tell /sci/ your favorite textbook for algebra, trig, calc, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc.
>>16855133https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Readhttps://sheafification.com/the-fast-track/
i made a discord with a bunch of textbooks i got off libgen and anna's archivehttps://discord.gg/vThKFSjKmk
>>16855133I am an appreciator of undergraduate physics textbooks and have some opinions on all the major ones. I'll just talk about the basic intro textbooks, and only calculus based ones at that. The modern ones are all very standardized, usually consisting of mechanics for the first 14 or so chapters, a middle section on heat and waves, electrodynamics for 14 or so chapters, then a bit of optics and then modern physics topics usually gets shoved in at the end. This standard type is exemplified by: Physics For Scientists and Engineers By Randall Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by Serway and JewetT , University Physics by Young and Freedman (previously Sears and Zemansky's) Fundamentals of Physics by Jearl Walker The best one in my opinion is Young and Freedman. It goes into a bit more detail than the others and has a lot of problems. It's rather hard to find but if you can look for Physics by Halliday and Resnick 5th edition (The one that Krane is credited on, not Jearl Walker). This was the standard American undergraduate physics text for a long time and it is better written and has a greater scope than modern texts. It also has some really beautiful problems.
>>16855133Whatever free AI is dujour.
>>16855347Newton was a fucking quack. Ducked like a quack, for sure. That's for certain.
>>16855401You will never be regarded as the greatest physicist that ever lived, you will always be a third rate bitter loser.
>>16855168there's also a discord for one of the reading lists here https://discord.gg/npTHak5V77
>>16855455>>16855347Neither will you until you stop your obsession with these terrible pop-sci books and start learning physics.Landau Lifshitz is still the way to go. There've been a few developments since their release, like the symplectic formulation of classical mechanics, and you probably should read a general book on QFT besides/instead of volume 4, but generally, they have yet to be topped. Don't be difficult and don't make it complicated, you don't need to read four pop-sci cashgrab books to "prepare" yourself for studying physics. Just start reading actual physics, it's not going to get any easier regardless of how much of these little "prep books" you read
>>16855143those are the only lists you should ideally care about if you do either math or physics.>b-but I'm a mathematician, why do I need to learn what physishits do!?!?all the interesting parts of math are related to physics and physics gives rise to the most interesting math. Even within the confines of something as abstract as number theory, the richest areas are arithmetic geometry and Langlands-related stuff, all of which are intimately related to physics (a lot of Langlands NT is basically just quantum mechanics on arithmetic locally symmetric spaces).
>>16855473The point of my post was that those four books are all extremely similar and I don't recommend anyone read all of them , I recommend you to read the either Young and Freedman or the original Halliday and Resnick ig you want to read an introductory undergraduate physics book, which Landua and Lifshitz is absolutely not. They are great books though don't get me wrong.
Bookposters think they're really really smart but hardly ever actually read the books they post.
organic chemistry by clayden is regarded as the best textbook for learning organic chemistry but imo Klein is better for someone at the beginner level. they are both undergrad level but clayden is a bit more advanced.
>>16855525Tfw I never take a course in the books I hoarded
>>16855484>an introductory undergraduate physics book, which Landua and Lifshitz is absolutely notit is, though. There's no physics prerequisites, all you need to know is calculus. Or are you implying one has to, say, read a full book on variational calculus first before reading Mechanics? Or on nonlinear PDEs because they cover the Hamilton-Jacobi equations? Makes no senseWhat makes Landau-Lifshitz great is that they just focus on clearly presenting physics as we know it, whereas many of those other books are just a collection of plagiarized, oftentimes bastardized passages from math and physics texts, often written by university profs to profit off desperate students who want to "save money" by buying one of these bricks they believe has everything they "need" to know to pass courses.And then there's the clusterfuck that is EM books whose authors are all retards that think omitting the 4d picture in favor of ugly, observer-dependent 3d equations makes things easier.Read Landau-Lifshitz if you want to learn physics. If your goal is to drill vector calc and memorize physics problem solution recipes, then read any of those cookbooks.
>>16855869You have no idea what you're talking about and I don't feel the need to convince anyone to read anything. Start with Feynman's QED papers for all I care.
What writing style do you guys perfer? Theory or manual?
Hello, I am a mathlet and a retard, but I'm determined to at least be able to solve high school level curricula no problemo, so I'm starting with Serge Lang - Basic Mathematics and working my way up from there.My goal is to be able to get through this, the calculus one, and the linear algebra one. I just wanna be able to do the basic stuff at the very least without ever having to rely on chatgpt for it. I don't like relying on AI for basic math. It feels bad and I know I should feel bad because it is bad, and I know I can do better, so I'm gonna give it a shot. I don't wanna end up just another schizo shitposting bullshit mathslop some LLM regurgitated because I'm stuck in the first phase of the Dunning-Kreuger. Fuck that noise and fuck those kinds of people.
