K&K First Chapter - Is it necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tridianprime
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the first chapter of K&K, which focuses on mathematical preliminaries, particularly vectors and kinematics, with numerous examples. The user expresses comfort with the mathematics but finds the chapter cluttered and is eager to move on to the next chapter about Newton's laws. They inquire whether the physics concepts from the prelim chapter will be revisited later in the book and if it would be detrimental to skip some examples. Responses indicate that it's acceptable to advance, as the material can be referenced later if needed. The user has since moved on to the next chapter and finds it clearly written, indicating a positive shift in their study experience.
tridianprime
Messages
102
Reaction score
3
I have been reading the first chapter of K&K which is one the mathematical preliminaries supposedly and it includes lots of examples of applications of vectors/kinematics and so forth. I am about 2/3 of the way throughout it (into plane polar coordinates) and it seems as though it is just example after example. I feel I am comfortable with the mathematics because I have studied it before this book. The author says at one point that it is really to get you versed in the mathematics of vectors so I was wondering if it would be ok to advance in the book and whether it would hinder me greatly to not have rigorously studied every example in the prelim chapter.

Are the physics concepts in the prelim chapters covered again? Could I just refer back to it if necessary later on in the book? What are your experiences and thoughts on this chapter?

It's not that it hasn't been interesting but it feels cluttered and I am just eager to go onto the next chapter on the Newtons laws - foundations of Newtonian mechanics. Thanks for any feedback. If I really have to do the prelims I will because I want to study this book either way but it would be good to go to the next chapter if possible.

P.s. I am not so much talking about encountering problems in the next chapter but more so the chances of having issues late run the book. The reason for this is because I have studied a small amount in Kibbles 'Classical Mechanics'.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I skipped chapter 1 completely and never once needed it when working through the rest of the book.

You can just refer back to it when necessary. It's just boring math in my opinion.
 
WannabeNewton said:
I skipped chapter 1 completely and never once needed it when working through the rest of the book.

You can just refer back to it when necessary. It's just boring math in my opinion.

Ok, great. Thanks. I have gone onto the next chapter since I started the thread just to get an idea as to what it was like and it seems to be written in a clear way. I will give it a go.
 

Thread '"WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians'

The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
View full post »

Thread 'Books with a more theoretical approach to turbulence and DNS'

I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...
View full post »

Similar threads

Classical Source recommendation on Differential Geometry
Replies
6
Views
3K
Quantum Finding the Perfect Self-Study Book for Intro Stats & Quantum Mechanics
Replies
17
Views
3K
Topics in Young & Friedman's University Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Relativity Is it worth to read the chapters on relativity in K&K mechanics book?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Is Yuri Manin's A Course in Mathematical Logic generally unsound?
Replies
13
Views
2K
James Stewart Calculus replacement
Replies
12
Views
4K
Classical Books about tensor analysis just good enough for physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Quantum An alternative route to learn mathematics for physics, the "rigorous way"
Replies
6
Views
4K
Classical Which problem book to do for Physics Olympiad?
Replies
4
Views
6K
Books/resources for exercises on tensors and multilinear algebra
Replies
6
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top