Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Rosen's book: Profs love it, students hate it, July 8, 2007
I have used Rosen's book half a dozen or more times for classes I have taught to undergraduates and graduate students (using editions 3, 4, 5, and 6). My universal experience has been that students find it hard to follow and incomplete. However, because it is so broad in its coverage of topics, has lots of excellent problem sets, and treats the subject seriously, I find it useful as a resource in the class, and a reference outside of class. When I use this book, I know that the students will have to get the concepts from me (won't get them from the text)... but that's what I'm there for. The depth of the text pulls the more advanced students along, and is a sufficient review of a well-planned lecture that, overall, it works.
|
|
|
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Good for Supplementary work horrible as a primary..., June 14, 2008
I took an accelerated 6 week class on discrete math... and though I've never studied that hard (in my life) the class was very rewarding. My professor earned his PhD under Kolmogorov, and if you know that name then you'll know what I mean that it takes THAT level of a mathemetician in order to explain clearly what this text tries so hard to obfuscate.
I'm a math enthusiast, so I also bought copies of Grimaldi's and Epp's Discrete Math texts, and for this class I also needed to borrow copies of number theory texts for the section on number theory, logic texts for logic, etc. It's kinda sad in the state of things that one has to go to outside sources for so many of these topics... but Rosen makes you do it.
My issues on logic: They don't explicitly tell you that a function P(x,y) holds only for objects placed into the function. There is a problem in the section of nested quantifiers where the function is given as P(x,y) but then the solution uses x and y for something totally different. The book leads you to believe that P(x,y) means "property P holds for 'x' and 'y'" but with a function the property is static and the letters are dynamic. The book explains functions from the perspective that if you see P(x,y) then that property holds for x and y, and the specific problem I'm talking about will lead you astray when applying the logical construction; textbooks should be clear enough that the student doesn't have to go to the teacher on simple concepts like this
My issues truly began in Chapter 3. The pseudo code they use is loosely documented and assumes the reader already knows some programming because the entire section on algorithms was greek to me until a study partner who is a programmer by living gave me a quick crash course in programming that clarified what was going on in each step. The section on Big-O notation could have been simplified if the author simply said "we need to create a function that will be bigger than what is stated, and define 'k' as the beginning value where this is true and 'C' is the total sum of the coefficients that also guarantees this." The book takes a 5-6 page approach that buries this simple concept into obtuse mathematical jargon. I can't stress enough how bad the book covers this. (Epp's text with depictions of graphs that explicitly state the difference between Big-O, Big Omega, and Big-Theta was valuable to clarify this topic.)
Number theory is covered haphazardly, introducing div and mod before discussing the nature of numbers and primes. Div and mod are absolutely essential to number theory but the order of presentation serves only to confuse students. I grabbed a number theory book, "Elementary Number Theory" by David M. Burton and that text covers number theory in a much less confusing light than Rosen's text. (These books should all be in your school's library.)
Another book, suggested by my Professor, was Polya's "How to Solve it." This book locks you into the kind of thinking you need to be doing to handle proofs (and other types of problems.)
In short, if you're REALLY good on your mathematics... like you got > 4.0 in high school you might find my observations wrong. But if you are coming from the other direction, and are rising up to that level... this book just doesn't get you there without a TON of outside help. I suppose if nothing else, this book taught me how to use my library for supplementary materials as not a single chapter went by without a need to find things outside of the text.
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Poor style of teaching anything, April 30, 2008
First off, I have read/browsed other discreet mathematics books, this could be the best, but I hope not.
There are two big problems with this book.
1.) The book introduces material in the end of chapter exercises... You get to squirm and struggle for air only looking at an answer in the back (if odd).
2.) Many approaches at explaining topics are more confusing than they should be. I feel truly sorry for anyone who needs to take a course with this book for computer science, and does so before digital logic. The greatest example of poor explanations is the chapter on boolean algebra. Had I not known boolean algebra from part of a chapter in Mano's Digital Design, and 2hrs30min in class + 1 assignment, I know I would have been in for a ride. I have to laugh at how bad this book goes at explaining boolean algebra, I avoided reading sections to make sure not to let the book confuse my already solid knowledge.
There are many other smaller problems in this book. I hope there is better out there.
I have to add in as a note, that the books biggest problem of introducing material via exercises, creates test taking issues. If your professor chooses problems relating to material introduced in exercises, and you did not do the exercises, you're screwed. I have a habit of not doing the homework if I read the section and understand it, that has worked until this textbook/course combination.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by David A. Patterson
by Thomas H. Cormen
