Hacker News Reader

Comment by anton_tarasenko | Hacker News Reader

In terms of depth and breadth, the Princeton companions get close to Feynman.[1][2]

A more formal approach appears in handbooks.[3][4]

[1] Gowers et al., The Princeton Companion to Mathematics. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691118802/th...

[2] Higham and Dennis, The Princeton Companion to Applied Mathematics. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691150390/th...

[3] Zwillinger, CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae. https://www.crcpress.com/CRC-Standard-Mathematical-Tables-an...

[4] Bronshtein, Handbook of Mathematics. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540721222

View on HN

But is really breadth and depth what makes Feynman’s approach to physics unique?

To me the unique aspect is more the uncompromising intuitionistic approach with little consideration/adaptation for “shallow/correlative thinkers”...

It's easy to gain physical intuition because you can often explain one physical phenomenon in terms of another physical phenomenon that you have much more real life experience with.

But with mathematics, "intuitive" analogies are all in terms of other mathematical objects! You can't build intuition if you don't even know what they trying to abstract over.

In that regards, The Princeton Companion to Mathematics is fantastic because it maps out how the different fields of mathematics are interrelated.

This. I think everyone in this topic is missing the point of what makes the Feynman Lectures unique.

I'd use 3 words to describe Feynman's style: clarity, accessibility, and fascination.

This description made me think of the "Mathologer" channel on YouTube.

Good list! I'd also add Mary Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. A standard textbook for incoming students across disciplines and very accessible

We used that book for a course and I found it among my less favourite ones. its been a few years since I used it, but I remember it shallow and uninspiring. not trying to start an argument here, maybe just an outlier opinion since this seems a standard textbook.

It was one of my course books as well, but I think it's aimed at the American market and style of learning/presentation. I much preferred Stroud's "Engineering Mathematics" which was a course book for engineers at my university (I studied physics).

>>> aimed at the American style of learning

Ouch! Boas is maybe not as inspiring as Feynman. But when you see a copy on someone's bookshelf. It tends to be just as dog-eared and spine-cracked as Surely You're Joking

Another resource I just thought of. While not a textbook per se. Math competition problems from previous years can be very stimulating ;)

https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/pastpapers/past-ia-ib-...

https://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/

I purchased [2], having enjoyed Nick Higham's other book (a treatise on matrix computations), and knowing how well-received [1] was.

But, [2] turned out to be kind of a dud. It was not really fun to browse, and I wasn't sure who it was directed to. The articles that I sampled read like they were intended for academic applied math folks, rather than introductions for interested outsiders. It's a huge book, so YMMV, and has been very well-reviewed by high-profile and well-qualified academics (like Steven Strogatz) but I spent a couple evenings with the book and could not recommend.

In any event, it's not like Feynmann's lectures! It's an encyclopedia.

TLDR: "it was good for someone, but it was not the book I wanted".

(PS: recommending the CRC tables is an odd thing, this is also nothing like Feymann's lectures)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com