I actually find the outdated textbooks simpler and easier to understand. Sure the information may not be entirely accurate but it's enough to get you started.
memes
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
watched a video on tensors with 'no math'. dude lost me in analogies. matrix vectors sumthin... brain is failing. no really the math is advancing more than that with computers and better theories for the physics experimenters.
This is one reason I really liked my Dynamics professor. On the first day of class, he wrote "F=ma" on the white board and said, "See that equation? It hasn't changed much in the last 200 years. You don't need to buy the newest edition of the textbook; it's mostly just fixing errata. The lessons are virtually the same as the first edition."
Okay, but do I really need to draw this many circles to prove what value Pi has? Also, it's all in Greek.
Have you met a bayesian guy? All prof on statistics in my uni keep talking how "traditional" approach is stupid, inferior, blah blah
Now for applied mathematics on the other hand...