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

Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

mitpress.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#31

Post by CurtMonash »

ics wrote: post #25
CurtMonash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a more elementary level, Michael Spivak's Calculus is an amazing book on first-year calculus. He also wrote Calculus on Manifolds and a 5-volume series on Differential Geometry. Those, to put it mildly, were rougher going. I actually once got a crush on a dorm-mate in large part because I saw Calculus on Manifolds on her bookshelf. It wasn't reciprocal, however. Later in life, she went on to run the Bureau of Labo…

> I actually once got a crush on a dorm-mate in large part because I saw Calculus on Manifolds on her bookshelf. It wasn't reciprocal, however. Later in life, she went on to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I had someone I'd never met before see my copy which happened to be the international edition (in Chinese, with English in the back) and then assume I spoke fluent Mandarin. Your story's a lot better :)

I lived 3 years in a Harvard grad school dormitory. One meets a variety of interesting people in such a place. E.g., I once pitched a foreign policy maven dorm-mate on caring more about Africa ... and it was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky, who 25 years later had a very major role in combating AIDS. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes was a jerk who couldn't stomach losing to a math student at Scrabble. :)

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#32

Post by CurtMonash »

weland wrote: post #15
batbomb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learning Lagrangian mechanics was like falling in love all over again with your girlfriend when you discovered exactly how elegant she could be. Easily my favorite part of classical mechanics as an undergrad.

Same here. In highschool, I really struggled with classical mechanics. A lot of things didn't click, because they were taught to us before we were taught calculus, and a lot of what I was seeing in class simply didn't make much sense. I understood the words and I could do the math, but never actually felt like I had a grip on it. Fast forward to my freshman year and poof! mechanics suddely isn't a mess of because-i-s…

Microeconomics is as bad as physics in that respect -- if the course doesn't assume calculus, they wind up reinventing anyway. It's not worth the trouble to study either subject unless knowledge of calculus is assumed.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#33

Post by bsaul »

dfan wrote: post #18
bsaul wrote: post #3

For those interested, Leonard susskin video course in stanford ( can be found anywhere ) on classical mechanics is one of the most beautiful piece of intellectual material i've ever been given the chance to see.

Yes, it was amazing. The good news is that it was turned into a book, The Theoretical Minimum. The bad news is that the book was really disappointing. I'm more of a learn-by-reading than learn-by-watching person, but Susskind's lectures are amazing.

I don't think a book could ever compare to 20 hours of classroom video when you've got the chance to have such a great professor. The pace, repititions, emphasis, hands gesture, hesitations, pauses, are also helping you understand and digest the course ( as with every human communication). Frankly what Mr susskind has done with this stanford program is truely the work of a great man.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#34

Post by bsaul »

magoghm wrote: post #27
bsaul wrote: post #3

For those interested, Leonard susskin video course in stanford ( can be found anywhere ) on classical mechanics is one of the most beautiful piece of intellectual material i've ever been given the chance to see.

I just watched the first 2 videos, they are great. Thank you!

If you've got an ipad, i recommend using itunes univeristy to download all the courses. I've spent a whole summer watching those under a tree. Most memorable online course experience you can dream of.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#35

Post by bsaul »

siddboots wrote: post #8
3rd3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do Susskind’s lectures compare to Walter Lewin’s lectures?

They're completely different. Susskind won't teach you things like friction, drag, or elasticity. But, he will teach you some of the most profound theoretical insights of modern physics. Lewin won't teach you Euler-Lagrange Equations, or Noether's Theorem. But, he will teach you how to think about solving practical physics problems. They also have different sense of humour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUFtLCrU90#…

Reaching noether's theorem really was the climax of this course. Such a great memory.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#36

Post by tgb »

CurtMonash wrote: post #20
tgb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the idea of "mechanics 101 for smart people" - can anyone recommend good books that are the analogs of SICP for other subjects? I'd love to know ones for, say, genetics or evolution as well as stats. I can say that Hubbard + Hubbard "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations" does a good job of being that for vector calculus specifically and for exposure to theoretical mathematics.

On a more elementary level, Michael Spivak's Calculus is an amazing book on first-year calculus. He also wrote Calculus on Manifolds and a 5-volume series on Differential Geometry. Those, to put it mildly, were rougher going. I actually once got a crush on a dorm-mate in large part because I saw Calculus on Manifolds on her bookshelf. It wasn't reciprocal, however. Later in life, she went on to run the Bureau of Labo…

Yeah Hubbard & Hubbard that I recommended is a more approachable take on Calculus on Manifolds (which it is based on or inspired by). It's still not simple, but it's probably a bit easier-going for the modern student than Spivak.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#37

Post by tjr »

reikonomusha wrote: post #2

Just to note for people who know about SICP: this book is not like that. The book jumps straight into basic principles of Lagrangian mechanics, talking about the least action principle and the Euler-Lagrange equations. It is not "mechanics 101 for smart people" like SICP is for computer science. With that said, the computational approach they take is unique and useful. You'd especially like it if you like Scheme and…

What would be good prerequisite reading before SICM?

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#38

Post by reikonomusha »

tjr wrote: post #37
reikonomusha wrote: post #2

Just to note for people who know about SICP: this book is not like that. The book jumps straight into basic principles of Lagrangian mechanics, talking about the least action principle and the Euler-Lagrange equations. It is not "mechanics 101 for smart people" like SICP is for computer science. With that said, the computational approach they take is unique and useful. You'd especially like it if you like Scheme and…

What would be good prerequisite reading before SICM?

At least an understanding of:

* Newtonian mechanics

* Multivariable calculus

* Ordinary differential equations

* Basic functional programming, Scheme, SICP

* A developed discipline for reading higher level mathematical material, including new notations and ideas

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#39

Post by aufreak3 »

tgb wrote: post #10
reikonomusha wrote: post #2

Just to note for people who know about SICP: this book is not like that. The book jumps straight into basic principles of Lagrangian mechanics, talking about the least action principle and the Euler-Lagrange equations. It is not "mechanics 101 for smart people" like SICP is for computer science. With that said, the computational approach they take is unique and useful. You'd especially like it if you like Scheme and…

On the idea of "mechanics 101 for smart people" - can anyone recommend good books that are the analogs of SICP for other subjects? I'd love to know ones for, say, genetics or evolution as well as stats. I can say that Hubbard + Hubbard "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations" does a good job of being that for vector calculus specifically and for exposure to theoretical mathematics.

"A course in mathematics for students of physics" (volumes 1 and 2) by Paul Bamberg and Schlomo Sternberg. [1] [2]

I loved both the books! I replaced my course textbooks with these and am eternally thankful I did that. Volume 2, in particular, is really cool where you get introduced to the exterior calculus formulation of circuit theory, leading to Maxwell's equations.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Course-Mathematics-Students-Physics/dp... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Course-Mathematics-Students-Physics-Vo...

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics

#40

Post by mrcactu5 »

tgb wrote: post #10
reikonomusha wrote: post #2

Just to note for people who know about SICP: this book is not like that. The book jumps straight into basic principles of Lagrangian mechanics, talking about the least action principle and the Euler-Lagrange equations. It is not "mechanics 101 for smart people" like SICP is for computer science. With that said, the computational approach they take is unique and useful. You'd especially like it if you like Scheme and…

On the idea of "mechanics 101 for smart people" - can anyone recommend good books that are the analogs of SICP for other subjects? I'd love to know ones for, say, genetics or evolution as well as stats. I can say that Hubbard + Hubbard "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations" does a good job of being that for vector calculus specifically and for exposure to theoretical mathematics.

Doesn't Feynman Lectures do that? http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_toc.html
Post reply on HN