Commentaires en ligne


1 Evaluation
5 étoiles:
 (1)
4 étoiles:    (0)
3 étoiles:    (0)
2 étoiles:    (0)
1 étoiles:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Moyenne des commentaires client
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients
Créer votre propre commentaire
 
 
Du plus utile au moins utile | Du plus récent au plus ancien

3 internautes sur 3 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 Un Chef D'oeuvre, 7 août 2013
Achat vérifié(De quoi s'agit-il ?)
Ce commentaire fait référence à cette édition : Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell (Relié)
C'est un livre si magistral que je vais faire un commentaire en deux langues .
1) si évidement le sujet vous intéresse , il n'est plus possible de se détacher du livre quand on l'a commencé ; l'auteur prend toutes sortes de précautions pour s'assurer du plus large public possible mais sans en rabattre sur l'ambition ; on ne peut pas "traduire" ce livre en français hélas ; la verve de l'auteur s'y perdrait complètement . L'auteur s'est acharné à écrire au plus haut niveau possible tout en restant VRAIMENT élémentaire ; c'est un régal de chaque ligne . Qui DOIT lire ce livre ? Tout étudiant en Physique à quelque niveau qu'il soit . Mais aussi toute personne intéressée à comprendre les cathédrales intellectuelles du XX° siécle et ce qui les a précédé ; Ceci n'est PAS un livre d'histoire des Sciences mais c'est un livre TOTAL au sens où chaque page vous élève , chaque page vous fait penser et en même temps lorsque nécessaire les Notes , les Commentaires du texte vous indiquent COMMENT on est arrivé à penser ainsi . Rien que le passage sur les groupes de Lie est une vraie Exception ; on peut évidemment faire le chemin inverse ; c'est à dire plonger réellement dans la Théorie des Groupes de Lie puis après 3 années terribles revenir aux choses élémentaires et FONDAMENTALES ; ici justement rien n'est une TORTURE MENTALE ; heureux les étudiants et étudiantes qui ont un tel professeur . Une seule critique qui vaut pour tous les ouvrages de l'auteur: on ne peut pas lui écrire directement hélas .

2) the first feeling is tremendous gratitude ; it is absolutely unique that a book leads you to the 5 preceding centuries in Physics without any concession but the aim to provoke the idea that YOU ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND GREAT THINKERS . for that alone , every student in physics disregarding the level SHOULD read that book . The book by the way is also intended for the largest possible audience with INTEREST in the subject and minimal ( really) a priori knowledge in Mathematics
Anything there which is needed is explained ; remember that this is a book on physics not a book on theoritical physics for mathematicians .
Speaking of that , the author defends himself recurrently about accusations seemingly coming from mathematicians mostly about "lack of rigor" ; nothing could be more ridiculous ; First of all what is rigor ? Developing the theory of distributions just in order to use "rigorously" the delta function is a tremendous and overpedantic absurdity ; I know what I am saying ; I used distribution theory and lectured on it . Now more much more important is the fact that developing intuition is or should be the primary task in teaching maths or physics ; I have no idea for other disciplines but reading P Krugman's books in economy seems to indicate that this is or should be a universal principle ; science does NOT exist to be able to describe simple things with ununderstandable jargon ; on the opposite science, aims to make cristalclear to anybody complex ideas . Any scientific work begins by making familiar ,phenomena which appaer at first glance as intractable .
Coming back to "rigor" : this has been a trend of the past century for odds and good .
There is some sense in "giving a meaning " to computations through brute force where it is so easy to get into absurdities . Superb example is given by L Euler whose Genius cannot be discussed and was not afraid in writhing that 1- 1+1-1+........ ad infinitum = 0 !!! just beacuse there is an eqal "number" of odds and even integers ; children use to learn that 0.999999999999..= 1 "because " if you design by x the "number" 0.99999999 ....... 10x = 9+x ; so... But surely there is no way to go very far that way although even these absurdities contain something interesting . The state of maths in France , if you learn from Bourbaki's founders was in such a mess at the end of the 30's of the last century that they decided to put an end to the catastrophe where people did not know what exactly they were doing . So Bourbaki was a step to progress in fixing ideas , lexic , methods of proof and such . Then appeared the usual phenomenon where new devots take the appearance for essence; I swear : no mathematician can work through the dogma of Bourbaki school when he attacks an unsolved question; in the secret of their office , on the contrary they begin by working formally , using nonsense computations WHEN necessary just to see where that leads ; only when the picture become clear for them , they begin to make the formal and insane previous dicussion "rigorous" .
So , The book is a good lesson instead of being suject to trial for high treason ; computations are to be NATURAL wether complicated or simple ; there is no way to dispense with that ; nature is natural ; the problem beeing to be sufficiently natural to reach the one of nature . There talent plays a role of course ; but if you want to become more clever , get more insight , fertlize your mind, ACT , Read that book line after line , page after page ; take your time ; you will win hours against desperation, Do the exercises ; do not skip pages even if you THINK you know because you will discover that you do'nt . This book is demanding but to climb at such a height , it's worth the effort
The sole criticism is that the book is intended primarily for Americans; some of the jokes very unfortunately are limited to that audience which is very very frustrating . Another example is the use of picturesque vocabulary which is in order as a method but meets False Brothers in french sometimes : Civilisation of mites . What are mites ? In french the same word means moth ( mite ) ;Why on the hell does the author needs to refer to a civilisation of moths ? But he did not
write" moths" but "mites" and "mite"s are a generic word for "ACARIENS " which becomes understandable in the context. The last criciticism so to speak is that ter is apparently no way to write to the author directly , despite the fact that he refers to an overwhelming mail .... Another great achievement from Antony Zee coupled with his other book on quantum fields in a nutshell for which I already commented . OLIVIER GEBUHRER
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles 
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ? Oui Non


Du plus utile au moins utile | Du plus récent au plus ancien

Ce produit

Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell
Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell de A Zee (Relié - 21 mai 2013)
EUR 59,98
En stock
Ajouter au panier Ajouter à votre liste d'envies
Rechercher uniquement parmi les commentaires portant sur ce produit