Higher Math for Beginners (1987)

ivansavz wrote: post #2

Slightly better version here https://archive.org/details/ZeldovichYaglomHigherMathematics (the PDF is 20MB instead of 150MB and the text has been OCR-ed)

We've changed to that from https://archive.org/details/HigherMathForBeginners. Thanks!

Re: Higher Math for Beginners (1987)

#5

Post by GaryTang » Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 5:19 AM UTC

actually_a_dog wrote: post #3

PDF download link for those who want to download it, but don't want to hunt for the link: https://ia801303.us.archive.org/29/items/ZeldovichYaglomHigh...

Thanks, won’t be long before the woke mob starts censoring this

Re: Higher Math for Beginners (1987)

#6

Post by shimonabi » Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 5:32 AM UTC

Are pages 358, 373, 379, 396, 530 misprinted or scanned sloppily?

Re: Higher Math for Beginners (1987)

#7

Post by yuuu » Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 5:37 AM UTC

shimonabi wrote: post #6

Are pages 358, 373, 379, 396, 530 misprinted or scanned sloppily?

This sounds entitled.

Re: Higher Math for Beginners (1987)

#8

Post by Taywee » Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 5:59 AM UTC

yuuu wrote: post #7

shimonabi wrote: post #6

Are pages 358, 373, 379, 396, 530 misprinted or scanned sloppily?

This sounds entitled.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward question to me. There's no reason to be defensive about flaws in a math book scan, even if it's largely a cool thing.

Re: Higher Math for Beginners (1987)

#9

Post by codetrotter » Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 7:37 AM UTC

shimonabi wrote: post #6

Are pages 358, 373, 379, 396, 530 misprinted or scanned sloppily?

The book in the updated link [1] does not have the problem that the old link had I think, if you were talking about how for example on page 358 the page had become split so that the rightmost part of the page had been cut off and placed on the left side of the page. I didn’t check the other pages because I’m on mobile, but since page 358 looks good in the new link the others might too.

[1]: https://archive.org/details/ZeldovichYaglomHigherMathematics

Re: Higher Math for Beginners (1987)

#10

Post by PostOnce » Sat, Nov 13, 2021, 7:42 AM UTC

Taywee wrote: post #8

yuuu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds entitled.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward question to me. There's no reason to be defensive about flaws in a math book scan, even if it's largely a cool thing.

in addition and much more importantly:

if no one points out flaws, flaws can not and will not be fixed.