Will this calculus book 'clear' me for mechanics textbooks?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether a specific calculus textbook, "Calculus Early Transcendentals" by Stewart, will adequately prepare a participant for studying mechanics, particularly Taylor's Classical Mechanics. The scope includes the relationship between calculus knowledge and understanding of physics concepts, as well as recommendations for appropriate mechanics textbooks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses concern about their calculus knowledge being insufficient for studying physics and lists their current mathematical background.
  • The same participant details the topics covered in Stewart's calculus textbook and questions whether this knowledge will enable them to focus on physics when studying mechanics.
  • Another participant suggests that Taylor's Classical Mechanics is an upper division book and recommends starting with a lower division mechanics book like Kleppner.
  • A further reply clarifies the distinction between lower and upper division mechanics, indicating that lower division focuses on Newtonian mechanics, while upper division includes Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the calculus textbook will sufficiently prepare the original poster for mechanics, as there are differing opinions on the appropriate level of mechanics textbooks to pursue.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the relevance of calculus topics to physics and the varying levels of mechanics textbooks, which may depend on the participant's prior knowledge and learning goals.

Heatherfield
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Hey,

I'm one of those people who's been trying to learn Physics for ages before finishing high school (writing it down like this really makes me sound like some hopeless nerd with nothing better to do..) but never got around to doing it because my calculus knowledge sucks so much. :-)

My knowledge of relevant topics is:
- high school algebra
- high school trig
- high school physics (that being mechanics and some SR all in one dimension)

To me, it seemed like the thing I lacked the most was a solid background in Calculus: our textbooks only cover the processes of differentiation and integration in very little detail. Thus, I started working myself through the seventh edition of Calculus Early Transcendentals by Stewart about a month ago. This textbook covers:
- Limits and Riemann sums
- Differentiation, integration and their applications in Maths
- Integration strategies
- Differential equations
- Polar coordinate systems
- Infinite series, including Taylor series
- Vectors and vector functions
- Partial derivatives and vector calculus

Combining these topics with my high school knowledge, will I be competent enough to get through a book such as Taylor's Classical Mechanics while being able to focus on the Physics instead of feeling mathematically incompetent? *also, if any of the topics above (the ones from the book) are useless to my pursuits, please tell. I'm pretty sure they're all essential (and interesting in their own way) but I'd rather get to the physics as soon as possible*

Kind regards
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If I'm not mistaken, Taylor's classical mechanics is an upper division book. You should go through a lower division mechanics book like Kleppner first (which is not necessarily easier than Tayloer).
 
Thanks for the tip! Could you clarify 'division' just in case though?
 
Heatherfield said:
Thanks for the tip! Could you clarify 'division' just in case though?
Lower division mechanics is mostly Newtonian mechanics (Which Kleppner is meant for), while upper division mechanics is Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. Don't worry about what Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics is right now; just focus on Newtonian mechanics and calculus.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
20K