|
|
45 of 53 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An inferior textbook, though popular., March 9, 2002
This is the early transcendentals version of Stewart's calculus. The title of the book is quite appropriate, in that to learn calculus well, one must transcend the Stewart approach early and often. I found my self reading another text (Simmon's Calculus and Analytic Geometry) as an antidote to this dry, disjointed, lifeless tome. Stewart takes an inconsistent (sometimes rigorous, sometimes intuitive) approach toward teaching the calculus. It seems as if he has attempted to be all things to all people. Though he may have attempted to present the subject in both an intuitive (to motivate the typical student) and rigorous (to satisfy the professor) manner, he failed to deliver on either. The text is replete with pretty diagrams and some historical diversions, which read as canned, trivial snippets. In spite of this eye candy, the mathematical exposition is poor. Most proofs read as shorthand notes to one who already understands the subject. Is it analysis or basic calculus? Stewart seems to have a schizophrenic writing manner. On the one hand, he presents examples in "workbook" (i.e. Schaum's outline) form, so that if one wishes to solve a particular sort of problem, one might find it here. On the other hand, he does not seem able to meld problem solving with rigor in a coherent manner. So an abbreviated proof is done, with several relevant steps (relevant, that is, to the beginner) omitted. What function does this serve for a pre-analysis student? A proof that might take 10 steps is presented in 4. What is the point of this approach? Perhaps so as to ward off accusations that a particular subject was not touched upon. The book is expensive and bloated. Though the "official" rendering of the page numbers is 781, there are approximately 130 other pages devoted to appendices (some as advertisements for other, i.e. ancillary, materials). Note, this text is intended for a 2 semester Calculus sequence. It seems inappropriate, perhaps fraudulent, that Stewart devoted 900+ expensive pages for his task, and yet failed to present the material in an interesting and efficient manner. Given his insistence upon this secondary material, I ask Stewart - did you ever intend for this book to be relatively self-contained for the serious first year scholar, or did you expect the professor or CD-ROM to fill in the gaps in your exposition? Some alternative texts: Simmons, Anton, Stein, Thomas/Finney.
|