Rating: 
Summary: My Students Do Not Like This Textbook
Review: Our department has been using this book since September, 2001. Like most math teachers, I don't use the book much. So, I would have said that the book is fine. My students, however, have developed quite a passionate hatred of the book. They say it is difficult to read, the tone is patronizing, the exercises are not well matched to the examples, and the odd-numbered answers in the back of the book have several errors. Also, a couple of the more theoretical members of our department say that the book is off in some of it theory. Our department has decided to hunt for a new book for the fall of 2002.
Rating: 
Summary: This is the Best Book!
Review: Don't be stupid! This is really the best Calculus book!
Rating:
Summary: Best Book!
Review: This is the best book that I have even seen! The reason for that is I took calculus 1 while I was still in high school. This was the book that I was using. Although I was in high school, but I could still understand this book completely! It led me into the real math world! That is why it should be 5 stars!
Rating:
Summary: Mean Value Theorem is Poorly Presented
Review: I was asked to serve on the calculus adoption committee this spring. Over the holidays, I examined some of the texts submitted for our consideration. With each, I started with the presentation of the Mean Value Theorem because this theorem is fundamental to the understanding of Freshman calculus. I was disappointed at the poor presentation of this material in Stewart.
4.2 Mean Value Theorem, pages 234-239 p. 234 Stewart says that "to arrive at the Mean Value Theorem we first need" Rolle's Theorem. This is not true. There are many ways to prove the Mean Value Theorem. I don't like a text that tells my students there is only one way to prove a certain result. p. 235 The margin comment seems to imply that a student can trust the graph shown by a graphing calculator. The section gives no example to demonstrate possible pitfalls of graphing technology. p. 235 Stewart says that Joseph-Louis Lagrange was French. This is not true. He was born in Italy and baptized in the name of Giuseppe Lodovico Lagrangia. His great-grandfather on his father's side was French and Lagrange leaned toward his French ancestry. A college text should be more careful when discussing historical facts. p. 235 The text gives students no idea about the meaning of the word "mean" in the Mean Value Theorem. p. 235 I find the use of "we" and "let's" throughout the text to be old fashioned and presumptuous. When the author says to a student "we can see" (last paragraph) he is assuming that he and his reader have similar backgrounds. Overall, the writing style is uninviting. p. 236 Again, in the proof of the Mean Value Theorem, the author claims that "First we must verify that h satisfies the three hypotheses of Rolle's Theorem." As a mathematician, this offends me. p. 237 I consider the Mean Value Theorem to be the most important theorem in Freshman calculus. The author's statement about the "main significance of the Mean Value Theorem" gives students no idea about the fundamental importance of the theorem. p. 237 The numbering system in the book would be awkward to use in class. Each section begins anew with Figure 1 and Theorem 1 and Equation 1. The standard convention is mathematics texts is to number Figures and Theorems by chapter, as in Figure 4.1. p. 238 The exercise set is short --- only 34 exercises. Of these, there are only 3 exercises dealing with trigonometric functions (Exercises 3, 18, and 29.) p. 239 Exercise 9 I don't like the wording in part (c) of this exercise. As a student, how am I to verify to my instructor that I have "noticed that the tangent line is parallel to the secant line?" I would prefer something more challenging, such as "show that the tangent line is parallel to the secant line." p. 239 Exercise 22 Stewart refers to a function having "roots." I checked this in the James and James Mathematics Dictionary and Stewart's use of the word is incorrect. Equations have roots, graphs have intercepts, and functions have zeros. p. 239 I have heard that Stewart has challenging exercises. Yet, I see that two of the more challenging exercises in this set are accompanied by "Hints" that give the solution away. p. 239 Exercise 33 This exercise is nonsense. On page 118 the author defines "position function" to refer to straight line motion. Yet, it is not given that runners are traveling in a straight line. Don't runners commonly run around an oval track? In such a case, what does the author mean by the term "velocity?" Does he really mean "speed?" The author makes a point of saying the runners "start at the same time." The point of the using the Mean Value Theorem is that the runners travel the same distance during the same interval of time.
