Simple? Yeah ok.caz said:
What did the bartender charge him for a drink?pinball1970 said:
What do you mean exactly?Demystifier said:
Level of rigor, depth of thinking, foundations to applications ratio, ...AndreasC said:
Thanks. Also what do you mean by "inductive approach"?vanhees71 said:
By the way, what do you think of Zangwill's book?Demystifier said:
It's going the old-fashioned way by starting with electrostatics going through magnetostatics, quasistatics, and only finally to the full Maxwell equations. The deductive approach (though as old as Hertz's famous monograph) is more modern. You just start with the Maxwell equations in vacuum (of course in differential form ;-)) as the fundamental theory. That's honest in the sense that it's just the elementary formulation of everything having to do with electromagnetic phenomena (on the classical level). It cannot be logically derived from anything more fundamental. The "derivations" of the inductive approach leading in steps from electrostatics to the full Maxwell equations are heuristic (though important for an intuitive understanding).AndreasC said:
I didn't read it in depth, but superficially it looks to me like a new edition of Jackson.AndreasC said:
Personally I like it but it's a bit too much information for learning perhaps. Iirc it is 950+ pages. It goes pretty in depth however and it has these boxes which mention interesting phenomena or historical facts etc. Kind of unusual for a book at this level. I'm not sure I would say it is like a newer Jackson, Jackson did things in a rather different order. Jackson started from potentials and went into boundary value problem solving pretty much. Zangwill starts from the Maxwell equations.Demystifier said:
Sounds like MTW!AndreasC said:
It does, kind of. But it's actually more condensed than MTW.romsofia said:
Yuck, probabilityAndreasC said:
Demystifier said:
I have three of the books in the image, as well as three more that aren't in the image, but that were written by authors in the image.AndreasC said:
Which ones? I am guessing one of them is quantum theory and you also have Lie algebras by Brian Hall.George Jones said:
Yes. I also have "Calculus of Several Variables" by Lang and "Introduction to Topological Manifolds" by Lee.AndreasC said:
Sounds interesting. I guess it's something for masochists ;-)).andresB said:
Aren't we all masochists?vanhees71 said:
No, the guy in #444 is a victim of a sadist.MathematicalPhysicist said:Aren't we all masochists?
So you don't like chemistry?Demystifier said:No, the guy in #444 is a victim of a sadist.
Who do you ask, me or the guy in #444? It was him who said that he doesn't read it voluntarily. If you ask me, I like physical chemistry, but not the rest of chemistry.MathematicalPhysicist said:
Always use inclusive- or when talking to me...Demystifier said:
I'm currently reading Introduction to Nanoscience by Hornyak, Dutta, Tibbals and Rao, as well as Introduction to Nanotechnology by Poole and Owens. I'm doing a course on nanosci and though it seemed a bit out of my interests in the beginning, I'm actually pretty interested now!Demystifier said:
... or what?MathematicalPhysicist said:Always use inclusive- or when talking to me...
Two words -- "Spiderman underwear". Worked for berkeboy.Mondayman said: