andresB
- 625
- 374
Indeed, that would be strange. Good thing I didn't say such thing.vela said:It seems a bit strange to consider a book invaluable if you haven't read it yet.
Indeed, that would be strange. Good thing I didn't say such thing.vela said:It seems a bit strange to consider a book invaluable if you haven't read it yet.
It obviously is!BvU said:
In that case even better, the hardcover has a discount by this reasoning... ↕fresh_42 said:It obviously is!
Proof (by capitalism): How many times do you have to use up a paperback to justify the purchase of a hardcover? In this case we have ten times, since View attachment 276526. Hence one hardcover equals ten paperbacks. But to use up ten paperbacks you will have to use the book really, really often. If it is despite of this still better to purchase a hardcover, then the book price guarantees a frequent use of the book. ##\blacksquare##
I hate this book. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bad-books.693040/love_42 said:"Modern Quantum Field Theory: A Concise Introduction" by Thomas Banks. It has a nice quality.
Demystifier said:I hate this book. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bad-books.693040/
Demystifier said:Knuth - The Art of Computer Programming, 4 volumes.
I'd like to enthusiastically second these two.Zarlucicil said:As for computer science, I'd add CLRS - Introduction to Algorithms, 3rd ed.
I'm not such a big fan of this as a bible, though it's difficult to articulate why. I guess my hesitation primarily comes from it being so old. Really the whole point of the book is to teach freshman CS students the basic cognitive building-blocks of programming to prepare them for further study. But SICP would not really be a great choice for that purpose nowadays. It's like nominating an introductory mechanics textbook from 1900. A student could get used to the archaic notation, but you still have to wonder whether it's a good idea to use a text completely uninformed by later developments like relativity. The archaic notation in the case of SICP is the use of the Scheme programming language, and the book is littered with pedagogy that hasn't exactly stood the test of time (for example, I would feel bad for students forced to muddle through chapters 4 and 5 nowadays). It's tough to recommend a textbook published 35 years ago when the material in the book largely didn't even exist 35 years before it was written. The early volumes of TAOCP have this same problem, but skirt it since their much more mathematical focus remains relevant today while SICP's subject matter is more of an applied science that is a moving target.Dragon27 said:SICP
I think the book is not widely known, so no.AbyssalPloy said:On the matter of encyclopedias does a
Mcgraw Hill Encyclopedia of Physics warrant a place on a list like this... Tons of topics covered.
Im facing a similar scenario in a college course , Vector Analysis. Although the material is familiar, I took Multivariable Analysis when doing my BS. This is a course akin to what Physcist and Engineers take. The lecturer just copy and paste information word per word from the textbook onto powerpoint slides. Nothing new, nor insights added during the lecture. Just straight reading from the slides (book). One of the laziest people workers I have ever observed. I was considering not attending lecture, but it is mandatory (B is max grade a student can receive if missing lectures).vanhees71 said:What do you mean by "bottom-up" vs. "top down" learning and how is it different in a "analogue" vs. a "digital" setting.
I think electronic media are a great addition to the tool box. I usually scan my calculations and handwritten notes to have them in an ordered with me in an ordered way. I provide manuscripts for my lectures to the students etc. Of course, I also use sometimes a projector with a presentation (though never powerpoint for aesthetical reasons) to show some plot or other graphics I'm not able to draw adequately on the black board, but that I use very rarely, because particularly in theoretical physics just flashing a presentation to the wall and telling them what's on the "slides" is not as helpful as it might seem. Developing ideas on the black board (if possible without using my notes but really rethinking the stuff on the blackboard again), including discussions with the students, is in my opinion something which provides the specific additional value of a lecture in contradistinction to other forms of teaching and learning like reading a textbook, solve problems, do some e-learning online exercise or chatting on a forum like the present one.
I think the more different media you have at hand as a learner the better, and I also think as teachers we have to carefully think about how to develop ways to use electronic media in a really useful way.
There's a big political debate in Germany about the introduction of the "new media" at primary and secondary schools as well as in universities. The discussion concerning the schools is usually only about hardware, including computers, laptops, tablets as well as LAN/WLAN access. This is of course a necessary prerequisite, particularly given that it's shame how Germany is lacking in this simply infrastructural necessities, but now that finally they managed to finance it via federal money (the school and university education in Germany is due to the states, and it's not so easy to fund something concerning this by federal money) they all of a sudden realize that they don't have sufficient didactically high-quality content to offer on all this hardware, which indeed is an even greater shame. Just equipping the schools with hardware without a didactical concept and sufficient high-quality material for each learning/age level makes of course the entire endeavor useless before it has really started.
