No bullshit guide to math and physics • Hacker News Board

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#51

Post by ivansavz » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 1:42 AM UTC

madhadron wrote: post #48

I hesitated to post this, since I think clearer, shorter, better written textbooks are an admirable goal, and I keep a (short) list of good text books I have found over the years. But based on the preview on the website, I'm going to keep referring those who ask me to Gelfand's wonderful basic math texts instead (Algebra, Method of Coordinates, Functions and Their Graphs, Trigonometry -- anyone who wants further poin…

> normed division algebras are the reals, > complexes numbers, quaternions, and octionions,

Can you see why I would not want to talk about quaternions and octionions in a chapter which is meant to introduce math to people who have math phobia?

> these are nested subsets of each other, not disjoint, >

This should have been more clear. Will fix.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#52

Post by milkman » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 1:47 AM UTC

ivansavz wrote: post #13

rpm4321 wrote: post #9

I actually clicked "Buy Now" before I realized this was a physical textbook and cancelled. To me, it's almost inexcusable to market this sort of text to this type of audience and not have a digital copy. Shouldn't the barriers to entry be much lower for the author to get this out electronically? I see that the author is responding to comments here, so if you're like me and will buy it if it comes out electronically,…

I have the PDF version ready and will setup a shopping cart (ejunkie?) very soon (like tonight) because several people asked for this. Reading math in print is really good: you can flip back and forth through the pages. How much should the PDF cost? 29$ sounds a bit steep for a PDF no?

I'm not great with math, so seeing your take on it is exciting. I think $29 for the print copy is a good price, and $19 for the PDF (and I wouldn't go much lower than that).

I think after a few iterations of this book, this should be a real money maker for you.

BTW, the language is a bit strong, and may distract from the message. I have two daughters in University but I won't buy your book for them until the language is toned down. There are probably others like me as well. Worth considering.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#53

Post by Dn_Ab » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 1:49 AM UTC

madhadron wrote: post #48

I hesitated to post this, since I think clearer, shorter, better written textbooks are an admirable goal, and I keep a (short) list of good text books I have found over the years. But based on the preview on the website, I'm going to keep referring those who ask me to Gelfand's wonderful basic math texts instead (Algebra, Method of Coordinates, Functions and Their Graphs, Trigonometry -- anyone who wants further poin…

"after thinking very hard the mathematicians were able to classify all the different number like objects into sets"

Granted I am only going from the quote but I see nothing in there that indicates he considers them disjoint. Given most people have seen the Euler diagram of numbers since grade school i think the default interpretation would be correct. Could be clarified but not a howler.

quaternions, and octionions,

Considering the intended audience I do not see what purpose that would serve beyond intimidating the audience with how clever he is. Counter productive. This is just intro physics - the places where quaternions might be useful are just not there. And in the cases where introducing the terms actually served a purpose one would be better served by just going with the neater geometric algebra framework.

There are some helpful suggestions in some posts but it would be nice if people swapped their easily flabbergasted expert tones for a more helpful one. He has a vision and has begun acting on it. Has a good start with lots of potential. No one gets it just right from the outset.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#54

Post by mrb » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

sonabinu wrote: post #40

The concept map is fantastic!

Agreed! I am pleasantly surprised that someone else is doing this! I have been drawing "concept maps" for myself for the knowledge they taught in high school and undergrad school. I have always thought I was the only one to draw such things :) I am a very visual person and these maps help me memorize stuff but also understand how everything fits together.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#55

Post by cryodesign » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 1:55 AM UTC

veeti wrote: post #12

cameronh90 wrote: post #4

I would buy it, but it appears you don't have an ebook version? I can't really keep physical books because they take up too much space (small apartment).

As a high school student with final math exams coming up soon, large gaps in my mathematical knowledge and a bunch of useless textbooks, I went for the "buy now" button just after reading the "I will teach you everything you need to know about equations, functions, vectors, limits, derivatives, integrals, forces, accelerations and optics" tagline. Then I saw that there is no e-book option. It's 2013. Get with the tim…

Same here - I was excited to see this kind of book, as I'm trying to improve my maths knowledge and the conciseness and structure of Ivan's book was attractive, but no eBook option stopped me right there.

While we're on the topic of exams, I've recently came across the following book[1] that deals specifically with doing better in maths heavy exams - you might want to have a look whether it's something that can help you in your exams:

[1] Exam Mastery - How to excel in maths-heavy exams http://www.amazon.com/Exam-Mastery-excel-maths-heavy-ebook/d...

