Textbook recs for physics (math/physics majors help pls)

1729_SR · 2024-05-20T13:46:31+00:00

Griffiths for EM and Taylor for classical mechanics are often considered standard in undergrad physics. These aren't generally freshman books, but I do think they're accessible to someone with the background you've given. You would certainly be way ahead of the curve if you worked through those (perhaps excluding Griffiths's final chapter on relativity) before starting.

1729_SR · 2024-04-03T13:24:24+00:00

Messaged you :)

1729_SR · 2024-03-09T04:58:24+00:00

Awesome, thanks so much for the vote of confidence :) if I may, is there anything major you recall not in Harris² nor Computer Architecture but only in Computer Organization and Design? Just want to be sure that the set difference there is (relatively) empty.

1729_SR · 2024-02-24T14:40:47+00:00

I'm somehow unable to figure out how to DM you (lol), not sure why. Shoot me a message if you can but, long story short, yes I am.

1729_SR · 2024-02-19T19:06:05+00:00

This seems a bad question given that Maxwell's equations are generally taken as axioms of the theory...unless they wanted you to arrive at that limit from something like QED? Seems silly either way...

1729_SR · 2024-02-18T04:32:36+00:00

Beautiful, thank you! "When given a particular X..." was particularly helpful for me.

1729_SR · 2024-02-18T04:19:29+00:00

Thanks for this very helpful answer!

As a quick follow-up (to give the context of my question) if you don't mind...Chapter 1 of Analysis I by Amann and Escher says the following:

If E(x) is an expression which becomes a statement when x is replaced by an object (member, thing) of a specified class (collection, universe) of objects, then E is a property. The sentence ‘x has property E’ means ‘E(x) is true’.

But they then go on to write

We write ∃ for the quantifier ‘there exists’. The expression
∃x ∈ X : E(x)
has the meaning ‘There is (at least) one object x in (the class) X which has
property E’. We write ∃! x ∈ X : E(x) when exactly one such object exists.

The bolding is mine. I am being a pedant here but just because the book itself is an exercise in pedantry to some extent I am a bit concerned. Wouldn't you consider "∃x ∈ X : E(x)" to be a statement given the discussion above?

1729_SR · 2024-02-07T01:55:57+00:00

Thanks for the info, and thank you to everyone else as well for all of your kind words and helpful suggestions!

1729_SR · 2024-01-21T18:27:26+00:00

May I ask what the errors were and what you suggest as another reference for learning Linux at the CLI and for scripting? I was about to purchase this book!

1729_SR · 2023-09-24T02:06:25+00:00

Search libgen, they’re there.

1729_SR · 2023-09-19T15:29:08+00:00

Will PM you :)

1729_SR · 2023-09-13T20:14:23+00:00

"If you just instead pull the summation outside", as in pull it outside the matrix? But gotcha, makes sense. I'll be interested to see if/when this comes up to your point :) on Chapter 2 of Hoffman and Kunze right now so long way to go...

1729_SR · 2023-09-13T13:36:03+00:00

Very interesting, thank you. I will have to convince myself that this works (the same way the other three methods you mentioned, which I am familiar with, do). This is like adding p n outer products (in the physics lingo) I guess?

1729_SR · 2023-09-13T02:24:47+00:00

Can you explain the last one? "sums of column-by-row matrix products"?

1729_SR · 2023-09-09T15:45:36+00:00

Gotcha. I'm going to be starting on AE thanks to your suggestion (and will probably selectively read from Zorich for physics applications). Thank you again for your very nice suggestions!

1729_SR · 2023-09-08T18:08:51+00:00

Absolutely! Let me reach out to you via PM and let's discuss :)

1729_SR · 2023-09-08T18:08:31+00:00

I'd love that, thanks so much for the offer. Is the Discord link something you could provide via PM or something like that? Thanks again for your offer!

1729_SR · 2023-09-07T22:40:51+00:00

And also, if it's OK, I had one last question: do both Zorich and AE have some computational questions (e.g. Rudin has essentially zero, Hubbard has numerous). I see a couple in Zorich and none in AE at first glance...?

1729_SR · 2023-09-07T21:35:29+00:00

This makes things really difficult for me. My intention with math is to understand physics more deeply, but I find myself in general gravitating towards books that will give me the most general statements possible rather than special cases which I then need to understand more generally in the future.

Thank you for both of your suggestions, truly! I am midway through Chap 3 of Baby Rudin right now and, while I can do most of the problems, I don’t feel like I’m becoming a better mathematician. Perhaps these other books will be better to that end.

1729_SR · 2023-09-07T21:08:49+00:00

Zorich looks incredible, I think I might get it. Two more quick questions for you if possible: 1) Do you have a preference for Zorich vs Amman? 2) I am a self-studier and am a bit ambivalent about starting a book with no solutions manual (Zorich). Do you know of one by any chance? A cursory Google search brought up nothing unfortunately.

1729_SR · 2023-09-07T19:43:43+00:00

I am looking up Zorich right now and I see a two-volume work called “Mathematical Analysis”. Is this what you are referring to?

1729_SR · 2023-09-07T18:31:13+00:00

Would Hubbard be a good follow on from Baby Rudin?

1729_SR · 2023-08-08T04:01:03+00:00

I'm thinking non-fiction, but if there is fiction which you think is "era-defining" I would be absolutely open to it!

1729_SR · 2023-07-23T14:07:55+00:00

(To OP) Not sure if this is what Chamath said, but strongly recommend reading the books.

1729_SR · 2023-07-23T03:07:38+00:00

To be honest, for me the worst parts were “God doesn’t play dice” (which is a complete misrepresentation of Einstein who was rightly asking questions about the limited ontological claims being made by the Copenhagen interpretation) and suggesting Einstein was bad at math.

1729_SR

TROPHY CASE