Rating:
Summary: MOST IDIOTIC BOOK IN MY LIFE
Review: There is nothing to say, this book will drive you crazy. I have never seen such a terrible math book in my life. Doesn't give insufficient information to solve exercise problems and makes me feel terribly retarded although my IQ is greater than 40 ;). Don't by this book and tell everybody not to buy it!
Rating: 
Summary: How's your Algebra and Trig?
Review: Your aptitude in these subjects must be qualified when considering to study this book. If you lack a deftness or rich saturation in these areas you will NOT fair well. As for the text, not enough attention is paid to the development of the mathematical ideas expressed and no communication of these ideas is given by any other relavent aproach, I site the common "application oreinted" Calulus text.
This is a great hinderace for anyone partaking in the bitter-sweet cup of self study. Although if one has proper tutilage the book becomes now, terse and clear, reminisent of a referance manual, presenting only the most fundamental facts in an aesthetically pleasing way.
If you are one that does not have access to directive hand. Consider rather the Horizon Calculus 6th Ed. Anton., wich graciously presents a deeper and more concise review of pertient Algebra and Trigonomety concepts as well as a wider breadth of treatment on the mathematical theories in Calculus.
Rating: 
Summary: Not perfect but no calculus book is!
Review: I'll start of by saying what is bad about the book. When introducing a topic, they use a lot of numbers instead of words. Not everyone can follow numbers but graphs and examples that further illustrate the topic would be very helpful. Also, on occassion the book skips a step or two when explaining a point. However unless you have absolutely no calculus experience it shouldn't be too harmful. There are nice illustrations in this book that are helpful. Also there are many examples to help you. Another nice feature is that you can get an additional study guide and answer book to accompany this one. Another nice feature is that it doesn't introduce strange topics too soon.
Rating:
Summary: I'm not stupid, but this book made me feel like it
Review: This is the absolutely worst mathematics textbook that I've ever come across (and I've seen plenty). I'm not going to be shy about telling everyone I know that this book stinks. Please note that most positive reviews came from musty, old mathematicians who weren't trying to learn from this book. I enjoy math and calculus, but I get nothing from this book. Had I not learned calculus first from other textbooks and professors, I would not have been able to even partly understand anything Stewart was trying to get across. In his explanations, he often goes from point A to point B without telling his method for doing so. There were a number of times where I would stare at the pages, wondering how he came up with his answers (at the time I just figured it was magic). Another annoying habit Stewart has, is giving the easiest example problems that he can. This can really screw you over when he gives an oversimplified example for a theorem, and then in the problem set, creates a god-awful mess. There were alot of problems that I couldn't even start because Stewart didn't give adequate explanations or examples.
The bottom line: If you're a student, don't try to learn from this book,and if you're a teacher, please don't teach from this book. Be thankful that there are other textbooks available.
Rating:
Summary: Lab monkeys on heroin write better books
Review: This is the worst text book I have ever come across in my tenure as a college student. This book makes my organic chemistry text book look like a Dr. Seuss book. It is the only book that does not make any sense whatsoever. Furthermore, the problems at the end of each section cannot be solved solely on the information provided in the text. If you are in a class using this text book, I highly suggest that you inject a lethal dose of heroin, as you will probably learn more in a drug induced stupor.
Rating:
Summary: Good introduction to Calculus.
Review: For all those that follow the current mantra that mandatory testing is the solution to this country's education problems, the reading of the section of reviews devoted to this book should come as a useful wake up call. Many of these reviews show that the first thing that contemporary education needs is a type of boot camp approach to change the attitude of "the students". Just read all these whinies! Let's keep it simple. For all those that need an introduction to calculus that is user-friendly, that goes miles out of its way to explain and regurgitate every little detail and yet is thorough, this is a great book. For those that need more fiber: get Spivak. For those that need more sugar: go back to kindergarten and advise mom and dad to invest that college money towards their own retirement. For anyone that needs a textbook to help her/him along in an introduction to calculus, this book is a great choice. Don't let all the negative reviews distract you from buying this book. It is way too expensive, but very good. When you read all those negative reviewers just think of the great philosopher George Costanza when he spoke his immortal words:" it's not you, it's me!
| 
