Why are textbooks in math and science so bad?

[hrc969]

The guy with the long hair? Does he life alone, because he seems really sad.

Well, I think he's one of the best professors I have had. That's the hardest undergrad class I have had. Many people are scared to take him but for anyone who wants to learn a subject well, that's the guy you want to take the class from. Incidentally he had no complaints about the book. Some people complain about introducing the idea of a riemann surface but he liked that topic. Maybe the problem with that book is that its more suited for grad students than undergrads. When I took 246A (gradute complex analysis) the TA said that it was a good book for grad students and probably should not be used for undergrad. The problem is that a lot undergrads don't want to work hard enough to understand something. They want a book which tell them how to do every problem. They don't want to spend time struggling to learn. I think the struggle is a good thing. I don't know if I should say its necessary although I would be inclined to think so. One of my professors recommended that we look at "old" book. Books about a subject that where written before it was completely developed because that way we can see the struggle and be able to understand the subject at a deeper level.

I don't understand the material without attending the lecture.

That's fine. I always go to lecture, it helps for understanding but it is not absolutely neccessary. Learning from a book is possible you just have to find a book you like (or several) and commit time to learning the subject.

At one time, i had to read it for 6 hours just getting thr the section.

That's fine. Spending a lot of time on a certain topic, struggling through it helps you learn better than rushing through it.
I spent since winter 06 to the end of summer 06 (so around 9 months) reading the first chapter of several books on manifold theory. It took all of the winter quarter to get through the first few pages and I still did not get it to where I was satisfied. I would pick up one book and not be able to get thorugh the first few pages satisfactorily and pick up another one and another one. I spent much more that 6 measly hours trying to understand it.
When I took Manifold Theory (225A) last fall (fall 06), some of the undergrad students used to think it was really hard and wondered why I did not find it as hard. The answer is what I just told you. I struggled with it for a really long time, when I went to lecture everything he said I had seen and it made a lot more sense to me than to some of the other undergrads who also went to lecture but had not seen the material before.

The style of the book is utter unacceptable.

What kind of style do you prefer?

I guess we are back to step. You say there are many good books. I say there is not enough time. you say "you can make time if you want to learn".

Yes and I stand by what I say.

What do you call the one at boelters(floor 8)? Next time you go there, take a pencil. The name is marked on the pencil to remind people where they are.

http://www2.library.ucla.edu/libraries/533.cfm"
That's the list of libraries at UCLA. The one you are thinking of is the Science and Engineering Library(SEL). The one in boelter is the Engineering and Mathematical Sciences Collection part of the Science and Engineering Library.

I guess you are not too incorrect in calling it that although that is not the proper name.

Are you persian? Perhaps you are jewish? I ask because i am curious. i want to know who i am talking to especially someone that might be a class room away from me.

I know a pretty good persian student whose been a classmate of mine for three years now. But no. Why isn't hispanic or latino an option? I don't know what to think of your ommision of that as an option. It would have just been better to ask what my race is rather than making attempts to guess based on (who knows what). But anyways, I am mexican.

What I am really curious about is knowing why you named the races that you did in that order.

Oh and just to add to the recommendation of books for 131A, one of my favorite analysis books (probably my favorite) is Basic Analysis by Anthony W. Knapp. I always go to that book first if I need to recall anything from analysis.

 

[las3rjock]

frankly my study habits is none of your ****ing concern.

As thus we have reached the heart of the matter. Ultimately you are responsible for your own learning, but you seem unwilling or unable to put in the time or find the resources required to understand the material, and apparently you are trying to shift the blame from yourself to the textbooks. Evidently you couldn't even be bothered to read the 7-page essay that I linked, because you seem to be waving around as evidence that textbooks suck, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The main point of the essay is that lectures and textbooks each have distinct and valuable roles in education. Korner points out that textbooks tend to be more complete, more reliable, and have better explanations than lectures (on page 2, he writes that "everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks"), but lectures have value both as a guide to reading a textbook, and as an opportunity to watch an expert at work. But not matter what, learning requires that you put in the necessary work. If it takes 6 hours to understand a portion of a textbook, it doesn't necessarily mean that the textbook is badly written--it just means that it required 6 hours for you to grasp or internalize that particular concept. Reading a textbook is different than reading a novel. As you read a textbook, you should be making mental or written notes of key concepts, thinking of examples/counterexamples that demonstrate concepts, filling in the omitted steps of proofs and derivations, and/or solving simple problems to get practice using the concepts. Clearly that is quite a bit of work, but if you are unwilling to put in the amount of work necessary for you to learn the material, then you are wasting everyone's time, especially your own.

 

[light_bulb]

just wondering, for ONE subject do most of you use just one book or refer to multiple books?

it would seem to me that most of the time i find something one book has omitted in another book, vice versa.

 

[Locrian]

Hmm, my opinion on my textbooks has been pretty mixed so far:

Goldstein, Classical Mechanics: Awful. Firstly, the text is filled to the brim with errors. The second edition has a huge number of errors in it. I've talked to people - professors, no less! - who sent them lists of errors about the second edition only to see the errors appear in the third. The third edition copy I have is on it's 10th printing and is still full of them! I believe the newest printing might be a bit better, but there is just no excuse. I can count at least twice I had to take time after school to sit down with my prof on a subject I didn't understand, only to find that the book was hopelessly incorrect, and that was the source of my problem. The quality of the book is fair at best under perfect circumstances - given its mixed history, I'm angry it is still used.

Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics - I love Jackson. I don't think most students do, but everyone can agree it is encompassing, accurate and, while there are a couple of mistakes here and there, most of it is clean as a whistle. I've learned huge amounts from it, and appreciate the level of difficulty of the problems.

Kittel, Solid State - If Jackson is the encyclopedia of E&M, Kittel is the cliff notes of Solid State. It really isn't a bad text, but every topic feels skeletal. More importantly, the discussion in the book is minimal, and examples often lacking (at least Goldstein had lots of those). Even my prof has mixed feelings about it, but said it was the best introductory book out there. I have checked out four other SS books from the library, and so far I agree with him. That's worth something, I suppose. . .

Cohen-Tannoudji, QM - This would be a great text if only it weren't organized so oddly! It is broken into chapters and compliments, and often the compliments take up more space than the chapter itself. The exercises are buried in one of the compliments, and just getting around in the book can be a huge pain. The content itself though, I find very useful.

I guess those are the common books I've run into so far.

 

[kant]

Well, I think he's one of the best professors I have had. That's the hardest undergrad class I have had. Many people are scared to take him but for anyone who wants to learn a subject well, that's the guy you want to take the class from. Incidentally he had no complaints about the book. Some people complain about introducing the idea of a riemann surface but he liked that topic. Maybe the problem with that book is that its more suited for grad students than undergrads. When I took 246A (gradute complex analysis) the TA said that it was a good book for grad students and probably should not be used for undergrad. The problem is that a lot undergrads don't want to work hard enough to understand something. They want a book which tell them how to do every problem. They don't want to spend time struggling to learn. I think the struggle is a good thing. I don't know if I should say its necessary although I would be inclined to think so. One of my professors recommended that we look at "old" book. Books about a subject that where written before it was completely developed because that way we can see the struggle and be able to understand the subject at a deeper level.

The hardest thing for me to accept is the notion that mathematics is equivalent to reading hard classical text. Scientific, and mathematical Ideas should be express in the simpliest manner, because ultimately math, or physics is to it s core simply, but the devil is on the application side. People in the science should be taught to learn from main points and derive the unnecessary details. Too much reading distract the whole purpose of solving problems( which is the main point). If you are into reading hard text, then go be a historian, or english major.

I know a pretty good persian student whose been a classmate of mine for three years now. But no. Why isn't hispanic or latino an option?

Do not make me a bad guy. It is just a educated guess. On average, there are not many mexican or blacks in the math and engineering library.

I don't know what to think of your ommision of that as an option. It would have just been better to ask what my race is rather than making attempts to guess based on (who knows what). But anyways, I am mexican.

I am sorry if i offend you.

What I am really curious about is knowing why you named the races that you did in that order.

i only list by the race i usually see.

 

[kant]

As thus we have reached the heart of the matter. Ultimately you are responsible for your own learning, but you seem unwilling or unable to put in the time or find the resources required to understand the material, and apparently you are trying to shift the blame from yourself to the textbooks. Evidently you couldn't even be bothered to read the 7-page essay that I linked, because you seem to be waving around as evidence that textbooks suck, when nothing could be farther from the truth. The main point of the essay is that lectures and textbooks each have distinct and valuable roles in education. Korner points out that textbooks tend to be more complete, more reliable, and have better explanations than lectures (on page 2, he writes that "everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks"), but lectures have value both as a guide to reading a textbook, and as an opportunity to watch an expert at work. But not matter what, learning requires that you put in the necessary work. If it takes 6 hours to understand a portion of a textbook, it doesn't necessarily mean that the textbook is badly written--it just means that it required 6 hours for you to grasp or internalize that particular concept. Reading a textbook is different than reading a novel. As you read a textbook, you should be making mental or written notes of key concepts, thinking of examples/counterexamples that demonstrate concepts, filling in the omitted steps of proofs and derivations, and/or solving simple problems to get practice using the concepts. Clearly that is quite a bit of work, but if you are unwilling to put in the amount of work necessary for you to learn the material, then you are wasting everyone's time, especially your own.

Like i said to the other guy. I do not belief the matheamtician and physicist are in the business of reading hard text. There is a common notion that the harder the text, the more complicated is the idea. It is simply not true. If anything ideas in math, and science are simply, but it is only in the application side of those ideas that is hard. Textbook should teach student to think about things from main point( first principle), and derive the unncessary( general equations) from sketch. Instead, the textbook are usually in the habit of giving the reader a million piece of little facts with no unifing principle. That is why the plus side to lecture over reading the text is see how mathematics "grow". What it really means is to see how stuff are derived from first principle.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I do not believe the mathematician and physicist are in the business of reading hard text.

Man, the pearls of wisdom just keep coming in this thread...

 

[mathwonk]

a reasonable thread topic would be "what are some good books?" a whining negative one is this one.

whetehr or not it resonates with other negative types is unrelated to whetehr it serves a purpose. this is not a chat room for losers.

 

[kant]

Man, the pearls of wisdom just keep coming in this thread...

Your off point remark are not pearls of wisdom. At least i have a point, and i am asserting it.

