>>17052211
That book is for other applied scientists. I'd use two separate books for physics and compsci mathematical reference. It's for the best if that's the particular combination you're in, as most physics and compsci hybrid texts only focus on narrow topics.

>>17052211
Most physics and CS books are self-contained. Math too.

>>17052211
No such thing. Even stuff that are required for both physics and CS is taught differently, covering different topics. I was of course talking about probability and statistics.

Its not very good. I regret buying it. You should read Apostol's Calculus Vol I and II
instead. Or read Zorich's Mathematical Analysis Vol I and II if you are daring. These books include very similar material to the book you posted, but better presented and more developed.

>>17052211
Yes it's good but it's only good if you get the accompanying book of solutions for it.

The only downside of the complete package is that:

1. The book of solutions does NOT cover every single problem in the book, some problems go completely unanswered
2. The book of solutions for some problems just straight out spews the answer without handholding (aka without a clear explanation of how they arrived to that solution)

If you want a good introduction to university undergrad Physics I recommend the book: University Physics with Modern Physics by Young Freedman.
That book is slightly above highschool level so it hand holds your hand all the way through, it was very useful for me when I encountered special relativity, this book explained the concepts far better than the overproduced examples on YT, oh and also the apendix at the end is really useful if you are searching for a certain topic
Only downside is the price, it costs a lot brand new

>>17052245
>University Physics with Modern Physics by Young Freedman.

OP here
I just want a book to cover all the maths I need. Physics is just one of many goals. I'll look deeper into it. Does it come with handholding solutions?