I found some really old Maths textbooks in my local second-hand book shop recently. Some go back as far as the 1920s. They seem to explain Maths better to me than the newer textbooks, but they lack the colour of newer textbooks. Colour helps me remember stuff better.
So, what's better /sci/: Older or newer textbooks.
old textbooks. They were good at explaining concepts and how to solve it. They didn't go off in a tangent of some stupid story you don't need to know. New textbooks put pretty pictures and useless explanations without explaining what the author is doing and why its solved this way.
If you solve all the practice problems, you'll actually learn a lot of things. They often mention things that are currently relevant in other disciplines. For example, doing the exercises in a new math book may teach you how to solve certain physics problems, and let you know that they exist.
>Not only old text books but old scientific movies explain shit in a very crystal clear manner.
This. I watch a lot of old documentaries and they explain shit very clearly. Today its just people throwing off buzzwords and putting CGI graphics.
Dover books are awesome, and a great way to self-learn.
95 years later and this still is the best book on special functions.
>92% of teens have turned to plug and chug methods and rote understanding, if you are one of the 8% who still does REAL MATH and REAL CLASSICAL MECAHNICS, copy paste this
yeah, totally not a le wrong generation fag at all