Sick of (perceived) shitty textbooks in college, and in mathematics in particular

I need some outsider opinions on this and /lit/ is the only place I could think of where this discussion might be appropriate. I don't mean to rant pointlessly but that might be what this turns into. I've been learning some technical subjects on my own for a while. For instance, in highschool I learned to program through free online books, tutorials, and trial & error. I've also learned a small amount of mathematics and philosophy on my own. I'm in college now, pursuing a degree in math. I largely prefer to learn by reading, I don't enjoy receiving instruction because it doesn't benefit me. I rarely care to watch through an entire lecture or even youtube video on some subject but I'm thouroughly enjoy cracking open a book that has been beautifully written and taking things one step at a time. I enjoy closing the book and thinking about the material, and then opening it back up and continuing, and solving problems one by one if they are present. Because of this, I end up disappointed every class I take. I start with a positive attitude, and tell myself I'll get over my own arrogance and accept whatever books the course requires, and try to be grateful for the education I'm able to have. Then I take the course and a few things happen - The course textbook is absolute verbose, pointless garbage. - The other students don't read the textbook. - Practice is done through completing a small fraction of textbook exercises or by using an online system. - I'm expected to participate in lectures or online meetings. I end up feeling disgusted as all of my passion for the subject is subverted. For instance, right now I am getting prepared to take a linear algebra class in two months. I've already studied linear algebra on my own with a beautifully written book in which the author was able to make his point in less than 300 pages. The proofs were difficult but every chapter introduced only a few concepts which the exercises elaborated on, and the process of learning each new concept and solving the riddle like problems at the end of the chapter was enjoyable. My favorite part about the book- no applications, only proofs. Now my class requires a book that looks like it was written like an encyclopedia, with ugly boxes scattered around the pages, ugly typesetting, countless contrived cookie cutter exercises, and many applications and few proofs, spread out over roughly 1300 pages- more than 1000 pages more than the previous book. I know that the text book I'm preparing to read is comprehensive and that I am being arrogant by judging it when it was written by someone much more educated then I am. I know that even if I don't enjoy it I will learn a lot by working through the book. I want to get overmyself and do what I believe is the right thing. But they way I feel is as if I'm being force fed mcdonalds after already having been accustomed to normal unprocessed food. It just makes me feel disgusted that I'm going to waste so much time reading such a souless book when I could spend the same time reading something written with love. I've looked for discussions online to see if someone else has struggled with the same thing as me but I can't find anything. Am I being arrogant? Every textbook is the same, every class I start out telling myself I'm going to read the whole thing and work through every exercise so I can get the satisfaction of feeling like I accomplished something. Then after a few weeks I give up and give the bare minimum need to get the grade I want. I'm starting to become discouraged and am wondering if anyone else here has struggled with a similar feeling. I know the same problem of souless, profit driven text books plagues the rest of academia, not just mathematics, so there must be many of you. I just need someone I can discuss this with who can provide some perspective.

>>4837 If you were anywhere near as smart as you pose as being you wouldn't be wasting your time writing up long screeds about how much textbooks suck. You won't find other people complaining about this because everyone already knows that textbooks are typically made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is intrinsic to the fact that they are textbooks. The few good ones that get mentioned often are exceptional because they are the few that aren't soykafty. If you want to prove yourself as better than your peers rather than just whine, go to your classes, and do all the work that you claim you already learned. Then go to the university library and grab several Springer texts on whichever subjects you would like to dive further into. Don't think of your schooling as only what is happening in the class, and use your time well if they aren't challenging you enough. If you do this and are actually as good as you are posing as, go to several professor's office hours and discuss the latest things you have been reading in your Springer books outside class. If you don't come off like an arrogant prick like you did in this rant, they will probably see you as someone they might want to work with. The good professors will give you information and potential opportunities to work on their research, assist them, or participate in some sort of independent research study. They might also invite you to audit graduate research seminars and other interesting things depending on what they have available. For real though why the fuarrrk do you even feel the need to write this kind of stuff? Get back to studying if you are so smart. It is probably healthier to accept that you didn't get into some big brain genius school, and if you don't like that it is on you to remedy the situation. They aren't going to switch the coursework or the course texts god-tier big-brain soykaf just because one goof shows up thinking they are hot soykaf. In all likelihood if you were better you wouldn't be there. If you don't give them a concrete reason to think otherwise by your actions, they will see you as a pleb, and treat you like one.

>>4838 Speaking as a mathlet, I also feel upset at soykafty math textbooks because they make my life difficult.

