Calculus Should I read Spivak's Calculus as an undergrad in theoretical physics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the suitability of Spivak's calculus book for a physics major focused on theoretical physics. The individual expresses concerns about the abstract nature of Spivak's work and its practical value for their degree, questioning whether it will be beneficial compared to other options like Apostol's Calculus. While Spivak is recognized for its rigor and mathematical depth, some contributors suggest that it may be excessive for the immediate needs of a physics curriculum. However, they emphasize that a strong foundation in rigorous mathematics can enhance critical thinking and ultimately facilitate the learning of physics concepts in advanced studies. The consensus leans towards the idea that while Spivak may not directly aid in immediate physics applications, it can provide valuable skills for future theoretical work.
OscarV
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
I am about to start a physics with theoretical physics major, I've taken calculus before but I've not been satisfied with the "memorization of formulas" type books.

I started to read Spivak and found it enjoyable, but since it's a major undertaking I am also concerned for the practical value of reading it to my degree, I am afraid that the book is much too abstract and mathematical, but I am also not sure since as far as I know (which granted, is not much) theoretical physics highly overlaps with pure mathematics.

In a nutshell: Will it actually be useful for my degree (I am confident I want to remain in the theoretical area) or should I read another book that perhaps has a better balance between rigor and application (I've heard Apostol's Calculus to be a good option).

Cheers and thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My thoughts are, being able to prove a+b is commutative doesn't necessarily help with learning physics. But the more comfortable you are with mathematics, the better off you will be in the long run, particularly if you plan to do theoretical physics.

But at the end of the day, I think Spivak is slightly overkill for calculus for physics. Perhaps it's my inexperience showing, but nothing I learned during my stint at uni would have been easier had I worked through a rigorous calculus textbook.
 
  • Like
Likes dsatkas and Demystifier
OscarV said:
I am about to start a physics with theoretical physics major, I've taken calculus before but I've not been satisfied with the "memorization of formulas" type books.

I started to read Spivak and found it enjoyable, but since it's a major undertaking I am also concerned for the practical value of reading it to my degree, I am afraid that the book is much too abstract and mathematical, but I am also not sure since as far as I know (which granted, is not much) theoretical physics highly overlaps with pure mathematics.

In a nutshell: Will it actually be useful for my degree (I am confident I want to remain in the theoretical area) or should I read another book that perhaps has a better balance between rigor and application (I've heard Apostol's Calculus to be a good option).

Cheers and thank you in advance!
I would go for Spivak yes. It doesn't help directly but if you want to be a theoretical physicist it helps to know the rigorous rules of mathematics. The first indirect gain is to be able to think in a more structured and self-critical way. The second indirect gain is that later on learning physics will be much easier when you get to upper undergrad.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Back
Top