Other Should I Become a Mathematician?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathwonk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematician
AI Thread Summary
Becoming a mathematician requires a deep passion for the subject and a commitment to problem-solving. Key areas of focus include algebra, topology, analysis, and geometry, with recommended readings from notable mathematicians to enhance understanding. Engaging with challenging problems and understanding proofs are essential for developing mathematical skills. A degree in pure mathematics is advised over a math/economics major for those pursuing applied mathematics, as the rigor of pure math prepares one for real-world applications. The journey involves continuous learning and adapting, with an emphasis on practical problem-solving skills.
  • #3,251


Mathwonk - Yes, in general I always recommend first editions...As a general rule, the first edition is the authors' own best shot at exactly what they want to say and do, hence it is the best. Usually later editions exist only because the publisher wants to be able to sell more copies...

Mathwonk - I myself cannot think of a single book for which I would prefer a later edition. It is tempting to want that extra chapter, but truthfully I seldom even get through all of the shorter version, and if I do, I almost surely do not need the extra stuff...Thus as always, it is helpful to take a look at the books in a library and see which appeals to you.

-------

So true...

it's pretty rare to see later editions of books, outside of first year physics [when it was actually adding stuff on atomic theory, and a huge ripple of books in the 40s after the atomic bomb]

In calculus,
Dull's Mathematics for engineers had a second edition in 1941... [McGraw-Hill]
Lamb's Infitessimal Calculus - 3ed 1919 [Cambridge]. corrections 1944
Sherwood and Taylor - Calculus - revised edition 1946 Prentice-Hall
Love and Rainville - 5th ed 1954

-----------

Basically when these people did new editions, it was almost always worth buying the newer one and most changes were usually extra chapters at the end and in 80% of cases the book wasnt touched. People usually proof read stuff carefully and didnt change their vision every 5 years for a totally different rewrite...

Advanced Calculus

only Kaplan - Advanced Calculus for Engineers and Physicists 2ed 1951 Ann Arbor Publishers...

[Kaplan was way more famous with Advanced Calculus - 1952 Addison-Wesley]

--------------

So i would say that pre 1960 usually the newest editions were usually the best choice and rarely would an older edition be a problem either, unless you really wanted that extra frill with the two new chapters in the back...

--------

Physics is another world, Symon's Mechanics i think is great as a 1971 3ed, and it seems double the book from 1960s 2ed...and the 1953 1ed was only like 2 chapters less than the 1960 edition...

and most of the Halliday and Resnick Texts from 1960 into the early 80s, it was basically 30% more problems, than anything else...

---------

Math texts in the 1970s started the horrid trend on occasion, and by the 80s-now it's getting ridiculous... and yes, the books are often better with the first edition...

Often i judge by the cover, the paper, the graphics, and what's extra, or how the rewrite was, and the saddest thing of all, is with these new editions, proofreading is out the window.

I seen some math texts or physical chemistry or electronics books that just get decimated by the students comments when the book suddenly becomes almost unusuable.

-----------

if you really really like a textbook, sometimes it's nice to own all the different editions, and just see what these guys were thinking, or the greedy publisher was thinking...

often i'll run to the old physics books with the 1960s pictures and illustrations than the new stuff. [I try not to look at Halliday and Resnick after 1986], and i prefer the 1960 and 1965 PSSC physics...

and how can you not adore the analog computers and rocket missile cones in the 1964 Dolciani Modern Algebra 2 Textbook? I find the older photos from the 50s to the 70s the best part of those books...

and all the India ink drawings like out of scientific american or a 1960s Addison-Wesley or McGraw-Hill book, and not computer illustrations all the time.My rule is 50-50, go with the old books and the new books both...

and when you hit the 1970s, don't be foolest by new editions...

it can be a war, of the cool cover of a 70s Springer book or the 90s book with 2 extra chapters and crappy illustrations by computer and new nasty tex typesetting..

Often i felt the strength of a book is by how few editions come out...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3,252


ovael said:
Dustbin, that's great that you have nearly completed the book. Could you tell a bit more about the experience? Like what kind of math backround you had and do you perhaps now prefer the style it has to other books you have studied previously? Did you think the problems were hard/interesting?

I really like the book now. At first I found it very challenging because I knew nothing of what the opening material is on (proof and logic). For some reason, I also found the way the author wrote somewhat weird. It is very blunt and to the point. There are not elaborate descriptions and lengthy explanations. Some people, like mathwonk stated, may not like the dry/serious writing style... but I for one do. For instance, I LOVE the way Apostol writes. I could sit and read Apostol's material just for his writing style. He can be a little long winded on subjects, but he provides very motivating information on what he is writing about. Allendoerfer just bluntly states things. This took getting used to, but I now quite like it.

Once I worked through an introductory book on proofs (Chartrand and some of "How to think like a Mathematician") I jumped back into Principles of Mathematics. This time around it is a significantly better experience. Some of the problems (the proof problems) are very challenging... others are easy. I've felt that as the book progresses, the problems have gotten easier. This is probably due to my increased comfort with proofs. I've also noticed that there seems to be more computation problems as the book progresses. Honestly, I just skip most of the computation problems because I am very comfortable with that material. I am reading the book for a nice introduction to more formal mathematics. I've found the proof problems very interesting and really like reading his proofs.

My math background was pretty terrible. I grew up in a very small town with few academic opportunities. I took Algebra 1,2 and Geometry in high school. I took several years off from school to work and then started at a community college. I've always been good at math and thinking abstractly, but my preparation was limited. I started out at intermediate algebra in community college and am now taking honors calc 2 and honors linear algebra. I had never seen a proof until sometime this last spring (when I started reading Allendoerfer after becoming more interested in mathematics). I think it is a great place to start out. If you have no knowledge of logic or proofs, it may help to start out with a book that explains the subject in more depth. If you have some familiarity... I say start with this.

Hope this helps!
 
  • #3,253
  • #3,254


the big minus to the MAA site is that

a. they only put books up to 1991, newer stuff you need membership or read the magazine in the library to look stuff up...

b. older stuff - if it's out of print and old, they sometimes junk it off the list, which i think is a big minus.. they keep plenty on, but i think it's not enough...If one could access their older lists and newer lists, it would be one of the better ones... though sometimes they do recommend fads like some of the odd computer aided textbooks, or radical experiments [some good, some awful]...

but the MAA list is something that matches Parke's work almost perfectly... though it doesn't get into Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, Electronics...

you don't see Welchons+Krickenberg of the 50s, Dolciani of the 60s, or Munem of the 80s... for algebra...

but you'll get Three stars for the Demana Graphing Calculator books that were a fad..

-------

I just felt that it was a real letdown that the algebra aka
[school mathematics and Precalculus] parts of the list didnt include more titles, older out of print ones and some of the new ones...

like a huge gap of the 1970s...

--------------

Only two 1960s textbooks?
Only two 1970s textbooks?
come on!

and then the list starts rolling from 1981-1991

1960s
-------
- Allendoerfer, C.B. and Oakley, C.O. Fundamentals of Freshman Mathematics, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Second Edition.

- Ayre, H.G.; Stephens, R.; and Mock, G.D. Analytic Geometry: Two and Three Dimensions, New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1967. Second Edition

1970s
-------
- * Usiskin, Zalman. Advanced Algebra with Transformations and Applications River Forest, IL: Laidlaw Brothers, 1976.

- Larson, Loren C. Algebra and Trigonometry Refresher for Calculus Students New York, NY: W.H. Freeman, 1979.

1980s
-------
- Devlin, Keith J. Sets, Functions, and Logic: Basic Concepts of University Mathematics New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, 1981.

- Simmons, George F. Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell: Geometry, Algebra, Trigonometry Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann, 1981.

---------------
- one 1965
- one 1967
- one 1976
- one 1979
- two 1981
---------------
- zero 1982 books
- one 1983 book
- three 1984 books
- one 1985 book
- zero 1986 books
- two 1987 books
- zero 1988 books
- four 1989 books [many are later editions of earlier ones]
- three 1990 books
- two 1991 books

you can see when the billionth edition fad came in the mid 1980s also...My issue is considering how crucial things are for the algebra and calculus crowd, it's the place that should be the least neglected...

But then again, i think all unis should offer algebra and chemistry and math and physics from ground zero...

I think that's how Jeremy Bernstein at Harvard got into physics, he didnt take a class before, and poof ended up with a degree... and he turned into one of the better 70s 80s pop science writers and then later an excellent author on Modern Physics [aka basics for Quantum Mechanics]------
the MAA list is creepy though
2 stars for Sherman Stein and Spivak...
[they offer 2 stars for Leithhold's algebra text but don't add his calculus text]
3 stars for thomas and finney
and 2 stars for Priestley's strange historical approach to calculus. [something Morris Kline wouldn't approve of]

ideally, i'd like to see a maa/Parke like list that shows things before during and after the new math... and sadly that's a black hole for recommending books. Some of the texts were pretty experimental and freaky, neat as a reference, awful as a first exposure...

according to the MAA the only books cool enough for three starts after the Parke era would be
a. Thomas and Finney's Calculus [the 1952 edition is in Parke before Finney joined]
b. Apostol
c. Saywer's book What is Calculus About? [NML - New Mathematical Library of the 1960s]
d. Demana's Precalculus a Graphing Approachanyone out there use or browse, Leithhold and Stein's stuff from the 70s?
 
  • #3,255
mathwonk said:
well those are really tough questions. you are at an elite school where very little hand holding goes on, i.e. everyone assumes you know what you want, and they throw the math at you in the best form they can manage, and let it sort itself out.

There are always better people, always. I have been at all kinds of schools, and when I dropped down from ivy schools to state schools i thought well maybe now i'll be the best one here. No, there were still better people, and there always are.

So the choice has to be based on how much you enjoy what you are doing.

If you were hopelessly outclassed and had no chance, of course you should drop out, but that is not at all the case, with your record.

a certain level of talent is needed as a prerequisite, but after that entry level qualifying exam, it is all about effort.

Mariogs379 said:
@mathwonk,

Bit of a specific question but I thought you might be a good source of advice. Here's my background/question:

Went to ivy undergrad, did some math and was planning on majoring in it but, long story short, family circumstances intervened and I had to spend significant time away from campus/not doing school-work. So I did philosophy but have taken the following classes:

Calc II (A)
Calc III (A)
Linear Alg. (B+)
ODE's (A)
Decision Theory (pass)
Intro to Logic (A-)

Anyway, I did some mathy finance stuff for a year or so but realized it wasn't for me. I'm now going to take classes at Columbia in their post-bac program but wanted to get your advice on how best to approach this.

They have two terms so I'm taking Real Analysis I in the first term and, depending on how that goes, Real Analysis II in the second term. I'm planning on taking classes in the fall semester as a non-degree student and was thinking of taking:

Abstract Algebra
Probability
(some type of non-euclidean geometry)

Anyway, here are my questions:

1) What do you think of my tentative course selection above?

2) How much do you think talent matters as far as being able to hack it if I ended up wanting to do grad school in math?

3) I'm also having a hard time figuring out whether math is a fit for me. By that, I just mean that I really like math, I'm reading Rudin / Herstein in my free time, but I've spoken with other kids from undergrad and it's clear that they're several cuts above both ability and interest-wise. Any thoughts on how to figure this out?

Thanks in advance for your help, much appreciated,
Mariogs


Hey Mathwonk,

I finished the analysis class (using Rudin). Really interesting stuff though it's made me wonder whether I'm talented enough for more math. I ended up getting a B in the class but had to put a TON of time to get even that. Having said that (and maybe this is silly), I feel like Rudin must be discouraging for a lot of people. Had we used Abbott, I think I'd feel more confident about my abilities.

So:

1) Thoughts on this: http://www.brandeis.edu/departments/mathematics/graduate/certificate.html

2) I LOVED the cardinality stuff / Cantor's uncountability of the reals; though I don't know that analysis is something I'd want to do a ton more of. The reading I've done on my own makes me think algebra/topology is awesome, though!

I guess this question is vague but should I just do the Brandeis program and then I'll really know whether more math is for me? Seems like maybe my interest level in analysis isn't reflective of my interest in math more broadly...

It's probably the only thing where I feel like you *really* begin to understand things instead of just being spoonfed answers or formulas.

Thanks again for all your help on this!
 
  • #3,256


dustbin said:
I really like the book now. At first I found it very challenging because I knew nothing of what the opening material is on (proof and logic)... **Removed Text** ...If you have no knowledge of logic or proofs, it may help to start out with a book that explains the subject in more depth. If you have some familiarity... I say start with this.

Hope this helps!

Yes, thanks dustbin that was really helpful, I guess I have pretty similar math backround to you.
And actually the book came today, little earlier than I expected. Funny thing I noticed on the cover was that the book is a gift from the US.

It says: "This book has been presented to Finland by the government of the United States of America, under public law 265, 81st congress, as an expression of the friendship and good will which the people of the United States hold for the people of Finland."

So it's a little late but thanks guys! (I guess most/many posters are from US.)

dustbin said:
You can also check out MAA's list for different subjects. Here is precalc/calc

http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/19/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=3226

They have a book on there that is also by Allendoerfer called "Fundamentals of Freshmen Mathematics." Anyone heard of it?

