Talk:Mathematics education in the United States

Start

I've begun this page, any assistance is welcomed. Many thanks to those who wrote about the US on the general Math Ed page: I moved your text as appropriate. Therealcaro (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

@Therealcaro: This page has been vastly improved. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Nerd271 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to learn math someone teach me Precious marakalla (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mathematics education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509105739/http://www.csmonitor.com/sections/learning/mathmelt/p-2story052300.html to http://www.csmonitor.com/sections/learning/mathmelt/p-2story052300.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that when you click on link number 6 it leads to a page that no longer exists. I was wondering if that link could be updated, or if it should be taken down since the source no longer exists.

Thanks 22mross (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Algebra 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Algebra 1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6 § Algebra 1 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

POV edits

Someone keeps adding an edit based on a POV piece written by David Klein from 2003 (during the so-called Math Wars). The information being added is not accepted by the consensus that has evolved since that time, and it contradicts what is written in other Wikipedia articles, such as the one on Integrated Mathematics. The main part of the addition is:

In fact, as the math wars of the 1990s raged on, the de-emphasis of calculus in the high school curriculum meant that the so-called "integrated" textbooks offered subpar and unsystematic developments of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. But even before that, during the 1970s and 1980s, the number of students taking remedial courses in college had risen substantially.

All of these points, of course, have been largely debunked, as other Wikipedia articles make clear. In fact, if this addition is allowed, this article will then contradict itself, since it claims earlier that Americans are far behind most other countries (actually we're middle-of-the-pack for developed countries, and even that varies considerably from state to state—Massachusetts has nearly the highest scores in the world), and yet this suggested edit implies that the American curriculum is vastly superior to the way math is taught in all other countries. Perhaps in order to soften this contradiction, the editor is also making edits which imply that there are other countries besides the U.S. which teach math according to the traditional American method, again in contradiction to other Wikipedia articles. The editor keeps reverting the article every time this edit is deleted.

If something is added about integrated math, it should of course be reflective of consensus opinion, rather than Math Wars rhetoric from two decades ago. It should also consider the position of official standards such as the Common Core, which puts "integrated math" and traditional American math on the same footing. In any case, all of this should be sorted out here on the Talk Page. seberle (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That was here for a while before it was deleted. I have been editing this page for a while now. No, it does not make the article contradict itself. American students put up a rather average performance in international tests, as the numbers make it clear. Since this page is about mathematics education in the United States in general, it makes sense to talk about history. Perhaps the notion of "integrated mathematics" is a useful pedagogical tool, but the way it has been implemented did not deliver results, hence the opposition by some parents and mathematicians and its ultimate abandonment.

And no, your personal opinion does not constitute a consensus. Let's wait for a couple days to see if other people would like to join. Otherwise, I will request a third opinion.

The bit about Israel will be restored. The source mentions that country by name. Nerd271 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry this has been difficult. I do appreciate some of the other edits Nerd271 has made. (Thanks for your hard work on this.) It's just this one that is unfortunately inaccurate. Let's make this a neutral, accurate article! It would be good if someone else chimed in to help sort this out.

The part about contradiction was just a side observation; sorry if that came across as the reason for the problem. Also, I am sorry if anyone thinks I am including my opinion. The way the world teaches math, or the position of the Common Core, is not my opinion. My apologies also that I was slow to make this correction initially. Life gets busy sometimes!

The problem with these additions is simply that they are not accurate. They are based on a single article written in 2003 in the heat of the "Math Wars" and contradict all other sources. I don't think some of the ideas in this addition are even in the referenced article, though I'd have to reread it. The idea that there are any other countries using the traditional American high school sequence is not correct. The article may have mentioned Israel as an example the author was familiar with, but that does not mean Israel is one of only a few countries. Virtually ALL countries use integrated math. The American high school math sequence is quite unique on the world stage. (See the references in the article on Integrated Math if needed.) I am removing the mention of Israel because it is misleading, but perhaps someone can suggest a different way to say something about this which does not contradict everything in the Wikipedia article on Integrated Math.

