Studying Why are textbooks in math and science so bad?

[J77]

Like i said before. It is really not a very good argument when you consider many university math, physics professors think the textbooks are bad also.

And you've spoken to many ?

 

[mathwonk]

i suggest deleting this thread. there is no advice sought here, mostly rants and childish complaining and whining.

 

[hrc969]

Where did you do to college? The classes for math and physics do follow the structure of the book. Professors assign exercise problems from the course textbook.

Well maybe that's true for the college you went to. But most of my classes have been such that the professor doesn't follow a book and assign their own problems (which may also be found in some textbook, but its not like they say go do problems 3,5 and 7 of a certain chapter of a book).

Even if you yourself go, and bought a better textbook to study the subject. There are still many problems. One of the problem associated might be time.

If you really want to learn a subject you'll put in the time for it. Also you don't need to buy another book there are plenty of books at libraries. I don't know how it work at your school but at mine we can even order books from other libraries (in the same state education system). When I took Complex Analysis I had at least ten books, there are some I like better than others but I think I would have been limiting myself by only having the suggested book (Ahlfors). Plus the professor did not even follow that text.

I think a big difference in who follows books and who doesn't is whether they are tenured professors or not. Most of the professors I have had have been "full" (tenured) professors, so they have much greater freedom in how they run their course. Also I have taken many honors courses and that make a difference too. Again more freedom for the professor. But even when the professor does not follow any book they have still recommended books they think are good or their favorites. Sometimes they don't mention books but if we ask what their favorite books on the subject they definitely name some books. I have taken a few courses from assistant professors and one professor (who I have had twice now) did not like the textbooks he was FORCED to used and the syllabus he was FORCED to follow. I'm not sure if he was really forced but that's how he described it. Anyways he was certainly able to recommend other textbooks.

 

[hrc969]

Like i said before. It is really not a very good argument when you consider many university math, physics professors think the textbooks are bad also.

Actually some of the good books are thought to be too hard for the students used to being spoon fed and hence "easier" books are used even if they aren't that great. But read my previous post for you. Professors usually know quite a number of books that are good for the subject.

Have you ever asked a professor to recommend a book and said that all the books on the subject are bad?

Like Mathwonk said, I think you guys are just whining. If you want to learn , then do it. Its not easy and yeah, it takes up time. But if you are interested in learning that's what you need to do.

 

[G01]

I am talking about upper and lower division textbook in mathematics and physics. Why are they in geneal so hard to understand, and so low quality anyways? This is not just an attitude for the intellectually inferior, but something i repeat heard from my own professors in mathematics, and physics. It seems for most students, most of the understanding of the material comes from attending the lectures, and taking the notes. A follow up question would then be: Why are the notes are so much better than the books, but yet we have so much more books, and hardly any notes in our libraries? i asked this question before, but i don't think it was the right forum. since only professors write textbooks. I would like to ask the professors out there: Why don t you just give us the notes? Is it too much to ask? Why is it the most of your don t like the textbooks, and do nothing about it?

These textbooks I consider good quality:
Halliday Resnick& Walker Fundamentals of Physics

Serway Moses & Moyer's Modern Physics

Griffith's- Quantum Mechanics

Stewart's Calculus

Blanchard Devaney & Hall's Differential Equations

I have been pleased with all of these books.

 

[kant]

And you've spoken to many ?

I got a good sample from ucla.

 

[kant]

i suggest deleting this thread. there is no advice sought here, mostly rants and childish complaining and whining.

i think this topic resonate with other people. In any case, it make very little sense if the whole purpose of coming to a discussion forum is to get information.

 

[kant]

Well maybe that's true for the college you went to. But most of my classes have been such that the professor doesn't follow a book and assign their own problems (

i have never heard this before. All the courses i took, the professors follow the structure, and section strictly, and assign problems from the sections in the book. I would like to know where you go to university.

If you really want to learn a subject you'll put in the time for it.

This is naive opinion. You want to put in more time on a single subject, but this is not always possible consider you have other courses you have to take also. There "is" time presure, and deadlines.

Also you don't need to buy another book there are plenty of books at libraries. I don't know how it work at your school but at mine we can even order books from other libraries (in the same state education system).

My university have the same system, but this is irrevalent. There are plenty of good online books, but having the time, and energy to read it is a different matter. It is just not very practical.

 

[kant]

Actually some of the good books are thought to be too hard for the students used to being spoon fed and hence "easier" books are used even if they aren't that great. But read my previous post for you. Professors usually know quite a number of books that are good for the subject.

Have you ever asked a professor to recommend a book and said that all the books on the subject are bad?

Like Mathwonk said, I think you guys are just whining. If you want to learn , then do it. Its not easy and yeah, it takes up time. But if you are interested in learning that's what you need to do.

There is time constrict, and deadline that factors into the college experience. I would love to read the great american novel, but i don t have time. Besides, even those people doing mathematical research hate to go to the book( dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~twk/Lecture.pdf) i think one of the reason is that the book suck also at the more advance level.

 

[hrc969]

I got a good sample from ucla.

Ever talk to Brent Corbin?

Anyways do you remember any of the professors you talked to. I know the math and physics departments at UCLA very well (I know the math department a lot better though).

Do you go to UCLA yourself?

i think this topic resonate with other people. In any case, it make very little sense if the whole purpose of coming to a discussion forum is to get information.

Yes, it will resonate with a whole bunch of lazy students.

i have never heard this before. All the courses i took, the professors follow the structure, and section strictly, and assign problems from the sections in the book. I would like to know where you go to university.

I go to UCLA. Like I said before, the pattern that I have noticed is that full professors have more freedom with courses and it depends on what courses you take. I have taken mostly advanced courses. The courses that a lot of people take are much more rigid in terms of the syllabus for the course. Of two undergrad classes I am taking right now, 1 of them is the type where the professor does not really follow any book. He assigned his own problems for the quarter (again if you look in books you can find some of them, sometimes with outline sometimes just the statement).
The other is from an assistant professor (non-tenure track), he has complained several times about the syllabus he HAS to follow and having to use the specific book we are using. He's still good about following the syllabus and following the book as you describe that your professors have followed it. I took a topology class last spring from an assistant professor (not sure if tenure track or not) she had to follow the book and did pretty much every sections one after the other again like you have described that all your classes have been like. I took differential geometry two winter quarters ago and the professor (full professor) gave us his own notes. He is a differential geometer so he knows the subject very well. He did not even assign a book. He did however recommend a few books that he liked.

Actually even the very good associate professors that I have had have followed the book (actually here I have only taken one undergrad class with an associate professor). But it was not his subject of expertise and I'm not sure if he was forced to follow any certain syllabus. Some full professors choose to follow the normal syllabus for whatever reasons I won't say anything in specific because I'm not too sure.

But I have acknowledged many times (not here) that I have been very fortunate to have taken the classes that I have taken with the professors that I have taken them. Maybe you haven't been as lucky.

