Calculus Thoughts on the book 'Second Year Calculus' (Bressoud)

AI Thread Summary
"Second Year Calculus: From Celestial Mechanics to Special Relativity" by David M. Bressoud has received mixed reviews, with some finding it overly simplistic and lacking depth, particularly in its examples and exercises. While a negative review highlighted its minimalistic approach and trivial examples, others appreciated its engaging writing and historical context. The book seems to cater more to readers with some prior knowledge rather than absolute beginners, as indicated by positive feedback from those with a background in mathematics. A critical observation was made regarding a potential error in the fundamental theorem of calculus presented in the book, which raises concerns about its rigor. Overall, prospective readers are encouraged to preview the book before purchasing to determine its suitability for their needs.
mathisrad
Messages
20
Reaction score
10
Anybodys whos read the book Second year of Calculus, from celestial mechanics to Special relativity, what are your thoughts on it? Would you recommend it? What faults does it have? Any information about the book would be helpful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Second Year Calculus: From Celestial Mechanics to Special Relativity
By: David M. Bressoud. 1991. Corrected edition. Pub: Springer.

I found one poor review on libgen.is
"I regard this as a mediocre and second-rate textbook that lacks the necessary depth, breadth, and formality expected of a calculus text. The table of content certainly lists all the essential headlines of introductory vector calculus. But, virtually every single topic seems to exist only in the most minimal form and amount. Things are just "dumb-ed down" and presented in as few words - and as simplistically - as possible.

Having said that, there may be circumstances where some people actually find the book useful specifically because of its watered-down and simple-minded nature.

Almost without exception, in-text examples are trivial cases of plug-n-chug for the immediately preceding equation/discussion. I read more than 75% of the book and I saw very few good examples that are thoughtful and illustrate interesting or special cases, or bring out subtleties. Most (but not all) of the end-of-section exercises that I sampled are equally uninspiring and unimaginative, "busy-work" type of problems.
I got interested in this book because it claimed to develop the subject in close connection with problems from Mechanics. Well, while this material has some value, it is again so thin that it's hardly special."


You might visit a library, or find an electronic copy, and review it yourself, before investing.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes mathisrad and berkeman
Yes I found a online copy for much cheaper, I might see if I can find a preview of the book for free just so I can see if I should get a physical copy. Appreciate the advice thanks.
 
I looked at a brief sample of the first part of the book and found it beautifully written, interesting and informative. Given the review quoted above, this was rather a surprise. Then I perused the reviews on amazon and found that although over 75% of them are 5 stars, the one quoted is among the 3% or so which are quite negative. This is perhaps evidence that every book has its own audience, and opinions differ based on the goals and background of readers. It may be, from the reviews I saw, that this book appeals more to somewhat more knowledgable readers and less to absolute beginners, since some who liked it mentioned wishing they had seen some of the material in grad school in years past. I myself am a retired mathematics professor, with an appreciation for historical sources like Euclid, Apollonius and Newton, and while I liked the historical section that I read, I was not allowed access to any more advanced parts. I hope you can either find a physical copy to preview, or find a copy so cheap that you will not mind if it is not to your taste. good luck. (Have you considered a more traditional book, like Williamson, Crowell, and Trotter?
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Williamson, Crowell, trotter&cm_sp=SearchF-_-home-_-Results&ref_=search_f_hp&sts=t)

well I have found one odd statement in the few pages I could preview on the springer site, concerning the fundamental theorem of calculus. it is dangerous to make any criticism of a book without full access to the author's definitions, but it appears that the first statement of the fundamental theorem in this book is false. I.e. the claim that if f is an integrable (defined to mean Riemann integrable in an earlier chapter) function, then there is another function F such that dF/dx = f. This is just false, since any increasing function with only jump discontinuities is Riemann integrable (on a closed bounded interval), but no such function has an antiderivative unless it is actually continuous.

this puzzles me. but it is not a deal breaker for me personally. I have found isolated cases of false statements in many excellent books, and have certainly made more than a few howlers myself, even in articles on topics I am considered "expert" in. It is much easier to find mistakes in other people's books than to write a book not having any. but I suggest the author intended to say in part 1, that f is assumed not just integrable, but continuous. it also suggests to me that this book is more intended to convey useful insight than to belabor the complete mathematical rigor of every argument. that to me makes it only more valuable. but be aware, never accept any mathematical statement as definitely correct, without proof.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes mathisrad and berkeman
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...
TLDR: is Blennow "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" a good follow-up to Altland "Mathematics for physicists"? Hello everybody, returning to physics after 30-something years, I felt the need to brush up my maths first. It took me 6 months and I'm currently more than half way through the Altland "Mathematics for physicists" book, covering the math for undergraduate studies at the right level of sophystication, most of which I howewer already knew (being an aerospace engineer)...

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Back
Top