It would certainly be good to include something about the various debates around the Math Wars. Nerd271 is quite correct that there was backlash from parents unfamiliar with integrated math, and I am certain there were some poor implementations. But at the end of the debates, the Common Core declared that both were equally valid curricula, and this has been the research-supported decision in the United States ever since. New York used it for decades before switching back to the tranditional sequence. Hopefully we can come up with a good way of portraying the complex reality of the situation without inserting POV declarations about which sequence some people prefer. seberle (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless you can bring in a reliable source saying that "most" countries teach "integrated math," you cannot force the given source to say that. We need to stick faithfully to our chosen sources. That mathematician, David Bressoud, is by no means an ignoramus. He edited an entire series of research articles on the way calculus is taught in a number of countries. I checked before bringing him in. Multiple sources discuss how math is taught differently from other countries, some of which are mentioned by name. Overall, it seems that "integrated math" is taught at a much higher level in the ones mentioned, like Israel, Italy, and Singapore, with certain topics being introduced earlier. Nerd271 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, again, the references can be found in the article on Integrated Mathematics. As far as I am aware, there is not a single country in the world outside of the U.S. that has adopted the American Algebra I - Geometry - Algebra II - Precalculus sequence. Not even Canada or Australia (the two countries probably closest to American education) follow such a system. But that's not important. We really don't need to go there. We can just leave the article at "many" instead of most in this article, since that is not really the issue here for this article. (Edit: Actually, both this article and the Integrated Mathematics article, correctly say "most," so it's best to leave it at that.) Again, singling out one specific country is not helpful, since it gives the wrong impression. seberle (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

General clean-up

Most of this article looks good, but I think it could be better. I am concerned by statements such as:

• passing algebra is often a Herculean challenge
• there was a movement aimed at systematically reforming American public education along more "progressive" grounds.
• the decision by some educators to include the topics of race and sexuality into the mathematical curriculum has also met with stiff resistance.
• the apparent dichotomy between basic skills and understanding of mathematical concepts is a delusion.
• educational professionals did not understand mathematics as well as their critics
• Jaime Escalante dismissed the NCTM standards as something written by a PE teacher.

...and quite a few similar statements in this article.

Some of these statements simply are not accurate. These of course need correcting. But mostly I'm concerned that some of these statements need to be toned down a bit. This is an encyclopedia, not a documentary attempting to promote a position. Extreme language and scare quotes are probably not appropriate here. A few statements seem to have references that don't really support the claims, or at least they don't justify some of the extreme language. It is important that we stick to encyclopedic content -- what secondary sources tend to agree on, factually reported -- instead of what a single blogger explains. Sometimes a judgment is justified. For example, it's fine to report that the New Math was strongly opposed, because it was. But most educational movements were divisive, with no clear "winner," and the article should not use language that takes one side over the other, unless there is some sort of clear consensus among experts. The article should never take a position for one side in such cases. Wikipedia articles need to be non-POV, right? seberle (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

1) This is accurate. The number of students struggling with Algebra I and II is not low.

2) This was a genuine educational movement of the early twentieth century.

3) This is well-reported by various news outlets. This is, unfortunately, a new front in the culture wars of our time.

4) This is a statement from a professional mathematician and professor.

5) Critics are not just parents but also mathematicians and mathematical scientists. Sometimes, they are the same people. Check out the responses from California and Massachusetts, for example. Both these states are home to some of America's most renowned schools. And Wikipedia does accept opinions from experts in the relevant fields.

6) He is one respected educator who has spoken out against the new method of teaching.

