< Every CS, Eng., Physics, Chem. and Eng. Professor I know wants their majors to learn some theory in calculus and linear algebra. They tell me that this is the best place to train them to think.>
and Lou replied
<<That's very interesting. Without exception, all of the students in CS, Eng., Physics, and Chem who've ever reported their major's professors' reactions to me have told me that those professors said to "ignore that theory junk--nobody> ever uses it". Perhaps Jerry is choosing the professors he talks to?>>
Lou knows quite well that the criticism of the Harvard text and ones like it is not one dimensional, as I have said over in over - it not only omits theory, it also reduces computations and leaves out a myriad of topics.
A Physical Chem. prof. was upset it left out parametric equations and related rates and Eng. Prof. was mad it left out series, and Econ. professor was upset it de-emphasized curve sketching. I have shown this book to well over twenty people in other depts. and industry and each one finds something else they don't like. All agreed that the best training for thinking comes from some proofs. Lou distorts the truth - I never said that beginning calculus should be all about proofs, but every non-mathematician I know, in academia or industry, thinks that some proofs are good.
Also I never said a calculus text should be an encyclopedia - but if we are going to ask students to spend good money on one shouldn't contain topics which they will need later on. Also I don't think including the more than 20 omited topics - which are FUNDAMENTAL - is asking too much.
I assume Lou must be supplementing these topics.
I don't know about you, but if I ever go for surgery I would feel a lot better having a surgeon who has performed this procedure and ones like it on hundreds of occasions than one who has never done it, but who has read about it and answered questions concerning aspects of the surgery.