4 ms·

At a first glance that book completely fails for an undergrad lin alg course, and looks weak in other areas too. Examples: the words nullity and kernel don't a

At a first glance that book completely fails for an undergrad lin alg course, and looks weak in other areas too. Examples: the words nullity and kernel don't appear, rank of a matrix is not in it, and, well, every topic I can think of for undergrad linear algebra is simply not in the book. It's equally bad for stats: no mention of many common distributions a student would learn for example.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Is that such a bad thing? I'm half-convinced that the “rank of a matrix” is just an artefact of a particular algorithm for inverting matrices. And distributions aren't everything; I can look up any distribution I want on Wikipedia, just as soon as I need it, but a proper foundation in what statistics means is much harder to come by. (I have enough of a foundation to know when it's being taught very wrong, but not enough to actually be very useful in day-to-day life.)
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  >I'm half-convinced that the “rank of a matrix” is just an artefact ... The rank of a matrix is fundamental to understanding linear transformations, since it given you knowledge about the dimensions of the "output space". It becomes more fundamental if the person goes on to study deeper math. It tells you how to compute the size of a basis for the target space. The uses go on and on. >And distributions aren't everything; I can look up any distribution I want on Wikipedia Yes, you can look up anything on wikipedia, but not in this book, which is why this book will not teach you the things the OP claimed it would. >a proper foundation in what statistics means is much harder to come by It's very hard to get that proper foundation from a book that does not cover those foundations. One is better served by using a proper book with a consistent and well laid out presentation of the needed concepts. Saying one can look fundamental stuff up elsewhere means the book is lacking.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > The rank of a matrix is fundamental to understanding linear transformations, since it given you knowledge about the dimensions of the "output space". That's more to do with the space of the coefficients, I think. > Saying one can look fundamental stuff up elsewhere means the book is lacking. A list of distributions is not fundamental to statistics. Discovering a new distribution doesn't meaningfully expand the fundamentals of the field of statistics: all the basic principles are the same. Anyone familiar with those basic principles can pick up a new distribution quite easily – and can probably derive new distributions when they're needed.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      >That's more to do with the space of the coefficients, I think. I don't think that phrase is a thing in linear algebra. I've gotten a PhD in mathematics - I know both these fields quite well. I stand by my assessment of linear algebra - I've been using pieces form it nearly daily for decades. >Anyone familiar with those basic principles can pick up a new distribution quite easily – and can probably derive new distributions when they're needed. And a student trying to learn where and why stats is useful should be taught a wide set of distributions so they see the nuances while they're learning. Sure, you can provide only a Gaussian, but when the student leaves completely ignorant of all the places a gaussian fails and what are some choices relevant to different situations, you can failed to teach them the fundamentals, which includes enough nuance to see when and where to apply what distribution. >A list of distributions is not fundamental to statistics. You may as well claim all of stats is not fundamental - just learn math principles. You can look up anything in stats and derive it yourself once given the concept if you're good at math fundamentals. Surely with enough math skills, and zero stats, you can derive all the stats knowledge needed without needing to ever see any stats in a book. But that's a bad way to go about teaching people useful skills. A student learning about distributions needs some examples. This book has none. You can argue all you want, but this book is crap for learning the topics the OP claimed it covers. Find a textbook for beginning students that does not cover a multitude of distributions. Either every single author, usually writing from decades of experience, is wrong, or you are. I think the authors have the right approach.
      - 5y ago
paulpauper 5y ago
I give a book recommendation and ppl complain, yet no one complains when ppl recommend Khan Academy. Do people think Khan Academy is more rigorous than a textbook?
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  I'm not complaining about a book recommendation. You claimed this book will cover college-level concepts for linear algebra. It does not even come close to doing that. It's misleading for anyone wanting to learn linear algebra and taking your book recommendation.

wizzwizz4 5y ago

Is that such a bad thing? I'm half-convinced that the “rank of a matrix” is just an artefact of a particular algorithm for inverting matrices. And distributions aren't everything; I can look up any distribution I want on Wikipedia, just as soon as I need it, but a proper foundation in what statistics means is much harder to come by. (I have enough of a foundation to know when it's being taught very wrong, but not enough to actually be very useful in day-to-day life.)

ChrisLomont 5y ago
>I'm half-convinced that the “rank of a matrix” is just an artefact ... The rank of a matrix is fundamental to understanding linear transformations, since it given you knowledge about the dimensions of the "output space". It becomes more fundamental if the person goes on to study deeper math. It tells you how to compute the size of a basis for the target space. The uses go on and on. >And distributions aren't everything; I can look up any distribution I want on Wikipedia Yes, you can look up anything on wikipedia, but not in this book, which is why this book will not teach you the things the OP claimed it would. >a proper foundation in what statistics means is much harder to come by It's very hard to get that proper foundation from a book that does not cover those foundations. One is better served by using a proper book with a consistent and well laid out presentation of the needed concepts. Saying one can look fundamental stuff up elsewhere means the book is lacking.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > The rank of a matrix is fundamental to understanding linear transformations, since it given you knowledge about the dimensions of the "output space". That's more to do with the space of the coefficients, I think. > Saying one can look fundamental stuff up elsewhere means the book is lacking. A list of distributions is not fundamental to statistics. Discovering a new distribution doesn't meaningfully expand the fundamentals of the field of statistics: all the basic principles are the same. Anyone familiar with those basic principles can pick up a new distribution quite easily – and can probably derive new distributions when they're needed.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    >That's more to do with the space of the coefficients, I think. I don't think that phrase is a thing in linear algebra. I've gotten a PhD in mathematics - I know both these fields quite well. I stand by my assessment of linear algebra - I've been using pieces form it nearly daily for decades. >Anyone familiar with those basic principles can pick up a new distribution quite easily – and can probably derive new distributions when they're needed. And a student trying to learn where and why stats is useful should be taught a wide set of distributions so they see the nuances while they're learning. Sure, you can provide only a Gaussian, but when the student leaves completely ignorant of all the places a gaussian fails and what are some choices relevant to different situations, you can failed to teach them the fundamentals, which includes enough nuance to see when and where to apply what distribution. >A list of distributions is not fundamental to statistics. You may as well claim all of stats is not fundamental - just learn math principles. You can look up anything in stats and derive it yourself once given the concept if you're good at math fundamentals. Surely with enough math skills, and zero stats, you can derive all the stats knowledge needed without needing to ever see any stats in a book. But that's a bad way to go about teaching people useful skills. A student learning about distributions needs some examples. This book has none. You can argue all you want, but this book is crap for learning the topics the OP claimed it covers. Find a textbook for beginning students that does not cover a multitude of distributions. Either every single author, usually writing from decades of experience, is wrong, or you are. I think the authors have the right approach.
    - 5y ago

paulpauper 5y ago

I give a book recommendation and ppl complain, yet no one complains when ppl recommend Khan Academy. Do people think Khan Academy is more rigorous than a textbook?

ChrisLomont 5y ago
I'm not complaining about a book recommendation. You claimed this book will cover college-level concepts for linear algebra. It does not even come close to doing that. It's misleading for anyone wanting to learn linear algebra and taking your book recommendation.