I've been working my way through Polya's How to Solve It and Larson's Problem-Solving through Problems.
Instinctively, the approaches (not just material) feel more "mathy" than what I needed for undergrad physics. Why do the techniques differ so much if physics is built on top of math?
Instinctively, the approaches (not just material) feel more "mathy" than what I needed for undergrad physics. Why do the techniques differ so much if physics is built on top of math?