>>4838 Textbooks don't suck, they just pick soykafty ones for underclassmen because the engineers and bio majors have to be able to understand them. >>4837 When you start taking the core classes for your math degree (abstract algebra, real analysis, topology, etc.) you'll probably find that both the textbooks and the lectures improve.

>>4838 >If you want to prove yourself as better than your peers rather than just whine I'm not trying to do this, I genuinely take joy in the field I'm entering into. I mention that my peers don't read the book as a way of demonstrating that we aren't expected to read the book. >Then go to the university library and grab several Springer texts on whichever subjects you would like to dive further into. Don't think of your schooling as only what is happening in the class, and use your time well if they aren't challenging you enough. I already do this. >If you do this and are actually as good as you are posing as, go to several professor's office hours and discuss the latest things you have been reading in your Springer books outside class. If you don't come off like an arrogant prick like you did in this rant, they will probably see you as someone they might want to work with. The good professors will give you information and potential opportunities to work on their research, assist them, or participate in some sort of independent research study. They might also invite you to audit graduate research seminars and other interesting things depending on what they have available. Thanks for the advice, if I came across as arrogant to you, then I am certainly going to come across as arrogant to my professors. >For real though why the fuarrrk do you even feel the need to write this kind of stuff? What's wrong with getting things off of my chest? I already study every day. For every class I take I also study another subject outside of my course work. Is it wrong that I want my classes to also be productive as well? I want to read the books my professors give me but once I open them I become very discouraged. >It is probably healthier to accept that you didn't get into some big brain genius school, I'm still in community college, I don't apply to transfer university until the fall. Is community college not bad? I have to support myself and I'm poor as dirt. Anyway, I don't mean to argue against your points, I only want discussion. Thank you for listening to me and answering, your feedback is valuable to me because it allows me to see myself the way others see me. One thing I realize by reading your response is something that should be clear to see but I don't pay attention to since I forget that people don't value the same things as me. That is that people view my enthusiasm for math and software as arrogance and me wanting to come across as smart. This is because the general population views those things as wretched ways to spend one's time and so if I'm interested in them, of course people will think I'm just trying to act smart since they won't believe that someone actually enjoys the subjects for their own merit.

>>4839 I'm glad someone can relate. >>4840 I guess I should be thinking about that. Since each class is a one size fits all solution there will be some students whose mindset is not a good fit for the class. >When you start taking the core classes for your math degree (abstract algebra, real analysis, topology, etc.) you'll probably find that both the textbooks and the lectures improve. Thanks for the encouragement. I'm thinking the best solution is to stop worrying so much about trying to get the most out of my classes until I reach that point. If I focus on just getting grades and ignore everything else I'll have more free time to keep studying the books that provide the most interest, then later on I can truly invest myself in the core classes.

>>4838 >If you were anywhere near as smart as you pose as being you wouldn't be wasting your time writing up long screeds about how much textbooks suck. You won't find other people complaining about this because everyone already knows that textbooks are typically made with the lowest common denominator in mind. That is intrinsic to the fact that they are textbooks. This isn't necessarily true. Many textbooks are bad because they don't need to exist -- that is to say they are created for the purpose of being created, in most cases schools and professors create their own textbooks in order to make more money, they do this by creating new editions to prevent used books from being available for courses for example, or maybe by offering some kind of thematic or political gimmick as a way to make the text 'new' for publishers. It goes to follow that if there's 10,000,000 textbooks on something like mathematics, most of them have no real reason to exist.

Skate through the class and dont bother with the textbook. At your level, math classes exist to teach ignorant engineers stuff that they will forget instantly. Nobody teaches those classes with love because their students are either pre-meds who only care about getting an A, dumbasses who couldn't give less of a soykaf about the class, or bright math students who already know the material. They are lucky if a single person in the class is ripe for having their mind expanded by linear algebra, so they dont try to do it. You will find that more advanced classes get more interesting. This will be because the professors actually enjoy the things they're teaching(I mean come on, who doesnt have fun teaching intro topology?) And because you will have the "mathematical maturity" to really appreciate the subject. You're at the unfortunate stage where the basics are too easy but the advanced stuff is too hard. Stick with it and you'll grow out of it.