 

[kant]

a reasonable thread topic would be "what are some good books?" a whining negative one is this one.

whetehr or not it resonates with other negative types is unrelated to whetehr it serves a purpose. this is not a chat room for losers.

Do you own this forum? What did i do? I made a thread, and express an opinion. People reply, and i reply back. You either agree with my view, or you don t. I see a lot stupid opinions in discussion forums, and even if i disagree with most, i don t cry about like you, because i have the common courtesy to let people say what they want. If you don t like it, then go away?

 

[jostpuur]

According to my conspiracy theory, top phycisists put bad mathematics, incorrect proofs, and confusing explanations to the books on purpose, in attempt to keep researchers of smaller universities sufficently weak, and to keep them from threatening the positions of top researchers.

(Note: I'm not necessarely serious on this.)

 

[kant]

It is not a conspiracy that math books are in general badly written. I don t think this is murder. I think most of the reply so far are utterly rediculous. I am not saying all textbooks are bad, but in general, they are. if you don t believe me, then go ask around in your university.

 

[Sojourner01]

Locrian, I'm interested in your opinion of Kittel since there's a (library) copy on my desk. I would have said that - to my eyes - the book is pretty downright detailed. There's a lot of maths in it that looks obscene, but perhaps that is because - as you noted - the discussion is limited. The problems are functional, but importantly - there are no answers! How are you supposed to know if you got them right?

A very (very) similar book is Solid State Physics by Hook and Hall. The preface is by Hook, who wrote the first edition many moons ago and felt his own pedagogical skills inadequate for the rewrite, so handed it over to Mr. Hall. The result is a very similar book to Kittel's in both layout and content - even mirroring many of the problems - but a little more reader-friendly - and with answers!

The final one is The Physics and Chemistry of Solids by Elliott, which appears somewhat more basic still, and contains a fair chunk of statistical mechanics as well as the crystallography, electron modelling and so on of the previous two. I haven't read this one thoroughly but it seems like a solid introductory text.

 

[leon1127]

If the one that you are using is bad. Get a better one. It would be a better to discuss what are the good/bad Maths/Phys books. Create a list to inform people what to get. Discussing WHY they are bad wouldn't help student to improve in any way I think. Your topic should be appropriate only for "money-seeking lower level author" who is controlled by "bloody sucking" publisher I have spent a lot of money on Maths books in order to build myself a strong foundation. I do agree what Mathwonk said. I really think his experience in Maths and Physics can support this statement.

PS: I earn that money by working my butt off. I do not have a sugar daddy.

 

[hrc969]

The hardest thing for me to accept is the notion that mathematics is equivalent to reading hard classical text.

No one said that its equivalent. However SOMETIMES it is NECESSARY to read a hard text to learn what we want to learn.

Scientific, and mathematical Ideas should be express in the simpliest manner,

But sometimes mathematical ideas are not simple. Sometimes they are complicated and really hard to get across.

because ultimately math, or physics is to it s core simply, but the devil is on the application side.

I'm not really understanding what you are trying to say here. Can you explain it more clearly.

This just seems like its your opinion.

People in the science should be taught to learn from main points and derive the unnecessary details. Who are you to say what unnecessary details are. One of my professors just commented(2 days ago) on one time that there was something that he was supposed to learn in grad school and was asked about it on his qual. He did not understand why he needed it (he thought it was unnecessary). It was only YEARS later that he saw it come up and understood that it was not unnecessary.
Instead of classifying things as unnecessary you should try to figure out why something that is done in class is necessary. For example, Gamelin introduces Riemann Surfaces very early on in his Complex Analysis book (did you think that was an unnecessary detail?) Some of my classmates did. But its not unnecessary for everyone. Sure some people were just trying to get a math degree with no intention on studying any pure math beyond the BS level. But for someone like me it was interesting and good to see it that early in my education.

Too much reading distract the whole purpose of solving problems( which is the main point).

Well I don't know about you but I cannot usually solve problems without reading first. Sometimes I have to read a lot before I can solve any problems.

Also I don't know if you've heard of the professor named Elman. I guess he's one of the more demanding professors (a bit more generous than Mess though and more sense of humor, etc). His philosophy is (and I think many of us would somewhat agree) that the purpose of doing problems is to learn mathematics.

In fact he gives take home midterms with very difficult problems with the sole purpose of making most of us "GO READ BOOKS AND LEARNING SOME MATHEMATICS". The point is they are hard problems, they can be found in books so we are supposed to go find books with those problems and read them and understand the material.

If you have a chance you should go talk to him he's usually in his office from 3pm -7pm.

Once some of my classmates were sort of complaining about me having around 160 books from the library while they had from 0 to around 30. One said something like "why would you need so many books", Elman's answer was simply "Oh, you NEED books".

If you are into reading hard text, then go be a historian, or english major.

If you want people to stop making statements such as the one about pearls of wisdom you have got to stop stupid statements. I have never had a professor who told me that reading books sucks or that there are too many that are bad. Maybe they think that there are some bad books, maybe they think that there are a lot of bad books. What they focus on is telling us what books are good. I think this is why mathwonk (also a mathematics professor at a university) has suggested that a better thread would be to ask what some good books are. That way we could tell you that instead. You keep complaining and whining about books being hard or bad without any justification other than "some of my professors agree".