That looks really useful site, thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,257


"Hey Mathwonk,

I finished the analysis class (using Rudin). Really interesting stuff though it's made me wonder whether I'm talented enough for more math. I ended up getting a B in the class but had to put a TON of time to get even that. Having said that (and maybe this is silly), I feel like Rudin must be discouraging for a lot of people. Had we used Abbott, I think I'd feel more confident about my abilities."

a B in a rudin class is a strong affirmation of your ability. congratulations!
 
  • #3,258


heh, would be surprised if math grad schools thought so...haha. I just picked up Mendelson's "Intro to Topology" and Munkres' book. Looks like really interesting stuff.

Think I should just go for that Brandeis program?

Thanks again for the help!
 
  • #3,259


the brandeis program looks good to me. i myself went to brandeis right out of college and the excellent teaching there made me realize i did enjoy math, and that math was even more interesting than i had thought. I learned far more in the environment there than I had as a Harvard undergrad, although Harvard's program is wonderful too, especially now. In fact Alan Mayer, the brilliant professor who first magnetized me to algebraic geometry, is still at Brandeis. I recommend you check it out.
 
  • #3,260


What'd you do at Brandeis?

Thanks again for the help.

Sounds like I should take a little math this spring. Maybe just abstract algebra? Or throw in a topology class too?
 
  • #3,261


RJinkies said:
Allendeorfer and Oakley - Principles of Mathematics

There's a Third Edition 1969 McGraw-Hill

and some of the books might be with title changes so the diffences could be minor or substantial...
in the day it was likely the same book tweaked for college students...Allendoerfer & Oakley - Principles of Mathematics - McGraw-Hill 1ed 1955 - 540? pages
Allendoerfer & Oakley - Principles of Mathematics - McGraw-Hill 3ed 1969 - 705? pages
Allendoerfer & Oakley - Fundamentals of Freshman Mathematics. McGraw-Hill 1959
Allendoerfer & Oakley - Fundamentals of College Algebra. McGraw-Hill 1967
I'm interested of the content in "Principles of Mathematics"; I have googled for a detailed table of contents, but can't seem to find any. I would love to read a more in-depth review of the book as well. So if anyone know of any, I would love it if you shared! :)

Also, "Fundamentals of Freshman Mathematics", is that one similar to the above mentioned book? On Google Books, one can read the following about the book:

"Survey of mathematics designed to prepare the student for a course in analytic geometry and calculus."

Sounds like a precalculus book, just like "Principles"?
 
  • #3,262


my guess as i hinted in that messages was i think Allendoerfer just wrote the same books three times, and revised half of them for 15 years too...

being one of the larger figures in the New Math, he just wanted to add some of the 'new ideas' that program was doing in the 50s and 60s

so i'd think a chapter on formalism and lite set theory stuff trying to add some Modern Algebra glitter to the people just starting off in math... [which may or may not be such a good thing]

just plop 1-2 extra chapters or tighten up the first few chapters so it's got harder problems for college math people [where it's rehashing algebra 12 and extras], you know stuff that might not be great to plop down on grade 10-11 students.

just gear the text for people 1-3 years older...
or it's quite likely that chapters get dropped for some titles, and added for the others, and the core book is the same...

all i know for sure is he added 150 extra pages in 15 years...
which could be 4 extra chapters...

My guess:
a. he only did one algebra book, 3 different ways and at least 5 different editions...
b. and he did a calculus book which was less of a splash..
c. Seattle probably has tons of copies at the uni library and I'm closer than you are, if one of us starts synchronizing our watches now...

with a lot of these things, seeing the actually book reviews like in the College Mathematics Journal or the American Physics Teacher and the AJP i think is where lots of the 30s 40s 50s 60s and early 70s books are hiding...

would be cool if someone had a website and showed photos of the books and what some of the praise or criticism was... Allendorfer, Krickeberger, Dolciani, the Courant-Fritz John set... or things like Resnick, Symon PSSC etc etc...

i wonder if Parke kept going on for another 10-20 years and took interest in SMSG and PSSC and how it created a kick start of new and *sometimes* better books after his list... sadly he seemed in a rush to get it out for 1957 and i think half of the 1956 year he looked a most things, and sometimes dropped a Dover title of ike a Russian book that will be out in 1-2 years..or a turn of the century reprint...his priority was his rather busy consulting practice in Mass as an Applied Mathematician with a good 2000+ reference books...

[actually he said that for professional type science people that if a book though it seems pricey if it can save you a day's wasted work, it paid for itself...though that's not really true for students, is it.. lol]

sure wonder what he thought of those programs in his old age.

Morris Kline did slam a lot of stuff with his books why johnny can't add and why the professor can't teach... but i do remember i wasnt all that hyped about his calculus text, and then at the time, Apostol didnt grip me either...[it seemed like a near impossibility to do that many pages in a semester i thought, and well, it's pretty dense, it's pretty hard and lots of proofs, Courant though murky seemed way more accessible, but you sure can't pick up lots of stuff easily or quickly...

[which you can from Thomas and Finner, or Sherman Stein, or JE Thompson or Syl Thompson... or hell, Granville Longley and Smith...]

GLS seemed like the nicest text to breeze through at the library, and so was Courant-John as the two texts, i'd most likely 'oops i lost it' excuses out of a pile of really BLAND 70s calculus texts...

oh a 60s McGraw-Hill -Calculus for Electronics

three calculus books got the thumbs up from me back in the day...along with Feynman's Lectures and the Berkeley Series... I didnt see any great high school or first year physics books that stood out

but i thought the best two texts then were
a. PSSC
b. Frederick J. Bueche's College Physics for Scientists and Enginners
1969 edition [i think it had another title] , 1974 edition 1981 edition, roughly... there was one more 4th edition for sure but i think the look of the book went downhill...

one of the more relaxed and precisely worded texts around. He thought the basics should be really well done, thought it was a top book of the 70s 80s though probably too hard for high school, too easy for some Uni-ersity Physics courses...

Bueche did one schaum's outline, what it was i can't recall [I don't think it was the College Physics one about 1938, or maybe in the 50s he was the editor?] But i think he was a big cheese at the Uni of Dayton in Ohio [Ohio State and Case Western i think are the two main physics places though]

there was also some 50s 60s Addison Wesley books on College Math too, if i recall, it could have Kaplan, who wanted to do an easier book after his higher up calculus text of the 40s 50s..

one author i can't recall,had like a pretty stuff 1950s Trigonometry book that was about 150 pages, it was pretty stiff reading and though a bit difficult, pretty stimulating and seemed like a popular way of doing things for the people after high school and wanted that one scary math class for liberal arts... anyways that author i think did a pre cal book/college math book and a calculs book too.

i think his trig book was circa 54 with Add-Wes but the 'other titles' splash was circa 60-61 if i recall. Two years ago, i knew where that book was *grin*...
 
  • #3,263


Dowland said:
I'm interested of the content in "Principles of Mathematics"; I have googled for a detailed table of contents, but can't seem to find any. I would love to read a more in-depth review of the book as well. So if anyone know of any, I would love it if you shared! :)

Also, "Fundamentals of Freshman Mathematics", is that one similar to the above mentioned book? On Google Books, one can read the following about the book:

"Survey of mathematics designed to prepare the student for a course in analytic geometry and calculus."

Sounds like a precalculus book, just like "Principles"?
Here is table of contents of Allendoerfer's and Oakleys Principles of Mathematics first edition (1955):Preface

List of Symbols

Chapter 1. Logic (p. 1-38)

1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. Propositions
4. Propositions in Mathematics
5. Quantifiers
6. Symbols
7. Truth Tables
8. Applications of Truth Tables
9. Negation
10. Implications Derived from Other Implications
11. Mathematical Terminology
12. Methods of Proof
13. Methods of Proof (continued)

Chapter 2. The Number System (p. 39-68)

1. Introduction
2. Addition of Real Numbers
3. Multiplication of Real Numbers
4. Formal Properties of Real Numbers
5. Special Properties of Real Numbers
6. Special Properties of Zero
7. Special Properties of Integers
8. Special Properties of the Rational Numbers
9. Decimal Expansion
10. Some Irrational Numbers
11. Geometrical Representation of Real Numbers
12. The Use of Real Numbers in Plane Geometry
13. Distance between Two Points
14. Complex Numbers
15. Solutions of Other Algeabraic Equations
16. Classification of Numbers
17. Congruences

Chapter 3. Groups (p. 69-82)

1. Introduction
2. Groups
3. Examples of Groups
4. Further Examples of Groups
5. Theorems about Groups

Chapter 4. Fields (p.83-102)

1. Introduction
2. Definition of a Field
3. Examples of Fields
4. Theorema based upon Group Properties
5. Additional Theorems
6. Solution of Equations
7. Solution of Quadratic Equations
8. Inequalities
9. Theorems Concerning Fractions
10. Exponents and Radicals

Chapter 5. Sets and Boolean Algebra (p. 103-123)

1. Introduction
2. Sets
3. Relations between sets
4. Union and Intersection of Sets
5. Complements
6. Boolean Algebra
7. The Boolean Algebra (0,1)
8. Electrical Networks
9. Design of Circuits
10. Quantifiers

Chapter 6. Functions (p. 124-158)

1. Functions
2. Special Functions
3. Relations
4. Notations for a Function
5. Rule, Domain, and Range
6. Algebra of Functions
7. Graph of a Function
8. Graph of a Relation
9. Inverse Function
10. Functions Derived from Equations

Chapter 7. Algebraic Functions (p. 159-181)

1. Introduction
2. Polynomial Functions
3. Rational Functions
4. Explicit Algebraic Functions
5. Graphs and Continuity
6. Properties of Polynomial Equations
7. Synthetic Division
8. Roots of Polynomial Equations
9. Rational Roots of Rational Polynomial Equations
10. Real roots or Real Polynomial Equations

Chapter 8. Trigonometric Functions (p.182-224)

1. General Definitions
2. Special Real Numbers
3. General Real Numbers
4. Range and Graph of Functions
5. Addition Theorems
6. Identities
7. Equations
8. Directed Angles
9. Trigonometric Function of Directed Angles
10. Right Triangles
11. Law of Sines
12. Law of Cosines
13. Inverse Functions
14. Complex Numbers

Chapter 9. Exponential and Logarithmic Functions (p.225-235)

1. Introduction
2. Exponential Functions
3. The number "e"
4. Logarithmic Functions
5. Graphs
6. The Logarithmic Scale

Chapter 10. Analytic Geometry (p.242-283)

1. Introduction
2. Mid-point of a Line Segment
3. Directed Line Segment
4. Inclination, Slope, Direction Cosines
5. Angle between Two Directed Lines
6. Applications to Plane Geometry
7. The Straight Line
8. Conic Sections
9. The Circle
10. The Parabola
11. The Ellipse
12. The Hyperbola
13. Applications
14. Polar Coordinates
15. Polar Coordinates Continued
16. Parametric Equations

Chapter 11. Limits (p. 284-329)

1. Introduction
2. Historical Notes
3. Sequences
4. Limits of Sequences
5. Examples of Sequences
6. Theorems of Limits of Sequences
7. Series
8. Limits of Functions
9. Theorems of Limits of Functions
10. Continuity
11. Area
12. Rates
13. Tangent to a Curve

Chapter 12. The Calculus (p. 330- 363)

1. Integration
2. Differentiation
3. Comparison of Integration and Differentiation
4. Rules of Differentiation
5. Second Derivatives
6. Maxima and Minima
7. Related Rates

Chapter 13. Statistics and Probability (p. 364-420)

1. The Nature of Statistics
2. Sampling
3. Presentation of Data
4. Frequency Distributions
5. Characteristics of Frequency Distributions
6. Grouping
7. Averages
8. Interpretation of the Mean
9. Computation of the Mean
10. Standard Deviation
11. Probability
12. Permutations
13. Combinations
14. Binomial Theorem
15. Probability (Again)
16. Empirical Probability
17. Expectation
18. Repeated Events
19. Binomial Distribution
20. Testing Hypothesis
21. Cumulative Normal Curve
22. Normal Distribution
23. Normal Distribution (continued)
24. Distribution of Sample Means
25. The Logical Roles of Statistics

Answers to Selected Exercises

IndexI can't really give in-depth review since I have not yet started studying it, but it seems to be good
"bridge" from basic algebra/geometry/trigonometry/calculus knowledge to higher mathematics.

I'm getting little ahead of myself, but when I'm done with Allendoerfer I will probably get Apostol's Calculus Books.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,264


sounds like a high school honours course pretty much, or close to a college algebra like class, which got phased out with the space race, they wanted no longer to teach a review of high school and then push you into calculus, but just push you into calculus... and push out more engineers quicker.. and now there's the trend to push calculus into the high schools and then you really zoom into accelerated stuff into uni...

I think in the earlier days when there was less textbook competition and less crowded unis, you were always better off when a school could teach the most basic of math, or chemistry or physics, if you lacked anything, and the college professors would use better textbooks and it would mesh more with their calculus programs...

one thing i know, that if you take a math or chemistry course where you start on chapter 8 in the first week of classes, it would probably be better to read the first 7 chapters a semester or year earlier, and not miss out on the authors usually well-constructed development.

sometimes the stuff a chemistry book assumes, it's likely you might not have down any of those problems or concepts for 20% of things... and if you just skirted it, you're probably conceptionally shaky that you wouldn't notice somethng, unless it was pointed out to you...

the interesting thing, i found was with a lot of books, algebra texts with a strong new math feel, or books on diff eqs or complex variables, or some organic chem, that *often* chapter 1 where it's suppossedly review, is actually much harder than the new material with chapters 2 and 3...

had an interesting talk with my math teacher about that phenomenon... but i think it was more that sometimes in the 70s kids are less better prepared, and i think the textbook changes and curriculum changes had a fair deal to do with that...

I think i'd cringe at the first 150 pages of allendorfer though, but if it's a slow enough pace, or a second dip into algebra, you can enjoy it a lot more...

I'm guessing that it's probably one of the earlist books in spirit to the new math [before it started AFTER sputnik], without trying to cram too much Bourbaki down the throats of 16 year olds

the PSSC program was Before Sputnik, but the SMSG New math stuff was in reaction to sputnik...

and the Seaborg CHEM books from 1964 are great reading, but I think a lot of the problem solving skills are hidden or absent, or at that time, really pushed in first year chem... things seems a bit more leisurely for chemistry in the days of slide rules for chemistry 11 once upon a time...

sad thing is more all those 60s chemistry texts shows hints of the most exciting stuff going on, and they yanked all that stuff out by the 70s

------

think about using Sylvanius Thompson and JE Thompson's
Calculus Made Easy and Calculus made Simple [1910s and 1930s]
[or Sherman Stein]
if you are going to read Apostol or Spivak

i find an easy book is great parallel reading...
 
  • #3,265


The above table of contents looks, as far as I can tell, exactly like the one in my first edition copy of Principles of Mathematics. So it appears that only their titles may be different? Pretty much all of the page numbers are the same as well (I could only find one or two that were different on the ToC).

RJinkies said:
I think i'd cringe at the first 150 pages of allendorfer though, but if it's a slow enough pace, or a second dip into algebra, you can enjoy it a lot more...

The chapters on logic were the hardest for me (completely new subjects to me). I did the first 4 chapters, took a break to study a book that focused more on this material in particular, and then came back to it (and re-did it). After my second run-through with it, I handled it very well. The first time, I indeed did work very slowly through it. After coming back to it and going through those chapters again, the subsequent chapters (I've done up to the calculus topics, but not including them) have been much more gentle.
 
  • #3,266


ovael said:
Here is table of contents of Allendoerfer's and Oakleys Principles of Mathematics first edition (1955):


Preface

List of Symbols

Chapter 1. Logic (p. 1-38)

1. Introduction
2. Definitions
3. Propositions
4. Propositions in Mathematics
5. Quantifiers
6. Symbols
7. Truth Tables
8. Applications of Truth Tables
9. Negation
10. Implications Derived from Other Implications
11. Mathematical Terminology
12. Methods of Proof
13. Methods of Proof (continued)

Chapter 2. The Number System (p. 39-68)

1. Introduction
2. Addition of Real Numbers
3. Multiplication of Real Numbers
4. Formal Properties of Real Numbers
5. Special Properties of Real Numbers
6. Special Properties of Zero
7. Special Properties of Integers
8. Special Properties of the Rational Numbers
9. Decimal Expansion
10. Some Irrational Numbers
11. Geometrical Representation of Real Numbers
12. The Use of Real Numbers in Plane Geometry
13. Distance between Two Points
14. Complex Numbers
15. Solutions of Other Algeabraic Equations
16. Classification of Numbers
17. Congruences

Chapter 3. Groups (p. 69-82)

1. Introduction
2. Groups
3. Examples of Groups
4. Further Examples of Groups
5. Theorems about Groups

Chapter 4. Fields (p.83-102)

1. Introduction
2. Definition of a Field
3. Examples of Fields
4. Theorema based upon Group Properties
5. Additional Theorems
6. Solution of Equations
7. Solution of Quadratic Equations
8. Inequalities
9. Theorems Concerning Fractions
10. Exponents and Radicals

Chapter 5. Sets and Boolean Algebra (p. 103-123)

1. Introduction
2. Sets
3. Relations between sets
4. Union and Intersection of Sets
5. Complements
6. Boolean Algebra
7. The Boolean Algebra (0,1)
8. Electrical Networks
9. Design of Circuits
10. Quantifiers

Chapter 6. Functions (p. 124-158)

1. Functions
2. Special Functions
3. Relations
4. Notations for a Function
5. Rule, Domain, and Range
6. Algebra of Functions
7. Graph of a Function
8. Graph of a Relation
9. Inverse Function
10. Functions Derived from Equations

Chapter 7. Algebraic Functions (p. 159-181)

1. Introduction
2. Polynomial Functions
3. Rational Functions
4. Explicit Algebraic Functions
5. Graphs and Continuity
6. Properties of Polynomial Equations
7. Synthetic Division
8. Roots of Polynomial Equations
9. Rational Roots of Rational Polynomial Equations
10. Real roots or Real Polynomial Equations

Chapter 8. Trigonometric Functions (p.182-224)

1. General Definitions
2. Special Real Numbers
3. General Real Numbers
4. Range and Graph of Functions
5. Addition Theorems
6. Identities
7. Equations
8. Directed Angles
9. Trigonometric Function of Directed Angles
10. Right Triangles
11. Law of Sines
12. Law of Cosines
13. Inverse Functions
14. Complex Numbers

Chapter 9. Exponential and Logarithmic Functions (p.225-235)

1. Introduction
2. Exponential Functions
3. The number "e"
4. Logarithmic Functions
5. Graphs
6. The Logarithmic Scale

Chapter 10. Analytic Geometry (p.242-283)

1. Introduction
2. Mid-point of a Line Segment
3. Directed Line Segment
4. Inclination, Slope, Direction Cosines
5. Angle between Two Directed Lines
6. Applications to Plane Geometry
7. The Straight Line
8. Conic Sections
9. The Circle
10. The Parabola
11. The Ellipse
12. The Hyperbola
13. Applications
14. Polar Coordinates
15. Polar Coordinates Continued
16. Parametric Equations

Chapter 11. Limits (p. 284-329)

1. Introduction
2. Historical Notes
3. Sequences
4. Limits of Sequences
5. Examples of Sequences
6. Theorems of Limits of Sequences
7. Series
8. Limits of Functions
9. Theorems of Limits of Functions
10. Continuity
11. Area
12. Rates
13. Tangent to a Curve

Chapter 12. The Calculus (p. 330- 363)

1. Integration
2. Differentiation
3. Comparison of Integration and Differentiation
4. Rules of Differentiation
5. Second Derivatives
6. Maxima and Minima
7. Related Rates

Chapter 13. Statistics and Probability (p. 364-420)

1. The Nature of Statistics
2. Sampling
3. Presentation of Data
4. Frequency Distributions
5. Characteristics of Frequency Distributions
6. Grouping
7. Averages
8. Interpretation of the Mean
9. Computation of the Mean
10. Standard Deviation
11. Probability
12. Permutations
13. Combinations
14. Binomial Theorem
15. Probability (Again)
16. Empirical Probability
17. Expectation
18. Repeated Events
19. Binomial Distribution
20. Testing Hypothesis
21. Cumulative Normal Curve
22. Normal Distribution
23. Normal Distribution (continued)
24. Distribution of Sample Means
25. The Logical Roles of Statistics

Answers to Selected Exercises

Index


I can't really give in-depth review since I have not yet started studying it, but it seems to be good
"bridge" from basic algebra/geometry/trigonometry/calculus knowledge to higher mathematics.

I'm getting little ahead of myself, but when I'm done with Allendoerfer I will probably get Apostol's Calculus Books.
Thank you, ovael! Chapters 1,3,4,5 looks very interesting!

I was actually thinking of buying it, because I've heard such good things about here on PF. But I'm currently doing "Basic Mathematics" (Serge Lang), "Elementary Algebra" (Harold Jacobs) and "Algebra" (Gelfand) at the same time, and in parallell to my ordinary high school curriculum, so I think it will be pretty overwhelming and unnecessary with another book.

However, good luck with your studies now, ovael! And I'm looking forward to a review of the book sometime in the future. :)


(BTW, sorry for any language errors, English is not my native.)
 
  • #3,267


dustbin - The chapters on logic were the hardest for me (completely new subjects to me). I did the first 4 chapters, took a break to study a book that focused more on this material in particular, and then came back to it (and re-did it). After my second run-through with it, I handled it very well. The first time, I indeed did work very slowly through it. After coming back to it and going through those chapters again, the subsequent chapters (I've done up to the calculus topics, but not including them) have been much more gentle.

What you experienced, is exactly how i think i would feel if i tackled him too! For me i remember people always finding Dolciani a hard text but if you read Modern Algebra Book 2 from 1964 from the start, it wasnt hard at all, but it got me to realize just how shaky our algebra was with a class with 2 textbooks and dolciani was only used 20% of the time, and just taking random stuff out of it...

I think i usually recommended Schaum's Outlnes [there were about 3 or 4] , Dolciani from the 60s or Munem from the 80s as the quickest fix or way to start off algebra...

I think that's one of the big reasons for the decline in math, we arent going slow enough and as thorough enough, and well we also need textbooks we can start beginning to end.

the more i looked at chemistry texts, i found that if you arent reading it from page one, you're really losing out on a solid foundation of the topic... one of the 1967 classics that was used at Caltech [it was a bright yellow one], the author basically started in on chapter 8 and ran through it.

He said that if you had zero chemistry before, and you could cram 3-4 months into reading that, or if you take the course and really really push it, you could basically coast through the course okay... I thought it was one of the finest textbooks since he listed all the great classics of the early and mid 60s at the end of each chapter, and you could end up with 40 textbooks from 1959-1966 on your reading list lol Why the subject lost most of its charm in the 70s, I'm not sure why but i think the focus narrowed and the enjoyable asides and well as deep explanations of the basics just went out the window... just push the mathematical essentials for what people need for organic or physical chem and forget the rest...
dowland - currently doing "Basic Mathematics" (Serge Lang), "Elementary Algebra" (Harold Jacobs) and "Algebra" (Gelfand) at the same time, and in parallell to my ordinary high school curriculum, so I think it will be pretty overwhelming and unnecessary with another book.

Lang seemed way more approchable with his basic math book and his old calculus book when he wanted to make a simplified course... lots of people don't appreciate his later stuff, till you're closer to grad school with linear and stuff, and a fair number of people get an allergy to him if they try to soak him in too soon. I was surprised when i came across his easier books and i was expecting a terse harsh introduction...

Jacobs did some good stuff with his elementary algebra and geometry books in the 70s 80s, one had an Escher artwork thing on it too... how do like Elementary Algebra by him, and i assume you got 1 of the 5 Green and White Birkhauser Gelfand books which probably go well with the NML series too...

Definately want to hear your thoughts on Lang and Jacobs algebra... i don't think many people at all pick or get dumped jacob's from the MAA list of recommended books for algebra anymore... but what what i recall it was always considered a great text for people with little or no background...i'm not sure if teacher's only picked it because of the Escher artwork or people listened to the MAA more lol
 
  • #3,268


RJinkies said:
idowland - currently doing "Basic Mathematics" (Serge Lang), "Elementary Algebra" (Harold Jacobs) and "Algebra" (Gelfand) at the same time, and in parallell to my ordinary high school curriculum, so I think it will be pretty overwhelming and unnecessary with another book.

Lang seemed way more approchable with his basic math book and his old calculus book when he wanted to make a simplified course... lots of people don't appreciate his later stuff, till you're closer to grad school with linear and stuff, and a fair number of people get an allergy to him if they try to soak him in too soon. I was surprised when i came across his easier books and i was expecting a terse harsh introduction...

Jacobs did some good stuff with his elementary algebra and geometry books in the 70s 80s, one had an Escher artwork thing on it too... how do like Elementary Algebra by him, and i assume you got 1 of the 5 Green and White Birkhauser Gelfand books which probably go well with the NML series too...

Definately want to hear your thoughts on Lang and Jacobs algebra... i don't think many people at all pick or get dumped jacob's from the MAA list of recommended books for algebra anymore... but what what i recall it was always considered a great text for people with little or no background...i'm not sure if teacher's only picked it because of the Escher artwork or people listened to the MAA more lol
Oops, I meant "Elementary GEOMETRY", not Algebra! I aksed earlier in this thread about the importance of learning euclidean geometry thouroughly and I got some mixed answers, but I finally decided to give it a try (can't hurt and one can always make some extra sparetime for mathematics right :))

As Regards to Lang's book, I love it! I have worked through approximately half of the book now and it has really given me a new way of looking at mathematics. Basic Mathematics is the first math book I've ever read at the side of the ordinary high school curriculum in my country, and it feels lika a completely different philosophy and attitude towards the subject and the student, which I think every high school student interested in mathematics should have the opportunity to expercience.

Can't write more for the moment, maybe I'll return with some more elaborated comments on the book.
 
  • #3,269


Damn, it's extremely difficult to find someone with an opinion of Jacobs Algebra text...

shame the MAA doesn't like any basic geometry books before 1968...

