Mathematical Methods Book That Uses SI Units

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the search for an undergraduate-level mathematical methods or engineering mathematics book that utilizes SI units, suitable for self-study. Participants explore various textbook options and their alignment with the desired unit system, covering topics such as ordinary differential equations (ODEs), linear algebra, vector calculus, partial differential equations (PDEs), and complex analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses interest in Zill's Advanced Engineering Mathematics but notes its use of US customary units, seeking alternatives that use SI units.
  • Another participant suggests that physics texts typically use SI units, while engineering texts often use American standard units, reflecting the conventions of the respective fields.
  • Participants mention several potential textbooks, including Arfken, Boas, and Nearing, with links provided for further exploration.
  • One participant reflects on the focus of physics math methods texts, stating that they do not emphasize units significantly, as the primary concern is mathematical relationships rather than numerical answers.
  • A later reply from a participant who identifies as an author of such texts confirms the limited role of units in their work, although they acknowledge the importance of dimensional analysis.
  • Another participant shares their decision to choose Boas over Riley/Hobson/Bence due to the perceived quantity of exercises available in Boas, indicating a preference for practical application.
  • One participant humorously notes a specific example from nuclear reactor thermal hydraulics, highlighting the use of kw/ft, which contrasts with the general discussion about unit preferences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that physics texts are more likely to use SI units, while engineering texts may not, but there is no consensus on the importance of units in mathematical methods texts. Multiple viewpoints regarding the relevance of units and the selection of textbooks remain present.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the role of units in mathematical methods, suggesting that the focus may vary between disciplines. The discussion also reflects differing opinions on the appropriateness of various textbooks based on their content and exercise availability.

Who May Find This Useful

Students and self-learners seeking undergraduate-level resources in mathematical methods or engineering mathematics, particularly those interested in SI units and practical applications in physics and engineering.

Argonaut
Messages
45
Reaction score
24
I'm looking for an undergraduate-level 'mathematical methods' or 'engineering mathematics' book that uses SI units for the purpose of self-study.

I've had my eyes on Zill's Advanced Engineering Mathematics, but it seems to use US customary units. So ideally I'm looking for a book that covers roughly the same topics (ODEs, Linear Algebra, Vector Calculus, PDEs, Complex Analysis).

The ones I'm currently considering are Stroud & Booth's Engineering Mathematics and Advanced Engineering Mathematics or Riley, Hobson & Bence's Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Argonaut and topsquark
jedishrfu said:
It seems a physics one would use SI whereas an engineering one would use American standard units since that is what the engineering profession uses in the US.

What about Arfken or Boas or Nearing(dover for hardcover or free at his site)?

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=arfken+mathematical+methods+for+physicists&crid=392CQDERQL5S&sprefix=arfken,aps,208&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_2_6

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471099201/?tag=pfamazon01-20

http://www.physics.miami.edu/~nearing/mathmethods/
Ah that makes sense, thank you!

Boas is a contender too, while Arfken seems to be higher-level than what I'm looking for. I'll check out Nearing too.
 
jedishrfu said:
It seems a physics one would use SI whereas an engineering one would use American standard units since that is what the engineering profession uses in the US.
I don't recall seeing a physics math methods text where units played a big role since the focus is on mathematical relationships, not finding numerical answers.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin, vanhees71, Demystifier and 1 other person
vela said:
I don't recall seeing a physics math methods text where units played a big role since the focus is on mathematical relationships, not finding numerical answers.
I see, thanks! That also makes sense in hindsight. The Zill book I leafed through had a lot of miles, feet, lb's and gal's, but it must be the characteristic of 'engineering maths' books, as @jedishrfu noted. So I'll just go for one of the 'mathematical methods for physicists' books.
 
Just to bake your noodle, in nuclear reactor thermal hydraulics we (in the US) do fuel pin linear heat rate in kw/ft.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and jedishrfu
gmax137 said:
Just to bake your noodle, in nuclear reactor thermal hydraulics we (in the US) do fuel pin linear heat rate in kw/ft.
There's always one gotcha in every crowd.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and gmax137
Thanks for the advice everyone. I've narrowed it down to Riley/Hobson/Bence vs. Boas and went with Boas because it seems to contain more exercises. I've found a reasonably priced second-hand copy too.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, PeroK and vanhees71
vela said:
I don't recall seeing a physics math methods text where units played a big role since the focus is on mathematical relationships, not finding numerical answers.
As an author of such a text, I can confirm this. I did discuss units and — more particularly — dimensional analysis since it forms an important part of the skills required and is a powerful tool.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, vanhees71 and Argonaut
  • #10
Argonaut said:
Thanks for the advice everyone. I've narrowed it down to Riley/Hobson/Bence vs. Boas and went with Boas because it seems to contain more exercises. I've found a reasonably priced second-hand copy too.
A good free resource to supplement any textbook is Paul's online notes:

https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/

It's a great reference.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Argonaut

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
781
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K