We were discussing a book and you just stopped. WHERE DID THE DISCUSSION ABOUT GAMELIN'S BOOK GO. You think that book sucks I disagree. If you want to prove your point please do so. Otherwise you should leave and stop wasting our time. I'm glad to help you and I hope I can convince you to stop what you are doing. I really suggest you go talk to Elman about the role of book in mathematics education (he's office is right outside the men's restroom in the 5th floor of the Math Sciences building.

Do not make me a bad guy.

I tried really hard not to make you a bad guy. I could have just assumed that you were guessing for this reason but I did not instead I asked you why you guessed. Its not my fault you are so naive.

It is just a educated guess.

No its not an educated guess. Its stupid to try to guess. Knowing nothing about who you are talking about except that he goes to UCLA doesn't mean you guess he's white or asian. You said one of my statements was naive but if you asked me your guessing my race was naive.

On average, there are not many mexican or blacks in the math and engineering library.

Can you even tell a person's race by looking at them? Actually even if you saw me you might not recognize me as mexican because according to a lot of people I look armenian.

I am sorry if i offend you.

Don't worry about it. I just wanted to know if this was the reason for your guesses (I thought it was). Since it is I just want to say to STOP being so stupid and naive. You can't guess a person's race by what school he goes to unless you know there is only one type of race there.

i only list by the race i usually see.

Again you probably wouln't recognize me if you saw me and probably not even see me since I go to the library very early and there is usually 0 other people there or at most 10 at that time.

Again if you want to know a person's race just ask "Oh, just curious, what's your race" or something along those lines. That would help to not make you look stupid.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I would really like to continue the discussion about Gamelin's book. You want to say that books used in classes are bad this is the perfect opportunity for you to make your point.

Rather than saying that the style was unacceptable, say what you thought the style was and why you think its unacceptable. You should say what kind of style you prefer and maybe we can point you at a book with a style that suits you.

 

[hrc969]

Your off point remark are not pearls of wisdom. At least i have a point, and i am asserting it.

Yes you keep making your assertions without any real backing up. So instead of asserting your point, back it up. Again I invite you to continue the discussion on Gamelin's books. This gives us a concrete example we can focus on.

 

[hrc969]

It is not a conspiracy that math books are in general badly written. I don t think this is murder. I think most of the reply so far are utterly rediculous. I am not saying all textbooks are bad, but in general, they are. if you don t believe me, then go ask around in your university.

You go ask people who know. Go ask people who are full professors you are much more likely to to get a good answer from them. Again, I suggest you go talk to Elman about the role of textbooks in mathematics education.

And if book generally are bad, then who cares! (Although I certainly have not noticed this if it is true what I focus on is finding some I like so I can study from them) As long as there are good books you can find then it does not matter. You should focus on finding good books. More specifically you should find books that are good for YOU. I have liked a lot of books that are generally not liked.

One of my favorite books on Several Complex Variables has not all but disappeared from the face of the planet. I can find it at a few libraries and actually found it while browsing the stacks at boelter (Oh this reminds me, next time you enter that library look up just as you are entering: it say in huge letters SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING LIBRARY; and not math and engineering library. Maybe you already did this). However I cannot find anyone who will sell it not amazon, not Barnes and Noble not even the publisher. My guess is that not enough people were interested in it to justify keeping it in print. What's weird is that the second volume is still in print and widely available. So my point is not everyone likes the same books the books you think suck might be someone else's favorite. If you really believe that Gamelin's book style is utterly is unacceptable please back up your opinion, why is it unacceptable? If you can't back up your opinion then don't expect anyone to believe you.

 

[matt grime]

Christ, this is a long thread about something so simple. Apologies for those whose answers I repeat cos I missed them whilst reading it.

The reason why lecturers, particularly in the US, follow textbooks so closely, is because they are frequently teaching one class of the 10 doing that subject, each class having a different teacher. You can't have each person doing their own thing.

Now, as to why so many textbooks are bad. Well, a lot might be badly written, poorly typset, waffling and in some cases just plain wrong. And those are problems, and ones that many professors find annoying.

But many textbooks are labelled 'bad' by students because they don't explain things in a lot of detail. Tough. If a book went into the kind of depth that a lecturer does then books would have to be thousands of pages long. That is unrealistic. The point of the book is to contain the relevant information in some sensible order, with minimal fuss. The lecturer should expand on the proofs as necessary, on the motivation, on the applications. All three of those things will vary from audience to audience, from day to day. Even when teaching the same course I rarely give the same class twice becuase different people find different things difficult. A book cannot take account of all those needs. Teaching is a very reactive thing.

There is a very good reason to not put notes in the library - to stop students just going to the library to get the notes. No matter how good the notes are, students are incredibly bad at understanding what you need to do with notes. It is *not* to read them and use a highlighter pen. One of the most important effects of making you go to a lecture is to make you actually listen to the material at least once, and force it through your brain when you write it down. It is *active*, whereas most students would mistake the *passive* reading of notes as working. It isn't. Mathematics is an *active* subject, and students don't realize that no matter how many times you tell them.

 

[matt grime]

Sorry, but i don t think i am lazy. We had to take a complex analysis course, and the book was written by a ucla mathematician. The book suck, and i had to attend the lectures to understand it.

good. you're supposed to have to go to lectures. a decent textbook is not one for you to self learn from. it is to back up the course. you make it sound like a bad thing that you had to do what you were supposed to and go to the lectures.