Geometry: School Geometry

Loomis, E. The Pythagorean Proposition - NCTM 1968
** Jacobs, Harold R. Geometry, New York, NY: W.H. Freeman, 1974 First Edition.
* Konkle, Gail S. Shapes and Perceptions: An Intuitive Approach to Geometry - Prindle, Weber and Schmidt 1974
* Moise, Edwin E. and Downs, Floyd L. Geometry - Addison-Wesley 1975
** O'Daffer, Phares G. and Clemens, Stanley R. Geometry: An Investigative Approach- Addison-Wesley 1976
* Bruni, James V. Experiencing Geometry - Wadsworth 1977
Kempe, A.B. How to Draw a Straight Line - NCTM 1977
* Fetisov, A.I. Proof in Geometry - MIR 1978
Hoffer, Alan. Geometry - Addison-Wesley 1979
Clemens, Stanley R.; O'Daffer, Phares G.; and Clooney, Thomas J. Geometry - Addison-Wesley 1983
** Jacobs, Harold R. Geometry, New York, NY: W.H. Freeman 1986. Second Edition.

one thing i hear about the 50s 60s geometry texts are they seem to be zombie-like. Some people seemed to like the challenge, but most anyone with high school geometry thinks its pretty useless if you take higher math classes...

as for Lang he gets the most praise for his easy books, but most of his stuff people don't like till they are in 4th year and like all that sterile bourbaki like formalism with linear.. Some people really dislike his book, but after a year or two then mellow and appreciate it more when get higher up...

so it was a shock for me when i found out lang did a great basic book, and once upon a time a pretty clear barebones calculus text...
 
  • #3,270


I have wanted to be a pure mathematician since I was about 15. I thought I was quite good at mathematics till I got to university and saw how talented some of my fellow classmates are. For instance many of them do no study besides attending class, and spend most of their time socialising/drinking/gaming yet still out perform me in many assesment tasks. This is quite frankly soul crushing as I spend most of my time thinking about mathematical things and it really highlights my lack of natural ability.

The thing is I still love the subject. Yet everytime one of my cocky friends tells me how well he has done in the latest exam or assignment I feel crushed and betrayed my the subject I love so much. I used to believe that genius was 90% Hardwork, but now I see that most of these sayings are just political correctness gone wrong.

Is it possible to even get a phd let alone tenure in pure mathematics when you lack that "spark" of genius?
 
  • #3,271


I have wanted to be a pure mathematician since I was about 15. I thought I was quite good at mathematics till I got to university and saw how talented some of my fellow classmates are. For instance many of them do no study besides attending class, and spend most of their time socialising/drinking/gaming yet still out perform me in many assesment tasks. This is quite frankly soul crushing as I spend most of my time thinking about mathematical things and it really highlights my lack of natural ability.

The thing is I still love the subject. Yet everytime one of my cocky friends tells me how well he has done in the latest exam or assignment I feel crushed and betrayed my the subject I love so much. I used to believe that genius was 90% Hardwork, but now I see that most of these sayings are just political correctness gone wrong.

Is it possible to even get a phd let alone tenure in pure mathematics when you lack that "spark" of genius?

I see you keep ignoring what I am telling you about knowing the tricks of the trade and of learning in general.

Part of your problem seems to be that you are thinking about different things than your friends. They problem just hit the homework and don't really question things, whereas you question things.

Here's one of the tricks I had up my sleeve in undergrad that I still use when I can, that, in particular, explains how I would avoid having to study much outside class sometimes (except to come up with my own explanations of things where necessary). I didn't take notes. Instead, during the lecture, I kept repeating what was said in the lecture up to that point in time in my mind. Always summarizing the lecture in my mind, while continuing to listen to the next part. A few things I didn't understand, I would set aside for meditating on later. After the lecture, I would go over it in my mind again. Sometimes, this meant I was already done studying after my session of reflection on the lecture was over. I would do it during the day while I was going about my business, eating, driving, etc. The usual rate of retention from lectures is 10%, whereas, if I concentrate, I can often recall 100% of the content (though not the specifics of how it was delivered). Even two years from now, if I so desire, just by a little review as necessary. If I wanted to, I could rehash the entire lecture. This would work best if the lecture was fairly conceptual in nature, and thus more memorable.

Another trick that I had was just reading Visual Complex Analysis. I think if someone reads it and understands a good portion of that book and its message, they would outperform someone with otherwise equal ability by a long shot in all their subsequent classes.
 
  • #3,272


homeomorphic said:
I see you keep ignoring what I am telling you about knowing the tricks of the trade and of learning in general.

Part of your problem seems to be that you are thinking about different things than your friends. They problem just hit the homework and don't really question things, whereas you question things.

Here's one of the tricks I had up my sleeve in undergrad that I still use when I can, that, in particular, explains how I would avoid having to study much outside class sometimes (except to come up with my own explanations of things where necessary). I didn't take notes. Instead, during the lecture, I kept repeating what was said in the lecture up to that point in time in my mind. Always summarizing the lecture in my mind, while continuing to listen to the next part. A few things I didn't understand, I would set aside for meditating on later. After the lecture, I would go over it in my mind again. Sometimes, this meant I was already done studying after my session of reflection on the lecture was over. I would do it during the day while I was going about my business, eating, driving, etc. The usual rate of retention from lectures is 10%, whereas, if I concentrate, I can often recall 100% of the content (though not the specifics of how it was delivered). Even two years from now, if I so desire, just by a little review as necessary. If I wanted to, I could rehash the entire lecture. This would work best if the lecture was fairly conceptual in nature, and thus more memorable.

Another trick that I had was just reading Visual Complex Analysis. I think if someone reads it and understands a good portion of that book and its message, they would outperform someone with otherwise equal ability by a long shot in all their subsequent classes.

Homeomorphic I am not ignoring you, I just cannot apply your techniques to my life. If I may say so you have an exceptional memory and mathematical ability, even if I do the things you mention it is to no avail. I cannot recall an entire lecture for the life of me, I will forget the intracies of a proof as soon as I finish reading it, regardless if it is in a book or on a blackboard. I think you just have the spark of genius which I spoke of, something I will never have, so there is no point in me trying to follow your advice (I have been trying over the last few days with no success). I wish I could just walk away from mathematics, to become a Doctor or an engineer or something less intellectually ambitious but whenever I have considered it, it has left me feeling empty.
 
  • #3,273


Group_Complex said:
I have wanted to be a pure mathematician since I was about 15. I thought I was quite good at mathematics till I got to university and saw how talented some of my fellow classmates are. For instance many of them do no study besides attending class, and spend most of their time socialising/drinking/gaming yet still out perform me in many assesment tasks. This is quite frankly soul crushing as I spend most of my time thinking about mathematical things and it really highlights my lack of natural ability.

The thing is I still love the subject. Yet everytime one of my cocky friends tells me how well he has done in the latest exam or assignment I feel crushed and betrayed my the subject I love so much. I used to believe that genius was 90% Hardwork, but now I see that most of these sayings are just political correctness gone wrong.

Is it possible to even get a phd let alone tenure in pure mathematics when you lack that "spark" of genius?

Every field requires a particular skillset where you need to have some kind of exceptional ability in a few particular things.

Everybody has particular things that they are good at: some are great at dealing with people and can understand what makes people tick but they are horrible at analyzing situations devoid of emotion or personality, while others can look at something objectively in a kind of brutally honest manner but may not really understand other people that well.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that have different requirements and we do have quite a lot of different avenues to pursue.

If you are not exceptional in one thing and you don't go on to that thing, don't take it personally: find the place where you can really do your thing well and become good at that.

Also I want to say that if you are absolutely set on doing a particular thing, then just remember that you can be flexible and pursue the options that are very close to that thing so much that it's hard to differentiate in many respects.

There are tonnes of careers that utilize the same kinds of skills and provide the same kinds of work that the one you originally envisioned that you haven't already thought about, and you may be surprised at how enjoyable those may be.

I would talk to as many people as you can about different options and get a feel of the kinds of people and skills that they employ and consider those options that are as close to what you are set on so that at least these things give you something to think about.
 
  • #3,274


Homeomorphic I am not ignoring you, I just cannot apply your techniques to my life. If I may say so you have an exceptional memory and mathematical ability, even if I do the things you mention it is to no avail. I cannot recall an entire lecture for the life of me, I will forget the intracies of a proof as soon as I finish reading it, regardless if it is in a book or on a blackboard. I think you just have the spark of genius which I spoke of, something I will never have, so there is no point in me trying to follow your advice (I have been trying over the last few days with no success). I wish I could just walk away from mathematics, to become a Doctor or an engineer or something less intellectually ambitious but whenever I have considered it, it has left me feeling empty.

I may have an exceptional memory and good, but not great mathematical ability, but how did I get there? A lot of people outperform me in classes, too, all the time. True, in some of my undergrad classes, I was way ahead of anyone else. In grad school, I just feel retarded all the time, compared to the best students, and especially compared to the professors.

If reviewing stuff isn't working, try reviewing it every day. The key is that you have to practice remembering. The main concept is that if you want to remember, you have to try to recall things WITHOUT LOOKING. Actually, maybe it would be easier to try to apply some of things in subjects other than math first. In math, it's compounded by the difficulty of being able to conceptualize well. I don't know if you like languages. Try to just start small. Take one Spanish (or your favorite language) word, and try to focus on that one word. Just be determined that you will never forget it. Review it every day. You'll never forget it. I think everyone has the ability to put facts into long term memory. Think about it. There are some things you just don't forget. Why? What is it that makes those things memorable?

This might be an eye-opener.

http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_foer_feats_of_memory_anyone_can_do.html

Note that this kind of memory isn't that useful in math because I think understanding is more important. However, it is a big hint as far as what is possible.
 
  • #3,275


chiro said:
Every field requires a particular skillset where you need to have some kind of exceptional ability in a few particular things.

Everybody has particular things that they are good at: some are great at dealing with people and can understand what makes people tick but they are horrible at analyzing situations devoid of emotion or personality, while others can look at something objectively in a kind of brutally honest manner but may not really understand other people that well.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are many things that have different requirements and we do have quite a lot of different avenues to pursue.

If you are not exceptional in one thing and you don't go on to that thing, don't take it personally: find the place where you can really do your thing well and become good at that.

Also I want to say that if you are absolutely set on doing a particular thing, then just remember that you can be flexible and pursue the options that are very close to that thing so much that it's hard to differentiate in many respects.

There are tonnes of careers that utilize the same kinds of skills and provide the same kinds of work that the one you originally envisioned that you haven't already thought about, and you may be surprised at how enjoyable those may be.

I would talk to as many people as you can about different options and get a feel of the kinds of people and skills that they employ and consider those options that are as close to what you are set on so that at least these things give you something to think about.

My interests are in academic mathematics, I would not be happy working in any other capacity.
 
  • #3,276


hi groupcomplex

- The thing is I still love the subject. Yet everytime one of my cocky friends tells me how well he has done in the latest exam or assignment I feel crushed and betrayed my the subject I love so much. I used to beliee that genius was 90% Hardwork, but now I see that most of these sayings are just political correctness gone wrong.

Well, there is exceptional talent, and then there are people who do put in 45 hours a week and get outstanding grades too, and then there are the other 80% of people...where anything can and does happen.

You can do 75% of anything the 'talented' people do, if you put in the hours, and slowly climb the ladder, mastering course after course... Mathwonk made some comments about this months ago, and i was quiet surprised at all the hope and enthusiasm he offered for people who struggle, or don't feel they got any natural talent for stuff. [Maybe someone can find the message number for that one]


Another thing is, for some of these students, they might seem leaps and bound ahead of you, but that isn't any guarantee they will be choosing math as a career or that they might do less well later on, or stop where you'll be taking way more math classes than they are. Depth is important, as well as knowing the ideas [especially in physics], and in some ways that may be more important than the problem solving long term, or talent.

And did these people read the subject beforehand? or do they just focus on the absolute minimum of essentials for good grades, with some talent and some studying...

here it could be they got a different box of tools, they got a toolkit months or years before you started yours in the first week of classes...

or they study differently and work the problems differently... or who knows...--------hi homeomorphic

- Here's one of the tricks I had up my sleeve in undergrad that I still use when I can, that, in particular, explains how I would avoid having to study much outside class sometimes (except to come up with my own explanations of things where necessary). I didn't take notes. Instead, during the lecture, I kept repeating what was said in the lecture up to that point in time in my mind. Always summarizing the lecture in my mind, while continuing to listen to the next part. A few things I didn't understand, I would set aside for meditating on later.

I knew one math teacher, who actually said for people to stop scribbling with notetaking and just follow his lectures and absorb it, and he said that he'd be following the textbook closely so there's no need for 'notes'. He didnt say that to all his classes though...

As long as you're reading the book and doing the problems, i think it should work...
It wouldn't work in classes with 'no text' like in the days of Oppenheimer's Quantum courses where people were rushing to copy down the blackboard and it was near impossible to catch up before he would erase stuff and go on...[Schiff's book in the 40s 50s was said to be largely based on those] Those were the days of notetaking!

Personally i think in many cases, notetaking is done, because the teacher didnt pick a deep enough textbook, or he didnt add 1-3 other supplementary texts to make that unnecessary, or he didnt toss out photostats of outlines and notes and summaries to his classes so they don't *need* to take notes.

Often i would find that there was a 50s 60s or 70s textbook that explained things more like the teacher's style and if you browsed that book with the 'curriculum/syllabus gunk', you'd probably get 70% more out of the damn class.

Where there are 'notes' there is somewhere in the uni-curse, an older textbook that said it better and waaaaaaaay less sloppy!and some classes, are geared where the teacher wants to 'demonstrate' and then you read the text, and a lot of others where you read pages xx to xx, and then you come to class.
 
  • #3,277
try not to get suckered by that game of " my friend never studies but got a higher score than me".

so what? do the subject for the joy of learning it. if need be make some new friends with a better attitude toward learning.

and eventually those people who do not study will fail, no matter how brilliant.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,278


@mathwonk,

1) Do you think Brandeis being a "lesser" math dept. should be a concern re: their certificate program?