>>4842 >Thanks for the encouragement No problem. If a math degree is your goal, you'll know your doing "real math" when you start reading and writing proofs. Until then just focus on understanding the material and don't let it frustrate you. Even in a four-year bachelor's program you usually don't start this "real" math until the second or third year. >If I focus on just getting grades and ignore everything else Yes, you need to do this. If you get straight As in your math classes you will have a much better shot at those more interesting math classes. >>4843 >that is to say they are created for the purpose of being created A lot of them exist to sell online homework systems, because it's the only way Wiley or whoever can get their pound of flesh now that textbook piracy is so widespread. They're soulless focus-grouped crap designed to help mediocre people pantomime their way to success. I haven't had nearly as much of an issue with textbooks written by professors. Those are usually just written because the professor is out of new ideas so they want to get everything they've learned out there before they retire.

>>4837 >The course textbook is absolute verbose, pointless garbage. I hate this so much. I'm taking (and now failing) differential equations. the required textbook is horrid. it's cryptic and requires spending a lot of time poring over a single page to decipher what the meaning is. in contrast some guy online makes a video or pdf that explains to me what I need to know in less than five minutes. I don't know if it's being arrogant. I find that most of the approved textbooks are terrible ways to teach math, because I don't learn from them. When there are so many other sources that can teach me more effectively, that is. But what's your point here? just use something else to learn and use the textbook just to work examples. >>4838 >smart as you pose >as good as you are posing as > if you are so smart I don't think OP said he was a genius. where are you getting this? >textbooks are typically made with the lowest common denominator in mind But they aren't. that's the problem. Trying to understand a process in some textbooks is like a slog through a mud pit. It's the exact opposite of appealing to the lowest common denominator. In my textbooks every explanation is extremely verbose and feels like reading a legal document with the addition of lots of symbols I've never used before. Meanwhile, you can go on youtube and someone will explain the same thing in a way that actually helps the lowest common denominator and any mathlet can understand. There have been so many times I've struggled with something, then found a video, or just a random professor's Web page, that helps me figure it out quickly. the textbook can write what feels like a senate bill, when really all that needs to be said could be like "oh yeah basically what it means is you take the derivative of this function and then multiply by this other one, that's it." >>4839 I agree. >>4841 to be fair you didn't come across as arrogant to me. I have the same problems trying to do well in class and it blows.

>>4848 >Trying to understand a process in some textbooks is like a slog through a mud pit. It's the exact opposite of appealing to the lowest common denominator. In my textbooks every explanation is extremely verbose and feels like reading a legal document Exactly, it feels like the author tried to cram as much information in as possible in order to hit some target number of pages/word count, instead of simply writing what is needed to cleanly get the point across. A good book should have a point to every paragraph, and every point should be leading the reader somewhere. There is no purpose of having hundreds of boxes which distract from the main idea, or 100+ exercises at the end of each chapter. I've read math books that only have a few pages + a few exercises per chapter, which are still challenging. But they aren't challenging because you feel like you have to keep in mind many ideas at the same time. Instead, they are challenging because they force you to think about a single idea with intense precision and clarity. This is what I wish for when I study math, but when I have to read a textbook by cengage or some other garbage publisher, I feel like I'm reading something that was written by a lawyer, with many detours, distracting side points, and useless repetition. >But what's your point here? just use something else to learn and use the textbook just to work examples. I guess this is where I differ from many people. I actually enjoy reading and learning from books. I have read a few "good" mathematics books that were not part of course work and the experiences have been gratifying to me. On the other hand, I struggle with videos and lectures. It might be ADHD, i'm not sure, but as soon as I start listenting to a lecture my mind begins to wander and I end up feeling frustrated and learning nothing. It's actually the same when someone gives me instructions, I'm very spacey and tend to zone out while people talk to me, and I only snap back to attention once they finish. I try very hard not to do this because it irritates people when they notice it, but I still end up doing it. That's probably just me though. I try to read the books because if I read the entire book I feel like I've accomplished something. It's like playing a video game or eating a meal- you feel like you've wasted your time unless you finish the whole thing. If I skip around between sections and only work through some of the problems, I feel the same as someone who has eaten half of his plate and stopped. It feels like a waste. But if I finish the whole book I feel like I've succeeded at something, and this motivates me to continue studying. The way classes are organized seems very chaotic to me. When I study a subject on my own, I pick a goal (such as a project I'd like to create or book to read) then work towards the goal until it's finished. This singular mindset is conducive to learning because the goal gives me something to organize knowledge with respect to. But when I take a class, there is no "goal", just many disparate assignments, read this section of the book, skip this section, do this online quiz, watch this lecture. I feel like I'm being graded on my ability to keep track of assignments and dates, and not for learning the actual material. It is as if every course is designed to undermine the very source of motivation which I am born with. I don't mean to sound childish by complaining so much. I just find it very discouraging the disconnect between actual study and course work. But I am very grateful to have the opportunity to be educated, and I know at the end of the day I am not in college to learn- I'm in it to get a degree and meet like minded people so I can either build a business or get a decent job. So the disconnect really shouldn't bother me as much as it does.

