4 ms·
> The book was Tipler / Llewellyn by the way. Ah, you're talking about lower-level-answers-at-the-back undergraduate books in physics. Yes, most of them are s
by b215826 7y ago
> The book was Tipler / Llewellyn by the way.
Ah, you're talking about lower-level-answers-at-the-back undergraduate books in physics. Yes, most of them are shit, and it would be a futile task to learn any real physics from them. Who was even talking about such books? Lol.
> I would consider most other physics textbooks to be the haphazard ones, and when you compare the rate of errors in the text I have a strong suspicion those other books have much higher rates on average
From your comments it's pretty apparent that you've not even looked into any graduate-level or even upper-level undergrad physics books and the only physics books you've read are overpriced freshmen/sophomore physics textbooks. In any case, do you really think a book (series) like Landau and Lifshitz or The Feynman Lectures (which is actually freshman physics) has more errors and typos compared to some obscure text in engineering with contrived methods and reinvented wheels? Lol.
Anyway, there's no point in taking this argument further. It's unlikely that either of us would change our viewpoints ;-)
- ironmagma 7y ago> In any case, do you really think a book (series) like Landau and Lifshitz or The Feynman Lectures (which is actually freshman physics) If you think that's the bible, it's on you to recommend it. What isn't okay is saying that books written by "real physicists" are the correct ones, when Tipler and Llewellyn (and the other authors I didn't mention) are that. It's dipping into the No True Scotsman territory. Graduate studies is not the world in general; of course people who are studying a topic in their graduate degree program are going to be using textbooks of a higher calibre, but also at the cost of being inaccessible. HN isn't that audience, and neither are 99% of audiences.