Mathematical Methods for Physicists

Rating:
Summary: Not the optimal means to master mathematical physics
Review: This was the book used for a graduate level mathematical physics course at the University of Houston. Yes, with enough time you can learn the concepts from this book. But I found it far more efficient to check out half a dozen different books on the individual topics: complex analysis, advanced diff. eqns, group theory, vector analysis and others. The elaboration saved me alot of time. The time saved I used to work additional problems in Arfken. The problems in Arfken are very helpful.

Rating:
Summary: Our Battlecry: "Arfken!"
Review: Throughout the past year, our common battlecry in my classical mechanics and mathematical physics courses was "Arfken!"... usually followed by "Maple!" (a powerful math program). I am not as qualified to offer a comprehensive review of this book as the professors and graduate students whose words also appear here. However, I know that someday I will be and I know that Arfken was one o the best guides that I had on the trip. 'Nuff said.

Rating:
Summary: Decent reference, poor TEXT
Review: Unfortunately, this text holds ominous title of a classic I suppose. This is not a very lucid text, and I would not reccomend it to be used as such. However, if it is a fairly braod reference you are looking for, it might be good. The TOPICS covered are at least at the level of advanced undergrad/beggining grad. But if it's intermediate graduate level + you are interested in, there are others that are definitely better.

Rating:
Summary: maybe a good book, but not for physicists ....
Review: We had to use this book in our graduate physics course 10 years ago. I did not like it, because it lacks rigor. If you see it as a cookbook explaining the "how's", it is OK. However if you want to know the "why 's", this book wil learn you almost nothing. But the problem is, this book is targeted towards physics students, and one of the main reasons for studying physics is that you want to know the "why 's", so I do not see the usage of this book ....