/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12700406

5KiB, 501x183, Contour_750.gif

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 06:32:40 2021 No.12700406 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12700413 >>12700629 >>12700630 >>12700728 >>12701157 >>12701314 >>12701448 >>12703472 >>12703523 >>12703543 >>12706354

Do you have any book recommendations on complex analysis? I'm a theoretical physics grad student and I need dat shiet for various methods in QFT. So I would prefer something not too meta, but I don't want none of that oversimplified engineer-tier garbage either. Much appreciated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 06:36:25 No.12700413 Report

Quoted By: >>12701996 >>12703459

>>12700406
Lang's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 08:01:42 No.12700616 Report

Quoted By:

Francis and Flanigan (1983) was pretty good when I took complex analysis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 08:07:14 No.12700629 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700406
niggers

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 08:07:26 No.12700630 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700406
You are a *theoretical* physics grad student and don’t know complex analysis? How?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 08:43:19 No.12700728 Report

Quoted By: >>12700759 >>12703476

>>12700406
I don't think there's a single good theoretical physicist who hasn't gone through Whittaker and Watson.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 08:59:09 No.12700759 Report

Quoted By: >>12700779 >>12700795 >>12701466 >>12704469 >>12706150

>>12700728
did you speak with them all? if not , then why do you make such a claim?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 09:05:30 No.12700779 Report

Quoted By: >>12700787

>>12700759
Amazing how just one post tells me what an insufferable needle-armed faggot you are irl.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 09:08:28 No.12700787 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700779
you dont know and will never know my dude, you cant just assume things

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 09:12:35 No.12700795 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700759
If you're OP and you're asking for more information, just ask in a normal way which makes it clear what you're looking for. There's really no need to be smarmy and make it harder for people to give help when I gave a perfectly legitimate recommendation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 12:15:42 No.12701157 Report

Quoted By: >>12703476

>>12700406
something like Arfken or Boas is probably sufficient if you're just doing computations. But i have no idea, i haven't done QFT or really used complex analysis after i learnt it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 13:51:08 No.12701314 Report

Quoted By: >>12701363

>>12700406
I don't know what a contour integral is and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Am I right in thinking, for pic related, each arc segment is approximated by a triangle?
So $d \theta *radius = base$ , $radius = height$ , and the area of each chunk is $\frac{1}{2}base*height$ ?
Therefore, the integral from 0 -> ? is just $\frac{1}{2}\theta * radius^2$
Is that right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 14:19:19 No.12701363 Report

Quoted By: >>12701418

>>12701314
No, you're not even particularly close.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 14:59:49 No.12701418 Report

Quoted By:

>>12701363
dang

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 15:22:16 No.12701448 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700406
If you can borrow it : Real and complex analysis, Rudin (Chapter 10 to 16 in the third edition)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 15:24:17 No.12701451 Report

Quoted By: >>12702058

Ahlfors, Rudin.

I also had some PDF in my language to assist, pretty good and 259 pages.

Remember: complex numbers are fake numbers and Quantum theory therefore too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 15:30:12 No.12701466 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700759
what a faggot lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 19:00:22 No.12701996 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700413
This. Lang's book is pretty good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Feb 2021 19:16:10 No.12702058 Report

Quoted By:

>>12701451
>Rudin
I doubt OP could handle Rudin

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 01:51:10 No.12703459 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700413
fpbp

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 01:56:19 No.12703472 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700406
>So I would prefer something not too meta,
https://4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki/Mathematics#Complex_Variables
>but I don't want none of that oversimplified engineer-tier garbage either
take an engineering course and stop being ignorant

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 01:57:59 No.12703476 Report

Quoted By: >>12703526 >>12704434

>>12701157
>Arfken or Boas
oversimplified garbage
>>12700728
... from the early to mid 20th century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 02:08:07 No.12703501 Report

Quoted By:

You don't need complex analysis to understand the residue theorem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 02:15:55 No.12703523 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700406
If you're theoretical physics, then focus on Boas or Arfken, both titled Mathematical Methods for the Physical Sciences. Math books are too proof based. You need to know how to do integrals

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 02:17:57 No.12703526 Report

Quoted By: >>12703636

>>12703476
Neither Arken nor Boas are oversimplified, pseud. You didn't even read them, faggot. They're rigorous in proofs for physicists, whereas math textbooks focus too much on epsilon Delta proofs which are useless for physicists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 02:27:08 No.12703543 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700406
A Comprehensive Course in Analysis by Barry Simon, Part 2A, 2B
Link:
https://www.ams.org/publications/authors/books/postpub/simon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 03:02:58 No.12703636 Report

Quoted By: >>12704425

>>12703526
They're shallow surveys for people that can't be assed to actually learn the subjects. You should read a book on each topic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 09:34:26 No.12704425 Report

Quoted By:

>>12703636
What separates a physicist from a mathematician is the lack of strict rigor. Whilst mathematics requires strict, rigerous proofs we rely on hand-waviness and so-called physical intuition to get things done in physics. There's no need to understand every single proof rigorously for a physicist unless it is somehow necessary to understand how to USE the concepts, which is ultimately the only thing a physicist should care about. If physicists pursued mathematics at the same level as mathematicians we would never get anything done.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 09:40:34 No.12704434 Report

Quoted By:

>>12703476
>from the early to mid 20th century
Drastically underestimating how influential Whittaker and Watson has been in theoretical physics.
Easily one of the top references along with Arfken, if not the top.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 09:59:48 No.12704469 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700759
>tfw too intelligent

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 21:45:59 No.12706150 Report

Quoted By:

>>12700759
nigger

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 22:46:48 No.12706354 Report

Quoted By: >>12706542 >>12706860

>>12700406
Did anyone read visual complex analysis from needham i think?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 23:23:16 No.12706467 Report

Quoted By: >>12706754

>tfw there's no LaTeX'ed version of Whittaker and Watson 4th edition

El Arcón

El Arcón Sun 14 Feb 2021 23:46:39 No.12706535 Report

Quoted By:

Just the residue theorem will get you through 99% of QFT complex analysis. The Wiki is sufficient for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Feb 2021 23:51:27 No.12706542 Report

Quoted By:

>>12706354
I had a look at it, didn't read past the first chapter because it seemed like a load of shit and progressed painfully slowly

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Feb 2021 01:19:38 No.12706754 Report

Quoted By: >>12706762

>>12706467
I have a latex'd solution manual to several chapters which I wrote myself. I can't guarantee answers are correct in all cases but if this is helpful I can post it on /sci/ some time down the track. I've been considering doing this for several upper level textbooks but never knew what would be worthwhile and what wouldn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Feb 2021 01:23:29 No.12706762 Report

Quoted By:

>>12706754
>several chapters
*by which i mean everything post chapter 5 on analytic functions, so intro concepts are skipped

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Xmy1T.jpg, 8KiB, 329x165

Anonymous Mon 15 Feb 2021 01:54:45 No.12706860 Report

Quoted By:

>>12706354
I thought that book was great, as I'm very much a visual learner.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches