>>11773241I am in a similar situation to you and from my research, I have come across Halliday/Resnick and Young/Freedmanas the most widely liked for general/introductory calculus-based physics
Regarding which one:
>Don't compare. Both are legendary books. However the Newtonian mechanics is better described in University Physics than Fundamentals of Physics. Then again, chapters on Electro-magnetism are better explained in Fundamentals. Also the problems are more fun in University Physics.>Young and Freedman was the recommended text in my British uni and I read it quite thoroughly for my first and second year core topics. I thought it was a pretty decent book until I discovered Resnick and Halliday. Personally, I found Resnick and Halliday far more concise with clearer explanations and also that it seemed to have more of the necessary material. By the way, I used Young and Freedman for my first go at the GRE, scored 740, then switched to Resnick and Halliday for my next try half a year later and upped my score to 820. But of course, I think my score increase could also be due to a number of other factors(e.g. repeated questions).Another book that caught my attention which is I think a bit more advaned is Modern Physics by Tipler and Llewellyn. It might give some good insight into the history of physics if that interests you.
>Even if you skip the math parts, the historical narrative of the birth of modern physics is well told in this book.Either way that would probably be a book to read after one of the other two I mentioned first.
This is all just what I've heard, not personal experience, but these are the books I may be using when I study physics because of what people have said about them