This is naive opinion. You want to put in more time on a single subject, but this is not always possible consider you have other courses you have to take also. There "is" time presure, and deadlines.

Yeah... I know ALL ABOUT TIME PRESSURE. Once I took 28 units in one quarter and was doing research on top of that. I had about 2 midterms per class. Weekly homework for every class. I still managed to study manifold theory on my own that quarter on top of reading lots of different sources on (classical) differential geometry (I was taking the class I mentioned before where the professor gave his own notes and did not assign any book), linear algebra and analysis. Yes having pressure is though. I have been there. But we have to set our priorities straight. For me they are to learn as much mathematics as well as I can for when I go to grad school. For some their priority is "to be a college student" (this is a real quote that I got from one of my classmates). I don't know exactly what that means but that guy seems like a person for who this thread will resonate as you talked about before.

My university have the same system, but this is irrevalent. There are plenty of good online books, but having the time, and energy to read it is a different matter. It is just not very practical.

For every subject I have studied the online books available are nowhere near as good as some of the books I have gotten from the library (and other libraries in the system) or bought if they were books that I particularly liked.

About having time: What I have always thought is that if you really want to do it you will make time. Maybe some people think that putting in the time required to learn is "uncool" (as per a previous comment by you), but that's not a textbook author's problem.

 

[kant]

Ever talk to Brent Corbin?

I actually took physics from him. physics IC. I belief his philosophy of research is " make **** up". I am curious, but how did you do on his exams?

Anyways do you remember any of the professors you talked to. I know the math and physics departments at UCLA very well (I know the math department a lot better though).

i don t remember all the names. Do you know edward lee, and ruhal fernadaze( spell error)?

Do you go to UCLA yourself?

Yes.

Yes, it will resonate with a whole bunch of lazy students.

Sorry, but i don t think i am lazy. We had to take a complex analysis course, and the book was written by a ucla mathematician. The book suck, and i had to attend the lectures to understand it.

But we have to set our priorities straight. For me they are to learn as much mathematics as well as I can for when I go to grad school. For some their priority is "to be a college student" (this is a real quote that I got from one of my classmates). I don't know exactly what that means but that guy seems like a person for who this thread will resonate as you talked about before.

I don t know what planet you come from, but i would presume that most people( mathematician, and physicist etc) think the book from there discipline sucK also.

For every subject I have studied the online books available are nowhere near as good as some of the books I have gotten from the library (and other libraries in the system) or bought if they were books that I particularly liked

.

Books at powell, or the books at the math and science library? do you know the call number?

About having time: What I have always thought is that if you really want to do it you will make time. Maybe some people think that putting in the time required to learn is "uncool" (as per a previous comment by you), but that's not a textbook author's problem.

May i ask how much you study in a day? Well, maybe we can get together

 

[morphism]

Sorry, but i don t think i am lazy. We had to take a complex analysis course, and the book was written by a ucla mathematician. The book suck, and i had to attend the lectures to understand it.

Tragic.

I don t know what planet you come from, but i would presume that most people( mathematician, and physicist etc) think the book from there discipline sucK also.

Don't.

 

[kant]

Tragic.


Don't.

The tragic thing is people like you that don t think.

 

[hrc969]

I actually took physics from him. physics IC. I belief his philosophy of research is " make **** up". I am curious, but how did you do on his exams?

Well I never took a class from him. I was in a few workshops that he ran though. He talked to me about his whole philosophy on exams and I'm sure I would have been in the B/B- range. How did you do?

i don t remember all the names. Do you know edward lee, and ruhal fernadaze( spell error)?

All I know about Edward Lee is that he's an assistant professor (from VIGRE). Rahul I know a bit more (he still owes me a second part of some Riemannian Geometry notes). He got his PHD from UCLA last year. But if you took classes from them notice that they are assistant professors, not even tenure track. They have no freedom with the course. They can't pick the book they like they can't prove the things they want to prove (or at least are not supposed too), unless of course its something that's on the syllabus.

Sorry, but i don t think i am lazy. We had to take a complex analysis course, and the book was written by a ucla mathematician. The book suck, and i had to attend the lectures to understand it.

Yes I know that book very very well. Its not my favorite but it does not suck and is not a bad book.

I don t know what planet you come from, but i would presume that most people( mathematician, and physicist etc) think the book from there discipline sucK also.

I would like for you to put a number on the many professors who have said that the books in their discipline suck.

Books at powell, or the books at the math and science library? do you know the call number?

I usually get my books from boelter sometimes from the chemistry library. Powell is pretty useless when it comes to getting books on more advanced subjects.

Anyways if you tell me what classes you are taking I can recommend a few books. (Just say what number course it is).

May i ask how much you study in a day? Well, maybe we can get together

Well, I don't study as much as I did last quarter (16 hrs/day on weekdays). I guess its around 10-12 a day now. (This is including attending 6 lectures) So I guess 4-6 hours per day of studying outside class MWF. Tuesday and thursday the full 10-12.
If you PM your schedule we can figure out if I could help you out a bit.

 

[kant]

Well I never took a class from him. I was in a few workshops that he ran though. He talked to me about his whole philosophy on exams and I'm sure I would have been in the B/B- range. How did you do?

what quarter is this? Did you take him last quarter?

All I know about Edward Lee is that he's an assistant professor (from VIGRE). Rahul I know a bit more (he still owes me a second part of some Riemannian Geometry notes). He got his PHD from UCLA last year. But if you took classes from them notice that they are assistant professors, not even tenure track. They have no freedom with the course. They can't pick the book they like they can't prove the things they want to prove (or at least are not supposed too), unless of course its something that's on the syllabus.

Sure, but what is the point. People don t really have that many opinions. They offer honors classes, but rearly for the classes i want to take in the quarter.

Yes I know that book very very well. Its not my favorite but it does not suck and is not a bad book.

The complex analysis book suck.

I would like for you to put a number on the many professors who have said that the books in their discipline suck.

Have you looked at the link the guy on page two posted in this thread? You want names. ok. People like edward lee, corbin, and ruhal, and some graducate student that hangs out with ruhal admit that the books in math and science are mostly bad. There are others.


I

usually get my books from boelter sometimes from the chemistry library. Powell is pretty useless when it comes to getting books on more advanced subjects.

There is a chemistry library at ucla? Do you mean the math, and engineering library?

Anyways if you tell me what classes you are taking I can recommend a few books. (Just say what number course it is).

131A ?

Well, I don't study as much as I did last quarter (16 hrs/day on weekdays). I guess its around 10-12 a day now. (This is including attending 6 lectures) So I guess 4-6 hours per day of studying outside class MWF. Tuesday and thursday the full 10-12.
If you PM your schedule we can figure out if I could help you out a bit.