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#56

Post by blinkingled » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 1:58 AM UTC

ivansavz wrote: post #43

pflats wrote: post #39

I read the first 10 pages of the pdf. I'm not sure who you think your target audience is, but this book doesn't seem to serve any of them. You gloss over huge sections of algebra, and in doing so, ignore incredibly common mistakes that students make. Take a look at the top of page 9, 6 \sqrt{x} - 7 = [...]. You solve that out, but give no reason as to why you got rid of the 7 first, the 6 second, and the radical thir…

You are right about the history, though I was specifically talking about the usage of the word "number" not about whether people knew about fractions. I won't dig up the reference, now, but I read in a history of Calculus treatise somewhere that Newton was the first who started using the word "number" in its present sense: any quantity including integers, rationals or irrationals. Thx for spotting the f(x-h) typo. Fi…

If a complete copy of the pdf is not available you might want to make a draft wip copy available for purchase. If the feedback in this thread is any indication I think a lot of good will come out of it. (You may also want to honor Knuth by paying people who bought the wip pdf and spotted mistakes :)

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#57

Post by iansinke » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 2:08 AM UTC

I would have to disagree with the general statement that "textbooks suck". Stewart's calculus ("the violin book") is really a great textbook, and it's used very widely. Serway Jewett is a superb Physics textbook. The examples, in particular, are excellent (sometimes humorous or intriguing.)

Also, textbooks are long. But most courses don't use the entire textbook. I took 3 math courses and 2 physics courses in first year using those two textbooks and we didn't use every section, nor did we have to read every page.

I think having example problems which have stood the test of time (more than 20 years for those 2 textbooks, I think) is worthwhile.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#58

Post by rckrd » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 2:09 AM UTC

eigenvector wrote: post #45

danielford wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I teach college biology, and I've never seen a textbook in my discipline that wasn't written in a soporific and meandering style. Some are worse than others, but I've never seen a textbook I thought was good. If I needed to fill a gap in my knowledge or learn a new subject I would never resort to a textbook until I had exhausted every other available option.

That may well be true in your discipline, but there are some excellent, concise texts in undergraduate mathematics. For example, Apostol's Calculus or Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds. Not the most accessible texts by a longshot, but not your average Pearson or Wiley drivel either.

Adding on to eigenvector's point, there's a certain beauty in a self-contained mathematics textbook.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#59

Post by jackowayed » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 2:13 AM UTC

mharmon14 wrote: post #42

jackowayed wrote: post #3

I would adjust the tone for the "I am in Arts" section. Saying "I think you have math issues" is not the kind of welcome you want to give to people who do, in fact, have math issues. I like the end, where you emphasize that math is a great exercise in abstract thinking and modeling. But I would start with something more neutral saying something like, "Many people had suboptimal experiences with math in school because…

I disagree. Looking at the title, & reading over the preview of the book, I think that the concise, anti-politically correct tone the author uses is one of his best selling points. After all the book is titled "no bullshit". And there's already plenty of texts that use ostensibly comforting words to artists.

There is a difference between being somewhat edgy and improper ("no bullshit") and actively working against one's aims by including copy that is confrontational and discouraging to the most insecure segment of one's audience ("you have a math problem; you need therapy"). Those whom it does not bother might appreciate this continuation of his tone, but it is horribly damaging with the audience that it claims to target.

I have some experience encouraging groups who tend to be less sure of their abilities in an academic subject to study that subject and am friends with many people who are much more involved in these efforts, and I know that being confrontational is counterproductive and that you have to be very careful about how you suggest to them that they have a "problem", even if you are telling them that they can overcome that problem. You want to stay positive and show empathy toward their struggles, emphasizing that the struggles are not any failing or inherent shortcoming on their part and are very common.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#60

Post by hga » Wed, Jan 02, 2013, 2:14 AM UTC

danielford wrote: post #35

return0 wrote: post #8

The pitch "textbooks suck" seems so disrespectful and tasteless, it literally makes me avoid that book. Most of my uni textbooks did not suck at all.

I teach college biology, and I've never seen a textbook in my discipline that wasn't written in a soporific and meandering style. Some are worse than others, but I've never seen a textbook I thought was good. If I needed to fill a gap in my knowledge or learn a new subject I would never resort to a textbook until I had exhausted every other available option.

How long have you been teaching?

Helena Curtis wrote a wonderful college level intro textbook as of 1980 when I last used it, but the publisher (Worth) let it die after she retired (which also pretty much killed them as I recall).