Applied Which Maths Textbook is Better for Physics Students?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason123456
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Textbook
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on comparing two prominent textbooks: "Mathematical Methods for Physicists" by Arfken and Weber, and "Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering" by Riley, Hobson, and Bence. The primary focus is on user-friendliness and suitability for undergraduate physics courses. While both books are comprehensive and serve well as reference materials, user-friendliness is subjective, varying based on individual preferences for theoretical versus practical approaches. It is suggested that prospective readers review both texts to determine which aligns better with their learning style. Arfken and Weber are noted for requiring a stronger mathematical background, while Riley et al. start at a more accessible level, making it potentially better for those less confident in their math skills. The discussion also touches on the availability of solution manuals for the Arfken and Weber textbook, highlighting the need for guidance in navigating the extensive material covered in both books.
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 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 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 mastercoin

Similar threads

Back
Top