math. intro. to mechanics
From: Dani (tictactictac_at_walla.co.il)
Date: 06/27/04
- Next message: Dan Goodman: "Re: Gravity"
- Previous message: Ian Stirling: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Next in thread: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Reply: Mel Lep: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Jun 2004 09:14:03 -0700
hello, I'm rather unhappy about a virus that caused my message to be
repeated continually in my last posting. Please excuse any annoyance
that my circumstance might have caused.
(so I'm writing this from a different computer and a new account.)
FrediFizzx :
>Calculus based or non-calculus based? If you don't know calculus, I
would
suggest you learn that first if you want a more thorough understanding
of
mechanics
John T Lowry :
> recommend Berkeley Vol. I, Mechanics, by Kittel.
thank you for the replies and consideration. to answer the first
question, I am looking for a treatment that is both a) theoretical and
axiomatic without assuming a limited mathematical background on the
reader's part and b) includes practical exercises and is comprehensive
without prerequisites in physics whatsoever (beyond a basic
common-sense intuition).
I appologize again for the pathology.
- Next message: Dan Goodman: "Re: Gravity"
- Previous message: Ian Stirling: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Next in thread: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Reply: Mel Lep: "Re: math. intro. to mechanics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