>>4848 > it's cryptic and requires spending a lot of time poring over a single page to decipher what the meaning is. Then it is poorly written, however it seems that you are complaining about different things as well. >in contrast some guy online makes a video or pdf that explains to me what I need to know in less than five minutes. you gain the illusion that you understand what you need to understand. Usually the basics of any mathematical idea can be conveyed in five minutes, but it takes hours and hours of study and practice to learn the particulars, and without a thorough and intimate understanding the particulars you cannot say that you really know the subject. Do you think you can learn a language by watching a few hours of youtube videos? >In my textbooks every explanation is extremely verbose and feels like reading a legal document with the addition of lots of symbols I've never used before. If you want to learn math you will need to learn the notation. If you want to learn math you will need to understand what makes a mathematical fact true and what makes a mathematical proof valid. The weird notation and pedantery is there for a very good reason, if you skipped over it you would end up like the Italian geometers who discovered that their theorems were all false because they never bothered to rigorously prove them. Especially in the early stages of math education, the legalese-like proofs are there because otherwise you could accept something as true that later turns out to be false. Your intuition is not yet trained for mathematical precision, and in math you should never just take someone's word for it. The best textbooks have an intuitive explanation followed by a rigorous one. It sounds to me like the main failing of your textbook is that it doesn't have a good intuitive explanation for anything. That is like kicking dead whales down the beach, and if you want a really good differential equations book that has just the right mix, read Arnol'd. I warn you that it will not be easy at all, in fact it will probably be much more difficult than your current book.

>>4857 >Usually the basics of any mathematical idea can be conveyed in five minutes, but it takes hours and hours of study and practice to learn the particulars Exactly. I could tell a student to memorize the quadratic formula and they'd be able to find roots of a quadratic function, but this information is entirely useless. Outside of a precalc class finding roots of quadratic functions is never something you have to do in isolation. Your boss is never going to tell you "hey, when you're done with those spreadsheets could you factor a few polynomials for me?". But it is useful to understand what quadratic functions are and how they work, because they're central to all kinds of stuff. The stuff students think "doesn't matter" is often the most important, and the toy problems we give them are just meant to help them explore and practice those core ideas. It's sort of the fault of the education system, but they tend to get tunnel vision and think solving fake problems is the point of math, and then get frustrated when you don't give them the most direct way to solve problems that don't actually need solving in the first place. It's like thinking that the point of playing guitar is to get good at playing scales really fast, so you can get up on stage and show everyone how fast you can play scales. The scales are practice so it's easier for you to make actual music later on.

I experienced exactly the same thing! I have a masters now. I had just a few classes where the lectures followed a decent textbook closely. They were great and i topped those classes. Other times there was a prescribed textbook, but then i got rekt because learning from it did not cover the same things as the lectures. Most students just dont like books. And/or lecturers dont like following books for some reason. It is terrible and very significantly compromised my education to the point of essentially ruining it. In my undergrad with physics and maths it was simply impossible to deal with the face-to-face learning style so i didnt do very well. In my masters I had lecture recordings and managed to do well just by forcing myself to use those. There is just no choice but to try to matching the expected learning style even when it is bad for you personally

>>4861 It is good that you were able to make it through despite the obstacles. I might try your strategy of recording the lectures.

bump for visibility

>>4838 OP was being very humble and open-minded, and you responded like they were your typical /g/ OP. Be better.

>>4837 If you're still here, what's the name of the first textbook you read, OP? I hated linear algebra but I would love the chance to change my mind about it.

>>4838 i think you're being a bit harsh on lain, i'm the same as him and i'm not some savant or anything. college learning is, as with everything else, meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and it is trash in many cases. it is frustrating to be somewhat of an autodidact to deal with these things such as "interacting with the class" in online courses and such. it's frustrating to sit there and be told to look over somebody else's work when they clearly aren't interested, didn't take the time to learn, and now you have to come up with a cordial response in an online forum setting in class where if the instructor doesn't subjectively like what you said you get points taken off or whatever. it's fuarrrking stressful and retarded. my college is paid for (and i get paid rent) to go to college from my military time and i still stopped because it's retarded as fuarrrk. the only reason i was able to get a decent job is because of my military background and the fact that i'm great at learning things on my own. college is a brandead endurance test for putting up with tired, redundant bullshit.

