[sdiy] DSP book recommendation wanted

[cheater cheater]

Sorry if you felt hurt, Dave!

The first point is that reference books are made with being a closed
source of information, i.e. any topic mentioned in a book like that
can be fully explained by that book, to some specific level.

The second point is that references are mostly ordered in a logical
order, which makes them great for learning. If you open a reference
book at the topic 'sequence', then the next topic will be either
'series' or 'arithmetic progression' or something else that is what
you should learn next in order to maximize your learning input.

Now if you go here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sequence.html
you don't get that benefit. Sure, the 'Series' topic is referred to,
but find it in that list:

196-Algorithm, A-Sequence, Alcuin's Sequence, Appell Cross Sequence,
Appell Sequence, B2-Sequence, Basic Polynomial Sequence, Beatty
Sequence, Binomial-Type Sequence, Carmichael Sequence, Cauchy
Sequence, Convergent Sequence, Cross Sequence, Decreasing Sequence,
Degree Sequence, Fractal Sequence, Giuga Sequence, Increasing
Sequence, Infinitive Sequence, Integer Sequence, Iteration Sequence,
List, Nonaveraging Sequence, Polynomial Sequence, Primitive Sequence,
Reverse-Then-Add Sequence, Score Sequence, Sequence Density, Series,
Sheffer Sequence, Signature Sequence, Sort-Then-Add Sequence,
Steffensen Sequence, Ulam Sequence

How is someone supposed to learn from that?

For this reason authors write themed reference books, for example a
reference for students, or a reference for abstract algebra, or
topology. Mathworld has everything kludged together in order to be
3-in-1 like head&shoulders.

Furthermore, I find that mathworld often has long definition chains.
That is, in order to understand definition A you need to understand B,
to understand B you need C and D, and to understand each you need E,
F, G, H and I and J. This is very often excessive.

Reference books are usually written so that those definition chains are minimal.

Yet another point is that often the definitions in Mathworld just have
way to much in them. For example, imagine I don't know what an
integral is, and I want to learn about it as I would learn from a
reference book. I would go here:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Integral.html

Now I would have not only been confused by this, since my teacher told
me to read about integrals, not 'Riemann integrals', but I'll have
also been indoctrinated by 1988 'New Math' quotes, and will have
learned nothing.

Now let's read on. In a few short lines, they jump from (5) which is
usually the first formula that you see in a course on integrals right
into (8) which assumes the reader will have started multivariate
calculus. This is almost never the case when learning about integrals.

Oh, should I learn the identities too? Let's look at 11-16... that
might be on the exam - oh boy - better learn em. Put some more garbage
in my head that I won't use in the next 3 years or so.

Mathworld is a handy reference, but it doesn't stand up compared to
CRC in the way as I did, and that is to make it a learning tool. You
*might* find Mathworld very useful when you are trying to remember
something you've learnt once, but it's definitely not a thing to learn
new ideas with.

Another point where physical objects win with websites is that they
are tangible and invariable. If you learn something, and then forget
it, a hazy idea about how the page layout has looked could lead you to
the definition. This is not an uncommon way of re-learning things with
books. With mathworld, however, the layout will have almost certainly
changed, since it depends on the window size, zoom level, browser, and
the definition page may have been added to or removed from.

Finally, books get worked on by typesetters while mathworld doesn't.
It makes them much easier to read and learn from.

D.


On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Dave Manley <dlmanley at sonic.net> wrote:
> cheater cheater wrote:
>>
>> Mathworld doesn't beat CRC in that CRC is an ordered, closed work and
>> mathworld is neither.
>
> You say that like it is a bad thing.  Mathworld is ordered, is hyperlinked
> to related topics and references and is searchable.  Are the editors of the
> CRC references any better than those of Mathworld?  Doesn't Weisstein has
> his own massive tome on mathematics published by CRC Press?  Is
> http://www.amazon.com/CRC-Encyclopedia-Mathematics-Third-Set/dp/1420072218/
>  somehow better at 4300 pages, 21 lbs, and $398?  Sometimes, I think you
> just like to be contrary.  Or have I missed your point?
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>