Promoters of certain educational movements oftentimes clash with the public and other educators and experts in the fields. But ultimately, such opposition would peter out if desirable results are delivered. If STEM specialists are unhappy about the teaching of mathematics, something has gone wrong. Nerd271 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm mixing several different issues together. A lot of great work by many people has gone into this article. I agree that opposition often peters out when educational movements go wrong. Such was the case of the New Math movement, for example. However, this has not been so clear with all movements, so we need to be careful. And I'm not so certain that good movements succeed quickly. Some math reform has taken literally centuries before finally accepted.

I agree that most of these sample statements are accurate. That's not the problem. What I'm suggesting is mostly a question of tweaking a word here or there. Algebra is definitely a big hurdle for some students, and some movements definitely involved rancorous debate. Nevertheless, words like "Herculean" or "stiff" might need rethinking, just to remain more encyclopedic. Scare quotes aren't needed around "progressive." Instead, we need to simply describe what has happened.

Also, defending one point of view, as some sentences do, is not for Wikipedia to do, even if it may seem clear to us that "something has gone wrong." For example, Statement 3 may or may not be "well-reported by various news outlets," but it wasn't in the reference given for that statement. Perhaps some clean-up and bit more research is needed? Faulty references are a common problem in many Wikipedia articles, including a few of my own contributions over the years!

And of course Wikipedia accepts expert opinion; but it also needs to remain POV neutral about divisive issues where experts disagree. Be careful not to dismiss some experts as not understanding math as well as the other side unless there is solid evidence for such an unusual position. It is natural for one side to cry, "The other side doesn't understand." But here at Wikipedia, we need to avoid attacking anyone, as some statements seem to do. We can, however, report that one side has been attacked, and by whom and why, and whether the other side has responded, and how. This is common in Wikipedia. However, I think we need to be careful that the article doesn't devolve into extensive debate-reporting with lots of "He said," and then "They said." Very brief summaries of the two sides are probably sufficient.

Most importantly, I'm not "attacking" any of these sample statements. I'm just trying to point out some examples that could use a bit of improvement. There are many more such statements, which is normal. Most Wikipedia articles could stand some clean-up, and I'm trying to point out some examples of the kind of thing we need to do to move forward to make this good article even better. I'll see if I can work on a few such sentences later. I just thought I'd describe what I'm seeing before beginning actual edits. (Or others can initiate some editing!) --seberle (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Integrated mathematics

This is an interesting section, but it does contradict a bit with the main article on integrated mathematics, which is more accurate. I have tried to correct some of the more obvious mistakes, but they keep getting reverted. To be fair, I am not competely happy with my latest edit either, though it is much more accurate than what used to be there (which did not even line up with its own references).

There is a complaint that some of this is redundant, which is a fair point. My suggestion is that perhaps most of this be moved and integrated into preceding sections. Probably the only thing that should be here is the "controversial" part (whether the U.S. should follow the rest of the world or keep its traditional algebra/geometry/algebra sequence, and whether there are any advantages of one system over the other). However, the controversy will not make sense without some of the historical and international background. So, this material needs to be somewhere and not simply deleted.

Rather than restore the older inaccurate material, let's maybe discuss here how this information on integrated math should be organized in this article? ---seberle (talk) seberle (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I moved some bits around and rewrote them to make everything fit better. Nerd271 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. The section is looking better and it is a lot more accurate. I am still concerned about certian statements which are not quite accurate. (They do not say what the references are saying.) But we're getting there! I'll double check the references when I have time before making further changes. Also, I think it might be good to break the block up into some smaller paragraphs for readability. --seberle (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Excessive citations

Nerd271, why did you remove that tag? The books being used at schools is not relevant to whether they can be cited here. To say the subjects of the books are required by schools, you have to cite either those schools or something else that actually verifies the claim. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