I don t know why i would do that, but in anycase, where do you usually study? I live on campus( at hedrick summit).
Do you usually study in the math and engineering library? Are you asian, indian, or white?

 

[hrc969]

what quarter is this? Did you take him last quarter?

Oh, no this was winter and spring quarters of 05.

Anyways my point was that he once told me that he did not like using Halliday and Resnick (spelling?) because he liked to take problem out of there and rather use the regular book. The point is sometimes the good books are harder

Sure, but what is the point. People don t really have that many opinions. They offer honors classes, but rearly for the classes i want to take in the quarter.

That's why you need to plan out your schedules properly. I never ran into any sort of scheduling problem like this because I planned my schedule well ahead of time. If there was some conflict I could not get around I would change my plans accordingly. For example, is there any reason you could not wait for the honors version of 131AB next year. A full professor almost always teaches the honors. In my opinion that's way better than taking it from someone like Rahul who is not an expert (he just got his PHD last year). I have nothing against him though.

The complex analysis book suck.

Can you give any specific criticisms. Like I said I know that book very well. I used it for math 132 with professor Mess (ever heard of him?) and for one quarter of the graduate level complex analysis taught by Gamelin (the author of the book). I know some very fair criticisms of the book but they do not qualify it as a bad book. I'll see if yours are the same or similar and then will post them.

Have you looked at the link the guy on page two posted in this thread?

The thing on praising lectures? Well, all I have to say is that something you want to learn is not always offered as a course but a textbook available not matter what quarter it is. For example, I wanted to learn complex analysis in several variables (usually called Several Complex Variables) Its not being offered this year. One of my professor's told me that it probably would not be offered at all in the near future or maybe ever. So I did a reading course on the subject. I still had a professor to ask questions to but I was primarily on my own. With the book and me. The book is pretty good but there a very serious flaw that a lazy student would not be able to overcome. This was that sometimes statements of theorems made no sense as stated or giving exercises where the statement was false. however some small modification of the statement makes it correct. This kind of stuff was all over. I doubt you have had a book like that one. Yet I thought the book was great. There was a lot of exposition, I was forced to think about what was going on. This again comes to what someone mentioned before about students wanting to be spoon fed. We can't expect a book to contain all details and everything explained fully. I don't think that would produce many good mathematicians.

You want names. ok. People like edward lee, corbin, and ruhal, and some graducate student that hangs out with ruhal admit that the books in math and science are mostly bad. There are others.

No I said I wanted numbers because the professors I have talked to always seem to find books they like. Sure no one is going to like every single book that has been written. But the point is that you can always find good books. I'm really surprised corbin would say that books are mostly bad. But maybe... I guess it makes sense, he has a very different philosophy that most other professors. Did he follow the book in his class? Did he give problems from the book?

There is a chemistry library at ucla? Do you mean the math, and engineering library?

There is no math and engineering library. There are 3 science and engineering libraries, on in the Geology building one in the chemitry building (Young) and one in Boelter. Most of the math books are in Boelter but occasionally there are some good ones at the chemistry one (and very rarely in the geology one)

131A ?

From Rahul?
Anyways when I took Math 131AH and BH the book assigned was Undergraduate Analysis by Serge Lang. It was a pretty good book. You probably would not describe it as dry. I don't know much about the book that you guys are using though.

I don t know why i would do that,

What? Study alot? Well a reason would be if you wanted to learn and it takes time to do it.

but in anycase, where do you usually study? I live on campus( at hedrick summit).

I usually study at home (about 1 hour from UCLA by bus)

Do you usually study in the math and engineering library?

I am usually outside Boelter around 7:30 and stay there until 9 or 10.

Are you asian, indian, or white?

Does it matter? I am curious as to why you would ask this? Anyways I am not asian, indian or white.

 

[fourier jr]

I really don't like texts written now because they try to make everyone feel included racially and sexually.

lol I think I remember Hardy writing in a preface to his Course of Pure Math text that in a previous edition he wrote like "a missionary talking to savages". I doubt that an author would be able to get away with a comment like that today!

 

[kant]

Oh, no this was winter and spring quarters of 05.

Anyways my point was that he once told me that he did not like using Halliday and Resnick (spelling?) because he liked to take problem out of there and rather use the regular book. The point is sometimes the good books are harder

Well, he told me most undergrad physics books are bad in his office hours.

That's why you need to plan out your schedules properly. I never ran into any sort of scheduling problem like this because I planned my schedule well ahead of time. If there was some conflict I could not get around I would change my plans accordingly. For example, is there any reason you could not wait for the honors version of 131AB next year. A full professor almost always teaches the honors. In my opinion that's way better than taking it from someone like Rahul who is not an expert (he just got his PHD last year). I have nothing against him though.

I have to think about it.

Can you give any specific criticisms. Like I said I know that book very well. I used it for math 132 with professor Mess (ever heard of him?)

The guy with the long hair? Does he life alone, because he seems really sad.

and for one quarter of the graduate level complex analysis taught by Gamelin (the author of the book). I know some very fair criticisms of the book but they do not qualify it as a bad book. I'll see if yours are the same or similar and then will post them.

I don t understand the material without attending the lecture. At one time, i had to read it for 6 hours just getting thr the section. The style of the book is utter unacceptable.

No I said I wanted numbers because the professors I have talked to always seem to find books they like. Sure no one is going to like every single book that has been written. But the point is that you can always find good books. I'm really surprised corbin would say that books are mostly bad. But maybe... I guess it makes sense, he has a very different philosophy that most other professors.

I guess we are back to step. You say there are many good books. I say there is not enough time. you say "you can make time if you want to learn".

Did he follow the book in his class? Did he give problems from the book?

yes.

There is no math and engineering library.

What do you call the one at boelters(floor 8)? Next time you go there, take a pencil. The name is marked on the pencil to remind people where they are.

Does it matter? I am curious as to why you would ask this? Anyways I am not asian, indian or white.

Are you persian? Perhaps you are jewish? I ask because i am curious. i want to know who i am talking to especially someone that might be a class room away from me.

 

[J77]

Are you persian? Perhaps you are jewish? I ask because i am curious. i want to know who i am talking to especially someone that might be a class room away from me.

Perhaps it would help if he had two heads?

kant, if you spent as much time reading a book as you've done *****ing on this thread you may start to learn something!

 

[kant]

Perhaps it would help if he had two heads?

kant, if you spent as much time reading a book as you've done *****ing on this thread you may start to learn something!

You are not vey nice, and frankly my study habits is none of your ****ing concern. Maybe you should take your own advice, and stop hopping around this place. You made more post than me.

 

[hrc969]

The guy with the long hair? Does he life alone, because he seems really sad.

Well, I think he's one of the best professors I have had. That's the hardest undergrad class I have had. Many people are scared to take him but for anyone who wants to learn a subject well, that's the guy you want to take the class from. Incidentally he had no complaints about the book. Some people complain about introducing the idea of a riemann surface but he liked that topic. Maybe the problem with that book is that its more suited for grad students than undergrads. When I took 246A (gradute complex analysis) the TA said that it was a good book for grad students and probably should not be used for undergrad. The problem is that a lot undergrads don't want to work hard enough to understand something. They want a book which tell them how to do every problem. They don't want to spend time struggling to learn. I think the struggle is a good thing. I don't know if I should say its necessary although I would be inclined to think so. One of my professors recommended that we look at "old" book. Books about a subject that where written before it was completely developed because that way we can see the struggle and be able to understand the subject at a deeper level.

I don't understand the material without attending the lecture.

That's fine. I always go to lecture, it helps for understanding but it is not absolutely neccessary. Learning from a book is possible you just have to find a book you like (or several) and commit time to learning the subject.

At one time, i had to read it for 6 hours just getting thr the section.

That's fine. Spending a lot of time on a certain topic, struggling through it helps you learn better than rushing through it.
I spent since winter 06 to the end of summer 06 (so around 9 months) reading the first chapter of several books on manifold theory. It took all of the winter quarter to get through the first few pages and I still did not get it to where I was satisfied. I would pick up one book and not be able to get thorugh the first few pages satisfactorily and pick up another one and another one. I spent much more that 6 measly hours trying to understand it.
When I took Manifold Theory (225A) last fall (fall 06), some of the undergrad students used to think it was really hard and wondered why I did not find it as hard. The answer is what I just told you. I struggled with it for a really long time, when I went to lecture everything he said I had seen and it made a lot more sense to me than to some of the other undergrads who also went to lecture but had not seen the material before.

The style of the book is utter unacceptable.

What kind of style do you prefer?

I guess we are back to step. You say there are many good books. I say there is not enough time. you say "you can make time if you want to learn".

Yes and I stand by what I say.

What do you call the one at boelters(floor 8)? Next time you go there, take a pencil. The name is marked on the pencil to remind people where they are.

http://www2.library.ucla.edu/libraries/533.cfm"
That's the list of libraries at UCLA. The one you are thinking of is the Science and Engineering Library(SEL). The one in boelter is the Engineering and Mathematical Sciences Collection part of the Science and Engineering Library.

I guess you are not too incorrect in calling it that although that is not the proper name.

Are you persian? Perhaps you are jewish? I ask because i am curious. i want to know who i am talking to especially someone that might be a class room away from me.

I know a pretty good persian student whose been a classmate of mine for three years now. But no. Why isn't hispanic or latino an option? I don't know what to think of your ommision of that as an option. It would have just been better to ask what my race is rather than making attempts to guess based on (who knows what). But anyways, I am mexican.

What I am really curious about is knowing why you named the races that you did in that order.

Oh and just to add to the recommendation of books for 131A, one of my favorite analysis books (probably my favorite) is Basic Analysis by Anthony W. Knapp. I always go to that book first if I need to recall anything from analysis.

 

[las3rjock]

frankly my study habits is none of your ****ing concern.

As thus we have reached the heart of the matter. Ultimately you are responsible for your own learning, but you seem unwilling or unable to put in the time or find the resources required to understand the material, and apparently you are trying to shift the blame from yourself to the textbooks. Evidently you couldn't even be bothered to read the 7-page essay that I linked, because you seem to be waving around as evidence that textbooks suck, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The main point of the essay is that lectures and textbooks each have distinct and valuable roles in education. Korner points out that textbooks tend to be more complete, more reliable, and have better explanations than lectures (on page 2, he writes that "everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks"), but lectures have value both as a guide to reading a textbook, and as an opportunity to watch an expert at work. But not matter what, learning requires that you put in the necessary work. If it takes 6 hours to understand a portion of a textbook, it doesn't necessarily mean that the textbook is badly written--it just means that it required 6 hours for you to grasp or internalize that particular concept. Reading a textbook is different than reading a novel. As you read a textbook, you should be making mental or written notes of key concepts, thinking of examples/counterexamples that demonstrate concepts, filling in the omitted steps of proofs and derivations, and/or solving simple problems to get practice using the concepts. Clearly that is quite a bit of work, but if you are unwilling to put in the amount of work necessary for you to learn the material, then you are wasting everyone's time, especially your own.

 

[light_bulb]

just wondering, for ONE subject do most of you use just one book or refer to multiple books?

it would seem to me that most of the time i find something one book has omitted in another book, vice versa.

 

[Locrian]

Hmm, my opinion on my textbooks has been pretty mixed so far:

Goldstein, Classical Mechanics: Awful. Firstly, the text is filled to the brim with errors. The second edition has a huge number of errors in it. I've talked to people - professors, no less! - who sent them lists of errors about the second edition only to see the errors appear in the third. The third edition copy I have is on it's 10th printing and is still full of them! I believe the newest printing might be a bit better, but there is just no excuse. I can count at least twice I had to take time after school to sit down with my prof on a subject I didn't understand, only to find that the book was hopelessly incorrect, and that was the source of my problem. The quality of the book is fair at best under perfect circumstances - given its mixed history, I'm angry it is still used.

Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics - I love Jackson. I don't think most students do, but everyone can agree it is encompassing, accurate and, while there are a couple of mistakes here and there, most of it is clean as a whistle. I've learned huge amounts from it, and appreciate the level of difficulty of the problems.

Kittel, Solid State - If Jackson is the encyclopedia of E&M, Kittel is the cliff notes of Solid State. It really isn't a bad text, but every topic feels skeletal. More importantly, the discussion in the book is minimal, and examples often lacking (at least Goldstein had lots of those). Even my prof has mixed feelings about it, but said it was the best introductory book out there. I have checked out four other SS books from the library, and so far I agree with him. That's worth something, I suppose. . .

Cohen-Tannoudji, QM - This would be a great text if only it weren't organized so oddly! It is broken into chapters and compliments, and often the compliments take up more space than the chapter itself. The exercises are buried in one of the compliments, and just getting around in the book can be a huge pain. The content itself though, I find very useful.

I guess those are the common books I've run into so far.

 

[kant]

Well, I think he's one of the best professors I have had. That's the hardest undergrad class I have had. Many people are scared to take him but for anyone who wants to learn a subject well, that's the guy you want to take the class from. Incidentally he had no complaints about the book. Some people complain about introducing the idea of a riemann surface but he liked that topic. Maybe the problem with that book is that its more suited for grad students than undergrads. When I took 246A (gradute complex analysis) the TA said that it was a good book for grad students and probably should not be used for undergrad. The problem is that a lot undergrads don't want to work hard enough to understand something. They want a book which tell them how to do every problem. They don't want to spend time struggling to learn. I think the struggle is a good thing. I don't know if I should say its necessary although I would be inclined to think so. One of my professors recommended that we look at "old" book. Books about a subject that where written before it was completely developed because that way we can see the struggle and be able to understand the subject at a deeper level.

