I have never actually seen a copy of that book in real life, and I haven't heard many stories about it. I would say that being so old, you are likely to encounter antiquated ways of doing things, and notation that is not in line with modern conventions. I have a few books that are quite old (Schrodinger's thermodynamics book, Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics") but mostly to see what the masters thought about their subject, not to learn for the first time. But I really don't know anything about it. Maybe it's a great book, I unfortunately have no idea.

Skimming through it, it looks like a good book, but everything is done in the language of geometry where you have line $\overline{AB}$ and chord this, and blah blah blah, which I would find annoying if I were using it. If you want some recommendations or help obtaining them, let me know.

@Josh Silverman
–
@Josh Silverman sir, please can you recommend a book for solving PDEs using methods like fourier analsys and seperation of varriables, also when we use seperation of varriables to find the solution as an infinite sum (say a fourier sine series), how can we find the closed form, and in what situations can we find it? or is there no choice but to approx with the first few terms

@Mvs Saketh
–
Hey @Mvs Saketh , maybe someone with a pure math background like @Calvin Lin will have a different suggestion, but I first learned PDEs from Boyce and diPrima, which is a pretty common textbook in the U.S. After I took that course, I was recommended the Apostol books on calculus, which I can't recommend enough. Volume 2 handles differential equations.

I think finding closed forms for series is rolling the dice. Sometimes you'll be able to go all the way, and sometimes you'll have to truncate the series and estimate how wrong you'll be due to your approximation. For instance, in lattice systems, Fourier transforms are a trusted tool, though they often don't lead to exact solutions. I don't think there is a useful rule I could suggest for when you'll have to approximate or not. For Fourier series I like this set of notes though I think you continue to get more comfortable with transforms and tricks as you read different viewpoints and see them in action. If you enjoy series and transforms, statistical mechanics and condensed matter are full of them, as are stochastic processes and field theories (string, quantum, etc).

@Swapnil Das
–
I forgot to give this link to you, Kleppner and Kolenkow the other day. I consider this to be the absolute best starting book for mechanics. The problems and examples in the book are of a quality not matched in any other mechanics book I can think of. You'll definitely find inspiration in working through this book, even though it is just the beginning.

@Swapnil Das
–
Since it seems you are driven by your interest in physics, I would suggest you take the time to learn calculus well. You're very young and so, are already way ahead of a lot of people who hope to master some part of physics. I'd think it best to use your head start to your advantage and get comfortable with calculus, just like it's a new language you're learning. Calculus also leads you into beautiful areas of pure math like real analysis, complex analysis, topology, and more.

I was never motivated to move beyond my effortless abilities in math until I read the book Prime Obsession in high school, and was very frustrated I couldn't really understand some of the math tricks he talks about. Then I started skipping ahead as quickly as I could, and learned calculus.

On the other hand, people criticize the push for calculus at a young age, because there are a lot of other topics in math that are arguably better for developing problem solving skills. I agree with that, but... if you're excited about physics, I think calculus is a language you can't get around being able to speak. There is only so far you can go without it, and that isn't very far (relatively) in the grand scheme of physics.

So yeah, tl;dr if you are able to, I would learn calculus. If not, I would learn what you need to so that you can start calculus.

@Swapnil Das
–
i do not know, but if u want a book with good problems and at the same time nice theory, i would suggest david morin classical mechanics, i have never seen someone teach better

$</code> ... <code>$</code>...<code>."> Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in $</span> ... <span>$ or $</span> ... <span>$ to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestHey Swapnil,

I have never actually seen a copy of that book in real life, and I haven't heard many stories about it. I would say that being so old, you are likely to encounter antiquated ways of doing things, and notation that is not in line with modern conventions. I have a few books that are quite old (Schrodinger's thermodynamics book, Dirac's "Principles of Quantum Mechanics") but mostly to see what the masters thought about their subject, not to learn for the first time. But I really don't know anything about it. Maybe it's a great book, I unfortunately have no idea.

Log in to reply

Thank you for your reply! Well, here is the link to the book

Josh Silverman

Log in to reply

Skimming through it, it looks like a good book, but everything is done in the language of geometry where you have line $\overline{AB}$ and chord this, and blah blah blah, which I would find annoying if I were using it. If you want some recommendations or help obtaining them, let me know.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

$Please$ suggest me how to learn

No, Can UCalculus?Log in to reply

How to Ace Calculus

I think this book and its successor are good even if they look sillyThis Martin Gardner book is also good Calculus Made Easy.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

@Josh Silverman sir, please can you recommend a book for solving PDEs using methods like fourier analsys and seperation of varriables, also when we use seperation of varriables to find the solution as an infinite sum (say a fourier sine series), how can we find the closed form, and in what situations can we find it? or is there no choice but to approx with the first few terms

Log in to reply

@Mvs Saketh , maybe someone with a pure math background like @Calvin Lin will have a different suggestion, but I first learned PDEs from Boyce and diPrima, which is a pretty common textbook in the U.S. After I took that course, I was recommended the Apostol books on calculus, which I can't recommend enough. Volume 2 handles differential equations.

HeyI think finding closed forms for series is rolling the dice. Sometimes you'll be able to go all the way, and sometimes you'll have to truncate the series and estimate how wrong you'll be due to your approximation. For instance, in lattice systems, Fourier transforms are a trusted tool, though they often don't lead to exact solutions. I don't think there is a useful rule I could suggest for when you'll have to approximate or not. For Fourier series I like this set of notes though I think you continue to get more comfortable with transforms and tricks as you read different viewpoints and see them in action. If you enjoy series and transforms, statistical mechanics and condensed matter are full of them, as are stochastic processes and field theories (string, quantum, etc).

Log in to reply

PDFable" books for pure math?@Josh Silverman

Log in to reply

Kleppner and Kolenkow the other day. I consider this to be the absolute best starting book for mechanics. The problems and examples in the book are of a quality not matched in any other mechanics book I can think of. You'll definitely find inspiration in working through this book, even though it is just the beginning.

I forgot to give this link to you,Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Thanks!Log in to reply

Log in to reply

I was never motivated to move beyond my effortless abilities in math until I read the book Prime Obsession in high school, and was very frustrated I couldn't really understand some of the math tricks he talks about. Then I started skipping ahead as quickly as I could, and learned calculus.

On the other hand, people criticize the push for calculus at a young age, because there are a lot of other topics in math that are arguably better for developing problem solving skills. I agree with that, but... if you're excited about physics, I think calculus is a language you can't get around being able to speak. There is only so far you can go without it, and that isn't very far (relatively) in the grand scheme of physics.

So yeah, tl;dr if you are able to, I would learn calculus. If not, I would learn what you need to so that you can start calculus.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

@Josh Silverman @Steven Zheng

Log in to reply

I don't know about the book you bought. Sorry.

Log in to reply

No problem, thanks for the reply!

Log in to reply

there is some error, i cant see the name of the book you wrote, can you comment the name of book

Log in to reply

Elements of Statics and Dynamics by SL Loney.

Log in to reply

oh, some people say its a good book, but i never really liked S.L . Looney books, you may like it however

I mean, i dont like books that are so clumsy, and dull,

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

this book?

Is itLog in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply