Hey /sci/! I've been reading John R. Taylor's Classical Mechanics, and I have this problem that fairly few problems have a solution in the back of the book. I've searched online, but I have found no resource that has a reasonable amount of solutions (except for one, that hides them behind a paywall...). I'm not necessarily talking detailed solutions here, it would be enough if I had a list of the end results, so I could check whether I fucked up or not. Since many people on this board self-study, or just study from a given book as part of their course, I think many have come across this same problem themselves, and many could contribute to a section on the /sci/ wiki that lists the end results to the problems in a given book.
I believe you can use LaTeX on wikia, so that part is figured out. I think the main goal of this should be to provide a list of end results, but autists could optionally contribute a detailed solution, if they wished to do so, which would be hidden by default, so the page is clearer. I'm obviously willing to contribute what I have (it's only the first 1.5 chapters, but whatever).
Comment from the /sci/ wiki physics textbook recommendations section:
>Schroeder Thermal Physics intro is useless for self study. There are no answers to the questions. Also he covers far too much material and much of it ends up being superficial. He has a foot in both camps of Stats physics and thermodynamics and leaves the reader very confused (eg the coverage of ideal gases). Also for an intro book there are far too few worked examples. Kittel and Kroemer Introduction to Thermal Physics is a much better option.
>what if someone posts a wrong solution?
Then people could decide in the comment section or something, basically that's how wikipedia editing works already, and it works pretty well.
It would also be useful to color-code solutions, like red means its directly from the book, purple means that it has been debated before, and there was a consensus, and black means it's a fresh one. I'm not saying that a solution from that book can't be wrong, but it's pretty unlikely.
What do you think, /sci/?
>>8140247
If you're worried about a given question then google it and you'll find some forum post of someone stuck on it.
Solution keys only allow brainlets to cheat on their hw assignments.
>>8140255
>learning CM anything other than Goldstein
>>8140269
>Thinking anyone but graduate students can get anything out of Goldstein
Why does this meme persist?
>>8140301
I read Goldstein when I was an undergrad and got a lot out of it. It's got some good problems. The arguments are also a lot less shallow than Taylor.
>>8140247
>Found good book but without solutions
>Find shitty book with solutions to problems
>Read good book and practice with shitty book
>Win
This really isn't too hard to figure out. This goes for all things in life
>Court pure virgin for marriage while fucking the village bicycle to empty your balls
>>8140247
As far as I'm aware all odd numbered questions have numerical/symbolic solutions in the back.
You can also get more detailed solutions for some problem sections from here:
https://julypraise.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/taylor-r-john-classical-mechanics-solutions-and-errata/
>>8140301
I read Goldstein as an undergrad
>all these plebs who think Hamilton's principle is the principle of least action
>>8140301
Because it's used as the advanced undergrad text in several universities.
>>8140321
>all odd numbered questions
I thought so too, but it has solutions to some odd numbered problems. Some chapters have lot's of solutions, some have few, it all depends.
>>8140353
>lot's
idk why I did that
What "level" is symon mechanics? I found it to have more challenging problems that your average intro to mechanics course.
I'm using Goldstein at the moment in 2nd semester but frankly he talks too much and skips the important bits i.e the maths. I can get some stuff out of it but nothing as a coherent whole.
>>8140504
Well, it is a physics book after all, it will never be as rigorous as a maths one.
>>8140317
What if the shitty book also has shitty exercises?
>>8142234
Shitty exercises most times just mean plagiarism.
