Can Michael Spivak's 'Calculus' book be used by someone who is terrible at Maths as an entry point into Calculus?
>>7703747
>someone who is terrible at Maths
if you keep telling yourself this, no book will help you.
You aren't bad at math, you just havent practiced enough. Maybe try a lighter calculus text, something stupid like stewart, just to get used to doing the operations and the train of thought you need to have. after that, hop right into spivak
you can do anything if you put your mind to it
>>7703764
Trust me dude, I've been trying for three years to get a hang of Maths. I love the subject but I'm close to just accepting it.
>>7703777
>I love the subject but I'm close to just accepting it.
it sounds to me like you've already given up. In which case, again, no book will help you.
>>7703781
I haven't yet. I'm close to doing so, though. It's not even the harder stuff that gets me, it's the basic shit like signs. I constantly put a minus where a plus should be an vice versa.
sounds like you need more practice and mathematical experience before you should try spivak. a straightforward calculus book that emphasizes repetitive exercises would help you
>>7703764
will the "stewart is for le stoopid xD" meme ever die? I am a physics student and found stewart to be rather nice. He proves most of the theorems, he has excercices where he asks you to prove/derive things, I really don't understand what's the problem. Yes, some sections are better covered in other Calc books, but you should understand what's the point of Calculus and what's the point of Analysis.
>>7703851
Don't get me wrong, Stewart is great for teaching calculus to engineers, computer science students and the like. Students who don't give a rats ass about math, but need calculus for their degrees.
As an introduction to continuous mathematics, though, it's pretty bad. I've been a TA for 4 calculus classes, all using Stewart. When the students are finished with the class, they know a bunch of formulas for integration/derivatives and other symbolic tricks. They lack an understanding of the mathematics behind what they're doing.
Which, again, is fine if someone just needs to know calculus for their degree. The absolute shit tier calculus book is Larson, which (unfortunately) is the book that I learned calculus from
>>7704084
I doubt you've ever actually used Stewart or TAed calc.* because not only is it more rigorous than most alternatives, but it also has the best illustrations by far and gives students a better intuitive understanding than the raw memorization that is done using other textbooks.
* (but if you did, all that tells me your department has a low opinion of you for not being assigned to junior/senior courses)
Most good math professors will use calc. in calculus for math too precisely because it provides this intuitive analysis in addition to introducing proofs before starting analysis.
>>7704130
>Stewart in calculus
Whatever. People don't like it because it's popular. The usual critiques raise doubt that those people have even read it. Probably because it's simply a much larger textbook than other intro calcs so they don't bother and assume the meme is true.
>>7704130
If you want to dismiss my observations because they're anecdotal, you're well within your right to do that. Ad hominems serve no purpose, however.
From my experience, it doesn't prepare our math student well. Now, this comes down to lots of other factors (quality of professors teaching classes, students' individual motivation, struggling to adapt to college, too many other classes giving work, etc.) so it's not fair to blame it completely on the text. It's my own opinion, and the opinion of some of the professors that I've talked to/TAed for, that our department would be better off putting all the math majors into their own class and teaching out of Spivak or another text.
The point remains, though, that OP is better off starting with a lower level calculus text before diving into Spivak.
>>7703777
Thought experiment: what exact parts of maths are you bad at? Can you differentiate distinct parts of maths? If not, your problem is maturity, not skill
>>7704130
>Stewart
>rigorous
lmao
>>7705117
its not as rigorous as Spivak's, but its' a good starter as opposed to Spivaks.
Maybe I'm retarded, but Spivak's dealt with more proofs and stuff then Stewarts(which was easier to comprehend for me).
>>7705123
Sure, Stewart's really great if your goal is learning calc.
If you're going to use calc as a stepping stone to get into analysis shortly after then Spivak/Apostol are probably better though: even though you're not going to move as fast or learn everything, you don't need to because you're going to learn it better in analysis anyway so you only need the main ideas and to learn about proofs.
which is better? spivak's calculus or lang's?
http://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Calculus-Undergraduate-Mathematics/dp/0387962018
>>7705115
I'm bad with simultaneous equations I Math. To be honest, it's not even the harder stuff that kills me, it's signs. I'll often put a plus where a minus should be and vice versa. I have a blind spot for signs and it's a problem I just can't seem to fix.
>>7703747
Don't give up Anon!
Don't be afraid to start from the very bottom and work your way up with time.
Start at something simple like Khan Academy, and get into the habit of watching the videos this guy puts up: https://www.youtube.com/user/bullcleo1
>>7705376
Yeah, I've been using Khan Academy for a while now. As I said, it's the signs that mess me up.
>>7705345
Lang's is basically a condensed and slightly more mature stewart.
>>7705371
perhaps you're dyslexic?
+ * + = +
- * - = +
+ * - = -
all ya need to know
>>7705371
This is not a math problem, this is an attention to detail problem that will plague you until you learn to focus.
>>7706134
I'm definitely not dyslexic. I got As and Bs in English class in secondary school.
It's like, I know the rules for signs but I always miss a sign or put down the wrong one and then that messes the whole equation up, which in turn leads me to getting bad grades.
And it's always such and obvious mistake that I only see when I get the test back.
>>7706134
I thought I was getting pre-dementia in highschool but then I just realized that I was pretty farsighted when I went to the eye doctor and because the eyes compensate when you're young (& farsighted) I didn't recognize it as a refractive error. Now I just can't see shit.
>>7703747
"Terrible at math" has many meanings.
