Geometry "The Geometry of Physics" - Theodore Frankel

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Theodore Frankel's book, which is noted for its comprehensive coverage and affordability. Participants express skepticism about the author's claim that only multivariable calculus and linear algebra are prerequisites, questioning whether this is sufficient for understanding the material. The book is considered a potential resource for a first course in tensor analysis and differential geometry. Comparisons are made with other texts, such as Hubbard's Vector Calculus and Nakahara's work, with some participants recommending Frankel for its accessible writing style and ability to fill gaps left by other resources. Overall, Frankel's book is viewed as a valuable addition to a mathematical library, especially for those looking to build a foundation in the subject.
Falgun
Messages
77
Reaction score
45
Hello everyone. I was browsing through Amazon and found the aforementioned book by Theodore Frankel. As it is available at a relatively cheap price and covers a TON of material I was considering buying it for future use . Although the author says the prerequisites are only multivariable calculus and linear algebra , I find it rather hard to believe. Can anyone who has actually used this book verify this statement?
Also would it make a good addition to my library? Can I use it for a first course in tensor analysis and differential geometry? Here's the link:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107602602/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I have gone through the following books as of now:

Hubbard's Vector calculus book
Tenenbaum & Pollard
Rudin's PMA (currently working on)


Any and all comments or suggestions would be welcome.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Falgun said:
I have gone through the following books as of now:

Hubbard's Vector calculus book
Tenenbaum & Pollard
Rudin's PMA (currently working on)
Have you worked the problems in Hubbard?
 
George Jones said:
Have you worked the problems in Hubbard?
I worked through almost all of them . I went through the whole appendix and on the whole I tried to prove things myself first.
 
I was more of a Nakahara-guy :P
 
haushofer said:
I was more of a Nakahara-guy :
I have browsed through nakahara but it assumes much more in terms of physics prerequisites.
 
Nakahara goes farther than Frankel and at a higher pace, so he starts farther in the curriculum. I recommend Frankel's book. I haven't heard/read bad reviews. It provides what's missing from Boas, for example.
 
  • Like
Likes Kolmo and Falgun
As above Nakahara goes further, but a lot of that involves advanced bundle theory to reach the Atiyah-Singer index theorem which might only be of interest if you wish to look at mathematical aspects of non-perturbative gauge theory.

Frankel would be the more natural starting point and has a good writing style.
 
  • Like
Likes Falgun

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top