About Advanced Calculus by Loomis and Sternberg

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the book "Advanced Calculus" by Loomis and Sternberg, with participants debating its suitability for physicists versus pure mathematicians. While some argue that the book is dense in mathematical content, others suggest it leans towards a physicist's perspective, particularly due to its final chapter on mechanics. Comparisons are made to Rudin's "Principles of Mathematics," with many participants expressing a preference for Loomis and Sternberg's work for its comprehensive and descriptive nature. Additional resources, including a PDF of the book and recommendations for other mathematics texts, are shared.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of advanced calculus concepts
  • Familiarity with mathematical analysis
  • Knowledge of mathematical literature, specifically works by Rudin and Dieudonné
  • Basic comprehension of physics principles related to calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the PDF of "Advanced Calculus" available on Sternberg's website
  • Research "A Course in Mathematics for Students of Physics" by Bamberg and Sternberg
  • Investigate the Chicago undergraduate mathematics bibliography for additional resources
  • Compare "Advanced Calculus" with other analysis texts like Dieudonné's "Foundations of Mathematical Analysis"
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and professionals seeking a deeper understanding of advanced calculus, particularly those interested in the intersection of mathematics and physics.

wisvuze
Messages
372
Reaction score
1
Hey, I found a copy of this book at my school library and I've been looking through it; I've been brought under the impression that this book is more geared towards a physicists audience versus being a "pure math" book. But other than the final chapter on mechanics, I've so far thought that the book is as math as anything else. In fact, it's very descriptive and comprehensive and eludes to things other math books at this level maybe won't
does anyone else think that this book is more suitable for a physicist? I don't get how you can call rudin's "principle of mathematics" a pure math book, and this a physicists' math book when this is far more mathematically dense than rudin's book
 
Physics news on Phys.org
thanks, but I'm looking for a math-math book, but I think so far this loomis book has been really great; so far, much better than rudin's book or anything like that. Other than Dieudonne's "Foundations of mathematical analysis", I think this had been my favourite analysis book so far
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
12K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K