
Re: Failing Linear Algebra:
Posted:
Apr 28, 2004 7:24 PM


On 28 Apr 2004 17:23:30 GMT, rusin@vesuvius.math.niu.edu (Dave Rusin) wrote:
>In article <c98b1ba0.0404271113.66efce63@posting.google.com>, >Anonymous wrote: > >>I already bought the text, the Cliff's >>Notes guide to linear algebra, a 2003version of the Schaum's outline, >>and I even have an old 1968 version of Schaum's that my grandmother >>used when she majored in math. > >This is not your grandmother's Linear Algebra course! >(I've always wanted to say something like that.)
Ha, yes. But grandma's book is perfectly OK; that's the edition I was praising in my earlier post. I see at Amazon that some reviewers are complaining about errata in the new book; that surprised me because I had found my 1968 edition remarkably error free. (At least to *my* eye.) One reviewer cites a very minor misprint on p. 6, which can be seen in the sample pages  but that misprint is *only* in the newer edition, at a place where some perfectly OK notation was replaced by something different but really no better, and a mistake crept in. I was sorry to see that; perhaps older is better in this case. (Though not much of an issue, I suspect.)
To Anonymous (who should be studying, not reading this) I apologize for not addressing his specific concerns about this book; for some reason I skimmed over that part of his post. Well, if he needs more explanation than is in Schaum, that's easily available elsewhere (such as his textbook). Personally I found the explanations adequate  indeed superior to those in many textbooks  but the strong point of Schaum is really more in the area of confusion elimination; it *has* to be sparse to achieve that end, IMHO.