2) Thoughts on the math GRE? It sounds like that's pretty relevant given that it provides some kind of objective measure, no?

3) Thoughts on what I could do during the 9 months between applying to grad school and matriculating?

Thanks again for all the help,
Mariogs
 
  • #3,279


Has anyone worked with any of K.A. Stroud's texts? Particularly, I'm asking about his Vector Analysis text.
 
  • #3,280


I think there's 12 books in the Stroud and Booth and they use the 1960s Programmed Instruction style of teaching [which half the time is done right]

Engineering Mathematics came out about 1970 and it's like in a fifth and sixth edition recently, and I'm not sure if the artwork or newest changes are for the better...

-------
some comments in my notes

[both Engineering Mathematics and Advanced Engineering Mathematics are a great help for Differential Equations in ways Boyce and DiPrima are not]

[remarkable work]

[I have studied numerous mathematics texts, and I can say with absolute certainty that this is the finest mathematics text I have ever found.Unlike virtually every other technical math book out there(calculus, differential equations, integral equations, statistics etc)this book provides more than the dreary, boring, purely analytic approach (algebra,limits etc) that tends to practically wipe out true understanding. In my calculus class I hear questions whose answers are extremely masked by the highly esoteric mathematical bull@#$@, but which present themselves so easily with a simple picture. This book provides those pictures, but more remarkably it is written in such a way that people want to work through it - compared to those other books. In addition, this book has been shown (via experimentation) to significantly increase test scores - compared to standard lecture approach.]

---------
Linear Algebra
Differential Equations
Vector Analysis - 2005 - 448 pages
Complex Variables
Engineering Mathematics - Sixth Edition - 1200 pages
Advanced Engineering Mathematics - Fourth Edition - 1280 pages
Essential Mathematics for Science and Technology/Foundation Mathematics
Further Engineering Mathematics
Laplace Transforms
Fourier Series and Harmonic Analysis
Mathematics for Engineering Technicians
Engineering Mathematics Through Applications - Kuldeep Singh [only book in the series not written by Stroud and Booth]
---------
so it's a set of 12 books which started in 1970...

and from what i gather, it belongs up there with Schaums, and REA, and now Stroud...
--------

There was an early early 70s [seemed about 1967-1971] that was a paperback 5 Volume set on learning calculus by programmed instruction i saw once in the library that looked great, anyone remember the author, or the publisher, exact name, or hell, comments about that one?

programmed instruction books are rare, some are well done, and it's really a lot of work to do it properly, and i always cringe when people say oh computers do it better and stuff, but stroud is one of the better ones out there that is still in print, and still well liked.

i got one spiral bound one for electrodynamics for like a physics 12 or college physics course, but i aint seen any others...Hope this is helpful...

can't offer a detailed criticism though...
 
  • #3,281
Brandeis a "lesser" math dept? lesser than what? it certainly offered me more than i could handle from Monsky, Mayer, Brown, Buchsbaum, Palais, Matsusaka, H. Levine, J. Levine, Rossi, Auslander, Seeley, Spivak, Sherman, Wells, Vasquez, ...and I have no reason to believe it has slipped from those days, even if I do not personally know most of the young people there today. It is ranked around #40 by US News but the problem with such rankings is that Brandeis is better as a math dept than US News is as a magazine.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,282


Does anyone have a list of undergrad textbooks used at Brandeis?
I didnt see much of a syllabus offered to 'non-students'...

It's always a shame since i always judge schools by how 'accessible' their syllabus is and how far back they show it, or keep their old course stuff 'online'... It's always been a surprise for years now on the web that schools and teachers always wipe the old slates clean and then put up the ominous:
'Textbook: TBA'

I'm always on the search for schools where they use older oddball textbooks, or dump a ton of "suggested" texts after the one required one...For me, the syllabus is the key to it all, if i get funny vibes, i run for the hills...
once you got that, then i think the teachers, school reputation, etc etc counts.
For others, most any texts will do, as long as you get dumped with 'extra' homework and challenges... [which i think works maybe for the higher up classes...]
 
  • #3,283


Well take it with a grain of salt, but in my spare time a whlle i mixed up a bunch of rankings for unis just for my own fun...

anyhoo Brandeis is probably in the top 40 schools for higher math...for people who like lists...
here we go:
201 Brandeis University - Waltham, MA
[#64 Top End Physics]
[#40 Top End Mathematics]
[#68 Chemistry Top End]

------
8 Princeton University - [#1 Top End Mathematics]
1 Harvard University - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
2 Stanford University - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
3 University of California, Berkeley - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
9 University of Chicago - [#6 Top End Mathematics]
6 California Institute of Technology - [#7 Top End Mathematics]
11 Yale University - [#7 Top End Mathematics]
7 Columbia University - [#9 Top End Mathematics]
22 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor - [#9 Top End Mathematics]
32 New York University - [#9 Top End Mathematics]
-----
13 University of California, Los Angeles - [#12 Top End Mathematics]
12 Cornell University - #13 Top End Mathematics]
17 University of Wisconsin–Madison - [#14 Top End Mathematics]
38 University of Texas at Austin - [#14 Top End Mathematics]
69 Brown University - Providence, RI - [#14 Top End Mathematics]
28 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities - [#17 Top End Mathematics]
15 University of Pennsylvania - [#18 Top End Mathematics]
25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - [#18 Top End Mathematics]
30 Northwestern University - Evanston, IL - [#18 Top End Mathematics]
-----
19 Johns Hopkins University - [#21 Top End Mathematics]
31 Duke University - Durham, NC - [#21 Top End Mathematics]
37 University of Maryland, College Park - [#21 Top End Mathematics]
14 University of California, San Diego - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
16 University of Washington - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
55 Rutgers University - Piscataway, NJ - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
167 State University of New York at Stony Brook - Stony Brook, NY - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
39 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
45 Pennsylvania State University-University Park - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
67 Purdue University - West Lafayette, IN - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
93 Indiana University - Bloomington, IN - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
99 Rice University - Houston, TX - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
-----
59 Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA - [#33 Top End Mathematics]
62 Ohio State University - Columbus, OH - [#33 Top End Mathematics]
80 University of Utah - Salt Lake City, UT - [#33 Top End Mathematics]
9 University of California, Davis - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
104 Georgia Institute of Technology - Atlanta, GA - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
182 University of Illinois at Chicago - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
308 City University of New York City College - New York, NY - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
-----
29 Washington University in St. Louis - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
78 University of Arizona - Tucson, AZ - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
92 University of Virginia - Charlottesville, VA - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
201 Brandeis University - Waltham, MA - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
47 University of California, Irvine - #44 Top End Mathematics]
86 Michigan State University - East Lansing, MI - [#44 Top End Mathematics]
89 Texas A&M University - College Station, TX - #44 Top End Mathematics]
280 University of Notre Dame - Notre Dame, IN - [#44 Top End Mathematics]
34 University of Colorado - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
35 University of California, Santa Barbara - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
42 Vanderbilt University - Nashville, TN - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
74 Boston University - Boston, MA - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
103 Dartmouth College - Hanover, NH - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
111 North Carolina State University - Raleigh, NC - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
198 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Virginia Tech] - Blacksburg, VA - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
-----
46 University of Southern California - Los Angeles - [#55 Top End Mathematics]
116 The University of Georgia - Athens, GA - #55 Top End Mathematics]
51 University of Pittsburgh - PA - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
58 University of Florida - Gainesville, FL - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
227 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Troy, NY - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
277 University of Missouri - Columbia, MO - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
281 University of Oregon - Eugene, OR - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
444 Northeastern University - Boston, MA - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
-----
132 University of Iowa - Iowa City, IA - [#55 Top End Mathematics]
94 Arizona State University - Tempe, AZ - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
136 University of Massachusetts Amherst - Worcester, MA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
158 Iowa State University - Ames, IA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
215 Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge, LA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
268 University of Kansas - Lawrence, KS - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
500+ Claremont Graduate University Claremont, CA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
-----
79 University of Rochester - Rochester, NY - #70 Top End Mathematics]
125 University of California, Riverside - Riverside, CA - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
155 Florida State University - Tallahassee, FL - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
178 University of Delaware - Newark, DE - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
193 University of Tennessee - Knoxville, TN - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
100 Emory University - Atlanta, GA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
121 Tufts University - Medford, MA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
126 University of California, Santa Cruz - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
270 University of Kentucky - Lexington, KY - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
326 Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
345 Syracuse University - Syracuse, NY - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
347 Temple University - Philadelphia, PA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
357 Tulane University - New Orleans, LA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
379 University of Oklahoma - Norman, OK - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
-----
187 University of Nebraska - Lincoln, NE - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
234 State University of New York at Buffalo - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
244 The University of New Mexico - Albuquerque - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
266 University of Houston - Houston, TX - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
296 Washington State University - Pullman, WA - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
500+ SUNY-Binghamton Binghamton, NY - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
-----
87 Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland, OH - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
112 Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
152 Colorado State University - Fort Collins, CO - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
170 The University of Connecticut - Storrs, CT - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
233 State University of New York at Albany - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
286 University of South Carolina - Columbia, SC - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
400 Auburn University - Auburn, AL - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
432 Lehigh University - Bethlehem, PA - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
500+ Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
500+ Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey-Newark Newark, NJ - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
-----
18 University of California, San Francisco - [Not in the Top End Mathematics]
33 Rockefeller University - [Not in the Top End Mathematics]
-----
-----
-----and for perspective
world-wide

-----
4 University of Cambridge, England - [#5 World Ranking Mathematics]
44 University of Paris 11 [Paris-Sud 11 University], France - [#6 World Ranking Mathematics]
40 University of Paris 6 [Pierre and Marie Curie University], France - [#7 World Ranking Mathematics]
10 University of Oxford, England - [#8 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - [#9 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
77 Moscow State University, Russia - [#23 World Ranking Mathematics]
115 Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel - [#25 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 38 University of Texas at Austin - [#26 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
24 Kyoto University, Japan - [#33 World Ranking Mathematics]
98 University of Bonn, Germany - [#34 World Ranking Mathematics]
382 University of Paris Dauphine [Paris 9], France - [#34 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 19 Johns Hopkins University - (Rowland) Baltimore, MD - [#35 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 6 California Institute of Technology - [#37 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
196 University of Warwick, England - [#40 World Ranking Mathematics]
23 ETH Zurich [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology], Switzerland - [#42 World Ranking Mathematics]
27 University of Toronto, Canada - [#43 World Ranking Mathematics]
143 University of Pisa, Italy - [#44 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - [#45 World Ranking Mathematics]
26 Imperial College London [The Imperial College of Science, Technoloy and Medicine], England - [#46 World Ranking Mathematics]
70 Ecole Normale Superieure - Paris, France - [#47 World Ranking Mathematics]
61 University of Bristol. England - [#48 World Ranking Mathematics]
110 National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore - [#49 World Ranking Mathematics]
142 University of Paris Diderot [Paris 7], France - [#50 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
20 The University of Tokyo, Japan - Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
52 University of Utrecht, Holland - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
60 Australian National University, Australia - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
64 Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
114 Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
200 Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
206 Ecole Polytechnique, France - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
224 Peking University, Peking, China - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
236 The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
340 Scuola Normale Superiore - Pisa, Italy - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
363 University of Bielefeld, Germany - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
385 University of Rennes 1, France - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
500+ Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 34 University of Colorado - Boulder, CO - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 45 Pennsylvania State University - University Park, PA - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
21 University College London, England - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
41 University of Manchester, England - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
54 University of Zurich, Switzerland - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
66 McGill University, Canada - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
106 Louis Pasteur University [Strasbourg I], France - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
120 Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
139 University of Milan, Italy - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
141 University of Muenster, Germany - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
147 University of Tuebingen, Germany - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
168 Technical University of Denmark, Denmark - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
188 University of New South Wales, Australia - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
229 RWTH Aachen University, Germany - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
231 Simon Fraser University, Canada - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
349 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
383 University of Provence [Aix-Marseille 1], France - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
------


when i came across some ranking that were interesting, i'd make up a list...

example:

2 Stanford University
Stanford University Stanford, CA

[#4 Best Undergraduate Teaching]
[#1 Top End Physics]
[#4 Atomic and Molecular Physics/Optics and Lasers]
[#6 Solid State Physics]
[#5 Relativity/Gravitation/Cosmology]
[#6 Particle Physics/Quantum Field Theory/String Theory]
[#4 Quantum Physics]
[#1 Aerospace Engineering]
[#2 Mechanical Engineering]
[#3 Civil Engineering]
[#1 Electrical Engineering]
[#3 Geophysics and Seismology]
[#2 Top End Mathematics]
[#9 Algebra and Number Theory]
[#9 Applied Mathematics]
[#4 Geometry]
[#6 Mathematical Logic]
[#8 Topology]
[#1 Statistics]
[#1 Chemistry Top End]
[#4 Physical Chemistry]
[#8 Inorganic Chemistry]
[#3 Organic Chemistry]
[#3 Cell Biology]
[#6 World Ranking Physics]
[#4 World Ranking Mathematics]
[#4 World Ranking Chemistry]
[#2 World Ranking Engineering Techology]

so if i care about a fluid dynamics text or quantum mechanics or physical chem or transistor books or geometry texts, i know where to peek...

the lists are out there, but there's a lot of funny ones, but at least knowing roughly what the ballpark is like out there is sort of fun to peek at, minus wasting a month of gut lining making up yer list...

interesting to see how the european unis rate to US ones, and how physics or math changed say in germany after the war...
 
