- #1
bacte2013
- 398
- 47
Dear Physics Forum personnel,
I am curious what are your opinions about the "older" books in mathematics and physics (i.e. Neumann, Schrodinger, Dirac for QM, Hawking/Ellis for relativity, Russell for mathematics, etc.). From my experience with mathematical books, I found that I have liking to older books since they rather provide readers a chance to come up with their own definitions and understanding. For example, I had been reading Weinberg's book on relativity, but I did not understand the concept of perfect fluid until I read relevant sections on Hawking/Ellis. Also, it was not until I read Engelking to acquire intuitive understanding of paracompactness and the theories that govern the hierarchy of separation axioms, which I could not learn from more modern books in topology.
Do you think "older" books are better for first learning than more modern books in physics and math? I know that it is not quite efficient for biology and certain branches of chemistry
I am curious what are your opinions about the "older" books in mathematics and physics (i.e. Neumann, Schrodinger, Dirac for QM, Hawking/Ellis for relativity, Russell for mathematics, etc.). From my experience with mathematical books, I found that I have liking to older books since they rather provide readers a chance to come up with their own definitions and understanding. For example, I had been reading Weinberg's book on relativity, but I did not understand the concept of perfect fluid until I read relevant sections on Hawking/Ellis. Also, it was not until I read Engelking to acquire intuitive understanding of paracompactness and the theories that govern the hierarchy of separation axioms, which I could not learn from more modern books in topology.
Do you think "older" books are better for first learning than more modern books in physics and math? I know that it is not quite efficient for biology and certain branches of chemistry