Timeline for Good differential equations text for undergraduates who want to become pure mathematicians
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2023 at 17:11 | comment | added | fosco | If you teach me how "to compute the monodromy of a Fuchsian differential equation by hand" I will give you a bag of dust in exchange! :) | |
| Apr 1, 2021 at 16:32 | comment | added | Tom Copeland | Arnold with regard to corruption of students/academics (I believe in particular the French) by the "new math" and Steven Weinberg with regard to an overemphasis of students on highbrow theory in QFT had similar complaints of the educational system. | |
| Mar 30, 2021 at 12:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Mar 30, 2021 at 12:47 | |||||
| Aug 2, 2016 at 11:55 | comment | added | Maxis Jaisi | Where can one find Poincare's book? I searched for the English title, but couldn't find any. | |
| Apr 17, 2014 at 9:19 | comment | added | user45639 | @VictorProtsak : certainly a bit late to post a comment, but, while I do HATE differential equations (too bad), I very much LIKE your answer... Yours truly. | |
| Dec 14, 2012 at 9:02 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Dec 14, 2012 at 1:49 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | "Knowing that the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence is an equivalence of triangulated categories may feel empowering, but as a matter of technique, it is mere stardust compared with the power of being able to compute the monodromy of a Fuchsian differential equation by hand." Awesome! Moreover, such computations can only enhance one's appreciation for Riemann-Hilbert. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 19:07 | comment | added | Unknown | Piskunov, my favorite since high school. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 8:38 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | You don't need to apologize to me, but it may be a good idea to tone down your post a little and emphasize the constructive side. Spivak is a good book for learning calculus on manifolds (mostly, integral calculus as I recall) for its own sake, but your question was about differential equations, right? Arnold's "Mathematical methods" really shows you where it comes from and where it leads (it's been a while since I opened it, but that's my recollection). It's a bit advanced (that's why I put it last on the list); if you liked Kostrikin and Manin, I hope you'll like Arnold's ODE book (#3). | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 8:07 | comment | added | lambdafunctor | Also, Mr. Protsak, I do completely agree with you about the disparity between those who actually 'do' the mathematics and those who fixate themselves on abstractions and higher constructions. I try to walk that fine line, remaining 'inspired' by the exciting research and such which goes on in the mathematical community proper while getting my hands dirty inculcating myself (often force-feeding) the essential foundational material with which I may improve my mathematical maturity, despite how 'computational' or dry it may seem. I know that I must walk before I can sprint. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 8:00 | comment | added | lambdafunctor | I apologize if I sounded condescending in assessing the course I am taking, that wasn't my intention. I wanted merely to convey that it is intended for engineering-types who openly disparage pure maths. I am quite sure that the mathematically substantive material will be largely rolled over so that the computational requirements of the students occupying the course can be met. Yours seems like a good list, and I do appreciate it. I must ask, however (given your statement above) whether you find Spivak's 'Calculus On Manifolds' which I referenced before to not have the proper context. | |
| Jun 19, 2010 at 7:36 | history | answered | Victor Protsak | CC BY-SA 2.5 |