  • #3,284


Well take it with a grain of salt, but in my spare time a whlle i mixed up a bunch of rankings for unis just for my own fun...

anyhoo Brandeis is probably in the top 40 schools for higher math...


for people who like lists...
here we go:



201 Brandeis University - Waltham, MA
[#64 Top End Physics]
[#40 Top End Mathematics]
[#68 Chemistry Top End]

------
8 Princeton University - [#1 Top End Mathematics]
1 Harvard University - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
2 Stanford University - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
3 University of California, Berkeley - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - [#2 Top End Mathematics]
9 University of Chicago - [#6 Top End Mathematics]
6 California Institute of Technology - [#7 Top End Mathematics]
11 Yale University - [#7 Top End Mathematics]
7 Columbia University - [#9 Top End Mathematics]
22 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor - [#9 Top End Mathematics]
32 New York University - [#9 Top End Mathematics]
-----
13 University of California, Los Angeles - [#12 Top End Mathematics]
12 Cornell University - #13 Top End Mathematics]
17 University of Wisconsin–Madison - [#14 Top End Mathematics]
38 University of Texas at Austin - [#14 Top End Mathematics]
69 Brown University - Providence, RI - [#14 Top End Mathematics]
28 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities - [#17 Top End Mathematics]
15 University of Pennsylvania - [#18 Top End Mathematics]
25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - [#18 Top End Mathematics]
30 Northwestern University - Evanston, IL - [#18 Top End Mathematics]
-----
19 Johns Hopkins University - [#21 Top End Mathematics]
31 Duke University - Durham, NC - [#21 Top End Mathematics]
37 University of Maryland, College Park - [#21 Top End Mathematics]
14 University of California, San Diego - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
16 University of Washington - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
55 Rutgers University - Piscataway, NJ - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
167 State University of New York at Stony Brook - Stony Brook, NY - [#24 Top End Mathematics]
39 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
45 Pennsylvania State University-University Park - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
67 Purdue University - West Lafayette, IN - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
93 Indiana University - Bloomington, IN - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
99 Rice University - Houston, TX - [#28 Top End Mathematics]
-----
59 Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA - [#33 Top End Mathematics]
62 Ohio State University - Columbus, OH - [#33 Top End Mathematics]
80 University of Utah - Salt Lake City, UT - [#33 Top End Mathematics]
9 University of California, Davis - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
104 Georgia Institute of Technology - Atlanta, GA - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
182 University of Illinois at Chicago - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
308 City University of New York City College - New York, NY - [#36 Top End Mathematics]
-----
29 Washington University in St. Louis - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
78 University of Arizona - Tucson, AZ - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
92 University of Virginia - Charlottesville, VA - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
201 Brandeis University - Waltham, MA - [#40 Top End Mathematics]
47 University of California, Irvine - #44 Top End Mathematics]
86 Michigan State University - East Lansing, MI - [#44 Top End Mathematics]
89 Texas A&M University - College Station, TX - #44 Top End Mathematics]
280 University of Notre Dame - Notre Dame, IN - [#44 Top End Mathematics]
34 University of Colorado - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
35 University of California, Santa Barbara - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
42 Vanderbilt University - Nashville, TN - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
74 Boston University - Boston, MA - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
103 Dartmouth College - Hanover, NH - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
111 North Carolina State University - Raleigh, NC - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
198 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [Virginia Tech] - Blacksburg, VA - [#48 Top End Mathematics]
-----
46 University of Southern California - Los Angeles - [#55 Top End Mathematics]
116 The University of Georgia - Athens, GA - #55 Top End Mathematics]
51 University of Pittsburgh - PA - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
58 University of Florida - Gainesville, FL - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
227 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Troy, NY - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
277 University of Missouri - Columbia, MO - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
281 University of Oregon - Eugene, OR - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
444 Northeastern University - Boston, MA - [#58 Top End Mathematics]
-----
132 University of Iowa - Iowa City, IA - [#55 Top End Mathematics]
94 Arizona State University - Tempe, AZ - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
136 University of Massachusetts Amherst - Worcester, MA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
158 Iowa State University - Ames, IA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
215 Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge, LA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
268 University of Kansas - Lawrence, KS - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
500+ Claremont Graduate University Claremont, CA - [#64 Top End Mathematics]
-----
79 University of Rochester - Rochester, NY - #70 Top End Mathematics]
125 University of California, Riverside - Riverside, CA - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
155 Florida State University - Tallahassee, FL - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
178 University of Delaware - Newark, DE - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
193 University of Tennessee - Knoxville, TN - [#70 Top End Mathematics]
100 Emory University - Atlanta, GA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
121 Tufts University - Medford, MA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
126 University of California, Santa Cruz - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
270 University of Kentucky - Lexington, KY - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
326 Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
345 Syracuse University - Syracuse, NY - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
347 Temple University - Philadelphia, PA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
357 Tulane University - New Orleans, LA - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
379 University of Oklahoma - Norman, OK - [#75 Top End Mathematics]
-----
187 University of Nebraska - Lincoln, NE - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
234 State University of New York at Buffalo - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
244 The University of New Mexico - Albuquerque - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
266 University of Houston - Houston, TX - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
296 Washington State University - Pullman, WA - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
500+ SUNY-Binghamton Binghamton, NY - [#84 Top End Mathematics]
-----
87 Case Western Reserve University - Cleveland, OH - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
112 Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
152 Colorado State University - Fort Collins, CO - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
170 The University of Connecticut - Storrs, CT - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
233 State University of New York at Albany - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
286 University of South Carolina - Columbia, SC - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
400 Auburn University - Auburn, AL - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
432 Lehigh University - Bethlehem, PA - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
500+ Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
500+ Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey-Newark Newark, NJ - [#90 Top End Mathematics]
-----
18 University of California, San Francisco - [Not in the Top End Mathematics]
33 Rockefeller University - [Not in the Top End Mathematics]
-----
-----
-----


and for perspective
world-wide

-----
4 University of Cambridge, England - [#5 World Ranking Mathematics]
44 University of Paris 11 [Paris-Sud 11 University], France - [#6 World Ranking Mathematics]
40 University of Paris 6 [Pierre and Marie Curie University], France - [#7 World Ranking Mathematics]
10 University of Oxford, England - [#8 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology - [#9 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
77 Moscow State University, Russia - [#23 World Ranking Mathematics]
115 Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Israel - [#25 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 38 University of Texas at Austin - [#26 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
24 Kyoto University, Japan - [#33 World Ranking Mathematics]
98 University of Bonn, Germany - [#34 World Ranking Mathematics]
382 University of Paris Dauphine [Paris 9], France - [#34 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 19 Johns Hopkins University - (Rowland) Baltimore, MD - [#35 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 6 California Institute of Technology - [#37 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
196 University of Warwick, England - [#40 World Ranking Mathematics]
23 ETH Zurich [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology], Switzerland - [#42 World Ranking Mathematics]
27 University of Toronto, Canada - [#43 World Ranking Mathematics]
143 University of Pisa, Italy - [#44 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 25 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - [#45 World Ranking Mathematics]
26 Imperial College London [The Imperial College of Science, Technoloy and Medicine], England - [#46 World Ranking Mathematics]
70 Ecole Normale Superieure - Paris, France - [#47 World Ranking Mathematics]
61 University of Bristol. England - [#48 World Ranking Mathematics]
110 National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore - [#49 World Ranking Mathematics]
142 University of Paris Diderot [Paris 7], France - [#50 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
20 The University of Tokyo, Japan - Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
52 University of Utrecht, Holland - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
60 Australian National University, Australia - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
64 Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
114 Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
200 Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
206 Ecole Polytechnique, France - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
224 Peking University, Peking, China - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
236 The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
340 Scuola Normale Superiore - Pisa, Italy - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
363 University of Bielefeld, Germany - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
385 University of Rennes 1, France - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
500+ Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 34 University of Colorado - Boulder, CO - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
[example] - 45 Pennsylvania State University - University Park, PA - [Tied #50-75 World Ranking Mathematics]
-----
21 University College London, England - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
41 University of Manchester, England - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
54 University of Zurich, Switzerland - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
66 McGill University, Canada - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
106 Louis Pasteur University [Strasbourg I], France - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
120 Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
139 University of Milan, Italy - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
141 University of Muenster, Germany - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
147 University of Tuebingen, Germany - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
168 Technical University of Denmark, Denmark - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
188 University of New South Wales, Australia - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
229 RWTH Aachen University, Germany - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
231 Simon Fraser University, Canada - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
349 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
383 University of Provence [Aix-Marseille 1], France - [Tied #75-100 World Ranking Mathematics]
------


when i came across some ranking that were interesting, i'd make up a list...

example:

2 Stanford University
Stanford University Stanford, CA

[#4 Best Undergraduate Teaching]
[#1 Top End Physics]
[#4 Atomic and Molecular Physics/Optics and Lasers]
[#6 Solid State Physics]
[#5 Relativity/Gravitation/Cosmology]
[#6 Particle Physics/Quantum Field Theory/String Theory]
[#4 Quantum Physics]
[#1 Aerospace Engineering]
[#2 Mechanical Engineering]
[#3 Civil Engineering]
[#1 Electrical Engineering]
[#3 Geophysics and Seismology]
[#2 Top End Mathematics]
[#9 Algebra and Number Theory]
[#9 Applied Mathematics]
[#4 Geometry]
[#6 Mathematical Logic]
[#8 Topology]
[#1 Statistics]
[#1 Chemistry Top End]
[#4 Physical Chemistry]
[#8 Inorganic Chemistry]
[#3 Organic Chemistry]
[#3 Cell Biology]
[#6 World Ranking Physics]
[#4 World Ranking Mathematics]
[#4 World Ranking Chemistry]
[#2 World Ranking Engineering Techology]

so if i care about a fluid dynamics text or quantum mechanics or physical chem or transistor books or geometry texts, i know where to peek...

the lists are out there, but there's a lot of funny ones, but at least knowing roughly what the ballpark is like out there is sort of fun to peek at, minus wasting a month of gut lining making up yer list...

interesting to see how the european unis rate to US ones, and how physics or math changed say in germany after the war...
 
  • #3,285


as for textbooks, recall that Mike Spivak was at Brandeis when he wrote both his calculus book and his differential geometry series. So those books which are considered the gold standard in both subjects were written specifically for courses at Brandeis. When I was there I also attended some undergraduate classes in algebra where the lecturer was adapting the famous books by Bourbaki to his class.for some current textbooks, consult individual instructor's webpages, e.g.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~cherveny/

http://people.brandeis.edu/~hsultan/

http://people.brandeis.edu/~jbellaic/teaching.html

http://people.brandeis.edu/~bernardi/index.php?page=teaching

http://people.brandeis.edu/~kleinboc/
 
Last edited:
  • #3,286


What was Mike Spivak's inspiration for his calculus and diff geometry books? I am always curious what they *used* when they were in school, and sometimes the list of what they thought were great books, or not-so great books... when they were starting out...

I think what i remember most about Spivak's book was i saw it offered once, by one teacher in one class for calculus at the local uni, and didnt see it before or after... I didn't know which book it was other than it was plain looking and 'furry' and i was really impressed with the back that had tons of comments about dozens and dozens of texts, and i thought, wow 3 sentences about Hardy's Pure Mathematics... or a line or two about Courant...

always liked textbooks, in first year that would slide in some recommended books that way...
 
  • #3,287


i want to be a mathematician, but i don't hve the natural talent for it..


we need mathematicans today to solve the great underlying mysteries of math today.
 
  • #3,288


- i want to be a mathematician, but i don't hve the natural talent for it..

In your last course, did you do 'every problem' in each chapter?I used to be skeptical, of the advice i once got, but you can likely get a B almost all the time if you burn 10-15 hours a week on the problems...

and without any talent i think you could crank through and pass 80% of any math class for a degree, if not more...

heck if you burn 300 hours on a complete textbook, maybe you'll create a 'toolbox' for talent... -----

skill is what comes with practice, start small, wring out 101% out of one chapter of your math or physics book... flip a coin and try the next chapter later on...don't rush a textbook, and don't cheat yourself not doing 90% of the problems. If you can read the whole book, do all the problems, all it takes is a enormous amount of time...

but what you do learn will be pretty damn solid.
 
  • #3,289


"What was Mike Spivak's inspiration for his calculus and diff geometry books?"

We would need to ask Mike this, but he went to Harvard where they used Courant and Hardy when I was there. Also when I taught from his book I noticed some of the proofs were similar to ones used in Courant, so my personal conjecture then was that Courant was at least one inspiration for his Calculus.

We really should ask him this question though.

The diff geom book is much more ambitious and comprehensive, and from reading it, it seems to be inspired by the original sources it references, such as Gauss and Riemann, perhaps Weil for the local proof of Poincare duality. I have not read many of the more modern sources, but they seem to include Cartan,... (Mike was also Milnor's student.)
 
  • #3,290


- We would need to ask Mike this, but he went to Harvard where they used Courant and Hardy when I was there. Also when I taught from his book I noticed some of the proofs were similar to ones used in Courant

Hardy would be a rough ride if you had to go through it quickly...then again any analysis text is...if you need to push through half in 12-15 weeks

I always wondered what people used from the middle 60s onwards, when courant was still going strong, was Apostol an instant classic when it came up like in 57-58 or did it take years for it to catch on?

