Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No bullshit guide to math and physics

minireference.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#81

Post by chanux »

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 haven't used this but it might be helpful for you https://gumroad.com

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#82

Post by bockris »

ivansavz wrote: post #73
tsurantino wrote: post #63

Based on the comments I've read and reading a bit of the preview - I am curious as to how polished this version is. I'm hesitant in buying the paperback copy especially, if there are errors. Otherwise, this looks incredible. Exactly what I've wanted when wanting to learn math!

This is the third iteration of the book, so I think I have gotten the typos-per-page down to an almost non-existant level. I am sure there are some left, but it is definitely not a first draft.

FYI. the top of the page number 4 ...addition an subtraction... you are missing a 'd'

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#83

Post by eranki »

Only read a few pages, but I would eliminate a lot of the introductory formalism. Most people don't need to be confused by the different sets of numbers, or common uses of variable names, or how to alter the shape of functions.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#84

Post by phaus »

TylerE wrote: post #74
phaus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please listen to this guy's suggestion of making the price for both only marginally higher than the price for the Print version alone. One of the quickest ways to kill my interest in in purchasing a book is by expecting someone to pay a non-trivial amount of money for a digital copy after they just purchased a hard copy at full retail. As far as pricing the ebook alone, I think it should be somewhere around 14.99 to…

Why is it acceptable in 2013 to charge ANYTHING for a digital copy when also buying the dead-tree?

Good point. Every book should come with a free digital copy, but unfortunately the standard practice seems to be to offer a trivial discount when purchasing both.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#85

Post by mrb »

sonabinu wrote: post #70
mrb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is great to hear. I use it for understanding concepts when learning. It is a great tool. Have you tried http://www.instagrok.com

I did not know it. It would be nice if one could travel through graphs by just clicking on nodes, expanding other neighboring nodes, etc. Too bad it seems to only allow browsing up to 2 nodes away from the central node...

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#86

Post by mturmon »

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…

This historical issue about the nature of a "number" also caught my eye. (In the PDF: "Before Newton, the word number referred only to the natural numbers...".)

Of course, the notion of irrational numbers dates (at least) back to the classical Greeks (the proof-by-contradiction that root-2 is irrational is ancient and elementary, and will be known to some of your intended audience). In the Greek era, there was debate about the status of the irrationals, but sophisticated Greeks were well-acquainted with rational numbers. The statement in the PDF seems to ignore this.

Summary: I think this statement of yours is dubious to begin with, and in any event would have to be so qualified and referenced that its value to a novice is nil.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#87

Post by cosmikduster »

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…

> I tend to recommend 1960s editions of Halliday and Resnick (not the recent ones!)

I'm curious why. I remember reading the second edition back in 1998. Recently, I got one of the new editions (8th) but the new ones seem too verbose. What went wrong?

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#88

Post by catshirt »

rckrd wrote: post #58
eigenvector wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

likewise, the explanation for how the concepts flow together. drawing these connections is usually the last step for me in the "a-ha" moment, and too few resources explain the connections between concepts really well. khan academy being a strong exception.

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#89

Post by javert »

Dn_Ab wrote: post #53
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…

> Given most people have seen the Euler diagram of numbers since grade school i think the default interpretation would be correct.

This kind of assumption is one reason so many textbooks suck so much. This assumption is not true for me. I don't know why you'd assume it would be true for "most people."

Re: No bullshit guide to math and physics

#90

Post by maroonblazer »

TylerE wrote: post #74
phaus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please listen to this guy's suggestion of making the price for both only marginally higher than the price for the Print version alone. One of the quickest ways to kill my interest in in purchasing a book is by expecting someone to pay a non-trivial amount of money for a digital copy after they just purchased a hard copy at full retail. As far as pricing the ebook alone, I think it should be somewhere around 14.99 to…

Why is it acceptable in 2013 to charge ANYTHING for a digital copy when also buying the dead-tree?

The digital copy offers something the physical copy doesn't, e.g. portability. Some people might be willing to pay an incremental sum for this added benefit.
Post reply on HN