Which Maths Textbook is Better for Physics Students?

  • Context: Applied 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason123456
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Textbook
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of two mathematics textbooks for physics students: "Mathematical Methods for Physicists" by George B. Arfken and Hans J. Weber, and "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" by K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, and S. J. Bence. Participants explore aspects such as user-friendliness and the appropriateness of content for undergraduate physics courses.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the clarity of the original inquiry regarding which textbook is "better," suggesting that the criteria for evaluation need to be specified.
  • One participant expresses a desire for a user-friendly textbook that provides sufficient mathematical content for general undergraduate physics courses.
  • Another participant notes that user-friendliness is subjective, with different readers having varying preferences for theoretical versus practical approaches.
  • It is mentioned that both textbooks cover extensive material, potentially more than what is needed for a single course, and may serve better as reference materials.
  • Some participants highlight that "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" starts at a lower level than "Mathematical Methods for Physicists," making it potentially more accessible for those less familiar with advanced mathematics.
  • There is a suggestion that a guide or professor can help students navigate the extensive content of these textbooks effectively.
  • One participant acknowledges a bias in their opinion about their own textbook compared to the others discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on which textbook is superior, as opinions vary based on personal preferences and experiences with the material. Multiple competing views regarding user-friendliness and content level remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the textbooks cover a wide range of topics, and there is uncertainty regarding the specific mathematical prerequisites and topics that the original poster is considering.

Jason123456
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Which one is better?
Mathematical methods for Physicists by George B. Arfken and Hans J. Weber or
Mathematical methods for physics and engineering by K. F. Riley M. P. Hobson and S. J. Bence

P.s Is there a solution manual for the 4th edition of Mathematical methods for Physicists by George B. Arfken and Hans J. Weber ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Better for what? It is really not a well defined question unless you can specify more precisely what it is you are looking for from those books.
 
Hi Orodruin,
Thank you for pointing the ambiguity of the question

I want to know which one is more user-friendly while providing 'enough' maths for a general undergraduate physics course
 
User friendliness is a matter of taste an what one person finds good, others will find too theoretical or too sloppy (or simply not like the approach). Both books are bricks and clearly cover more material than you would be able to in a single course. I do not have any personal experience in learning from either, but my impression is that they generally work better as reference material than for plowing through to learn a subject.

I would suggest that you have a look at each book you consider beforehand (in a library or in an online preview) to find out which you prefer.

Disclosure: The books you mention are two of the main competitors to my own textbook although they start at a lower level with regards to prerequisites and cover many basic topics that I assume the reader has acquired elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mastercoin
Awesome
I will have a look at yours as well
 
Orodruin said:
Disclosure: The books you mention are two of the main competitors to my own textbook although they start at a lower level with regards to prerequisites and cover many basic topics that I assume the reader has acquired elsewhere.
Well, but your's is much better than Arfken&Weber! I don't know the book by Riley et al.
 
vanhees71 said:
Well, but your's is much better than Arfken&Weber! I don't know the book by Riley et al.
While I would like to think so, my opinion on the matter would be rather biased I believe. :rolleyes:

Also, the OP will not find the really introductory stuff (like linear algebra and calculus) in my book and I am not completely sure exactly what topics he is considering.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mastercoin
Jason123456 said:
user-friendly

Hobson Riley starts at a level lower than Arfken Weber. If you are comfortable with Calculus upto Infinite Series, Vector Calculus and with Algebra, Arfken Weber is the better choice. If not then Hobson Riley or ML Boas are of similar level both below Arfken Weber.

As @Orodruin has stated all books cover more material than a conventional course would require. So a guide or professor can only guide you what to read, when to read and how to read.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mastercoin

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K