It would be great if you could recall all the textbooks you went though during your undergrad years, i know you trickled bits and pieces here through the years...of the main ones...- The diff geom book is much more ambitious and comprehensive, and from reading it, it seems to be inspired by the original sources it references, such as Gauss and Riemann, perhaps Weil

actually that was the most interesting part of the Brandeis links you tossed me about 8 of the 22 or so faculty had homepages with texts, and it was the differential geometry courses that most impressed me, and i actually had one more textbook to add to my list...

damn, Wulf something an oxford text...and it was interesting to see how they would use three books in tandem, and i only knew of two of the books being used 'together'...

so it was nice to see what books people can read at roughly the same time when taking a first or second class...

-------------

a. Brandeis in some classes used Erdmann's book on Lie Algebras, since all you need to tackle that textbook is linear algebra. And *then* then go into Humphreys and Fulton.

[though some feel that to tackle humphreys it's best to read a. Herstein b. Hoffman and Kunze, which are both considerably harder and would take a lot of time]

b. Brandeis used Lang's Real and Functional Analysis text with Zimmer at the same time

c. Brandeis for a second class in Real Analysis did a. Lang's Real and Functional Analysis b. Rudin's Real and Complex Green book c. Real Analysis by Kolmogorov and Fomin - Dover

d. surprised they used the 70s early 80s Mardsen and Tromba for vector calculus, which is generally well disliked, but if you put a ton of effort into it or supplement it, it's better. To the plus it's got detailed explanations, doesn't shove definitions at you, has meaningful illustrations, but it can be a confusing text and the cause of many many headaches. And it's not the smoothest for self-study either... [my guess is people read thomas and finney and marsden and tromba together]

e. Brandeis uses Fraleigh and Gallian for Abstract Algebra [my notes show it's an easier hop to start with Fraleigh, then read Artin and then read Dummitt]

f. Brandeis for Topology uses Hatcher-Greenberg-Munkres together, likely after the main Munkres text]

g. Brandeis also used Hocking for Topology, though i think for the course only do chapter 1 2 and then hop to 5. It's a clear book and good for self-study i hear.

h. Rolfsen's book on Knots and Links [Harvard would use cromwell as a main text, and then supplement it with Livingstone/Gilbert/[and more lightly]/Burde/Rolfsen/Kauwach]

i. Brandeis for Diff Geo I goes a. Spivak b. Warner c. Milnor d. Bott and Tu

j. Brandeis for Diff Geo II goes a. doCarmo [Riemann Geometry] b. more Spivak c. Milnor and Stasheff d. Roe

k. [yet other courses for Diff Geo II use doCarmo and use Petersen's Riemannian book and Lee's Riemannian book with Warner]

l. If you're reading Warner's book Foundations of Differential Manifolds and Lie Groups, Wulf Rossmann's Oxford book is great to read with it. [and well ideally you'd need to read a. Lee b. the other Lee book c. a bit of Messay d. a bit of Boothby e. a bit of Warner] So basically one new book on the list when one tackles Lee's Introduction to Topological Manifolds and Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. Assuming i actually finish a topology and differential geometry book that is...

m. Brandeis also liked Pressley's Differential Geometry book which is an easy read, much like Erdmann's on Lie Algebra...

n. one odd thing for Diff Geo was a. Gallot-Hullin-Lafontaine b. Spivak c. Milnor. I would assume for a second course...

o. they are big fans of D'angelo's proof book which seems friendlier than most of the others, which probably helps people later on so they don't go to pieces with Analysis...

p. Falcon's Fractal Geometry book, which is one of the best ones out there was used in some second year grad school course on 'Hausdorf Dimension'...

q. Markov Chains - they use Norris with Lawler as two of the main texts sometimes [though they seem to like adding miserable textbooks on financial economic stuff on the reading list too, since it's trendy or a good career option] Mind you, Hoel's books and Lawler look like real gems [I'm all for the great 70s books still in print by Howard Mifflin in Statistics and Stochastic processes,like Hoel's without any need for being in the 27th edition either, though they are pricey, they are still IN PRINT, and they are easy gentle reads.] [yup Mifflin and Hoel did a great job in the early 70s comming out with an easy book on probability, an easy book on statistics and an easy book on stochastic processes, all in print with no need for useless updating either to look new. They are fine as they are. I think Stanford in the 70s was big on those three textbooks]

-----

Anyhoo, that's some of my notes, and some of the stuff you helped me out with by suggesting the Brandeis teacher homepage links... much appreciated!
 
  • #3,291


RJinkies said:
***This is RJinkies quote to Mathwonk, I cut the rest off***

It would be great if you could recall all the textbooks you went though during your undergrad years, i know you trickled bits and pieces here through the years...of the main ones...

I would also be really interested. Though I'm just learning the basics now on my slow pace, but it would be really interesting resource.

Infact, it would be great if you someday would like to write more of a guide to learning mathematics. Like from elementary to end of undergraduate studies. Like about the order of topics (e.g. when would be useful to study topology and other things like that..), and which are good books for people with different talents. And books for those of us who really have no talent at all but study it anyway for the fun of it..

Of course it would be a lot of work and I already appreciate all the help you have given. This whole thread was really interesting to read but the info is little scattered around.. : )
 
Last edited:
  • #3,292
when i was at harvard the instructors gave book recommendations, but never followed them. the books were just for your outside reading. the lecturers composed their own version of the material. to be honest most of the time the lectures were significantly better than anything in the best books, but not always as detailed.

freshman calc: john tate, recommended texts: Courant, and G.H Hardy: Pure Mathematics, and Foundations of Analysis by E. Landau.

sophomore algebra: garrett birkhoff, text: survey of modern algebra by birkhoff and maclane.

sophomore calculus: i forget what book, maybe Taylor, but the book was apparently chosen by a committee and the professor was contemptuous of at least some of it, e.g. lack of proof of implicit functiion theorem.

sophomore diff eq. herman gluck; text: earl coddington. the best part of this course occurred at the end, when prof gluck departed from the routine stuff in the book and presented a beautiful proof of the existence theorem for solutions of first order ode's, by the contraction lemma for complete metric spaces.

sophomore algebra, instructor newcomb greenleaf, texts: linear algebra and matrix theory, by evar nering; fundamental concepts of higher algebra by a. adrian Albert, galois theory by emil artin. also notes by Andrew Gleason on linear algebra available from the dept.

complex variables, text by Henri Cartan. except when taught by Ahlfors, who used his own book.

junior:
advanced calculus: lynn loomis, official text: calculus of several variables by wendell fleming, but the lectures followed more closely the book Foundations of modern analysis by Jean Dieudonne'; including sturm liouville theory, supplemented by lectures on content theory and a lovely presentation of vector geometry via the group of motions in intrinsic euclidean geometry. much of this course is now recorded in the book by Loomis and Sternberg.

another reference text for this course was advanced calculus by spencer, steenrod, and nickerson,.

a very useful course on introductory analysis taught by george mackey with no text. a good book now on related material is his text on complex analysis: Lectures on the theory of functions of a complex variable.

senior:
real analysis taught by lynn loomis, no textbook, it covered abstract measure theory as in the book of Halmos, and some Banach algebras and stone weierstrass theorem. much too abstract to be really useful. some of my friends who understand the material now recommend the book by zygmund and wheeden at least for the integration theory.

algebraic topology taught by raoul bott, text: algebraic topology by spanier. most people today recommend the book by allen hatcher.

I want to remind that i did not learn much from this somewhat harsh and user unfriendly first exposure to significant mathematics. but i admit those who worked harder did.

very few of my courses in graduate school even recommended any texts at all, everything was in the lectures. the only books even referred to in any grad school course were the hand written notes on algebraic topology and differential forms by friedlander, griffiths, and morgan, the book course in arithmetic by serre, and some seminars read the books on several complex variables by gunning and rossi, and by hormander, and the lectures on riemann surfaces by gunning, and the book Topology from the differentiable viewpoint, by John Milnor.when i began recovering my math career after my first unsuccessful attempt at mastering it from some of the books and courses mentioned above, i learned more from spivak's calculus and calculus on manifolds, and frederick greenleaf's book on one complex variable. i also read lectures on algebraic topology by marvin greenberg, and books by chinn and steenrod, and william massey. i also liked hurewicz' book on ode, and hurewicz and wallman on dimension theory, kelley on general topology, and lang's analysis I. modern algebra by van der waerden was also frequently helpful but not always, as was algebra by lang.

I personally find it hard to find many algebra books that are really user friendly, but there is one significant exception, the book Algebra by Michael Artin is quite wonderful. Many people recommend Dummitt and Foote and it does have many good qualities, but I have some criticisms of it.

I do not like books that are written to show off how clever the author is rather than to make the material look easy and clear, and many algebra books seem to fail this test to me, along with books like rudin's analysis.

Virtually everyone likes Geometry of Algebraic Curves, vols I and II, for that more specialized subject, carefully written over 30 years by, (in the interest of full disclosure, my good friends), E. Arbarello, M. Cornalba, P. Griffiths, and J. Harris.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,293


@mathwonk:

I was wondering, does one need to get into a "super" university like Harvard to learn a lot of math, or what?
 
  • #3,294
no. the advantages of harvard are a deservedly good reputation and lots of money, hence they attract a strong interesting student body, outstanding professors, high quality living quarters, a prestigious reputation for the school and its degree, expensive equipment and facilities, opportunities available in boston, horrible winters...oops that's a negative.

harvard does not necessarily offer better advice to people struggling, or more personal attention.

one learns by hard work on material that has been clearly presented. if you actually read the books listed above that my harvard instructors recommended but that i did not read, you will obviously be miles ahead of me and many other harvard students.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,295


freshman calc: Courant/Hardy/Landau - Foundations of Analysis

how long were people using Hardy? I got the impression both Courant and Hardy did well into the early and mid 60s, though i think hardy faded a bit quicker. Esp with so many people trying to replace both with all the newer 60s texts.

What did you think of Hardy and Landau?

Hardy seems like a pretty rough ride for anyone taking math after the Space Race.
I think anyone reading it would go through it at a glacial pace, and i wonder if anyone finished the damn thing...

Landau looks cool, totally minimalist, and puzzling as Babylonian cuniform...

-------

sophomore calculus: i forget what book,

oh damn, that's the best part...

Was it more of Courant? and was there another vector book?



were any of these possibly on the reading list, or recommended by the teachers?

1952 Kaplan - Advanced Calculus - Addison-Wesley
1955 AE Taylor - Ginn
1957 Apostol [I'd think you'd remember that one]
1959 Nickerson Spencer and Steenrod - van Nostrand
1961 Olmstead - Appleton-Crofts
1964 Protter and Morrey - Addison-Wesley [all these would probably be after you took your degree/classes]
1964 Smirnov - Addison-Wesley
1965 Buck - McGraw-Hill [actually that's probably the second edition, there was probably a first edition 1957-1963ish]
1965 Fleming - Addison-Wesley
1967? Spivak - WA Benjamin?
1968 Loomis and Sternberg - Addison-Wesley- free pdfs at his website
1970 Rossi - Addison-Wesley [oh oh another Brandeis person]


[I'm not sure if missed anyone from 1955-1980s there, but if there's any famous forgotten text from the 50s 60s 70s, tell me someone]
[oh hell tell me about the terrible ones too!]

my feeling there wasnt really anything out in the 70s... just Thomas and Finney clones and 15% of the books just mentioned...

---

I get the feeling that Apostol and Buck soaked up most of the sales at the high end, and Thomas and Finney for the rest]

when did the first Spivak come out? wasnt that like in 1967 I assume you read it after your degree, and the other book he did i think was 1965 on manifolds..
[or did you zoom through it after your degree and before grad school]

I always found it interesting where i'd struggle with a mainstream book and then eons later, find it more approachable [or find the easy and hard books on the same subject more approachable]


I used to think that you liked Loomis before, but it was more 'something you went through' but wouldn't really recommend... [when you clarified things a while later]

----------------


sophomore algebra - linear algebra and matrix theory - nering
fundamental concepts of higher algebra - aa Albert

What did you think of Nering?

I assume that was a fixed up edition of Albert's 1930's abstract algebra books
[Modern Abstract Algebra - Chicago 1937]
[Introduction to Algebraic Theories - Chicago 1941 - more an introduction to the other book]

Linear Algebra didnt really seem to take off till the 50s/60s, or bits of it in a Calculus III part of the text...
[or they dropped it being called Theory of Equations like using that famous Uspensky book and made it way easier and modern looking in the mid 60s]
[maybe it was all the mainframes doing Linear Programming that got it popular in the schools]

1951 Wade - The Algebra of vectors and matrices - Addison-Wesley
1952 Perlis - Theory of Matrices - Addison-Wesley
1952 Stoll - LInear Algebra and Matrix Theory - McGraw-Hill
1964 Bickley-Thompson - Matrices and their Meaning - van Nostrand 1964


-------------

- complex variables, text by Henri Cartan

so the pures went cartan and the applied went to churchill? [or did anyone do the easiest thing and read churchill first?]

Kaplan did a big Addison-Wesley on Complex too in 1953...

---------

advanced calculus: official text: calculus of several variables by wendell fleming, but the lectures followed more closely the book Foundations of modern analysis by Jean Dieudonne

Did you take adv calculus at two different times, or was fleming out that early?

