Is this a good textbook to use as an intro to physics?
>>8113955
>Vol1 (March 25, 2014)
>Vol2 (July 19, 2016)
I doubt there are many schools that adopted it before the full sequence was released. Even the Yale course it's based off of uses another book.
>>8113975
r u telling me it's shite?
bamp
Years ago I liked [math]Physics: For Scientists and Engineers[/math] by Knight. I used to tutor, saw all the other undergrad books, and nearly vomited. This was a good intro book that has solid organization and covers a lot of ground.
>>8114566
you talking bout the op's pic or physics: for scientist and engineers?
>>8114569
Knight's book is good. The other text I saw at the time were awful. I still have my Knight, but haven't opened it since freshmen year in college.
>>8113955
Fundamentals of Physics by Resnick, Halliday, Walker is a better one. Just remember - after you have learnt this stuff, you will never look back to it. If you want something a little tougher, get the Feynman lectures. You'll use those repeatedly even after you've covered the topics.
is this a good intro to chem?
>>8114696
>Pauling
Yeah, if you want to learn from a fucking nutbag who thought vitamin c could cure cancer
>>8114711
so memeing aside?
>>8113955
It's basically a transcript of his lectures. Not at all bad, but more of a supplement imo. A better textbook would be something with some examples like Giancoli or Resnick, Halliday (+maybe Krane/Walker).
>>8114696
Can confirm that this was a pretty based read, however, it is constructed more so as merger of physics and chemistry into a single literature, rather than the standard 'chemistry only' intro you might get from a modern college textbook.The book explains chemical properties, interactions, and phenomena from an in-depth physical and sometimes quantum understanding, avoiding the standard watered-down commentary seen in many modern chemistry texts.
Much of the first edition is outdated, however, I believe there is a much more accurate and refined, but somewhat rare 3rd edition. Overall I would say that this is one of the best literatures to learn intro chemistry from, and I still often refer to it from time to time.
>>8114711
This did not impact the quality or tier of his written work, and therefore your opinion can be discarded
>>8115288
It's pretty good. Would recommend it as a supplement to a more modern textbook like Brown or Oxtoby tho.
>>8115337
if i read OP's book do you have any idea what textbook would help me go further?
>>8115428
Oxtoby if you know basic calculus and physics and Brown if you know algebra. Both give you roughly the same content.
>>8115488
i meant for physics, like after OP's pic
>>8115528
i must know