Textbooks are written fro brevity and concision. proofs will be quick. plus, you've got to remember that how you write something in a book is in the reverse order from which you discover it. this means that motivation and explanation are ferquently omitted from books. but won't be in lectures. anyway - why did it suck? because you didn't understand it? have you learned how to read a maths textbook? do you have the right expectations of it? From your comment above, the answer appears to be 'no'.

 

[WolfOfTheSteps]

I find that books written by mathematicians and physicists are generally not that bad. Even the ones students think are bad.

Engineers, on the other hand, usually can't write a book to save their lives! I have never seen books written so bad as the engineering books I've been forced to use recently. I am currently being forced to use a book on solid state engineering that is SO bad I almost can't believe it. The grammar is mangled, notation is not used consistently, (the greek letters nu and upsilon are interchanged randomly in places since they both "look like" a v) and many problems require information found many chapters later in the book. Another annoying thing is that the dot product is written as a period (yes, a '.'!) throughout the book! ("a.b") The author also drew springs by hand with a mouse and put them in as figures. (It seriously looks like she used MSPaint.)

I know that paragraph up there was whiny. But I really needed to vent. :) The "crap" that Physicists and Mathematicians put out is GOLD compared to what engineers are capable of.

There are a few exceptions, of course, like the wonderful Engineering Circuit Analysis by Hayt/Kemmerly/Durbin.

 

[leright]

I find that books written by mathematicians and physicists are generally not that bad. Even the ones students think are bad.

Engineers, on the other hand, usually can't write a book to save their lives! I have never seen books written so bad as the engineering books I've been forced to use recently. I am currently being forced to use a book on solid state engineering that is SO bad I almost can't believe it. The grammar is mangled, notation is not used consistently, (the greek letters nu and upsilon are interchanged randomly in places since they both "look like" a v) and many problems require information found many chapters later in the book. Another annoying thing is that the dot product is written as a period (yes, a '.'!) throughout the book! ("a.b") The author also drew springs by hand with a mouse and put them in as figures. (It seriously looks like she used MSPaint.)

I know that paragraph up there was whiny. But I really needed to vent. :) The "crap" that Physicists and Mathematicians put out is GOLD compared to what engineers are capable of.

There are a few exceptions, of course, like the wonderful Engineering Circuit Analysis by Hayt/Kemmerly/Durbin.

What solid state book are you using? Most solid state devices courses use Streetman, which I think is a fine textbook, but I will say a lot of the stuff in there takes a while to digest, but I think that's more because of the subject matter than the book.

 

[WolfOfTheSteps]

What solid state book are you using? Most solid state devices courses use Streetman, which I think is a fine textbook, but I will say a lot of the stuff in there takes a while to digest, but I think that's more because of the subject matter than the book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0387281525/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by Razeghi. Just check out the link to see the Amazon reviews.

It's written by a professor at my school, and I think that's the only reason we use it. No teacher would objectively choose this book for a course. There is no editor listed in the front, either. By the look of it, I am sure it is unedited.

I know the subject matter is dense. I'm willing to put in the work. But when you have to do so with a book like this, it makes you feel like jumping off the nearest bridge.

This is not a solid state devices course, btw. It's an "intro to solid state" course in the EE department. (ABET classified as 90% science) So it's sort of like a watered down physics course. I noticed that almost all intro to solid state books are written by physicists, not engineers. Probably just as they should be!

 

[WolfOfTheSteps]

Oh, and I do supplement my reading with Solid state books written by physicists. I wouldn't survive otherwise. I can do the problems in the physics books too...

But the homeworks are in the class book, and it takes forever just to figure out what they are asking. BTW, if you are good with solid state, I had a question right out of the book I am talking about that I was struggling with. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169078" No one has answered yet. :)

 

[kant]

No one said that its equivalent. However SOMETIMES it is NECESSARY to read a hard text to learn what we want to learn.

i agree that it is necessary, but i think it need not be.

But sometimes mathematical ideas are not simple. Sometimes they are complicated and really hard to get across.

Maybe not.

Well I don't know about you but I cannot usually solve problems without reading first. Sometimes I have to read a lot before I can solve any problems.

What is your point? Remember, i only said, a lot of textbooks are bad.

If you want people to stop making statements such as the one about pearls of wisdom you have got to stop stupid statements. I have never had a professor who told me that reading books sucks or that there are too many that are bad.

Do you want to provoke me? I will say this again. My only comment is that most textbooks suck. I never said reading books suck, but i did say many textbooks suck. Do i think it is necessary to read textbooks? Yes. You can quote me on this point. I am not even going to reply to your other comments because it is pure garbage. You seem to make up stuff as you go.

 

[kant]

good. you're supposed to have to go to lectures. a decent textbook is not one for you to self learn from. it is to back up the course. you make it sound like a bad thing that you had to do what you were supposed to and go to the lectures.

Textbooks are written fro brevity and concision. proofs will be quick. plus, you've got to remember that how you write something in a book is in the reverse order from which you discover it. this means that motivation and explanation are ferquently omitted from books. but won't be in lectures. anyway - why did it suck? because you didn't understand it? have you learned how to read a maths textbook? do you have the right expectations of it? From your comment above, the answer appears to be 'no'.

I think the reason might be that the material in the textbook are not self contain enough so that one can self learn the stuff without the professor. perhaps that is one reason. It shouldn t be that way.