[I got the impression that Courant and Spivak and Fleming were the best of the texts from the good ole days from you]


----------

senior: real analysis taught by lynn loomis, no textbook, it covered abstract measure theory as in the book of Halmos

Halmos came out in 1950 and probably the closest in style is Bruckner.

I remember seeing a strange set of analysis books at Simon Fraser, they used Goldberg [Wiley 1976] and Bruckner [Prentice-Hall 1996]

Goldberg looked stiff, but i heard it's pretty traditional and a touch gentler as far as dry analysis books go, but it's sure a rare one, musta been popular in the mid 70s and with the MAA and got tossed into obscurity when Rudin got pushed more and more...

[I still find Binmore or Colin Clark [The Theoretical Side of Calculus] as the two easier books out there]

and didnt Marsden write a pretty gentle and wordy Analysis text? It seemed the book to read before tackling Hardy]

------------

algebraic topology taught by raoul bott, text: algebraic topology by spanier. most people today recommend the book by allen hatcher.

How did you find Bott's texts? [Bott and Tu]



Spanier... well i was going to say, amazon, but i peeked and it's from the chicago list of books...

[Spanier is the maximally unreadable book on algebraic topology. It's bursting with an unbelievable amount of material, all stated in the greatest possible generality and naturality, with the least possible motivation and explanation. But it's awe-inspiring, and every so often forms a useful reference. I'm glad I have it, but most people regret ever opening it.]

--------

I want to remind that i did not learn much from this somewhat harsh and user unfriendly first exposure to mathematics

people say that Caltech's course probably 'teaches' more, but if you throw teaching out the window, Harvard is the most difficult one...

I found these notes 'somewhere' and it had to deal with Rudin's textbook ...

-------

[Harvard 55ab takes about 50 hrs a week of study]
[Thoughts on the flaws of Harvard 55]
[After having chosen Caltech over Princeton and Harvard to pursue a math major, I feel strongly that the math department's main feeder course here - Math 5 - is by far the strongest of the various courses at top universities which are taken by the strongest math students. It's main virtue is that it is long enough (a year) to do something serious, and that it does it in a thorough methodical way, building up steadily to huge, important theorems that you actually understand fully by the time you get to them.]
[I know that the 'stronger than the others' claim is true for sure in comparison to Princeton, since I actually took their math major feeder courses when I was a high school senior. (Problems there: teaching quality haphazard, too-advanced material rushed through so that even the brightest students are lost, though Jordan Ellenberg's Math 214 was a well-known and beautiful exception - but he's not there anymore.) And yes, I think Math 5 here is stronger even than Harvard's Math 55. While Harvard's famous course covers a lot of esoteric and advanced topics, it does so with very little unity and requires overwhelming amounts of outsdie reading so that even the best students miss 30% or so of the ideas.]
[After a year and a half at Caltech, I knew everything that a Math 55 graduate knew, but various comments I've heard make it pretty clear that most of them come out with a "scattered" feeling - they've been exposed to a lot but don't have a particularly unified picture. Math 5 keeps to a more manageable area and explores it more deeply, and so one comes away with some very tangible and coherent knowledge.]
[Those are my feelings on the subject.]


and...

[Caltech Math108a - used Rudin and Carothers and Elias Stein Complex Book - 2 real+1complex]
[the combo of the three is better than Harvard 55]
[Loomis and Sternberg's book used to be used for Harvard 55ab]

and

[I think this book is inappropriate for use as an undergraduate textbook. Its use at the introductory graduate level is defensible, but I see no reason to choose this book when better ones are available. Apostol's Analysis book is at a similar level but has much richer discussion and is more comprehensive. For a book slightly more elementary than that, I would recommend Taylor and Mann. Like I said above--as a sequel to this or similar books, I think the Rudin "Real and Complex Analysis" book is absolutely wonderful. This book does have one purpose for which I found it to be very well-suited: it is useful to work through, perhaps only once, to review the subject and solidify your understanding of the material. But its value as such does not warrant purchasing it at the obscene price.]

-------

- almost all algebra books seem to fail this test to me

[high school or abstract?]

a. Gallian
b. Fraleigh
c. Beachy and Blair
d. Allenby
e. Saracino
f. Pinter
g. Childs

those 7 i think are the easiest ones on my list, and the first two are probably 'well-known'


how did you find Paul Cohn's books [1970s-1990s]

[i think one of his introductory books was fixed up considerably with the newer editions]

not sure what to think though, since it's not used that much in any of the syllabuses out there [or anymore]

--------

- along with books like rudin's analysis.
- Many people recommend Dummitt and Foote and it does have many good qualities but I have several criticisms of it.

What texts are you somewhat [or completely] sour on?

It's rare to actually hear people criticize a popular book, or classic [in whole or part]


Heck, the first time i saw Apostol's texts i said, man, none of this is really necessary... but i was impressed at how huge the books were, and thought man it would be one hell of a school that used these as 60 weeks of 'an introduction to calculus'...

but I'm sure if one tackled a mini calculus course or had a book to read in parallel, it would be much better. But as a first and only textbook, oh i shuddered, but i definitely spent a good 30 minutes at it in the 1980s saying, wow this is surreal, it's the hardest calculus book i seen.

much later on, i added it to my 'shopping list'


----------

I added three books to the list too..

Nering is a new one...
Mackey's complex text
and Arbarello...

your stories definitely do get better the more we hear them mathwonk!
much appreciated
 
  • #3,296


well here's one more story about my sophomore calc book and why i don't remember the name. after getting a D- in freshman honors calc part 2 from john tate (a course i had only attended once a month, during my slow decline before eventually getting kicked out for a year), when i returned in the fall i had to take non honors sophomore calc, taught as it happens also by tate.

tate was a great prof, but in the non honors course he had to use the book chosen by the departmental calculus committee instead of picking his own. So it was one of those routine mediocre books they use at places that are not harvard, reasonable but not too challenging (Taylor?). the course was ridiculously easy in comparison to the previous year's course, and although i did not work or attend much and seldom handed in hw, i was still passing as i recall.

one day in discussing the implicit function theorem in class on a day when i was there, tate read disgustedly from the book's treatment: "the proof of this result is beyond the scope of this book". He slammed the book on the desk and said loudly "well it's not beyond the scope of this course!" and went over to the board.

Then he stopped, looked back at the offending book lying on the desk, strode quickly back, grabbed the book and slammed it into the trash can with both hands.

Then at the end of the class, he went back, calmly retrieved the book from the trash and assigned homework from it.
 
  • #3,297


mathwonk said:
well here's one more story about my sophomore calc book and why i don't remember the name. after getting a D- in freshman honors calc part 2 from john tate (a course i had only attended once a month, during my slow decline before eventually getting kicked out for a year), when i returned in the fall i had to take non honors sophomore calc, taught as it happens also by tate.

tate was a great prof, but in the non honors course he had to use the book chosen by the departmental calculus committee instead of picking his own. So it was one of those routine mediocre books they use at places that are not harvard, reasonable but not too challenging (Taylor?). the course was ridiculously easy in comparison to the previous year's course, and although i did not work or attend much and seldom handed in hw, i was still passing as i recall.

one day in discussing the implicit function theorem in class on a day when i was there, tate read disgustedly from the book's treatment: "the proof of this result is beyond the scope of this book". He slammed the book on the desk and said loudly "well it's not beyond the scope of this course!" and went over to the board.

Then he stopped, looked back at the offending book lying on the desk, strode quickly back, grabbed the book and slammed it into the trash can with both hands.

Then at the end of the class, he went back, calmly retrieved the book from the trash and assigned homework from it.

This needs to be said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3,298


another reason for not remembering the name of the sophomore calc book may be that i did not own a copy and just borrowed one to read the day before the test. i thought that was cool, then.
 
  • #3,299


I got mixed feelings about tossing proofs or epsilons into a first calculus course, and i thnk the new math did 'kill off' the Syl Thompsons, JE Thompsons, and the easy to read, easy to understand calculus texts common till the late 40s/early 50s [Granville Longley Smith as well, which i liked browsing in the library, when texts were built so you could read it all, and follow it all]

And well, there should be a point made where honours calculus and regular calculus has to do some trade-offs, a math teacher does need to know what is essential and what is 'merely details'.

[Bueche made that point in his introduction to his College Physics text where sometimes you *need* to push the essential ideas and do it well sometimes].

But, it's hard to say, how good/awful the book is, for some book is challenging enough, which could be the *audience* of the book... Remember that in the majority of cases the math or physics course is just a 'feeder' for engineering or basic requirements for some 'other course'. It's not math for mathematicians or physics for physicists... though i think actually it might be nicer in some cases for people to jump through the hoop twice, with an easy book and then a super detailed book.

There's a lot of Taylor's but i don't think it was AE Taylor...

Sherwood and Taylor did their prentice-hall book in the 40s and it was definitely in the top 10 books for the 1945-1950 period.

the early 40s is when the last edition of Horace Lamb's Calculus book, which was probably THE long winded calculus text paired with Hardy's Pure Mathematics, and the late 40s is when the last tweak of Longley Smith came out after 50 plus years of handholding... [it was a popular one for teaching in the US Military too]

and then Taylor and Mann did Advanced Calculus in 1955 and was/is still going in a third edition into the 1980s...

-------

Taylor and Mann [1ed 1955 2ed 1972? 3ed 1983]

[Excellent Clarity of Presentation]
[This book has a clarity unparalleled among books covering similar topics. While it contains an extensive amount of prose, it is still fairly compact: the book explains each result, the motivation for it, and points out possible pitfalls and considerations. Examples are well-chosen, proofs are easily followed. The order of the book is a bit chaotic, but it's written in such a way that it is easy to skip around in it.]
[My only complaint about this book is that I wish it covered a bit more material. This book might not go quite as far as some people might want, especially for a two-semester sequence or for courses at the graduate level.]
[I would recommend this book to anyone who already knows calculus and wants to learn (the more rigorous topic of) analysis on their own, or anyone selecting a textbook for an undergraduate advanced calculus course. This book also makes a good reference, and I was happy to permanently add it to my collection. For a more advanced book covering topics beyond those covered in this book, I would recommend Apostol's analysis book.]
---
[Worth every penny]
[This is the advanced calculus text I used at University of Washington while getting my BS in mathematics. I loved it then, and I've just purchased another copy to use for review. It's extremely well written. If you're looking for a good second year calculus text, this one's it.]
---
[Wonderfully Masterful]
[I am no expert in the area of Mathematical Analysis, but I am an avid reader of any book that pertains the subject. I found this book in my schools mathematics lounge and could not resist reading it from cover to cover. This book is of the quality of such authors as Buck, Widder, Courant, and Rudin. As another reviewer has noted, this book is definitely worth every penny. It is not dry or to pedantic as some of the other afore mentioned authors, yet it is not simple and lacking in content. Of course like any quality Advanced Calculus book it requires the reader to have mathematical maturity as well as patience and the drive to self-explore the concepts. If one cannot follow simple examples and from those examples formulate their own, they may want to review the very basics of mathematics or consider a different major. I would highly recommend this book to advanced undergraduates or beginning gradutes students as a reference book or for self study.]

------

Anyhoo it is surprising that Har would use in the early 60s a mainstream calculus text that wanted a minimum of proofs...

-----

Actually here's a good question, what would be the ideal textbook and supplementary texts that you'd pick Mathwonk for 1960 Harvard, for honours and mainstream calculus?

[I thought of the question when i thought, gee i wonder if Thomas would be a way better choice for the non-honours class than the 'unknown textbook']

---------

I'm thinking

a. Franklin - McGraw-Hill 1953
b. Thomas - Addison-Wesley [2ed 1953 3ed 59-61ish] [before it was Thomas and Finney]

a. Courant Blackie/Interscience 1938
b. Kaplan [for Calculus 3/4] Addison-Wesley 1952
[maybe Taylor for the second class]
[maybe Apostol for both classes]


I just wonder if back then you'd find Thomas too easy, and Apostol too challenging...

i found it interesting that there wasnt too much choice till the New math days really when good and bad textbooks on calculus [and high school and second year] just exploded

Courant was used from the depression till the Space Race and was still pretty strong 60-65 for books... and then the creepier gold courant/fritz john book came out, which was neater and weirder, basically courant bowed down to the new math pressures [heh] and well most people like it, with mixed feelings, but almost *always* prefer the original

I think he started the second edition unneccessary textbook change hype *grin*
 
  • #3,300
for me it was not so much the book, as when i started to take learning seriously, but some books like spivak went out of their way to reach me before i knew how to study. i.e. no book is too hard for a serious student, but some books reach out to the clueless.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Programs In need of advice: How do I become a mathematician?
Replies
43
Views
7K
Programs Should I become a physicist or a mathematician?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Other How to self study mathematics for the sake of the subject?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Studying Should a theoretical physicist learn maths like a mathematician?
Replies
4
Views
3K
Studying Would I become a mathematician if I finished this textbook?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Can I be a successful physicist or mathematician?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Courses Math Course Advice -- Harvard freshman planning to double major in physics and mathematics
Replies
41
Views
5K
Courses What math would I need? (physics-math double major interested in THEP)
Replies
7
Views
2K
The suffers that great mathematicians had
Replies
3
Views
2K
Need resources for self study of tensor analysis and other Physics topics
Replies
11
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top