I was really shocked when some years ago my niece came home from school telling that they now had some IT lessons, and she was a bit disappointed about the fact that it was just learning to work with the Microsoft Office package rather than doing some programming.
There's really a lot to be desired concerning a useful application of the great possibilities of the "new media", which goes beyond simple storage and availability of information in form of the "old media", i.e., simply pdfs of textbooks and the like, though it's of course also good to have this, but it's not enough to really provide a true additional value to them.
My conclusion is, we should take the opportunities serious and develop some great additional learning offers for the students using all kinds of "e-learning" concepts but not forget also the well established old-fashioned standard equipment, including black-board teaching and discussions at lectures and recitation sessions.
I personally found Principles of physics by Halliday, Resnick to be more detailed and intuitive, yet beginner friendly at the same time for High School/UG level General Physics. So, i feel that requires a mention.Wrichik Basu said:For QM, you can surely include Griffiths' Introduction to Quantum Mechanics and Ramamurti Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Though finding a book containing everything in QM is not possible.
For general physics, Halliday's Fundamentals of Physics and H. C.Verma's Concepts of Physics do require a mention.
Opinions change with age and experience. Can't help it.Wrichik Basu said:Though finding a book containing everything in QM is not possible.
They have a more advanced version with the third author as krane called "Physics" which comes in 2 volumes. That according to me is the most comprehensive general calculus based physics textbooks.SaranSDS008 said:I personally found Principles of physics by Halliday, Resnick to be more detailed and intuitive, yet beginner friendly at the same time for High School/UG level General Physics. So, i feel that requires a mention.
Demystifier said:- quantum field theory:
the old testament: S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields Volume I
the new testament: S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields Volume II
(There is also the Volume III on supersymmetry, but it does not have such a high reputation.)
Yeah, I agree. Having read Sakurai's Modern QM recently, I can say that it's way better than Griffiths.vanhees71 said:I warn against Griffiths QM book. Given the many confused students in this forum, it's a bit too sloppy!
As is his Electrodynamics book....vanhees71 said:I warn against Griffiths QM book. Given the many confused students in this forum, it's a bit too sloppy!
What do you recommend then for e&m at a similar level.Dr Transport said:As is his Electrodynamics book....
Wangsness....Falgun said:What do you recommend then for e&m at a similar level.
HelloDemystifier said:- quantum mechanics:
Surprisingly, I don't know which of the standard QM textbooks would deserve this title.
If you think this thread is too much to take on, have a look at the Fukushima threads. The first one got so long there's a part two.Juanda said:A very interesting thread. World it possible to condense its content in the first post?
Kind of like an index to make it easier to find what you're looking for
If that is a task you want to do, you should PM @Greg BernhardtJuanda said:A very interesting thread. World it possible to condense its content in the first post?
Kind of like an index to make it easier to find what you're looking for within this multipage thread.
Or maybe opening a parallel locked thread that uses this one as its source.
It'd have the date from which it was updated last from this source material.
Also where in this post was mentioned in case people want to read more context about the recommendation.
I'd open the thread myself if you think the idea is worth it. I'd try not to add any personal bias. Just take the information from here and summarize it if possible.
Juanda said:A very interesting thread. World it possible to condense its content in the first post?
Kind of like an index to make it easier to find what you're looking for within this multipage thread.
Or maybe opening a parallel locked thread that uses this one as its source.
It'd have the date from which it was updated last from this source material.
Also where in this post was mentioned in case people want to read more context about the recommendation.
I'd open the thread myself if you think the idea is worth it. I'd try not to add any personal bias. Just take the information from here and summarize it if possible.
Thanks a lot Florian!Florian Geyer said:Hello
There is a new 4 volume textbook on QM Oliver Tennert, I think it deserves to get a look.
I am not sure whether or not it has translated from German yet.
Sincerely
FourEyedRaven said:I've been meaning to post this bible of topos theory for ages:
"Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium", by Peter T. Johnstone
https://www.amazon.com/dp/019852496X/?tag=pfamazon01-20