So does your smartphone, there a hundreds of apps these days.
The practical cases you actually really have to work with those, isn't so high.
Solving complex numbers and integrals?
For any engineering job you barely need them, especially not on a daily basis.
Let alone doing them by hand, WolramAlpha ftw.
Anyway, the context is for someone who wants to understand a bit more about mathematics.
Not some very specific job.
Don't how many people know about it but Microsoft has a freeware Math Solver that can sometimes be useful: https://math.microsoft.com/en
I feel you first need to figure out what knowledge you need. Maths? Physics? Electronic engineering? All very different things.
Another thing that can come in handy at times is a 75-page comprehensive list of mathematical symbols:
https://mathvault.ca/product/comprehensive-list-of-mathematical-symbols/
There is a limited freeware version at:
https://mathvault.ca/wp-content/uploads/Comprehensive-List-of-Mathematical-Symbols.pdf
https://mathvault.ca/product/comprehensive-list-of-mathematical-symbols/
There is a limited freeware version at:
https://mathvault.ca/wp-content/uploads/Comprehensive-List-of-Mathematical-Symbols.pdf
I am not sure if I like that "Comprehensive List of Mathematical Symbols".
What I do like about it is the LaTeX code, which can be handy when you forgot how to type LaTeX. But this is not related to the OP question in any way.
What I hate about it is that it seems to assume that there are some generally valid "definitions" or conventions about the meaning of these symbols. While this may make sense for many (but not all) symbols in chapters 1 and 3-6, it's absolutely totally and massively wrong with others (chapter 2 especially). For example, their implication that C is the "Constant of Integration" is just bullocks. The letter C can relate to just about anything in mathematics or physics. Another example is that they indicate I is the identity matrix, while most people around here would think it's electrical current. The point is that the meaning of each and every such symbol must be defined in the context of a specific mathematical description at hand. There is no universal definition of which letters are used for what in mathematics.
Just take a look at the discussion about the "letter used for voltage" further up in this thread. Some people like to use U, others like V. In the end it does not matter at all -- all that matters is that the meaning of each letter used as a variable/parameter must be defined at first use in a specific description. Unfortunately this tends to be badly neglected here on diyAudio, so people will not be able to understand a thing if they are not "in the know" already.
What I do like about it is the LaTeX code, which can be handy when you forgot how to type LaTeX. But this is not related to the OP question in any way.
What I hate about it is that it seems to assume that there are some generally valid "definitions" or conventions about the meaning of these symbols. While this may make sense for many (but not all) symbols in chapters 1 and 3-6, it's absolutely totally and massively wrong with others (chapter 2 especially). For example, their implication that C is the "Constant of Integration" is just bullocks. The letter C can relate to just about anything in mathematics or physics. Another example is that they indicate I is the identity matrix, while most people around here would think it's electrical current. The point is that the meaning of each and every such symbol must be defined in the context of a specific mathematical description at hand. There is no universal definition of which letters are used for what in mathematics.
Just take a look at the discussion about the "letter used for voltage" further up in this thread. Some people like to use U, others like V. In the end it does not matter at all -- all that matters is that the meaning of each letter used as a variable/parameter must be defined at first use in a specific description. Unfortunately this tends to be badly neglected here on diyAudio, so people will not be able to understand a thing if they are not "in the know" already.
I think the problem with the book is its name. It should have been called, "An Incomplete List of Mathematical Symbols." There is more than one such list, sometimes they appear inside the cover of handbooks (less the LaTeX codes, of course).
Anyway, there are only so many symbols and they do tend to get reused in different contexts. I would agree there is a widespread problem in that many books an articles assume the reader already is familiar with symbols as they are used in a particular specialty area. In that case it can take some time to chase around finding earlier literature where symbols were at some point defined.
For the OP, the issue is that as more mathematics is learned, so is there a need to learn how symbols are used in different subjects areas. His purpose in wanting to learn math not just for the sake of math, after all.
Anyway, there are only so many symbols and they do tend to get reused in different contexts. I would agree there is a widespread problem in that many books an articles assume the reader already is familiar with symbols as they are used in a particular specialty area. In that case it can take some time to chase around finding earlier literature where symbols were at some point defined.
For the OP, the issue is that as more mathematics is learned, so is there a need to learn how symbols are used in different subjects areas. His purpose in wanting to learn math not just for the sake of math, after all.
Last edited: