Why do I find engineering math textbooks much more understandable?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the perceived differences in understandability between engineering mathematics textbooks and more traditional mathematical methods textbooks. Participants explore the implications of these differences for students, particularly those not majoring in mathematics, and consider the balance between rigor and intuition in learning mathematics relevant to science and engineering fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants find engineering textbooks, such as "Advanced Engineering Mathematics," to be more understandable than traditional mathematical methods books like Arfken & Weber, which they perceive as overly verbose.
  • There is a sentiment that traditional texts may not adequately explain concepts, leading some to believe that problem-solving is the only effective way to learn from them.
  • Different styles and content in textbooks appeal to different individuals, suggesting that personal preference plays a significant role in learning effectiveness.
  • Some participants argue that engineering books may lack mathematical rigor, which could contribute to their easier comprehension, while others believe that too much rigor can obscure intuitive understanding.
  • A suggestion is made that a combination of both rigorous and non-rigorous texts may provide a more comprehensive understanding of mathematical concepts.
  • There is a discussion about the potential confusion that can arise from non-rigorous approaches, indicating that a balance between the two styles may be beneficial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions regarding the effectiveness of different textbook styles, with no clear consensus on which approach is superior. Some agree on the challenges posed by traditional texts, while others defend their rigor.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the effectiveness of a textbook may depend on individual learning styles and the specific context in which the material is being studied. There is also mention of the potential for confusion when relying solely on non-rigorous texts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students in physics and engineering fields, educators considering textbook selections, and individuals exploring different approaches to learning mathematics.

zergju
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
In many of the topics in math i have learned so far, i just found that engin textbooks such as <advanced engin math> are much more understandable and yet covering similar depth of contents than mathematic methods book such as aftken&weber which my teacher choose as reference book for e course.
I think the latter is of so much worthless words that only makes the topic harder but not its usability.. Any way why learn anything that's not useful if I'm not a math major?

Does that mean I'm not suitable for science studies such as the physics major I'm taking now?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have that too. Interesting question.
 
You think arfken and webber is overly verbose?

They hardly explain anything. The only way to learn from that book is to do problems IMO.
 
Different books [styles, content, motivations, etc... ] appeal to different people [possibly, at different times in their lives]. So it depends on what you are after. Some would regard all of these "engineering math" and "math methods" books as "cookbooks" mainly useful for looking things up. For an "end-user", they might be sufficient... but for real understanding, one needs to go beyond these types of books.
 
Norman said:
You think arfken and webber is overly verbose?

They hardly explain anything. The only way to learn from that book is to do problems IMO.


yrp, i think a&w is merely a summary style text.. i can hardly learn anything from it no matter how hard i tried.. i am beginning to regret buying it..

anyway i think boas did a better job in explaining.. but boas spent too much words of explaining while simple words can do the same..

i kind liked wiley.. anybody read that book before? i think its the most engin style book i have read.. liked it very much..
 
Echoing what robphy said, Engineering books lack proper mathematical rigor ={ Which may be why they are easier to understand sometimes, because too much rigor can cloud intuition. I've seen many times when a simple relation that can be shown easily by some algebraic manipulation, has to go through a long induction proof to prove formally. To get the best of both worlds, cross reference both books, bringing understanding to rigor is the best thing a student can have.
 
I think non-rigorous approach is good for developing intuition, but sometimes it just confuses people. May be the best is to read non-rigorous text until the point you feel confused and then read rigorous text to clarify things. It is like difference between proofs in physics and proofs in math.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K