The hardest thing for me to accept is the notion that mathematics is equivalent to reading hard classical text. Scientific, and mathematical Ideas should be express in the simpliest manner, because ultimately math, or physics is to it s core simply, but the devil is on the application side. People in the science should be taught to learn from main points and derive the unnecessary details. Too much reading distract the whole purpose of solving problems( which is the main point). If you are into reading hard text, then go be a historian, or english major.

I know a pretty good persian student whose been a classmate of mine for three years now. But no. Why isn't hispanic or latino an option?

Do not make me a bad guy. It is just a educated guess. On average, there are not many mexican or blacks in the math and engineering library.

I don't know what to think of your ommision of that as an option. It would have just been better to ask what my race is rather than making attempts to guess based on (who knows what). But anyways, I am mexican.

I am sorry if i offend you.

What I am really curious about is knowing why you named the races that you did in that order.

i only list by the race i usually see.

 

[kant]

As thus we have reached the heart of the matter. Ultimately you are responsible for your own learning, but you seem unwilling or unable to put in the time or find the resources required to understand the material, and apparently you are trying to shift the blame from yourself to the textbooks. Evidently you couldn't even be bothered to read the 7-page essay that I linked, because you seem to be waving around as evidence that textbooks suck, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The main point of the essay is that lectures and textbooks each have distinct and valuable roles in education. Korner points out that textbooks tend to be more complete, more reliable, and have better explanations than lectures (on page 2, he writes that "everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks"), but lectures have value both as a guide to reading a textbook, and as an opportunity to watch an expert at work. But not matter what, learning requires that you put in the necessary work. If it takes 6 hours to understand a portion of a textbook, it doesn't necessarily mean that the textbook is badly written--it just means that it required 6 hours for you to grasp or internalize that particular concept. Reading a textbook is different than reading a novel. As you read a textbook, you should be making mental or written notes of key concepts, thinking of examples/counterexamples that demonstrate concepts, filling in the omitted steps of proofs and derivations, and/or solving simple problems to get practice using the concepts. Clearly that is quite a bit of work, but if you are unwilling to put in the amount of work necessary for you to learn the material, then you are wasting everyone's time, especially your own.

Like i said to the other guy. I do not belief the matheamtician and physicist are in the business of reading hard text. There is a common notion that the harder the text, the more complicated is the idea. It is simply not true. If anything ideas in math, and science are simply, but it is only in the application side of those ideas that is hard. Textbook should teach student to think about things from main point( first principle), and derive the unncessary( general equations) from sketch. Instead, the textbook are usually in the habit of giving the reader a million piece of little facts with no unifing principle. That is why the plus side to lecture over reading the text is see how mathematics "grow". What it really means is to see how stuff are derived from first principle.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I do not believe the mathematician and physicist are in the business of reading hard text.

Man, the pearls of wisdom just keep coming in this thread...

 

[mathwonk]

a reasonable thread topic would be "what are some good books?" a whining negative one is this one.

whetehr or not it resonates with other negative types is unrelated to whetehr it serves a purpose. this is not a chat room for losers.

 

[kant]

Man, the pearls of wisdom just keep coming in this thread...

Your off point remark are not pearls of wisdom. At least i have a point, and i am asserting it.

 

[kant]

a reasonable thread topic would be "what are some good books?" a whining negative one is this one.

whetehr or not it resonates with other negative types is unrelated to whetehr it serves a purpose. this is not a chat room for losers.

Do you own this forum? What did i do? I made a thread, and express an opinion. People reply, and i reply back. You either agree with my view, or you don t. I see a lot stupid opinions in discussion forums, and even if i disagree with most, i don t cry about like you, because i have the common courtesy to let people say what they want. If you don t like it, then go away?

 

[jostpuur]

According to my conspiracy theory, top phycisists put bad mathematics, incorrect proofs, and confusing explanations to the books on purpose, in attempt to keep researchers of smaller universities sufficently weak, and to keep them from threatening the positions of top researchers.

(Note: I'm not necessarely serious on this.)

 

[kant]

It is not a conspiracy that math books are in general badly written. I don t think this is murder. I think most of the reply so far are utterly rediculous. I am not saying all textbooks are bad, but in general, they are. if you don t believe me, then go ask around in your university.

 

[Sojourner01]

Locrian, I'm interested in your opinion of Kittel since there's a (library) copy on my desk. I would have said that - to my eyes - the book is pretty downright detailed. There's a lot of maths in it that looks obscene, but perhaps that is because - as you noted - the discussion is limited. The problems are functional, but importantly - there are no answers! How are you supposed to know if you got them right?

A very (very) similar book is Solid State Physics by Hook and Hall. The preface is by Hook, who wrote the first edition many moons ago and felt his own pedagogical skills inadequate for the rewrite, so handed it over to Mr. Hall. The result is a very similar book to Kittel's in both layout and content - even mirroring many of the problems - but a little more reader-friendly - and with answers!

The final one is The Physics and Chemistry of Solids by Elliott, which appears somewhat more basic still, and contains a fair chunk of statistical mechanics as well as the crystallography, electron modelling and so on of the previous two. I haven't read this one thoroughly but it seems like a solid introductory text.

 

[leon1127]

If the one that you are using is bad. Get a better one. It would be a better to discuss what are the good/bad Maths/Phys books. Create a list to inform people what to get. Discussing WHY they are bad wouldn't help student to improve in any way I think. Your topic should be appropriate only for "money-seeking lower level author" who is controlled by "bloody sucking" publisher I have spent a lot of money on Maths books in order to build myself a strong foundation. I do agree what Mathwonk said. I really think his experience in Maths and Physics can support this statement.

PS: I earn that money by working my butt off. I do not have a sugar daddy.

 

[hrc969]

The hardest thing for me to accept is the notion that mathematics is equivalent to reading hard classical text.

No one said that its equivalent. However SOMETIMES it is NECESSARY to read a hard text to learn what we want to learn.

Scientific, and mathematical Ideas should be express in the simpliest manner,

But sometimes mathematical ideas are not simple. Sometimes they are complicated and really hard to get across.

because ultimately math, or physics is to it s core simply, but the devil is on the application side.

I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say here. Can you explain it more clearly.

This just seems like its your opinion.

People in the science should be taught to learn from main points and derive the unnecessary details. Who are you to say what unnecessary details are. One of my professors just commented(2 days ago) on one time that there was something that he was supposed to learn in grad school and was asked about it on his qual. He did not understand why he needed it (he thought it was unnecessary). It was only YEARS later that he saw it come up and understood that it was not unnecessary.
Instead of classifying things as unnecessary you should try to figure out why something that is done in class is necessary. For example, Gamelin introduces Riemann Surfaces very early on in his Complex Analysis book (did you think that was an unnecessary detail?) Some of my classmates did. But its not unnecessary for everyone. Sure some people were just trying to get a math degree with no intention on studying any pure math beyond the BS level. But for someone like me it was interesting and good to see it that early in my education.

