Insights The Birth of a Textbook - Comments

[anorlunda]

I don't understand, why they do not simply take directly the pdf from the LaTeX and print it.

That goes way back to the dawn of computers. Customers (or in this case publishers) each make their unique choices for hardware/software/formats and force everyone else to adapt to that. Try submitting your tax forms to your government in the form of GIF files.

I wrote and sold software in the 70s. The proliferation of platforms and OSs back then was much worse than today. Our staff's efforts were divided roughly 80-20. 80% conversion to multiple customer platforms. 20% to the actual features of the software that add value.

 

[vanhees71]

Well, obviously it's possible with @Orodruin 's publisher, CRC Press. I don't see, why one shouldn't simply use the print-ready pdf file produced by LaTeX for printing out the book. Why should publishers bother to transfer it to another format, which is always bound to more errors? Isn't it even more economical for them to have a print-ready file from the author, letting it go through the review process, proof-reading/lectorate and then being sure that precisely this version is then printed?

 

[Orodruin]

To be fair, if I had not written in LaTeX I would likely have had to convert it to LaTeX (of course, this is just a guess). On the other hand, I cannot see anyone writing a physics or math textbook in anything else so that may be irrelevant.

 

[vanhees71]

My colleague of course also wrote his book in LaTeX with the class file provided by the publisher (and why not telling you that it's Springer, whose textbooks often look indeed as being typeset in LaTeX). At the end it went to production, and they messed all this nice looking LaTeX up, including references to formulae, citations, figures, etc. etc. To me this is explainable only by the assumption that they use the LaTeX source file, provided by the author, and transformed it into something else. That's at least what they do with journal articles (not only Springer but also at least APS and I think also Elsevier, but I must say that with Elsevier I never had any typographical or other technical issues.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

It only took you $\approx 1.5$ years to get the book written. Congrats.

I am curious: how long did you think it would take, when you first started -- either as a point estimate or some kind of range bounds? I would have guessed much more than 1.5 years, but I haven't done the work and gathered any data here.

(This is touching on the planning fallacy and a favorite real life error from Kahneman when he was in a group trying to create a textbook -- his group estimated 1.5 to 2.5 years to get the book to completed even though data indicated north of 7 years, and it in fact took 8 years to get said textbook to market ).

 

[Orodruin]

It only took you $\approx 1.5$ years to get the book written. Congrats.

I am curious: how long did you think it would take, when you first started -- either as a point estimate or some kind of range bounds? I would have guessed much more than 1.5 years, but I haven't done the work and gathered any data here.

I am not sure I had an estimate. Since I was already teaching the subjects since some years I was pretty much already up to speed subject wise. I had written a bunch of lecture notes in different subjects before, so I pretty much knew that the time scale was years. Of course, it also depends on how much time one is willing to put into the project. This was essentially a hobby project that I played with for almost every day during my free time when I did not have anything better to do.

That being said, I got an idea of the time scale from extrapolation pretty early on.

(This is touching on the planning fallacy and a favorite real life error from Kahneman when he was in a group trying to create a textbook -- his group estimated 1.5 to 2.5 years to get the book to completed even though data indicated north of 7 years, and it in fact took 8 years to get said textbook to market ).

Depending on the size of the group, it may very well be possible that too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

[Wes Tausend]

Congratulations Orodruin,

I really do not know, nor can I imagine the trouble one may go to publish an entire book, an excruciatingly accurate, protracted manuscript that one hopes can long be proudly quoted here on PF or anywhere. Someday I hope too, to say something, to leave something worth remembering.

It seems I expend a great deal of effort to make a single post on PF that is anywhere near bullet-proof, and often fail. Perhaps more effort is in order for me. In that, you are an inspiration to do better just because you shared your interesting journey to build a much larger such edifice. Thanks for your insight. --Wes
...

 

[Orodruin]

Here is a heads-up to anyone who wants a shot at winning a copy: The PF Photo Contest thread featuring a copy of the book is now open for submissions.

 

[mfb]

Indeed, I always wonder, who from the ~1000 people of the big collaborations has really written the papers and how you can make everybody agree with what's written ;-)).

The actual number of scientists writing the papers is typically small - rarely more than 5 with large contributions, and they will split up the work (“X does the introduction, Y does the data selection, ...”). Afterwards you have several rounds of discussion and comments - first from other members of the analysis group, then from the larger working group your analysis is a part of (e.g. “Higgs” if you study some Higgs decay) and/or dedicated reviewers from this group, later the whole collaboration.
It is not always possible to make everyone happy. Sometimes you even get directly contradicting wishes. Choose one version and move on. Most of the 1000+ authors won’t add comments, but if the proposed paper is popular you can get 50+ sets of comments to go through.

(If this gets a longer discussion I’ll move it to a separate thread.)

 

[bapowell]

Congrats Orodruin! What an achievement!

 

[Amrator]

Congrats, Orodruin. I'm a third year physics major, and so I will definitely order a paperback (I can't afford the hardcover as of right now).

 

[vanhees71]

I've ordered it yesterday directly from the CRC website :-)).

