The discussion centers around which chapters of the Munkres Topology textbook are essential for physicists, particularly in the context of learning differential geometry. Participants express varying opinions on the necessity of Munkres for those with a physics background and the relevance of specific chapters.
Participants express differing views on the necessity of Munkres for physicists, with some arguing it is not essential while others suggest certain chapters may be beneficial. No consensus is reached regarding which chapters are universally essential.
Some participants highlight that their recommendations depend on individual goals and backgrounds, indicating that the relevance of specific chapters may vary based on prior knowledge and intended applications.
I would like to learn differential geometry the mathematicians way, not the physicists way. I usually just gloss over passages about Hausdorff spaces, second countable, paracompact and things of that nature and I would like to stop doing that.Demystifier said:A physicist, even a mathematical physicist, can live without ever reading Munkres or anything equivalent. Books entitled "Topology for physicists" or something alike should be sufficient, and such books do not pay much attention to things studied in Munkres-like books. But of course, if you want to know more topology than a physicist really needs to know, you are welcome to read Munkres or anything else which you find interesting.
That's fine, but I don't think that learning math the non-physicist way can be essential for physics. Maybe useful, complementary, or deepening, but not essential.cpsinkule said:I would like to learn differential geometry the mathematicians way, not the physicists way.