I'm reading the Feymann lectures. I am following the maths but would like to
combine this with learning how to use and apply a tool such as
Mathematica/MathPad/Mupad/MatLab/Maple/Axiom (don't know much about the
strengths and weakness of these tools yet).

Any recommendations please?. Which would best serve me as a tool for
understanding, documenting and experimenting with the sort of mathematics I
will encounter in the lectures and beyond as my knowledges of physics grows?

Kunle

"Kunle Odutola" wrote in message ...
I'm reading the Feymann lectures. I am following the maths but would like to
combine this with learning how to use and apply a tool such as
Mathematica/MathPad/Mupad/MatLab/Maple/Axiom (don't know much about the
strengths and weakness of these tools yet).

Any recommendations please?. Which would best serve me as a tool for
understanding, documenting and experimenting with the sort of mathematics I
will encounter in the lectures and beyond as my knowledges of physics grows?

Kunle

Pencil and paper is usually the best way. It certainly doesn't hurt to
know how to use one of these math programs, but in general, you should
know how to do the problems by hand first.

A.

"AaronB" wrote in message
m...
"Kunle Odutola" wrote in message
...
I'm reading the Feymann lectures. I am following the maths but would
like to
combine this with learning how to use and apply a tool such as
Mathematica/MathPad/Mupad/MatLab/Maple/Axiom (don't know much about the
strengths and weakness of these tools yet).

Any recommendations please?. Which would best serve me as a tool for
understanding, documenting and experimenting with the sort of
mathematics I
will encounter in the lectures and beyond as my knowledges of physics
grows?

Kunle

Pencil and paper is usually the best way. It certainly doesn't hurt to
know how to use one of these math programs, but in general, you should
know how to do the problems by hand first.

A.

quote
I am following the maths but would like to combine this with learning how to
use and apply a tool such as...
/quote

I have no problem with the maths in the books [yet?] and don't expect to. I
am simply interested in learning how to use one of these tools too. At the
very least they can draw pretty pictures to help me visualize things etc.

Thanks for your comments.

Kunle

Kunle Odutola wrote:


quote
I am following the maths but would like to combine this with learning how to
use and apply a tool such as...
/quote

I have no problem with the maths in the books [yet?] and don't expect to. I
am simply interested in learning how to use one of these tools too. At the
very least they can draw pretty pictures to help me visualize things etc.


To me it sounds like one of the "symbolic" tools would suit your purpose
better - Maple, Mathematica, etc.

My recommendation would be Maple - I used Mathematica for several years
before switching to Maple and found Maple a bit more intuitively obvious
to use (and much nicer graphics). Of course you might not have the same
experience. Used MathCAD for a short time a few years ago and didn't
like it much - not as powerful as Maple/Mathematica, but since it is now
comparably priced I would expect it to now be comparably featured as well.

I can't comment on other symbolic tools since I haven't used them.

Overall I find I use a combination of Matlab and Maple. Maple for
symbolic stuff and simple numerical results and Matlab for more complex
numerical stuff like signal processing.

"AaronB" wrote in message
m...
"Kunle Odutola" wrote in message
...
I'm reading the Feymann lectures. I am following the maths but would
like to
combine this with learning how to use and apply a tool such as
Mathematica/MathPad/Mupad/MatLab/Maple/Axiom (don't know much about the
strengths and weakness of these tools yet).

Any recommendations please?. Which would best serve me as a tool for
understanding, documenting and experimenting with the sort of
mathematics I
will encounter in the lectures and beyond as my knowledges of physics
grows?

Kunle

Pencil and paper is usually the best way. It certainly doesn't hurt to
know how to use one of these math programs, but in general, you should
know how to do the problems by hand first.

A.

I disagree. You can do much more and much better with a CAS. And the sooner
you learn the CAS the better. A CAS will allow you to do more difficult
calculations, do more calculations. I use Mathematica, but other CASs will
probably also work. With Mathematica notebooks one can make a nice blend of
text cells, calculations, graphics and animations. I am using Mathematica to
work through an introductory general relativity text and am able to do ALL
the text derivations, calculations and exercises by calculation, with no
word processing mode. I am often able to go beyond the text or improve on it
because of the capabilities of the CAS.