OP, I feel the same way. It was sort of scary reading my thoughts from another person. I don't think we should blame the textbooks or the authors though. Since they are only selling a product, they can only be partially responsible for its actual use. My College also teaches in the same way with online grading tools that are sometimes faulty :/ I think there has to be a good examination of the purpose in pursuing higher education. Do their goals align with ours? They want to make money and so do we. Some might even teach Mathematics and other disciplines in a way that doesn't command unquestioning faith. It is possible to be taught something that enlightens you and sustains you financially. In reality though, most institutions are not like that. They either simply don't inspire anything or they also don't help you in your career. I'm not saying its entirely useless though. I'm sure if you are passionate enough you will pursue your interest in Mathematics with or without some institutional certification.But if you do get pass this extended period of academic labor, you will be rewarded with new opportunities in your field. Right now it might be easier to stop interpreting Uni as having anything to do with what you are pursuing, instead as a specially tailored form of labor that will allow you to study what you want sometime in the future.

>>4837 > I've already studied linear algebra on my own with a beautifully written book what is the name of the book lain?

>>4837 depending on the math you need to learn, "The Organic Chemistry Tutor" YouTube channel is excellent for math,

>>4837 What was the title of the Linear Algebra book you enjoyed? i might give it a look myself as i recently had a similar problem and am now curious to see what a "good textbook" looks like

>>4837 Most textbooks are indeed soykaf, and the authors know it. They write it in their spare time after teaching a course for a long time and having some experience on how the course should go to make at least some students get from semester N to semester N+1 or semester N+2. These choices are heavily influenced by the curriculum of the university they teach in, and it will show. I'm pretty sure most of them are aware of this, and "balance it" by adding the few interesting bits that they never had enough lectures to teach. They also hope that by releasing this textbook, students that have a hard time following lectures but are industrious can get more done. Beyond that however, I don't think there's many who would expect their book to reach or appeal to a wide audience with various backgrounds or coming from various curriculums. The ugliest example of this I saw was a book on probability and statistics by my lecturer. The preface said it was a book with lots of practical examples, but it turned out to be just a soykafton of exercises with vague or rushed explanations that didn't help at all, unless you understood already. It was a disgrace to the format. >>4838 You don't really know what a textbook is for it seems. Your post is somewhat cringe too. >>4841 Just ignore the dude, he probably spent hours discussing politics on some other board before washing up in the thread, he probably calmed down since. >>4843 I've seen a counter-example or two, where the teacher got as low as $0.4 per sale from a $10+ textbook, which was entirely optional to buy for anyone. He said he just hated that there's no good book in the country's language so he had nothing good to recommend for his classes. May sound like a humble brag, but it's the honest words of an awesome prof. >>4848 What you describe is indeed a common problem in math teaching, because explaining the motivation is not always possible, or it would require repetition. Organically, math is just people having ideas, using vague, imprecise intuitions to work with to explore the idea, and when finished, give it a more formal definition and standardize symbol use. Books usually have no time or pages for this "organic" part and don't want to "confuse" people who are looking for the correct answer with what if's, so they just explain "how things are". As such, they will give the most rigorous and formal definition possible, preventing cocksuckers from sending complaints about how their definitions are imprecise or w/e. But the thing is, students do much better if they are given the motivated and organic version first and have it formalized only later, which is why youtube videos tend to be so awesome: they give an organic explanation and leave the formal soykaf for books.

>>4837 OP, you have no idea how glad I am to have come across this post. I've been having the same problem as you lately and it's been driving me insane.The problem is also present in philosophy and arithmetic textbooks as well. It's good to know I'm not the only one who's had this problem. I believe it's driven by, as you say, textbook publishers giving into the demand of the lowest common denominational consumer, but I'd say even that has its beginnings in ineffective standardised educational curriculums. Government legislation is driven by corporate greed and the requirement to fit the needs of the state. It's a sad & sordid affair but these days independent self-tutelage is the only way to fly if you're genuinely intelligent. Keep doing what you're doing, brother - and don't let some of the more cynical bozos in this thread get you down. I don't think you're coming across as particularly arrogant. It's a difficult existence being intelligent while also doubting yourself. They've probably just had bad experiences with tryhards who claimed to be intelligent before. Best of luck to you. >>4838 gives genuinely good advice, even if it is a bit mean-spirited. Networking is arguably the real reason to go to universities these days in the information age. Get jacked in to the social net!

