Calculus What makes Mike Spivak's math textbooks popular and difficult?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bballwaterboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spivak Textbooks
AI Thread Summary
Mike Spivak's math textbooks are noted for their difficulty, primarily because they are more proof-based and resemble real analysis texts rather than typical calculus books. This makes them challenging for beginners. For those just starting with calculus, it is recommended to wait until after completing an introductory calculus course before tackling Spivak's work. His calculus book is particularly praised for its clarity and engaging style, often compared favorably to Courant's classic calculus text. However, for absolute beginners, alternatives like "A First Course in Calculus" by Serge Lang are suggested as more suitable. Overall, while Spivak's books are popular due to his effective exposition, they may not be the best fit for those new to calculus.
bballwaterboy
Messages
85
Reaction score
3
Hi, everyone

I was directed here by a poster in another thread and thought I'd post my question to you guys in this area of the forums.

I had some questions about Mike Spivak's math textbooks. It was alluded to in another thread that his books are quite difficult. Yet, from what I can gather, they seem to also be popular.

I'm curious what makes his books difficult and how they may differ from other math textbooks used in college. And, secondly, if I'm just starting Calculus, which of his books (if any) would fit my level of math (beginning Calculus I next Fall 2015 semester).

Thank you all much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They are more proof based then your average calculus book and its more of a real analysis textbook then a calculus textbook. If you are familiar with writing proofs then you may be fine but I would recommend reading it after your first calculus course and possibly a proof writing class. I feel it would be a better textbook to read before taking real analysis or to compliment that class rather then before calculus or to compliment it.

Its popular because spivak is great mathematical expositor.
 
bballwaterboy said:
Hi, everyone

I was directed here by a poster in another thread and thought I'd post my question to you guys in this area of the forums.

I had some questions about Mike Spivak's math textbooks. It was alluded to in another thread that his books are quite difficult. Yet, from what I can gather, they seem to also be popular.

I'm curious what makes his books difficult and how they may differ from other math textbooks used in college. And, secondly, if I'm just starting Calculus, which of his books (if any) would fit my level of math (beginning Calculus I next Fall 2015 semester).

Thank you all much!

In my opinion, only his calculus book is good, I don't like the rest. But I can see why some people like them.

That said, if you never studied calculus before, then you probably shouldn't be doing Spivak. Once you're a bit comfortable with the intuitive concepts of limits, derivatives and integrals, and once you can calculate them pretty adequately, you can try Spivak (and it'll still be difficult). For your situation, I recommend "A first course in calculus" by Lang. It's a terrific book and very well written.
 
I like all of mike's books, but they are very different. to give a goldilocks justification for micromass' view, the multivariable book is in a sense too short, and the diff geom book too long, while the Calculus book is just right. In my opinion also, the Calculus book benefits greatly by being, in some sense, a more entertaining rewrite of Courant's great calculus book. You also need to be careful what you mean by "difficult". Spivak presents difficult material, but does it so clearly, that if your goal is actually to learn what is in his Calculus book, he makes learning it about as easy as it can be made. However if you want to understand Stokes' theorem, I feel that the version in Lang's Analysis 1 (for simplices), is clearer and easier to read than the one in Mike's Calculus on Manifolds. I like that latter book though for a clear and precise presentation of differentiation and integration in several variables and of forms over chains.
 
Last edited:
mathwonk said:
I like all of mike's books, but they are very different. to give a goldilocks justification for micromass' view, the multivariable book is in a sense too short, and the diff geom book too long, while the Calculus book is just right. In my opinion also, the Calculus book benefits greatly by being, in some sense, a more entertaining rewrite of Courant's great calculus book. You also need to be careful what you mean by "difficult". Spivak presents difficult material, but does it so clearly, that if your goal is actually to learn what is in his Calculus book, he makes learning it about as easy as it can be made. However if you want to understand Stokes' theorem, I feel that the version in Lang's Analysis 1 (for simplices), is clearer and easier to read than the one in Mike's Calculus on Manifolds. I like that latter book though for a clear and precise presentation of differentiation and integration in several variables and of forms over chains.

Some helpful responses guys. Thanks very much. I'll check out the Lang book, but was curious what the name of the good Spivak Calculus book was? I'll look it up when I get the chance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the following four books, has anyone used them in a course or for self study? Compiler Construction Principles and Practice 1st Edition by Kenneth C Louden Programming Languages Principles and Practices 3rd Edition by Kenneth C Louden, and Kenneth A Lambert Programming Languages 2nd Edition by Allen B Tucker, Robert E Noonan Concepts of Programming Languages 9th Edition by Robert W Sebesta If yes to either, can you share your opinions about your personal experience using them. I...
Hi, I have notice that Ashcroft, Mermin and Wei worked at a revised edition of the original solid state physics book (here). The book, however, seems to be never available. I have also read that the reason is related to some disputes related to copyright. Do you have any further information about it? Did you have the opportunity to get your hands on this revised edition? I am really curious about it, also considering that I am planning to buy the book in the near future... Thanks!
I’ve heard that in some countries (for example, Argentina), the curriculum is structured differently from the typical American program. In the U.S., students usually take a general physics course first, then move on to a textbook like Griffiths, and only encounter Jackson at the graduate level. In contrast, in those countries students go through a general physics course (such as Resnick-Halliday) and then proceed directly to Jackson. If the slower, more gradual approach is considered...

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
20
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Back
Top