If you plan a technical career learn a CAS as early as possible and learn it
well. It will make the technical work far easier. Of course you will still
have to think. A CAS will not usually solve your problems with a few key
strokes. Learning how to apply the CAS to your problems will actually force
you to go through the logical steps of the problem and program general
routines that you can use in your future work. In other words, a CAS
documents and organizes what you have learned in a way that you can actually
apply in the future. It's not just a piece of paper with some calculations
but an active and interactive document and resource.


David Park

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/

I vote for pencil and paper.

I haven't looked at the Feynman lectures in a long
time, but my guess is that learning a CAS at the
same time would be a distraction from the physics.

That is, instead of learning the physics you would
be trying to debug your program... or worse, debugging
the CAS system which is behaving in some unreasonable
fashion (that is, you have encountered a "feature"
that might be considered a bug by reasonable people.)

On the other hand, you may find that a CAS is worth
learning, as David Park suggests. There are a few
choices, and a number of books for each.

Richard Feynman was one of the early users of
Macsyma (circa 1972), using it remotely at MIT
over the arpanet (predecessor of internet). There
were no restrictions at that time on logging in.
You just entered your chosen login name, no password,
and you were given an account.
When we noticed we had a new user named "feynman" there
was some excitement. We did confirm that it was
Prof. Feynman.

RJF

David Park wrote:

"AaronB" wrote in message
m...

"Kunle Odutola" wrote in message

...

I'm reading the Feymann lectures. I am following the maths but would

like to

combine this with learning how to use and apply a tool such as
Mathematica/MathPad/Mupad/MatLab/Maple/Axiom (don't know much about the
strengths and weakness of these tools yet).

Any recommendations please?. Which would best serve me as a tool for
understanding, documenting and experimenting with the sort of

mathematics I

will encounter in the lectures and beyond as my knowledges of physics

grows?

Kunle

Pencil and paper is usually the best way. It certainly doesn't hurt to
know how to use one of these math programs, but in general, you should
know how to do the problems by hand first.

A.


I disagree. You can do much more and much better with a CAS. And the sooner
you learn the CAS the better. A CAS will allow you to do more difficult
calculations, do more calculations. I use Mathematica, but other CASs will
probably also work. With Mathematica notebooks one can make a nice blend of
text cells, calculations, graphics and animations. I am using Mathematica to
work through an introductory general relativity text and am able to do ALL
the text derivations, calculations and exercises by calculation, with no
word processing mode. I am often able to go beyond the text or improve on it
because of the capabilities of the CAS.

If you plan a technical career learn a CAS as early as possible and learn it
well. It will make the technical work far easier. Of course you will still
have to think. A CAS will not usually solve your problems with a few key
strokes. Learning how to apply the CAS to your problems will actually force
you to go through the logical steps of the problem and program general
routines that you can use in your future work. In other words, a CAS
documents and organizes what you have learned in a way that you can actually
apply in the future. It's not just a piece of paper with some calculations
but an active and interactive document and resource.


David Park

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:47:17 +0000 (UTC), "Kunle Odutola"
wrote:

I'm reading the Feymann lectures. I am following the maths but would like to
combine this with learning how to use and apply a tool such as
Mathematica/MathPad/Mupad/MatLab/Maple/Axiom (don't know much about the
strengths and weakness of these tools yet).

Any recommendations please?. Which would best serve me as a tool for
understanding, documenting and experimenting with the sort of mathematics I
will encounter in the lectures and beyond as my knowledges of physics grows?

Kunle

MATLAB! Mostly because it is the only one I know/have/use, and because
it works for my needs.

Im becoming rather partial to it. Mostly because it doesn't have the
abusive pricetag that mathematica has.

Try to balance out your need of a CAS system, and your need to avoid
being unable to do the requisite math by hand.