I guess you could use multiple books? including your favorites, at least that what I used to do back in the day, anyways I just wanted to point out how ironic it is that most people mention how soykafty textbooks are, since I remember being in this class where some ultra genius guy was the TA and during sessions he would throw rants on how due to his high level of intelligence and understanding of physics he would never bother to write a book explaining advanced topics to plebs like us as it would damage his 'reputation'; he said something along the lines of "I will never step out of my ferrari (academically speaking) to help people like you" and then boasted about his research opportunities assiting post-doctorate students in germany that would finally stop him wasting his time with us. kinda sad and scary that knowledge and technology that could help humanity (if there is such thing) is under the hands of this kind of people. corrupt politicians / corps or egocentric academics, there is truly no hope.

Hope this thread is not dead and it may be a little unrelated, but do you lainons have any recommendations on calculus textbooks for an absolute beginner?

>>8864 Tom Apostol - One Veriable Calculus, with an Introduction to Linear Algebra Michael Spivak - Calculus James Stewart - Calculus: Early Transcendentals any of these will be more than enough for anyone with good algebra skills to learn calculus. https://envs.sh/hkC.zip >>8418 I have met only one such person in my entire academic career. Stupidest bastard I've ever met.

>>8865 Kina off-topic but what would be a good bibliography for learning those good algebra skills? I feel my basics are bad, lainon.

>>9008 Honestly I don't know, lain. I never had to read such a book myself, I only learned that as a child. Perhaps consider the OpenStax book. https://openstax.org/details/books/algebra-and-trigonometry-2e I will have to re-teach my girlfriend mathematics over the summer too, so if you find this good maybe I will suggest it for her.

>>9009 >diversity, equity, and inclusion gross. Lang is better https://archive.org/details/basicmathematics0000lang

>>9010 You didn't read the book you were comparing. I would bet money you haven't read Lang either. Sage when you soykafpost, retard.

>>9009 I know my algebra as well, but I just feel I need a review and some problems and exercises to warm-up again before trying those >>8865 Found this some months ago: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm And the algebra section seems good but Gelfand books seems very summarized in my opinion. There's Euler's Elements of Algebra (of something like that), still relevant but I would like something more in-depth. If you lainons find something please let me know.

>>4837 University is meant to funnel money out of you and into the administrator's pocket. Textbooks are meant to funnel money out of you and into the publisher's pocket (often in bed with university administration). Sorry you had to find out this way. Quality is a long way down on their list of priorities. Not to say that it isn't worth it to get a degree, but know what the incentives are for the institution.

>>4838 I can tell by how both of you write that OP is smarter than you. Your mindless seething makes you inferior.

I have the same issue with most of my college textbooks. It is like they have a list of things they need to talk about, and then, so they can put a check next to the box and say they talked about it, they go to the Wikipedia page of that topic and pull some random trivial piece of useless information and put it in the book. Also I feel like art of technical writing has somehow been lost over the decades.

>>4838 While I believe this is a great advice for any undergraduates, it is also quite biased. One can of course self-learn any fields of study outside of classes by going to the library and using internet resources but at the end of the day, it becomes relatively difficult to stay aligned with what is expected from an academic point of view when there is such a discordance in the way subjects are taught in college. There seems to be a great tendency in the academic world to encompass studies around performance and degrees. In Ancient Greece, we used to go in a school to improve our understanding of the world, not to gain some random degree recognized by the society for the potential applications from this knowledge. Nowadays, people primarily go to college to improve the salary once they enter the labor market: we have moved from investigations and researches to training courses. Even in research, people are now constantly looking for findings, and are justifying their subject of research from the perspective of the economic world. That is just pointless to me. Science doesn't need to be justified, for its applications are merely one side of the coin. It is worth studying it because of the insights provided.

>>9052 > I just feel I need a review and some problems and exercises to warm-up > I would like something more in-depth. Pick one. If you want a nice, concise review, try Simmons - Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell Algebra at that level is just abstract, symbolic arithmetic. (Newton's algebra book is titled "Universal Arithmetick".) Once you're sure you've got arithmetic down cold, especially fractions, exponents, and logarithms, study and understand the axioms of algebra as presented in any algebra textbook. Then learn analytic geometry well. Then learn trigonometry, especially identities. Then learn functions. Some crude knowledge of statistics, probability, and complex numbers will be useful. After that, when and if you encounter these thing in your calculus textbook, you won't have to stop and learn things you're already expected to know. BTW, another great, great calculus textbook no one has mentioned is Courant and John - Introduction to Calculus and Analysis (2 volumes)

hey, first of all you need to see yourself in order to come to put your hand on the pulse of what is actually important to you - it is not really directly in the realm of science, but it is in the realm of the preservation of scientific curiosity ("scientists are children who managed to survive"), i would recommend the book Signal for that matter and looking into your motivations for scientific exploration.

