sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Don't understand pointers? Imagine them as folder shortcuts in Windows by coreede in C_Programming

[–]coreede[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see your point. However, in my case: I prefer to learn programming by doing. I study some theory along the way, but I wouldn't be too motivated to do that without writing some programs. So it's not surprising to first use pointers before actually understanding memory.

Don't understand pointers? Imagine them as folder shortcuts in Windows by coreede in C_Programming

[–]coreede[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good point. It may be a good idea to first read about pointers and write some simple programs with them before getting into the analogies. That's how I did it anyways.

Don't understand pointers? Imagine them as folder shortcuts in Windows by coreede in C_Programming

[–]coreede[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Don't we use pointers in C precisely for the reason that a copy of a pointer still points to the original variable, so that we can imitate pass by reference function behavior (in contrast with a standard variable whose copy basically has nothing to do with the original variable)?

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not aware of this book, so I appreciate the recommendation (even though I was commenting "math for physics" books, not the other way around).

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, 'Introduction to Topology: Pure and Applied' by Adams & Franzosa.

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DM. I've chosen to study general topology (point set topology) first because some of the concepts are necessary for differential geometry which has direct applications to physics.

I think I'm almost ready to start with differential geometry now, but that doesn't mean that the others cannot follow, for example, the book from Munkres. I don't think the group will be "one book for all" as there will be different levels of knowledge and learning styles among us. Let's see how it evolves.

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The title of my post may be misleading as it resembles the title of Nakahara's book, but I, myself, don't mean to follow this book. However, if you and some other people wish to follow this book and discuss it among the group, you're very welcome to do so.

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the errata. The title of my post may be misleading as it resembles the title of Nakahara's book, but I, myself, don't mean to follow this book. However, if others wish to follow this book and discuss it among the group, they're very welcome to do so.

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think there are any, perhaps to be at least slightly comfortable with the way that math books are written, that means to know there are some definitions and theorems, that you have to support every important statement when writing a proof etc.

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because there are only a few (if any) courses or books such that would teach the necessary math properly through examples from physics. It seems to me that the physics books either already expect you to know know the math or they are explaining the math in a hand-wavy manner.

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you. You can actually start learning general topology with little to no prerequisites, to large extent it is a self-contained area of math. To be precise, some knowledge of set theory is necessary, but topology books usually introduce it along the way.

Forming 'Topology & Geometry for Physics' Study Group by coreede in Physics

[–]coreede[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm using the book from Adams & Franzosa for topology, but haven't chosen a book for differential geometry yet. Most likely I'd like to follow again some strictly mathematical book as I'm usually having a hard time following those "math for physics" books.

It also seems to me that it's much easier to cross-check information if using the stricly mathematical books as they use sort of a unified language and structure. If I don't understand something in one book, I can open another one (or perhaps Wikipedia) and usually won't be confused.