- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg26833] Re: Book
- From: vze295bp at verizon.net (David Reiss)
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:13:14 -0500 (EST)
- Organization: Scientific Arts
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
In article <94maeb$3qk at smc.vnet.net>, <phys137 at mailcity.com> wrote:
> 1. I agree with the previous recommendation partially. The Mathematica
book is a
> model of good documentation, true. Still, it may not be the best for
> 2. my strong personal favourities (from at least 20 I looked through and 8 I
> read) were Patrick Tam - A physicists guide to mathematica. Don't be misled
> by the title. It's excellent beginner to high-intermediate tutorial. Showing
> use of Mathematica to solve real problems - though most examples are,
> from physics. Very well written and very well organized. Teaching quite well
> some elements of programming, too.
> the other is David Wagner - Power programming with Mathematica, which
> of the Mathematica programming language. Very useful for advanced programming.
> Still, I've been out of this for a couple of years now and something new
> could have appeared.
> Power Programming With Mathematica : The Kernel "Marek Twardochlib"
> <marek at geoinform.fh-mainz.de> wrote in message
> news:948rfs$kl0 at smc.vnet.net...
> > Olivier LETELLIER wrote:
> > > Hi everybody,
> > > I'm a french student, and i'd like to know which could be the best book
> > > should read to really improve myself using mathematica ; I've already
> > > the basics, but i'd like to go further.
> > The original Mathematica book from Wolfram. Nothing else!
> > marek
Unfortunately I believe that David Wagner's book appears to be out
This is certainly a shame since this is a gem of a book.
) Scientific Arts: http://www.scientificarts.com
) Creative Services and Consultation for the Applied
) and Pure Sciences:: David Reiss: dreiss at !SPAMscientificarts.com
) [Remove the !SPAM to send email]
Prev by Date:
Re: FORTRAN style, not OK?
Next by Date:
RE: [Q] symbolic SVD?
Previous by thread:
Next by thread:
Converting set of equations to matrix