>>9759 In the textbook industry it's called Thud Factor. Look it up... then realize how this dominates Accademics. Yes, the pointless filler trivia will be on the final exam.

>>4837 The US Navy has a series of technical manuals called "NEETS" which are advanced math textbooks dumbed down to explain to a middle school level. It goes over the basic math for electronics, which means it actually teaches practical application for a large number of theoretical mathematical principles. The biggest problem is that the application of math systems is not common, because many books want to create their own unique system for solving a problem. If you look at multiple engineering books, the way they solve the same problem is very different depending on who wrote it. On the other hand, military practicality eliminates the fluff and gets right to teaching the important stuff, because the military is not a profit driven organization. You can google all the text books, and archive.org has almost all of them available for download. Here are the subjects that they cover. Module 1 - Introduction to Matter, Energy, and Direct Current Module 2 - Introduction to Alternating Current and Transformers Module 3 - Introduction to Circuit Protection, Control, and Measurement Module 4 - Introduction to Electrical Conductors, Wiring Techniques, and Schematic Reading Module 5 - Introduction to Generators and Motors Module 6 - Introduction to Electronic Emission, Tubes, and Power Supplies Module 7 - Introduction to Solid-State Devices and Power Supplies Module 8 - Introduction to Amplifiers Module 9 - Introduction to Wave-Generation and Wave-Shaping Circuits Module 10 - Introduction to Wave Propagation, Transmission Lines, and Antennas Module 11 - Microwave Principles Module 12 - Modulation Principles Module 13 - Introduction to Number Systems and Logic Circuits Module 14 - Introduction to Microelectronics Module 15 - Principles of Synchros, Servos, and Gyros Module 16 - Introduction to Test Equipment Module 17 - Radio-Frequency Communications Principles Module 18 - Radar Principles Module 19 - The Technician's Handbook Module 20 - Master Glossary Module 21 - Test Methods and Practices Module 22 - Introduction to Digital Computers Module 23 - Magnetic Recording Module 24 - Introduction to Fiber Optics

>>9777 fuarrrking insane

>>9777 properly checked. >because the military is not a profit driven organization. crazy claim, this day and age. Solid contribution, thank you.

>>9777 Thank you for this. All the modules are available on the Internet Archive. You can download all of them with the following linux commands: 1. Determine your download format of choice. For example, if you want the first book as a pdf, this will use the following url: archive.org/download/NEETSModule1/NEETSModule1.pdf This can be scripted to use a for loop to download a range of them: $ for i in {1..24}; do \ wget "archive.org/download/NEETSModule$i/NEETSModule$i.pdf"; # Download each book based off range 1 to 24. \ sleep 10; # Wait 10 seconds in between each download to not get blocked. \done 2. (Optional) Batch rename based off the list of names from >>9777 (Save the list of names to a file in the same directory, in this case 'modules.txt') $ for i in {1..24}; do\ \ mv "NEETSModule$i.pdf" "Module $i - $(sed -n "${i}p" modules.txt).pdf"; # Rename each file from NEETSModule$i.pdf to 'Module $i - <module name>.pdf' \ done

>>9798 it got nuked, do you have anything saved?

>>9777 These aren't math textbooks at all, they're electronics textbooks. Useful for the bare minimum but you're not going to be designing a phased RADAR array with these. >>9807 first result on ddg http://compatt.com/Tutorials/NEETS/NEETS.html