 

[matt grime]

I think the reason might be that the material in the textbook are not self contain enough so that one can self learn the stuff without the professor. perhaps that is one reason. It shouldn t be that way.

If you don't have the prerequisites for the book, then why did you buy it? If you have bought the inappropriate book for your level of knowledge that is your fault.

If you want every textbook to cover every digression and prerequisite books will be thousands of pages long, and no one would want to write one. But since you think professors have nothing better to do with their time than to write spoon-feeding books for you, you probably don't think that is a problem.

 

[hrc969]

i agree that it is necessary, but i think it need not be.

I said sometimes it is necessary.

Maybe not.

What do you mean maybe not? You just seems to be trying to disagree here. It seems that you are not only willing to be wrong but also actively trying to be wrong.

What is your point? Remember, i only said, a lot of textbooks are bad.

What does what you said about textbooks have to do with anything. You said reading distracts from solving problems. My point is: How do you expect to solve non-trivial problems without reading or with very little reading?

Do you want to provoke me?

I want you to back up your statement or shut up.

My only comment is that most textbooks suck.

Is that is? How do you get informations on MOST textbooks?

I never said reading books suck, but i did say many textbooks suck.

No you only said that if I wanted to read hard texts I should be an english major.

Do i think it is necessary to read textbooks? Yes.

Except you don't want to put in the time necessary to read textbooks right?

I am not even going to reply to your other comments because it is pure garbage. You seem to make up stuff as you go.

I have made nothing up.
I talk to Elman a lot and the thing about how many books I have you could easily verify by asking my classmates (if you knew who they were) and we have talked about it in Elman's office hours. You could ask Elman if he knows anyone with that many books. But that's really besides the point and I don't really care if you believe me. I'm just trying to help you here. If you are so convinced that most of the books that are used in your classes are bad then you won't learn as much as you can from them. If I can get you to change your mind and get you to start looking for good things about a book or look for what you can learn from it rather than looking at it and saying it is bad then you'll get much more out of your UCLA mathematics education. I used to despise the idea of going to UCLA (back when I was in 9th grade, I don't even remember why anymore) But now that I have experience the mathematics education here, I think this was the best place for me to come. There are a lot of great professor here who can help you learn but it does come at the price of putting in time. It really isn't all that bad.
If you would put your focus on learning rather than whining than you'd have a much better experience.

Anyways, I don't care if you do this or not, I am just suggesting it for your own good and only you can decide whether you want to do it or not:
Go talk to Elman (office is at MS 5328) and ask him about books about mathematics education especially at the upper division level.

Again I would really like to have a discussion on Gamelin's book. I know that book really well, I used it when I took the class from Mess and when I took one from Gamelin.

Also I think Matt Grime made a very good point. If you want to get the most out of a book then you should have all the required prerequisites. Also sometimes there are things that are not prerequisites but do enhance your ability to understand a certain subject. For example, you took Complex Analysis (132) before Real Anlysis (131AB). Now you don't absolutely need Real Analysis to do Complex Analysis but it does make it easier to understand chapter 2 of Gamelin's book you are confortable with the ideas reviewed in the first section of that chapter.

Oh and just as an interesting (at least to me it is interesting) one of the classic textbooks in Complex Anlysis is one by Lars Ahlfors. Now this is not one of my favorite texts. I don't think its bad but it is not one of the first ones I look at when I want to find something. Its probably the 15th or something. The reason I did not find this book enjoyable is because in my eyes it wastes way too much time developing prerequisites that I already know. Trying to read past that it may refer to specific things from the chapters on "prerequisites". I found it really annoying to go back and try to figure out what he was talking about. Now if I did not have access to other books with a different format then I would not cast this book aside as one of my least favorite. I do understand that its a book that was written many years ago and maybe students would not have take things such as topology before taking complex analysis (maybe I don't really know) but for the same reason I rather read a book written with people like me in mind. But given that there are books that jump straight into complex analysis assuming that you've had the required prerequisites I prefer those. Some people that have taken 132 and look at the book used for the graduate course (246A) that a large part of Gamelin's beginning is skipped. Some people like that (such as me) some people don't. Fortunately there are books for many kinds of people.

I will also add that when I took 132 from Mess I was really happy that Gamelin had the beginning of his book as he did. I had not taken real analysis either. I was taking it at the same time and sometimes I saw the same idea in the same day in different contexts and I thought that was pretty cool. But it did mean that I had to work a lot harder then some of my classmates. Not only did I have Mess but I was in the first quarter of my second year with some people in there (seniors and a grad student) being very familiar with real analysis. But now that I am past that stage Gamelin's book would not be my book of choice. Again different books are good for different people.

I am just trying to share my experience at UCLA with you (a fellow Bruin) in hope that you might get something better than what you seem to be on the path to getting out of it right now.

Also if you need help planning out your future schedule I can help you with that. I can help you with the order in which you should take classes to get more out of them.