Too much reading distract the whole purpose of solving problems( which is the main point).

Well I don't know about you but I cannot usually solve problems without reading first. Sometimes I have to read a lot before I can solve any problems.

Also I don't know if you've heard of the professor named Elman. I guess he's one of the more demanding professors (a bit more generous than Mess though and more sense of humor, etc). His philosophy is (and I think many of us would somewhat agree) that the purpose of doing problems is to learn mathematics.

In fact he gives take home midterms with very difficult problems with the sole purpose of making most of us "GO READ BOOKS AND LEARNING SOME MATHEMATICS". The point is they are hard problems, they can be found in books so we are supposed to go find books with those problems and read them and understand the material.

If you have a chance you should go talk to him he's usually in his office from 3pm -7pm.

Once some of my classmates were sort of complaining about me having around 160 books from the library while they had from 0 to around 30. One said something like "why would you need so many books", Elman's answer was simply "Oh, you NEED books".

If you are into reading hard text, then go be a historian, or english major.

If you want people to stop making statements such as the one about pearls of wisdom you have got to stop stupid statements. I have never had a professor who told me that reading books sucks or that there are too many that are bad. Maybe they think that there are some bad books, maybe they think that there are a lot of bad books. What they focus on is telling us what books are good. I think this is why mathwonk (also a mathematics professor at a university) has suggested that a better thread would be to ask what some good books are. That way we could tell you that instead. You keep complaining and whining about books being hard or bad without any justification other than "some of my professors agree".

We were discussing a book and you just stopped. WHERE DID THE DISCUSSION ABOUT GAMELIN'S BOOK GO. You think that book sucks I disagree. If you want to prove your point please do so. Otherwise you should leave and stop wasting our time. I'm glad to help you and I hope I can convince you to stop what you are doing. I really suggest you go talk to Elman about the role of book in mathematics education (he's office is right outside the men's restroom in the 5th floor of the Math Sciences building.

Do not make me a bad guy.

I tried really hard not to make you a bad guy. I could have just assumed that you were guessing for this reason but I did not instead I asked you why you guessed. Its not my fault you are so naive.

It is just a educated guess.

No its not an educated guess. Its stupid to try to guess. Knowing nothing about who you are talking about except that he goes to UCLA doesn't mean you guess he's white or asian. You said one of my statements was naive but if you asked me your guessing my race was naive.

On average, there are not many mexican or blacks in the math and engineering library.

Can you even tell a person's race by looking at them? Actually even if you saw me you might not recognize me as mexican because according to a lot of people I look armenian.

I am sorry if i offend you.

Don't worry about it. I just wanted to know if this was the reason for your guesses (I thought it was). Since it is I just want to say to STOP being so stupid and naive. You can't guess a person's race by what school he goes to unless you know there is only one type of race there.

i only list by the race i usually see.

Again you probably wouln't recognize me if you saw me and probably not even see me since I go to the library very early and there is usually 0 other people there or at most 10 at that time.

Again if you want to know a person's race just ask "Oh, just curious, what's your race" or something along those lines. That would help to not make you look stupid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I would really like to continue the discussion about Gamelin's book. You want to say that books used in classes are bad this is the perfect opportunity for you to make your point.

Rather than saying that the style was unacceptable, say what you thought the style was and why you think its unacceptable. You should say what kind of style you prefer and maybe we can point you at a book with a style that suits you.

 

[hrc969]

Your off point remark are not pearls of wisdom. At least i have a point, and i am asserting it.

Yes you keep making your assertions without any real backing up. So instead of asserting your point, back it up. Again I invite you to continue the discussion on Gamelin's books. This gives us a concrete example we can focus on.

 

[hrc969]

It is not a conspiracy that math books are in general badly written. I don t think this is murder. I think most of the reply so far are utterly rediculous. I am not saying all textbooks are bad, but in general, they are. if you don t believe me, then go ask around in your university.

You go ask people who know. Go ask people who are full professors you are much more likely to to get a good answer from them. Again, I suggest you go talk to Elman about the role of textbooks in mathematics education.

And if book generally are bad, then who cares! (Although I certainly have not noticed this if it is true what I focus on is finding some I like so I can study from them) As long as there are good books you can find then it does not matter. You should focus on finding good books. More specifically you should find books that are good for YOU. I have liked a lot of books that are generally not liked.

One of my favorite books on Several Complex Variables has not all but disappeared from the face of the planet. I can find it at a few libraries and actually found it while browsing the stacks at boelter (Oh this reminds me, next time you enter that library look up just as you are entering: it say in huge letters SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING LIBRARY; and not math and engineering library. Maybe you already did this). However I cannot find anyone who will sell it not amazon, not Barnes and Noble not even the publisher. My guess is that not enough people were interested in it to justify keeping it in print. What's weird is that the second volume is still in print and widely available. So my point is not everyone likes the same books the books you think suck might be someone else's favorite. If you really believe that Gamelin's book style is utterly is unacceptable please back up your opinion, why is it unacceptable? If you can't back up your opinion then don't expect anyone to believe you.

 

[matt grime]

Christ, this is a long thread about something so simple. Apologies for those whose answers I repeat cos I missed them whilst reading it.

The reason why lecturers, particularly in the US, follow textbooks so closely, is because they are frequently teaching one class of the 10 doing that subject, each class having a different teacher. You can't have each person doing their own thing.

Now, as to why so many textbooks are bad. Well, a lot might be badly written, poorly typset, waffling and in some cases just plain wrong. And those are problems, and ones that many professors find annoying.

But many textbooks are labelled 'bad' by students because they don't explain things in a lot of detail. Tough. If a book went into the kind of depth that a lecturer does then books would have to be thousands of pages long. That is unrealistic. The point of the book is to contain the relevant information in some sensible order, with minimal fuss. The lecturer should expand on the proofs as necessary, on the motivation, on the applications. All three of those things will vary from audience to audience, from day to day. Even when teaching the same course I rarely give the same class twice becuase different people find different things difficult. A book cannot take account of all those needs. Teaching is a very reactive thing.

There is a very good reason to not put notes in the library - to stop students just going to the library to get the notes. No matter how good the notes are, students are incredibly bad at understanding what you need to do with notes. It is *not* to read them and use a highlighter pen. One of the most important effects of making you go to a lecture is to make you actually listen to the material at least once, and force it through your brain when you write it down. It is *active*, whereas most students would mistake the *passive* reading of notes as working. It isn't. Mathematics is an *active* subject, and students don't realize that no matter how many times you tell them.

 

[matt grime]

Sorry, but i don t think i am lazy. We had to take a complex analysis course, and the book was written by a ucla mathematician. The book suck, and i had to attend the lectures to understand it.

good. you're supposed to have to go to lectures. a decent textbook is not one for you to self learn from. it is to back up the course. you make it sound like a bad thing that you had to do what you were supposed to and go to the lectures.

