Read Mary L Boas-what now ? (fuller/byron) ?

[knockout_artist]

read Mary L Boas--what now ? (fuller/byron) ?

So
I read worked on Mary's math book it was rather not difficult to read.
I am reading or should I say trying to read fuller/byron's Mathematics of quantum and classical physics.

I am having moving real slow, some due to the style of proof and I miss so much and then come back over and over.

Reason of my learning.
I want to build a strong base of math for physics to extant I can think in math independently.
Self teaching.

Do you have to say some thing ?
I do have many dover or other physics books I read in once in a while too.

Thank you for reading my gibberish.

 

[ZapperZ]

So
I read worked on Mary's math book it was rather not difficult to read.

So did you worked on all the problems in that book, or did you just "read" it? I can't figure out what you did from this statement.

Note that if you've read the Preface to that book, you'll understand that there's a distinct difference between the two and why in one, you'll only get a superficial knowledge of the subject matter.

Zz.

 

[knockout_artist]

I read and worked on selected examples from Mary's book.

I bought fuller's book before Mary's book, I could not go pass page 11 in 17 tries.

Then I bought Mary's book, then things started making sense to me.

I guess what I am asking is am on the right path regarding math?
Fuller book is difficult for me, so if I understand it would it help a lot ? This book is too intense on linear mathematics.
Its a great pleasure when I understand some thing from this book, but some time it takes time. Some time it use techniques which
are looks too narrow to me. Like Mary explains ODEs PDEs but Fuller's book start from one greens function only. Stuff like that.Should I stop with math books for a while and read physics books ?

Thank you very much for your reply.

 

[ZapperZ]

This is not either or. You should continue with Mary Boas's text even while reading other physics books.

Also, you shouldn't just do her examples. You need to work through as many of the problems she listed as well. There's a Students Solution Manual that will show the worked out answers of some of the problems. But for some others, you should at least be able to check for the correct answers.

Zz.

 

[knockout_artist]

Sorry its my first time discussing these things so there is so much I don't know.

While reading Mary's I am sitting on with book/paper/pencil with occasionally internet(wikipidea) or (calculus for dummies) for help, but that NOT very often.Now Fuller's I am like chicken on a hot floor, always printing pages, always looking for other books to find help etc etc.

Is this how it goes ?

 

[knockout_artist]

This is not either or. You should continue with Mary Boas's text even while reading other physics books.

Also, you shouldn't just do her examples. You need to work through as many of the problems she listed as well. There's a Students Solution Manual that will show the worked out answers of some of the problems. But for some others, you should at least be able to check for the correct answers.

Zz.

I keep it in my bag, it never disappoint me.
I did many problems, not just her examples. I will do more problems.

 

[ZapperZ]

If you have done many of the problems in her book, then you should be quite well-prepared for many of the mathematics that you will encounter in undergraduate level physics.

Note that, as from her Preface, she wrote the book in a way that it can be used for self-study. That is why there's almost a "conversational" tone on the way she presents the material. This is not true for many texts out there. So it isn't surprising that you find her book easier to follow, but not another book.

Zz.

 

[knockout_artist]

Thanks ZZ

 

[Daverz]

You might want to branch out into individual topics. Here's a good one on Green's Functions, among other things:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486664449/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[knockout_artist]

You might want to branch out into individual topics. Here's a good one on Green's Functions, among other things:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486664449/?tag=pfamazon01-20

That book looks very interesting. :)
Thanks for sharing Daverz!

 

[knockout_artist]

Ok.

Bought this book :)

 

[jasonRF]

Ok.

Bought this book :)

I hope you enjoy it. I am currently working through it - most of the way through chapter 1 and am working more than half of the problems. So far I think it is a nice book. I am slow, though, since I only get a handful of hours a week to do stuff like this. I am not a mathematician and I find the level of the book to be just right for me. The author tends to provide hints for the problems that are less straightforward.

In addition to learning more math, you can also use the math you have learned to learn more physics. You can find lots of book recommendations for various fields by using the search feature on this site.

Best of luck,

jason

 

[Ang Han Wei]

I find that it is a good book too and provides questions in different levels of difficulty.

But can I check if anyone has any solutions or worked solutions to help students that are not as mathematical-savvy like myself?

 

[jasonRF]

I find that it is a good book too and provides questions in different levels of difficulty.

But can I check if anyone has any solutions or worked solutions to help students that are not as mathematical-savvy like myself?

I'm not aware of any solutions floating around, although we can certainly discuss solutions in the forums. I admit that some problems I skipped because I knew how to do them already from previous work, while some I have skipped because I haven't yet figured out the solution. I like that there are problems that require me to do some thinking.

jason

 

[ZombieFeynman]

Hassani mathematical methods is a very good book. Above the level of Boas, less terse than Byron and Fuller, more rigorous than arfken. All of those books have their place.

 

[knockout_artist]

Hassani mathematical methods is a very good book. Above the level of Boas, less terse than Byron and Fuller, more rigorous than arfken. All of those books have their place.

70$ , If it was the only book I would ever read only then I spend so much. :)

 

[knockout_artist]

I

In addition to learning more math, you can also use the math you have learned to learn more physics.

jason

Thanks for reminding me that. :)
I did read geometric optics and DID understand it finally :) :)