EDIT:A little more about my experience with prerequisites:
One of the reasons that I struggled with manifolds for so long was that I did not have certain prerequisites. For examples, a lot of books' first(or near first) sentence (in the first chapter) starts "Let X be a Hausdorff topological space...". Now I started reading about manifolds in winter 06 and did not take topology until spring 06. So just in trying to read the first sentance of some of these books I was already stuck. I had to check out some topology books and read those for a while and then continue. There are some books which have an appendix on topology but as if almost always stated (by the author) they cannot replace a book on topology. The point is having the adequate prerequisites is very important in trying to read books. I could have very well come on PF and complained that the books I was looking at were bad because they just said that X was a Hausdorff topological space without telling me what it meant to be a topological space or what it meant for it to be Hausdorff. However instead I used my time to go look at some other books which definitely told me what those meant.
I would also like to point out that if you look at UCLA general catalog and go to the Mathematics section it does not say that topology(121) is a prerequisite for manifolds theory (225A) and it really isn't you can learn what you need while taking the class but just as 131A was not a prerequisite for 132, you spend less time struggling through things that some of your classmantes will already have seen if you have taken (or studied) it before.

 

[mathwonk]

hrc, actually your edition of ahlfors was written more recently, when they decided to stick topology in as a preparation topic. if you go back to the first edition you will not find that section cluttering up the beginning.

this illustrates unfortunately the posters point, math books get worse every time they are reissued. so the ones with the most editions, like thomas calculus, are the absolute worst.

 

[hrc969]

hrc, actually your edition of ahlfors was written more recently, when they decided to stick topology in as a preparation topic. if you go back to the first edition you will not find that section cluttering up the beginning.

Yeah, I have the third edition. But its still pretty old (1979). At least compared to my favorite Complex Analysis book (also in its third edition): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0821839624/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

this illustrates unfortunately the posters point, math books get worse every time they are reissued.

Well this is not always true. Krantz book on Several Complex Variables got a lot better for the second edition (it was pretty much impossible for it to get worse, he wrote the first edition (shortly) after failing to get tenure at UCLA so I guess he wasn't in the best of conditions). Also Grenne and Krantz's book is better than in the first edition. (Partly due to Boas I guess)

But maybe if they put out more editions they start getting worse every edition)

so the ones with the most editions, like thomas calculus, are the absolute worst.

I thought everyone loved Thomas Calculus! Although a lot of professor do say to get and older edition and not the newest. In particular they say to get a Thomas Calculus rather than a Thomas and Finney.

 

[mathwonk]

I think this thread may benefit from the advice of a better master than me.

"Whenever we are tempted to complain that our search after the truth that we desire so much is proving vain, - instead of so complaining, our first duty is to look into our souls and find whether the craving in the heart is real. Then in the vast majority of cases, it will be discovered that we were not fit to receive the truth.

There are still greater dangers in regard to the transmitter, the guru. There are many who, though immersed in ignorance, yet in the pride of their hearts, fancy they know everything and not only do not stop there, but offer to take others on their shoulders; and thus the blind leading the blind, both fall into the ditch.

To convey such an impulse to any soul, in the first place the soul from which it proceeds must possesses the power of transmitting it,as it were to another; and in the second place, the soul to which it is transmitted must be fit to receive it. The seed must be a living seed, and the field must be ready ploughed. and when both these conditions are fulfilled a wonderful growth ...takes place." Vivekananda.

 

[kant]

If you don't have the prerequisites for the book, then why did you buy it? If you have bought the inappropriate book for your level of knowledge that is your fault.

If you want every textbook to cover every digression and prerequisite books will be thousands of pages long, and no one would want to write one. But since you think professors have nothing better to do with their time than to write spoon-feeding books for you, you probably don't think that is a problem.

It goes without saying that the person who bought the book should have the prerequisites courses done, but perhaps there are certain "tricks" that are not cover in the standard prerequisite courses. What happens than?

Don t put works in my mouth. I am not saying reading a math books should be easy, but there should be a more easilar, efficient way of writing it. I like the advice of my english 101 professor, thy should always know one s audience.

 

[kant]

I said sometimes it is necessary.

What do you mean maybe not? You just seems to be trying to disagree here. It seems that you are not only willing to be wrong but also actively trying to be wrong.



What does what you said about textbooks have to do with anything. You said reading distracts from solving problems. My point is: How do you expect to solve non-trivial problems without reading or with very little reading?


I want you to back up your statement or shut up.

Is that is? How do you get informations on MOST textbooks?
No you only said that if I wanted to read hard texts I should be an english major.
Except you don't want to put in the time necessary to read textbooks right?
I have made nothing up.
I talk to Elman a lot and the thing about how many books I have you could easily verify by asking my classmates (if you knew who they were) and we have talked about it in Elman's office hours. You could ask Elman if he knows anyone with that many books. But that's really besides the point and I don't really care if you believe me. I'm just trying to help you here. If you are so convinced that most of the books that are used in your classes are bad then you won't learn as much as you can from them. If I can get you to change your mind and get you to start looking for good things about a book or look for what you can learn from it rather than looking at it and saying it is bad then you'll get much more out of your UCLA mathematics education. I used to despise the idea of going to UCLA (back when I was in 9th grade, I don't even remember why anymore) But now that I have experience the mathematics education here, I think this was the best place for me to come. There are a lot of great professor here who can help you learn but it does come at the price of putting in time. It really isn't all that bad.
If you would put your focus on learning rather than whining than you'd have a much better experience.

Anyways, I don't care if you do this or not, I am just suggesting it for your own good and only you can decide whether you want to do it or not:
Go talk to Elman (office is at MS 5328) and ask him about books about mathematics education especially at the upper division level.