I am not sure that reading the Feynman lectures is such a good idea for a
student. While he was a brilliant innovator at the time and his work lives
on it was all about 30 years or so ago and Physics has moved on since then.
Others have also contributed and a number of problems he discussed in the
Lecture I read a while ago were now understood. I thought it was tending to
become a historical document rather than a modern summary. This is
inevitable in a rapidly developing field. If that is what you want, then
fine, but more modern books must be available.

"Richard Fateman" wrote in message
...
I vote for pencil and paper.

I haven't looked at the Feynman lectures in a long
time, but my guess is that learning a CAS at the
same time would be a distraction from the physics.

That is, instead of learning the physics you would
be trying to debug your program... or worse, debugging
the CAS system which is behaving in some unreasonable
fashion (that is, you have encountered a "feature"
that might be considered a bug by reasonable people.)

On the other hand, you may find that a CAS is worth
learning, as David Park suggests. There are a few
choices, and a number of books for each.

Richard Feynman was one of the early users of
Macsyma (circa 1972), using it remotely at MIT
over the arpanet (predecessor of internet). There
were no restrictions at that time on logging in.
You just entered your chosen login name, no password,
and you were given an account.
When we noticed we had a new user named "feynman" there
was some excitement. We did confirm that it was
Prof. Feynman.

RJF

David Park wrote:

"AaronB" wrote in message
m...

"Kunle Odutola" wrote in message

...

I'm reading the Feymann lectures. I am following the maths but would

like to

combine this with learning how to use and apply a tool such as
Mathematica/MathPad/Mupad/MatLab/Maple/Axiom (don't know much about the
strengths and weakness of these tools yet).

Any recommendations please?. Which would best serve me as a tool for
understanding, documenting and experimenting with the sort of

mathematics I

will encounter in the lectures and beyond as my knowledges of physics

grows?

Kunle

Pencil and paper is usually the best way. It certainly doesn't hurt to
know how to use one of these math programs, but in general, you should
know how to do the problems by hand first.

A.


I disagree. You can do much more and much better with a CAS. And the
sooner
you learn the CAS the better. A CAS will allow you to do more difficult
calculations, do more calculations. I use Mathematica, but other CASs
will
probably also work. With Mathematica notebooks one can make a nice blend
of
text cells, calculations, graphics and animations. I am using
Mathematica to
work through an introductory general relativity text and am able to do
ALL
the text derivations, calculations and exercises by calculation, with no
word processing mode. I am often able to go beyond the text or improve
on it
because of the capabilities of the CAS.

If you plan a technical career learn a CAS as early as possible and
learn it
well. It will make the technical work far easier. Of course you will
still
have to think. A CAS will not usually solve your problems with a few key
strokes. Learning how to apply the CAS to your problems will actually
force
you to go through the logical steps of the problem and program general
routines that you can use in your future work. In other words, a CAS
documents and organizes what you have learned in a way that you can
actually
apply in the future. It's not just a piece of paper with some
calculations
but an active and interactive document and resource.


David Park

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/

"David Wilkinson" wrote in message
...
I am not sure that reading the Feynman lectures is such a good idea for a
student. While he was a brilliant innovator at the time and his work lives
on it was all about 30 years or so ago and Physics has moved on since
then.

I was a little worried about this.

Others have also contributed and a number of problems he discussed in the
Lecture I read a while ago were now understood. I thought it was tending
to
become a historical document rather than a modern summary. This is
inevitable in a rapidly developing field. If that is what you want, then
fine, but more modern books must be available.

This might be a little OTT for the thread but, what book(s) would you
recommend for a student of Physics today?. I'd like it to at least cover the
same sort of ground as the Feymann lectures (and more hopefully). Just with
more "current" content?

Kunle

"Russell Smiley" wrote in message
...

Overall I find I use a combination of Matlab and Maple. Maple for
symbolic stuff and simple numerical results and Matlab for more complex
numerical stuff like signal processing.

Thanks Russell, I'll look into Maple/Mathematica and Matlab. They seem to
the most mentioned tools and they have reasonably priced student editions.

Kunle