So which one is better? ;]

Mathematical Methods of Physics and Engineering
by K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, S. J. Bence

or

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 2nd Edition - Mary L. Boas

Thanks,
Tomas

"Tomas Selnekovic" wrote in message
om...
So which one is better? ;]

Mathematical Methods of Physics and Engineering
by K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, S. J. Bence

or

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 2nd Edition - Mary L. Boas

I am very familiar with Boas and not at all familiar with Riley,
Hobson, and Bence. Keep this in mind when reading my post.

Lots of opinions follow.

First, opinions about books are very subjective. One way to start a
heated debate is to say book A (e.g., Hartle's Gravity: An Introduction
to Einstein's General Relativity) is "better" than book B (e.g.,
Carroll's An Inroduction to General Relativity Spacetime and
Geometry). (Personaly, I can say that these relativity books are pitched
at about the same level, and I can say that they are very different. I
can't say that one is "better" than the other for all students and
classes.)

After glancing at the table of contents for Riley, Hobson, and Bence on
amazon.com, I see that there is much overlap between the 2 books that
you mention. However, to my eye, Riley, Hobson, and Bence appear to
cover this common material at a slower pace and in more detail. Obvious
examples of this are the treatments of probality and statistics, but it
seems to be true for all the common topics.

You may think that this is good (it often is, and it may be here) thing,
but in my experience, it's is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways.
Too fast a pace and too little detail and the students are completely
lost. Too slow a pace and too much detail, and the students are bored or
completely overwhelmed by the detail.

Back to the books at hand. Riley, Hobson, and Bence has chapters on
finite groups, and on representattions of finite groups. Again this
could be good or bad. If groups are not covered by the course, and if
the student is never going to look at groups, than these chapters only
contibute to making this book more massive. My opinion on this is that
if a physics student actually neesd to study a treatment of groups,
then he/she needs to spend at *least* the better part of a semester on
the subject.

Something else that needs to be considered is the style of presentation.
Here I cannot even offer an opinion on Riley, Hobson, and Bence, but I
can say that sophomore/junior students find Boas challenging but useful.

Finally, Arken and Weber is a more advanced, standard (Should I say
classic?) reference.

Regards,
George

(Tomas Selnekovic) wrote in message . com...
So which one is better? ;]

Mathematical Methods of Physics and Engineering
by K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, S. J. Bence

or

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 2nd Edition - Mary L. Boas

This is a topic that is sufficiently complicated you should try
to read as many books as your time, money, and stamina allows.
Certainly two is not over-many. Each book will have different
explanations, different emphasis, probably even different topics.
Socks

(Tomas Selnekovic) wrote in message . com...
So which one is better? ;]

Mathematical Methods of Physics and Engineering
by K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, S. J. Bence

or

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 2nd Edition - Mary L. Boas

Thanks,
Tomas

I Think the second one is better because most of my classmates and
professors use this book. But unfortunately this book is always out of
print. I can hardly get this one from local bookstore.

On 19 Oct 2004 06:54:50 -0700,
wrote:

(Tomas Selnekovic) wrote in message . com...
So which one is better? ;]

Mathematical Methods of Physics and Engineering
by K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, S. J. Bence

or

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 2nd Edition - Mary L. Boas

This is a topic that is sufficiently complicated you should try
to read as many books as your time, money, and stamina allows.
Certainly two is not over-many. Each book will have different
explanations, different emphasis, probably even different topics.
Socks

Is Morse and Feschbach considered obsolete?
--

nAborde ranj ganj moyassar nemishavad
mozd An gereft jAne barAdar ke kAr kard

"Sa'di"

(Tomas Selnekovic) wrote in
om:

So which one is better? ;]

Mathematical Methods of Physics and Engineering
by K. F. Riley, M. P. Hobson, S. J. Bence

or

Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences, 2nd Edition - Mary L.
Boas

Thanks,
Tomas

"Mathematical Methods for Physicists" by Arfken and Weber is better
It's authoritative, comprehensive, and contains good examples and
proofs. I like it so much that I sometimes even browse through it for
fun!

I have read most of Boas, but rarely find myself reaching for it to
solve a problem.

psichi