Again I would really like to have a discussion on Gamelin's book. I know that book really well, I used it when I took the class from Mess and when I took one from Gamelin.

Also I think Matt Grime made a very good point. If you want to get the most out of a book then you should have all the required prerequisites. Also sometimes there are things that are not prerequisites but do enhance your ability to understand a certain subject. For example, you took Complex Analysis (132) before Real Anlysis (131AB). Now you don't absolutely need Real Analysis to do Complex Analysis but it does make it easier to understand chapter 2 of Gamelin's book you are confortable with the ideas reviewed in the first section of that chapter.

Oh and just as an interesting (at least to me it is interesting) one of the classic textbooks in Complex Anlysis is one by Lars Ahlfors. Now this is not one of my favorite texts. I don't think its bad but it is not one of the first ones I look at when I want to find something. Its probably the 15th or something. The reason I did not find this book enjoyable is because in my eyes it wastes way too much time developing prerequisites that I already know. Trying to read past that it may refer to specific things from the chapters on "prerequisites". I found it really annoying to go back and try to figure out what he was talking about. Now if I did not have access to other books with a different format then I would not cast this book aside as one of my least favorite. I do understand that its a book that was written many years ago and maybe students would not have take things such as topology before taking complex analysis (maybe I don't really know) but for the same reason I rather read a book written with people like me in mind. But given that there are books that jump straight into complex analysis assuming that you've had the required prerequisites I prefer those. Some people that have taken 132 and look at the book used for the graduate course (246A) that a large part of Gamelin's beginning is skipped. Some people like that (such as me) some people don't. Fortunately there are books for many kinds of people.

I will also add that when I took 132 from Mess I was really happy that Gamelin had the beginning of his book as he did. I had not taken real analysis either. I was taking it at the same time and sometimes I saw the same idea in the same day in different contexts and I thought that was pretty cool. But it did mean that I had to work a lot harder then some of my classmates. Not only did I have Mess but I was in the first quarter of my second year with some people in there (seniors and a grad student) being very familiar with real analysis. But now that I am past that stage Gamelin's book would not be my book of choice. Again different books are good for different people.

I am just trying to share my experience at UCLA with you (a fellow Bruin) in hope that you might get something better than what you seem to be on the path to getting out of it right now.

Also if you need help planning out your future schedule I can help you with that. I can help you with the order in which you should take classes to get more out of them.

EDIT:A little more about my experience with prerequisites:
One of the reasons that I struggled with manifolds for so long was that I did not have certain prerequisites. For examples, a lot of books' first(or near first) sentence (in the first chapter) starts "Let X be a Hausdorff topological space...". Now I started reading about manifolds in winter 06 and did not take topology until spring 06. So just in trying to read the first sentance of some of these books I was already stuck. I had to check out some topology books and read those for a while and then continue. There are some books which have an appendix on topology but as if almost always stated (by the author) they cannot replace a book on topology. The point is having the adequate prerequisites is very important in trying to read books. I could have very well come on PF and complained that the books I was looking at were bad because they just said that X was a Hausdorff topological space without telling me what it meant to be a topological space or what it meant for it to be Hausdorff. However instead I used my time to go look at some other books which definitely told me what those meant.
I would also like to point out that if you look at UCLA general catalog and go to the Mathematics section it does not say that topology(121) is a prerequisite for manifolds theory (225A) and it really isn't you can learn what you need while taking the class but just as 131A was not a prerequisite for 132, you spend less time struggling through things that some of your classmantes will already have seen if you have taken (or studied) it before.

I don't have the patience to reply to your long post. Try to summerize your main point to something that i can easly reply to. thanking you.

 

[matt grime]

Don t put works in my mouth.

The only words I put in your mouth were the ones you wrote: that research is easy, that professors have lots of free time (and presumably that writing maths is easy), thus they should find it easy to write lots of maths for you to understand easily.

There certainly do exist poor textbooks, but none of the criticisms you've levelled have displayed any sign that you appreciate what a good textbook is or what it should intend to do. You criticisms seem more like bleating about how hard you find them to understand for the wrong reasons. I can certainly cite several texts that are badly written (very poor language, riddled with mistakes) but your reasons seem far more pedestrian: assumes that the reader ought to work harder, for example, or 'means one ought to go to the lectures'. Well, you're bloody well supposed to go to the lectures; the books are there for a reference.

 

[WolfOfTheSteps]

You know what the problem is? It's not that there are no good books, it's that teachers won't choose the good books. Now, they may be busy, but they should take the time to research this.

From what I understand, most teachers get tons of books sent to them for free, and they often choose text based on a cursory glance at these free "samples." I've had profs personally tell me this is how they chose the text. Another way is that they simply use a book by a prof at the University, sort of out of courtesy. Or they use their own book (reasons for that are obvious).

This is all b.s. in my opinion. There is no way for the cream to rise to the top in this system.

I also get these teachers who complain about the text all quarter. Why are they using it in the first place?

I transferred to an "elite" University from a community college. I can tell you flat out that CC teachers are infinitely better at choosing a good book than a University prof.

Something fishy seems to be going on. Does anyone know what the deal is?

 

[morphism]

Something fishy seems to be going on. Does anyone know what the deal is?

The department could be assigning the textbooks, not the profs.