>>9807 The link should use 'details' instead of 'download'. The link that >>9808 works fine. Additionally, the materials in said link are more current, if that's important to you. Updated (2011) modules on the Internet Archive: archive(dot)org/details/neetsmodules_202003/NEETS%20MOD%201%20NAVEDTRA%2014173A/ The script in >>9798 does not work with the way that the Internet Archive hosts the files. There is probably some way of scripting to account for the file names. That said, a simple manner to do so is as follows: 1. Compile a list of the download links into a file ("list.txt" in this case). Since the file format seems to be consistent enough, we can use the following command to generate a list: $ for i in $(seq 73 96); do echo http://compatt(dot)com/Tutorials/NEETS/New_PDF/141"$i"A.pdf; done > list.txt Note that some of them do not have "A" at the end of their file type. Verify the files are correct beforehand, and adjust your list accordingly. 2. Download each item with wget for each item in the list. The -c flag will continue a download if it has failed. The sleep 10 option is to avoid getting blocked. $ while read i; do wget -c $i; sleep 10; done < list 3. (Optional) Batch rename with list from >>9777 First, we save the list of names from >>9777 into a file "modules.txt" Then, we use sed to account for spaces in the file name by adding backslashes before spaces. The -i flag is to insert changes in place. $ sed -i 's| |\\ |g' modules.txt Next, we can rename the files based off their numbers to make it easier to sort. $ ls -v | cat -n | while read n f; do mv -n $f $(printf "%02d" "$n.pdf"); done This will order and rename the files to the following format: 01.pdf 02.pdf ... Finally, we modify the final command in >>9798 to account for the new file name: $ for i in {1..24}; do mv "$i.pdf" "Module $i - $(sed -n "${i}p" modules.txt).pdf"; done Mind you, this is not meant as a tutorial. It's meant to show the basics of what you can do with basic shell scripting and a bit of imagination. Use explainshell.com to check the meaning of the commands, replace '(dot)' with '.' .

>>9809 export IFS="^"; wget -nv --show-progress "https://archive.org/compress/neetsmodules_202003/formats=TEXT%20PDF&file=/neetsmodules_202003.zip"; \ unzip -q neetsmodules_202003.zip; x=(); \ for i in `wget -q -O - https://archive.org/details/neetsmodules_202003/NEETS%20MOD%201%20NAVEDTRA%2014173A/ | \ hxclean | hxselect -cs "^" \#descript span:nth-of-type\(n+3\) 2>/dev/null`; \ do x+=("$i".pdf); done; z=(*.pdf); touch ${x[*]}; n=(Module*); \ for i in ${!z[@]}; do mv ${z[$i]} ${n[$i]}; done ; \ rename 's/\d+/sprintf("%02d", $&)/e' *.pdf; \ unset $IFS; rm neetsmodules_202003.zip

My situation aligns with yours. I, too, prefer reading as a mode of learning, but the textbooks we are provided with are subpar, to say the least. I've had others, well-versed and educated in their respective fields, review certain sections that I found particularly displeasing, and they share my concerns. The issues are evident: incoherent and, at times, erroneous content, questionable typography, and information that is excessive, repetitive, outdated, or simply incorrect. Take history textbooks as an example. Each sentence is densely packed with references to notable figures, significant events, and so forth, rendering the text cumbersome to read. The lack of contextual "filler" text to bridge these ideas makes comprehension challenging. Moreover, the excessive information presented is overwhelming and difficult to digest. The narrative flow is also disrupted by the non-chronological arrangement of events. It is almost impressive, in a bad way. Technical textbooks suffer from similar issues. The font choices are often inadequate for displaying Greek letters, unrelated topics are haphazardly combined, and concepts that should be straightforward are explained using unnecessarily complex language. Physics textbooks, for instance, present laws in an overly formal and monotonous manner, making them difficult to commit to memory. The notations used deviate from standard conventions, and the provided exercises are outdated and irrelevant to current examination standards. One has to wonder about the rationale behind including exercises for tests that are older than the book itself. Mathematics textbooks present a similar challenge, with the added complication of the content being too advanced even for the teachers. This is not mere speculation; the teachers themselves frequently express this sentiment. When you factor in occasional mistranslations from Greek and Latin, incorrect usage of specialised terminology, and other inaccuracies, these textbooks become not just useless but actively detrimental to the learning process. In short, if you want to understand the subjects, you have two options: becoming an autodidact or seeking private instruction. Incidentally, I've also made the discovery that older textbooks can often be more valuable and insightful than their modern counterparts while simultaneously being much more affordable. It begs the question: has our education system declined in quality?

If you want a book that teaches Calculus from foundational axioms, I would recommend Analysis on Manifolds by James Munkres. However, most of your classmates have (somewhat) better attitude towards the subject. (Of course, they are just as likely to make a mistake by making a wrong assumption.) Most books start from what is intuitively relevant. Ultimately, Calculus is about being able to solve derivatives and integrals, not reading about them. Otherwise, you're just wasting time that could be better spent. You're better off reading ahead to differential equations, as that's where the real work lies.

>>9841 >It begs the question: has our education system declined in quality? Undoubtably. Ask any teacher at any grade level: many of their students can barely read. The institution of public education has become, simultaneously, a cash cow for predatory publishing and tech companies, a terrible employer that abuses workers and gives them starvation pay, and a haven for wokies that somehow care more about "DEI" than any of these issues.