Calculus Texbooks

Ideally, yes. However, many times that is not the case. If someone is taking a calculus course that isn't called real analysis or advanced calculus, then one should assume that it is because they never took AP calculus or IB calculus or whatever in high school. OP could be a first semester student at college or perhaps they are behind in courses. It happens.

Differential and Integral Calculus: N. Piskunov

>Thomas
>better than Stewart
Stop being fucking retarded, memeguy

I don't think you need ap calculus ti start with spivack, just motivation to learn by your own merit. You just need a basic calc book that teaches geometric and intuitive calculus to get an idea and to practice all the operational shit (learn your derivatives your anti derivatives proper integrals improper plus optimization problems).

In my high school they didn't teach calculus

My uni uses this textbook, and my prof hates it so much that he wrote his own textbook and hand out each lesson to us instead. Dude is based as fuck.

I mean you didn't even had the option? Calculus is so fundamental for everything, I can't understand why we have these standards.

Why would you use something else than Spivak? I mean ok fine if your course teaches from a specific text, but if you have a choice why spit on your luck? Serious question.

Some people hate rigor in all forms and just want to be proficient at solving a lot of tedious calc problems. For many technical jobs it's perfectly fine, though I believe any serious engineer who wants to do more than meme jobs and paperwork should have a strong basis.

The math course was statistics at my school
Poor schools don't have calculus in final year math course like rich schools do

bump

as the other user said, it teaches transcendental functions earlier, which are basically [math]e^x[/math] and [math]\log x[/math]. Instead of teaching them to you as [eqn]\log x=\int_1^x \frac{1}{x}dx\;\;\;\; e^x=\lim_{x\to\infty }\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)^x[/eqn]
and then showing you that they are inverses of each other, they teach you that [math]e^x[/math] is the only exponential function that after you take a derivative it gives you no extra constant, and then telling you that [math]\log x[/math] is the inverse of this specific function.

Pros of early transcendentals:
>a lot more examples and exercises can be worked out early on
>a lot more useful functions can be defined

Pros of later transcendentals:
>a firmer footing/better understanding on the log and exponential functions

oops, I meant [math]e[/math] not [math]e^x[/math] in that definition

Thanks for responding. Since early transcendentals defines more useful functions does it cover more than the standard book or are those functions there in the standard one but just explained later on?

It doesn't cover more per se, as in, both books will define the functions, one later than the other, however you may get more lackluster exercises in the "later" transcendental books, given that you will be missing a lot of identities and functions in the earlier exercises.

For example, in the later transcendentals, until they explain [math]e[/math] and [math]\log[/math], the only functions you can work with are polynomials and trigonometric functions, while in the early transcendentals you will also get exercises using log/exp as well as hyperbolic trigonometric functions earlier, which make part of the bulk of the more interesting examples.

So which one would be better for a beginner trying to learn calculus right after Stewart's precalculus book?

Early transcendentals. You won't have a very solid understanding of the functions anyways until you do real/complex analysis, and the ability to do more exercises involving them gives you a head start in "mastering" their algebraic manipulation.

Thank you.

In the us, you don't take real analysis untIL after you finish Calc 1-4.

Non math stem don't have to take it at all.

Do you know why your prof hates this textbook?

He's a brainlet.