Textbooks are written fro brevity and concision. proofs will be quick. plus, you've got to remember that how you write something in a book is in the reverse order from which you discover it. this means that motivation and explanation are ferquently omitted from books. but won't be in lectures. anyway - why did it suck? because you didn't understand it? have you learned how to read a maths textbook? do you have the right expectations of it? From your comment above, the answer appears to be 'no'.

 

[WolfOfTheSteps]

I find that books written by mathematicians and physicists are generally not that bad. Even the ones students think are bad.

Engineers, on the other hand, usually can't write a book to save their lives! I have never seen books written so bad as the engineering books I've been forced to use recently. I am currently being forced to use a book on solid state engineering that is SO bad I almost can't believe it. The grammar is mangled, notation is not used consistently, (the greek letters nu and upsilon are interchanged randomly in places since they both "look like" a v) and many problems require information found many chapters later in the book. Another annoying thing is that the dot product is written as a period (yes, a '.'!) throughout the book! ("a.b") The author also drew springs by hand with a mouse and put them in as figures. (It seriously looks like she used MSPaint.)

I know that paragraph up there was whiny. But I really needed to vent. :) The "crap" that Physicists and Mathematicians put out is GOLD compared to what engineers are capable of.

There are a few exceptions, of course, like the wonderful Engineering Circuit Analysis by Hayt/Kemmerly/Durbin.

 

[leright]

I find that books written by mathematicians and physicists are generally not that bad. Even the ones students think are bad.

Engineers, on the other hand, usually can't write a book to save their lives! I have never seen books written so bad as the engineering books I've been forced to use recently. I am currently being forced to use a book on solid state engineering that is SO bad I almost can't believe it. The grammar is mangled, notation is not used consistently, (the greek letters nu and upsilon are interchanged randomly in places since they both "look like" a v) and many problems require information found many chapters later in the book. Another annoying thing is that the dot product is written as a period (yes, a '.'!) throughout the book! ("a.b") The author also drew springs by hand with a mouse and put them in as figures. (It seriously looks like she used MSPaint.)

I know that paragraph up there was whiny. But I really needed to vent. :) The "crap" that Physicists and Mathematicians put out is GOLD compared to what engineers are capable of.

There are a few exceptions, of course, like the wonderful Engineering Circuit Analysis by Hayt/Kemmerly/Durbin.

What solid state book are you using? Most solid state devices courses use Streetman, which I think is a fine textbook, but I will say a lot of the stuff in there takes a while to digest, but I think that's more because of the subject matter than the book.

 

[WolfOfTheSteps]

What solid state book are you using? Most solid state devices courses use Streetman, which I think is a fine textbook, but I will say a lot of the stuff in there takes a while to digest, but I think that's more because of the subject matter than the book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387281525/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by Razeghi. Just check out the link to see the Amazon reviews.

It's written by a professor at my school, and I think that's the only reason we use it. No teacher would objectively choose this book for a course. There is no editor listed in the front, either. By the look of it, I am sure it is unedited.

I know the subject matter is dense. I'm willing to put in the work. But when you have to do so with a book like this, it makes you feel like jumping off the nearest bridge.

This is not a solid state devices course, btw. It's an "intro to solid state" course in the EE department. (ABET classified as 90% science) So it's sort of like a watered down physics course. I noticed that almost all intro to solid state books are written by physicists, not engineers. Probably just as they should be!

 

[WolfOfTheSteps]

Oh, and I do supplement my reading with Solid state books written by physicists. I wouldn't survive otherwise. I can do the problems in the physics books too...

But the homeworks are in the class book, and it takes forever just to figure out what they are asking. BTW, if you are good with solid state, I had a question right out of the book I am talking about that I was struggling with. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169078" No one has answered yet. :)

 

[kant]

No one said that its equivalent. However SOMETIMES it is NECESSARY to read a hard text to learn what we want to learn.

i agree that it is necessary, but i think it need not be.

But sometimes mathematical ideas are not simple. Sometimes they are complicated and really hard to get across.

Maybe not.

Well I don't know about you but I cannot usually solve problems without reading first. Sometimes I have to read a lot before I can solve any problems.

What is your point? Remember, i only said, a lot of textbooks are bad.

If you want people to stop making statements such as the one about pearls of wisdom you have got to stop stupid statements. I have never had a professor who told me that reading books sucks or that there are too many that are bad.

Do you want to provoke me? I will say this again. My only comment is that most textbooks suck. I never said reading books suck, but i did say many textbooks suck. Do i think it is necessary to read textbooks? Yes. You can quote me on this point. I am not even going to reply to your other comments because it is pure garbage. You seem to make up stuff as you go.

 

[kant]

good. you're supposed to have to go to lectures. a decent textbook is not one for you to self learn from. it is to back up the course. you make it sound like a bad thing that you had to do what you were supposed to and go to the lectures.

Textbooks are written fro brevity and concision. proofs will be quick. plus, you've got to remember that how you write something in a book is in the reverse order from which you discover it. this means that motivation and explanation are ferquently omitted from books. but won't be in lectures. anyway - why did it suck? because you didn't understand it? have you learned how to read a maths textbook? do you have the right expectations of it? From your comment above, the answer appears to be 'no'.

I think the reason might be that the material in the textbook are not self contain enough so that one can self learn the stuff without the professor. perhaps that is one reason. It shouldn t be that way.

 

[matt grime]

I think the reason might be that the material in the textbook are not self contain enough so that one can self learn the stuff without the professor. perhaps that is one reason. It shouldn t be that way.

If you don't have the prerequisites for the book, then why did you buy it? If you have bought the inappropriate book for your level of knowledge that is your fault.

If you want every textbook to cover every digression and prerequisite books will be thousands of pages long, and no one would want to write one. But since you think professors have nothing better to do with their time than to write spoon-feeding books for you, you probably don't think that is a problem.

 

[hrc969]

i agree that it is necessary, but i think it need not be.

I said sometimes it is necessary.

Maybe not.

What do you mean maybe not? You just seems to be trying to disagree here. It seems that you are not only willing to be wrong but also actively trying to be wrong.

What is your point? Remember, i only said, a lot of textbooks are bad.

What does what you said about textbooks have to do with anything. You said reading distracts from solving problems. My point is: How do you expect to solve non-trivial problems without reading or with very little reading?

Do you want to provoke me?

I want you to back up your statement or shut up.

My only comment is that most textbooks suck.

Is that is? How do you get informations on MOST textbooks?

I never said reading books suck, but i did say many textbooks suck.

No you only said that if I wanted to read hard texts I should be an english major.

Do i think it is necessary to read textbooks? Yes.

Except you don't want to put in the time necessary to read textbooks right?

I am not even going to reply to your other comments because it is pure garbage. You seem to make up stuff as you go.

I have made nothing up.
I talk to Elman a lot and the thing about how many books I have you could easily verify by asking my classmates (if you knew who they were) and we have talked about it in Elman's office hours. You could ask Elman if he knows anyone with that many books. But that's really besides the point and I don't really care if you believe me. I'm just trying to help you here. If you are so convinced that most of the books that are used in your classes are bad then you won't learn as much as you can from them. If I can get you to change your mind and get you to start looking for good things about a book or look for what you can learn from it rather than looking at it and saying it is bad then you'll get much more out of your UCLA mathematics education. I used to despise the idea of going to UCLA (back when I was in 9th grade, I don't even remember why anymore) But now that I have experience the mathematics education here, I think this was the best place for me to come. There are a lot of great professor here who can help you learn but it does come at the price of putting in time. It really isn't all that bad.
If you would put your focus on learning rather than whining than you'd have a much better experience.

Anyways, I don't care if you do this or not, I am just suggesting it for your own good and only you can decide whether you want to do it or not:
Go talk to Elman (office is at MS 5328) and ask him about books about mathematics education especially at the upper division level.

Again I would really like to have a discussion on Gamelin's book. I know that book really well, I used it when I took the class from Mess and when I took one from Gamelin.

Also I think Matt Grime made a very good point. If you want to get the most out of a book then you should have all the required prerequisites. Also sometimes there are things that are not prerequisites but do enhance your ability to understand a certain subject. For example, you took Complex Analysis (132) before Real Anlysis (131AB). Now you don't absolutely need Real Analysis to do Complex Analysis but it does make it easier to understand chapter 2 of Gamelin's book you are confortable with the ideas reviewed in the first section of that chapter.

Oh and just as an interesting (at least to me it is interesting) one of the classic textbooks in Complex Anlysis is one by Lars Ahlfors. Now this is not one of my favorite texts. I don't think its bad but it is not one of the first ones I look at when I want to find something. Its probably the 15th or something. The reason I did not find this book enjoyable is because in my eyes it wastes way too much time developing prerequisites that I already know. Trying to read past that it may refer to specific things from the chapters on "prerequisites". I found it really annoying to go back and try to figure out what he was talking about. Now if I did not have access to other books with a different format then I would not cast this book aside as one of my least favorite. I do understand that its a book that was written many years ago and maybe students would not have take things such as topology before taking complex analysis (maybe I don't really know) but for the same reason I rather read a book written with people like me in mind. But given that there are books that jump straight into complex analysis assuming that you've had the required prerequisites I prefer those. Some people that have taken 132 and look at the book used for the graduate course (246A) that a large part of Gamelin's beginning is skipped. Some people like that (such as me) some people don't. Fortunately there are books for many kinds of people.

I will also add that when I took 132 from Mess I was really happy that Gamelin had the beginning of his book as he did. I had not taken real analysis either. I was taking it at the same time and sometimes I saw the same idea in the same day in different contexts and I thought that was pretty cool. But it did mean that I had to work a lot harder then some of my classmates. Not only did I have Mess but I was in the first quarter of my second year with some people in there (seniors and a grad student) being very familiar with real analysis. But now that I am past that stage Gamelin's book would not be my book of choice. Again different books are good for different people.

I am just trying to share my experience at UCLA with you (a fellow Bruin) in hope that you might get something better than what you seem to be on the path to getting out of it right now.

Also if you need help planning out your future schedule I can help you with that. I can help you with the order in which you should take classes to get more out of them.

EDIT:A little more about my experience with prerequisites:
One of the reasons that I struggled with manifolds for so long was that I did not have certain prerequisites. For examples, a lot of books' first(or near first) sentence (in the first chapter) starts "Let X be a Hausdorff topological space...". Now I started reading about manifolds in winter 06 and did not take topology until spring 06. So just in trying to read the first sentance of some of these books I was already stuck. I had to check out some topology books and read those for a while and then continue. There are some books which have an appendix on topology but as if almost always stated (by the author) they cannot replace a book on topology. The point is having the adequate prerequisites is very important in trying to read books. I could have very well come on PF and complained that the books I was looking at were bad because they just said that X was a Hausdorff topological space without telling me what it meant to be a topological space or what it meant for it to be Hausdorff. However instead I used my time to go look at some other books which definitely told me what those meant.
I would also like to point out that if you look at UCLA general catalog and go to the Mathematics section it does not say that topology(121) is a prerequisite for manifolds theory (225A) and it really isn't you can learn what you need while taking the class but just as 131A was not a prerequisite for 132, you spend less time struggling through things that some of your classmantes will already have seen if you have taken (or studied) it before.

 

[mathwonk]

hrc, actually your edition of ahlfors was written more recently, when they decided to stick topology in as a preparation topic. if you go back to the first edition you will not find that section cluttering up the beginning.

this illustrates unfortunately the posters point, math books get worse every time they are reissued. so the ones with the most editions, like thomas calculus, are the absolute worst.

 

[hrc969]

hrc, actually your edition of ahlfors was written more recently, when they decided to stick topology in as a preparation topic. if you go back to the first edition you will not find that section cluttering up the beginning.

Yeah, I have the third edition. But its still pretty old (1979). At least compared to my favorite Complex Analysis book (also in its third edition): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0821839624/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

this illustrates unfortunately the posters point, math books get worse every time they are reissued.

Well this is not always true. Krantz book on Several Complex Variables got a lot better for the second edition (it was pretty much impossible for it to get worse, he wrote the first edition (shortly) after failing to get tenure at UCLA so I guess he wasn't in the best of conditions). Also Grenne and Krantz's book is better than in the first edition. (Partly due to Boas I guess)

But maybe if they put out more editions they start getting worse every edition)

so the ones with the most editions, like thomas calculus, are the absolute worst.

I thought everyone loved Thomas Calculus! Although a lot of professor do say to get and older edition and not the newest. In particular they say to get a Thomas Calculus rather than a Thomas and Finney.

 

[mathwonk]

I think this thread may benefit from the advice of a better master than me.

"Whenever we are tempted to complain that our search after the truth that we desire so much is proving vain, - instead of so complaining, our first duty is to look into our souls and find whether the craving in the heart is real. Then in the vast majority of cases, it will be discovered that we were not fit to receive the truth.

There are still greater dangers in regard to the transmitter, the guru. There are many who, though immersed in ignorance, yet in the pride of their hearts, fancy they know everything and not only do not stop there, but offer to take others on their shoulders; and thus the blind leading the blind, both fall into the ditch.

To convey such an impulse to any soul, in the first place the soul from which it proceeds must possesses the power of transmitting it,as it were to another; and in the second place, the soul to which it is transmitted must be fit to receive it. The seed must be a living seed, and the field must be ready ploughed. and when both these conditions are fulfilled a wonderful growth ...takes place." Vivekananda.