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis
I invite everyone to discuss which textbooks are Kind and which textbooks are Tough.Also, I would like to know if anyone can tell me which are the Kind and Tough textbooks (beginning/intermediate graduate or advanced undergraduate level) for:
(physics)
fluid mechanics
general relativity
quantum field theory
and
(math)
PDEs
tensor math/differential geometry/Riemannian geometry