These books are among some of the most commonly used in their subject domains, at least in the United States in particular and English-speaking world in general. Some of them and their authors have their own Wikipedia pages. This page gives an overview of the curriculum. Although math (and more generally STEM) education is by now highly standardized, different schools will offer variations on the theme. Students are encouraged to check the course descriptions of their own schools, as the page makes clear. This also serves as a depository for commonly used and highly rated textbooks, which could come in handy for students, parents, and instructors. Nerd271 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository for books. Ref tags are there mainly so people can click on them and find out if what Wikipedia says is true. It's misleading to use them otherwise, because readers will think the information in the article is verified in multiple sources. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it is a secondary and convenient purpose. We also have lists for textbooks in certain subjects. Again, some of these and their authors have their own Wikipedia pages. Nerd271 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The proper way to list them would be in their own article or in a further reading section. See the collapsed box below for what it would look like. I think you'll agree there are so many books here that the reader does not know where to start. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that citing a bunch of books is probably not the best way to go on this. Ideally, an encyclopedia needs good secondary sources. I agree that citing countless textbooks is confusing and dangerously close to original research, which is not allowed. I think we can do better. --seberle (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Boas, Mary (2005). Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences (3rd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-19826-0. Hassani, Sadri (2008). Mathematical Methods: For Students of Physics and Related Fields (2nd ed.). Spring. ISBN 978-0-387-09503-5. Riley, K.F.; Hobson, Michael P.; Bence, S.J. (2006). Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-67971-8. Strang, Gilbert (2016). Introduction to Linear Algebra (5th ed.). Wellesley-Cambridge Press. ISBN 978-0-980-23277-6. Axler, Sheldon (2014). Linear Algebra Done Right. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-11079-0. Halmos, Paul (2017). Finite-Dimensional Vector Spaces (2nd ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-81486-5. Spiegel, Murray R.; Lipschutz, Seymour; Schiller, John J.; Spellman, Dennis (2009). Schaum's Outline of Complex Variables (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN 978-0-071-61569-3. Kwok, Yue Kuen (2010). Applied Complex Variables for Scientists and Engineers (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70138-9. Krantz, Steven G. (2008). A Guide to Complex Variables. Mathematical Association of America. ISBN 978-0-883-85338-2. Zill, Dennis G.; Wright, Warren S. (2013). Differential Equations with Boundary-Value Problems (8th ed.). Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-82706-9. Boyce, William E.; DiPrima, Richard C. (2012). Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems (10th ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-45831-0. Arnold, Vladimir (1978). Ordinary Differential Equations. Translated by Silverman, Richard. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51018-9. Bleecker, David D.; Csordas, George (1997). Basic Partial Differential Equations. International Press of Boston. ISBN 978-1-571-46036-3. Asmar, Nakhlé H. (2016). Partial Differential Equations with Fourier Series and Boundary Value Problems (3rd ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-80737-9. Strauss, Walter A. (2007). Partial Differential Equations: An Introduction. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-05456-7. Eccles, Peter J. (1998). An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning: Numbers, Sets and Functions. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-59718-0. Hammack, Richard (2013). Book of Proof (2nd ed.). Lightning Source Inc. ISBN 978-0-989-47210-4. Hamkins, Joel David (2020). Proof and the Art of Mathematics. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-53979-1. Artin, Michael (2017). Algebra (2nd ed.). Pearson. ISBN 978-0-134-68960-9. Dummit, David S.; Foote, Richard M. (2003). Abstract Algebra (3rd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-43334-7. Pinter, Charles C. (2010). A Book of Abstract Algebra (2nd ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-47417-5. Scharlau, Winfried; Opolka, Hans (2010). From Fermat to Minkowski: Lectures on the Theory of Numbers and Its Historical Development. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-1-441-92821-4. Granville, Andrew (2019). Number Theory Revealed: A Masterclass. Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society. ISBN 978-1-4704-6370-0. Dudley, Underwood (2008). Elementary Number Theory (2nd ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-46931-7. Mattuck, Arthur (2013). Introduction to Analysis. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-484-81411-6. Bartle, Robert G.; Sherbert, Donald R. (2011). Introduction to Real Analysis (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-0-471-43331-6. Abbott, Stephen (2016). Understanding Analysis (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-1-493-92711-1. Rudin, Walter (1976). Principles of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-070-54235-8. Spivak, Michael (1965). Calculus on Manifolds: A Modern Approach to Classical Theorems of Advanced Calculus. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-367-09190-3. Loomis, Lynn Harold; Sternberg, Shlomo Zvi (2014). Advanced Calculus (revised ed.). World Scientific. ISBN 978-9-814-58393-0. Marsden, Jerrold E.; Tromba, Anthony J. (2011). Vector Calculus (6th ed.). W. H. Freeman. ISBN 978-1-429-21508-4. Ahlfors, Lars Valerian (1978). Complex Analysis: An Introduction to the Theory of Analytic Functions of One Complex Variable. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 978-0-070-00657-7. Gamelin, Theodore W. (2001). Complex Analysis. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-95069-3. Stein, Elias M.; Shakarchi, Rami (2003). Complex Analysis. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11385-2. Bak, Joseph; Newman, Donald J. (2010). Complex Analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1-441-97287-3. Anderson, David F.; Seppalainen, Timo; Valko, Benedek (2017). Introduction to Probability. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-41585-9. Billingsley, Patrick (2012). Probability and Measure (Anniversary ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-12237-2. Wackerly, Dennis D.; Mendenhall, William; Scheaffer, Richard L. (2008). Mathematical Statistics with Applications (7th ed.). Thomson Brooks/Cole. ISBN 978-0-495-11081-1. Wasserman, Larry (2003). All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-40272-7. Lipschutz, Seymour (1998). Schaum's Outline of Set Theory and Related Topics. McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN 978-0-070-38159-9. Stoll, Robert Roth (1979). Set Theory and Logic. Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-63829-4. Halmos, Paul R. (1968). Naive Set Theory. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-90092-6. Rautenberg, Wolfgang (2006). A Concise Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-30294-2. Dobrow, Robert P. (2016). Introduction to Stochastic Processes with R. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-118-74065-1. Bartle, Robert G. (2001). A Modern Theory of Integration. American Mathematical Society. ISBN 978-0-821-80845-0. Stein, Elias M.; Shakarchi, Rami (2005). Real Analysis: Measure Theory, Integration, and Hilbert Spaces. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11386-9. Folland, Gerald B. (2007). Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications (2nd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-31716-6. Cohn, Donald L. (2015). Measure Theory (2nd ed.). Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-1-489-99762-3. Stein, Elias M.; Shakarchi, Rami (2003). Fourier Analysis: An Introduction. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11384-5. Lighthill, M.J. (1958). An Introduction to Fourier Analysis and Generalised Functions. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-09128-2. Stein, Elias M.; Shakarchi, Rami (2009). Functional Analysis: Introduction to Further Topics in Analysis. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11387-6. Sochi, Taha (2017). Introduction to Differential Geometry of Space Curves and Surfaces. CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1-546-68183-0. Do Carmo, Manfredo P. (2016). Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces. Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-80699-0. Pressley, Andrew (2010). Elementary Differential Geometry (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-1-848-82890-2. Munkres, James R. (2000). Topology (2nd ed.). Pearson. ISBN 978-0-131-81629-9. Mendelson, Bert (1990). Introduction to Topology (3rd ed.). Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-66352-4. Süli, Endre; Mayers, David (2003). An Introduction to Numerical Analysis. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00794-8. Osborne, Michael J.; Rubinstein, Ariel (1994). A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-65040-3. Tadelis, Steven (2013). Game Theory: An Introduction. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12908-2. Gibbons, Robert (1992). Game Theory for Applied Economists. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00395-5. Kot, Mark (2014). A First Course on the Calculus of Variations. American Mathematical Society. ISBN 978-1-4704-1495-5. Gelfand, Israel M.; Fomin, S.V. (2000). Calculus of Variations. Translated by Silverman, Richard. Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-41448-5. Stillwell, John (2010). Mathematics and Its History (3rd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-1-441-96052-8. Katz, Victor (2008). A History of Mathematics: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Addison Wesley Longman. ISBN 978-0-321-38700-4. Boyer, Carl B.; Merzbach, Uta C. (1991). A History of Mathematics. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-54397-8. Kline, Morris (1972). Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-195-01496-9. Taylor, John R. (2005). Classical Mechanics. University Science Books. ISBN 978-1-891-38922-1. Goldstein, Herbert; Poole, Charles; Safko, John (2001). Classical Mechanics (3rd ed.). Pearson. ISBN 978-0-201-65702-9. Arnold, Vladimir (1978). Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-90314-9. Purcell, Edward M.; Morin, David J. (2013). Electricity and Magnetism (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-01402-2. Griffiths, David J. (2017). Introduction to Electrodynamics (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-42041-9. Strogatz, Steven H. (1994). Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-367-09206-1. Batchelor, G. K. (2000). An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66396-0. Landau, Lev D.; Lifshitz, Evgeny (1987). Fluid Mechanics (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-750-62767-2. Townsend, John S. (2012). A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). University Science Books. ISBN 978-1-891-38978-8. Shankar, Ramamurti (2012). Principles of Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-1-475-70578-2. Sakurai, J. J.; Napolitano, Jim (2020). Modern Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-47322-4. Hartle, James B. (2002). Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity. Pearson. ISBN 978-0-805-38662-2. Carroll, Sean (2019). Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-48839-6. Misner, Charles; Thorne, Kip; Wheeler, John (2017). Gravitation. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-17779-3. Wald, Robert (1984). General Relativity. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-87033-5. Graham, Ronald L.; Knuth, Donald; Patashnik, Oren (1994). Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 978-0-201-55802-9. Rosen, Kenneth H. (2018). Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-1-259-67651-2. Cover, Thomas M.; Thomas, Joy A. (2006). Elements of Information Theory (2nd ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 978-0-471-24195-9. Sipser, Michael (1996). Introduction to the Theory of Computation (3rd ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-133-18779-0. Cormen, Thomas H.; Leiserson, Charles E.; Rivest, Ronald L.; Stein, Clifford (2009). Introduction to Algorithms (3rd ed.). The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-03384-8. Roughgarden, Tim (2016). Twenty Lectures on Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-17266-1. Gross, Benedict; Harris, Joseph; Riehl, Emily (2019). Fat Chance: Probability from 0 to 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-72818-8. Johnson, Robert; Kuby, Patricia (2003). Just the Essentials of Elementary Statistics (3rd ed.). Thomson Brooks/Cole. ISBN 0-534-38472-2. Taylor, John R. (1996). Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements (2nd ed.). University Science Books. ISBN 978-0-93570-275-0. Hughes, Ifan G.; Hase, Thomas P. A. (2013). Measurements and their Uncertainties: A Practical Guide to Modern Error Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-956633-4. Weber, Hans J.; Harris, Frank E.; Arfken, George B. (2012). Mathematical Methods for Physicists (7th ed.). Elsevier Science & Technology. ISBN 978-9-381-26955-8. Hassani, Sadri (2013). Mathematical Physics: A Modern Introduction to Its Foundations (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-01194-3. Neuenschwander, Dwight E. (2014). Tensor Calculus for Physics: A Concise Guide. Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-1-421-41565-9. Jeevanjee, Nadir (2015). An Introduction to Tensors and Group Theory for Physicists (2nd ed.). Boston: Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-3-319-14793-2. Zee, Anthony (2016). Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists (Illustrated ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16269-0. Bender, Carl; Orszag, Steven A. (2010). Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers I: Asymptotic Methods and Perturbation Theory. Springer. ISBN 978-1-441-93187-0.