- 19,865
- 10,853
Love this retro look!
This discussion focuses on the aesthetics of book covers in serious science literature, particularly in mathematics and physics. Participants share examples of visually appealing covers, such as "Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians" edited by Deligne et al., and "Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model" by Schwartz, highlighting their artistic designs. The conversation also touches on personal preferences regarding covers, with some expressing a dislike for overly complex or stressful designs. Overall, the thread encourages sharing and appreciating the beauty of book covers in scientific literature.
PREREQUISITESReaders interested in the intersection of art and science, graphic designers focusing on book covers, and educators or students in mathematics and physics looking to enhance their appreciation of scientific literature.
How come you have not taken part in some of the interpretation threads?CJ2116 said:View attachment 259408
Not only is this one of the coolest covers on any of textbooks I have, it is also the best book on classical mechanics that I have ever read!
Do you have a link to a few of them?pinball1970 said:How come you have not taken part in some of the interpretation threads?
I just now seen your post.vanhees71 said:Well, when I studied, I took a lot of math lectures with the mathematicians, and for them it was utmost a sin to use such mnemonics. All symbols were written in plain symbols, no matter what it was. Already in the Linear Algebra lecture it was quite unusual for us physicists. So when I did my problems, I first wrote it in the physicists' notation with all ornaments around the symbols to understand what I'm calculating. Then I translated the result into the mathematicians' notation.
The most awful thing with this respect was that in Hilbert-spaces they uses almost the Dirac notation (of course with round parantheses instead of left and right wedges), but they made the first argument of the scalar product linear and the 2nd one semilinear, which of course immediately obsoletes the almost ingenious automatism getting things right with the Dirac notation ;-)).
Of course, for the mathematicians the physicists' way to (over)simplify things must be also odd. My functional-analysis professor once stated that physicists come away with that almost always only, because the separable Hilbert space is allmost like a finite-dimensional complex vector space, but only almost, and that's why sometimes you have debates about eigenvectors of the position or momentum operator and the like, which simply lead to nonsense since a distribution is a distribution and not a function ;-)).

I'm not a physicist so I am out of depth on this.CJ2116 said:Do you have a link to a few of them?
To be honest, I'm not sure that I would have much (if anything) intelligent to contribute to the discussions, but I do really enjoy reading what other people have to say!
This oneCJ2116 said:Do you have a link to a few of them?
To be honest, I'm not sure that I would have much (if anything) intelligent to contribute to the discussions, but I do really enjoy reading what other people have to say!