 

[member 587159]

Congratulations! I can't imagine how time-consuming it must have been to write such a marvelous book, containing years of expertise and knowledge. I hope the hard work pays off well!

 

[Orodruin]

I can't imagine how time-consuming it must have been to write such a marvelous book

How do you know it is marvelous?
(Although I did my best, I think I will let others judge that ... )

 

[Astronuc]

I like to TOC:

Vector analysis.
Tensor analysis.
Modelling physical systems using PDEs.
Function spaces.
Series and transform solutions.
Green’s functions.
Variational calculus.
Calculus on manifolds.
Classical mechanics.
Electrodynamics.
Special and general relativity.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/the-birth-of-a-textbook/

I could have used such a book more than 40 years ago. Instead, I had to sit down with the university course catalog and figure out which mathematics courses I need in parallel with the physics courses I wanted to take. As far as I know, there was no coordination between the mathematics and physics departments, although I think the applied math group coordinated with physics and other sciences somewhat. The lack of coordination between physics and math frustrated me in high school, because it seemed clear that one had to be proficient in calculus to apply it in physics. I had to a lot of self-study early on.

 

[Orodruin]

I like to TOC:

Vector analysis.
Tensor analysis.
Modelling physical systems using PDEs.
Function spaces.
Series and transform solutions.
Green’s functions.
Variational calculus.
Calculus on manifolds.
Classical mechanics.
Electrodynamics.
Special and general relativity.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/the-birth-of-a-textbook/

Note that this is not the actual table of contents. It was the intended contents in my first draft. Since then I removed electrodynamics and relativity and added a chapter on group theory. The actual table of contents can be found on the CRC Press homepage. However, I have attempted to use examples from relatively basic physics throughout the text.

 

[member 587159]

How do you know it is marvelous?
(Although I did my best, I think I will let others judge that ... )

I read the insights article! Of course, I didn't read the book (yet), but let's consider it an educated guess, considering what I know from the forums ;)

 

[nomadreid]

I note that the book was relabeled from "introductory" to "for graduate students or advanced undergraduate students". I presume that means in physics. If one is not a physicist, how much mathematical background is necessary to be able to follow the explanations?

 

[Torg]

I am happy you wrote a book. I think it will be an excellent and very useful book. Congratulations!
Does the book discuss tensor analysis, or could i read the contents?

 

[Orodruin]

I note that the book was relabeled from "introductory" to "for graduate students or advanced undergraduate students". I presume that means in physics. If one is not a physicist, how much mathematical background is necessary to be able to follow the explanations?

To follow everything, you would need to be proficient in multivariable calculus, linear algebra, and introductory courses in differential equations. Complex analysis will also help at some points. The text is written with a focus on the physics applications of the mathematics. Most of the physics used (that is not introduced specifically) also relies on relatively basic classical physics. Of course, the difficulty varies from chapter to chapter and the first few chapters should be rather accessible with just calculus and linear algebra.

Does the book discuss tensor analysis, or could i read the contents?

Yes. Tensor analysis in a Euclidean space (but in general coordinates) is included in chapter 2 and calculus on manifolds is covered in chapter 9. A list of chapters is available on the CRC Press homepage (there is a link at the bottom of the Insight).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

CRC Press tweeted the release today
https://twitter.com/CRC_MathStats/status/949241598625411073

 

[dfan]

For anyone wanting a preview of the content, Amazon now has the "Look inside" feature for this book, although it is only of the Kindle version and therefore looks rather ugly.

 

[Orodruin]

For anyone wanting a preview of the content, Amazon now has the "Look inside" feature for this book, although it is only of the Kindle version and therefore looks rather ugly.

Indeed. I am pretty sure the printed version looks much better, at least my print-ready pdf does, and that this is auto-generated. Solely based on the number of equations, this is about one third of the first chapter.

@Greg Bernhardt has seen the copies used for prizes in the photo and haiku/limerick contests and should be able to confirm. I am hoping my author copies have arrived when I get back to work after the holidays on Monday.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I am pretty sure the printed version looks much better

Yeah the amazon preview is a sloppy rendering. Everything is seamless in the print version. The publisher wouldn't print the amazon render. I sent amazon a 5 star review. Hopefully they print it!

 

[mfb]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/R1WL37LPSI/?tag=pfamazon01-20

A 5.000 rating for the book! It won't get a better average!

 

[strangerep]

I sent amazon a 5 star review. Hopefully they print it!

Amazon shows this as being rated by someone "especially interested in"... cat supplies.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Amazon shows this as being rated by someone "especially interested in"... cat supplies.

Guilty, I have a cat

 

[strangerep]

Guilty, I have a cat

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I like cats too. It just seemed quite funny mentioning that for a book about mathematical methods.

 

[mfb]

Well, with a dataset of 1 the conclusions drawn are not the best.

 

[Orodruin]

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I like cats too. It just seemed quite funny mentioning that for a book about mathematical methods.

It would have been more appropriate for a book on quantum mechanics. Or not. We won’t know until Greg reviews a QM book.