Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Which books do you consider real gems in your field of work/study?

news.ycombinator.com

151–160 of 270 posts

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you consider real gems in your field of work/study?

#153
Some favorite math books

Intro to Smooth Manifolds, Lee -- sweeping intro to geometry with minimal prereqs, great at balancing the nitty gritty details with conveying intuition

A Course In Arithmetic, Serre -- classically terse and elegant intro to algebraic and analytic number theory. Goes from quadratic forms to Dirichlet's theorem to modular forms in a mere 100 pgs!

Princeton Lectures in Analysis, Stein & Shakarchi -- 4 books covering much of classical/modern analysis, they really shine in their discussion of applications

The large scale structure of space-time, Hawking & Ellis -- The most mathematically satisfying treatment of general relativity I've found. High points include proof of singularity theorems!

Spin Geometry, Lawson & Michelson -- Deep dive into the enigmatic "spin groups" and their applications in geometry. Also the only good (book) reference I could find on the index theorem

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you consider real gems in your field of work/study?

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tripping on the first sentence of the blurb: > A type system is a syntactic method for enforcing levels of abstraction in programs. Why is it called a syntactic method? Because type errors are caught at compile time, by analyzing the source code?

My 2c: I think the point is that types themselves are just syntax. It's all bits at the lowest level, so there's really no such thing as a 'type' on a Turing Machine tape. It can be expressed syntactically on the tape, but that's the point.

But what's the difference between this type syntax on the tape and the number 2 on the tape, which is presumably something other than "just syntax"?

This gets especially confusing when you bring in dispatch, where the types are now deciding what functions get called.

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you consider real gems in your field of work/study?

#155
In psychology, I think Culture of Honor is absolutely stellar:

Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South by Richard E. Nisbett & Dov Cohen

https://www.amazon.com/Culture-Honor-Psychology-Violence-Dir...

The authors weave together a basically airtight argument for their thesis, drawing on historical, sociological, and experimental evidence to describe and explain the phenomenon called "culture of honor". It's a short book and really worth reading to see how well an argument can be made.

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you consider real gems in your field of work/study?

#157
post #34

The Art of Electronics, Horowitz and Hill

Rightfully considered a classic in the field, and its third edition was highly anticipated for many years.

This book's niche is in building the intuitive understanding that is often lacking after the typically highly mathematical treatment seen in 200-level circuit theory courses. It's a great transition from "ok, I can manipulate the equations for a circuit with one or two transistors" to being able to design complete, practical electronic devices. The book is also heavily used as a cookbook and reference by practicing electronics engineers as it contains a lot of expert wisdom particularly in the area of high-precision analog circuits (the authors' background is in physics lab instrumentation design).

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you consider real gems in your field of work/study?

#159
post #53
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maths: Rudin's Real and Complex analysis. Yes!! Rudin kills it, but you need a year or two to get through this gem. A course in university will go too fast for sure.

I often hear Rudin is too challenging to be an introduction to analysis. You need to be very comfortable with relevant proofs already. Then what's so good about it? I'm not doubting it's great because I do hear it lauded, but it's hard to imagine. It is just a collection of mathematical obscurities for super-nerds? I've been ever-so-slowly self teaching higher maths. Right now halfway through Hammond's book of proof…

Just note that the mentioned book, colloquially known as Papa Rudin, is definitely not an introduction to analysis, which is usually said to be "Principles of Mathematical Analysis", i.e. Baby Rudin. Even then, Baby Rudin is terrible as an introduction in my opinion, though it is quite good as a reference.

> I'm not doubting it's great because I do hear it lauded, but it's hard to imagine.

Everyone has their own taste, even with math textbooks; there are plenty of acclaimed textbooks I hate (looking at you CRLS).

> I've been ever-so-slowly self teaching higher maths.

I happen to be in a Discord server for people self-studying math. It's a pretty cool place; if you are interested you can contact u/CheapViolin on Reddit.

Re: Ask HN: Which books do you consider real gems in your field of work/study?

#160

I am going to repeat what I always say when these book threads come up: I love all the recommendations here but please say a word or two about why you recommend said books. Sell them to me, don't make me do the work. Dumb lists of titles are so uninteresting.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN