I have read the first 16 chapters, but cannot say that I understood
all the math that he introduces. I have been buying books, mostly the
Dover publications and Schaum's Outlines, on the math that appears to
be required. I have figured out one thing, at least for me.
Sometimes the symbology is more difficult than the math! It took me a
while to see that, but I have become very comfortable with the
symbology of, e.g., geometry. The symbology that mathematical
physicists use is different, or at least more extensive, than what we
engineers use. It is just a habit I need to get into.

I have found some excellent papers on tensors. They are not dropdead
simple to understand, but tend to be hand-holders for a good bit of
material not commonly seen by engineers.

Thomas

--- In rtrfans@yahoogroups.com, Story Bored <storybored2003@...> wrote:
>
> Great, Raj! One of the major reasons i would like to do this is
that if we work together, the more we can learn, plus more fun to
boot. Safety in numbers!
>
> SB
>
> Rajkumar Sundaram <rajkumar.sundaram@...> wrote:
Hi,
> It would be really helpful for folks like me. My background is
Mechanical Engineering / Industrial Engineering. I started the book
but couldn't go forward because of lack of discipline, and I had
forgotten most of my undergrad and grad math. May be, I could use your
help and try a little harder to make progress.
>
> Regards,
> Raj
>
>
> On 9/3/07, Story Bored <storybored2003@...> wrote: Thanks,
Thomas, that's terrific! I figure I'll need lots of help and will try
as well to help out as much as i can. I hope to be in this for the
long haul and I'm pretty excited about the trip ahead.
>
> SB
>
> Thomas <krt2054@...> wrote: SB,
>
> I think that an interesting idea and I will participate. I have
> gotten a bunch of math books to try and figure out more of what
> Penrose is writing. (I am an mechanical / electrical engineer). The
> math I had in my education does not deal much with this stuff. To be
> sure it is the basis for it, but never really delved into a lot of
> what Penrose discusses. He covers things quickly and expects people
> to keep up, but I find it tough going at times. Interesting, but
> tough. I figured if people could invent this stuff, then I should be
> able to understand it with effort.
>
> I look forward to your posts.
>
> Thomas
>
> --- In rtrfans@yahoogroups.com, "storybored2003" <storybored2003@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, like everyone else in this group I'm fascinated by physics and
> > a bit frustrated by popularizations that steer clear of the math.
> > Without the math, i find i have to take the author's word for things.
> > I am also deprived of that comfortable and pleasant feeling that
comes
> > from true understanding.
> >
> > Anyhow as an intro - I'm a comp. sci grad, from way back with a
lot of
> > forgotten undergrad math. I hope to bring it all back and with
luck,
> > go beyond it.
> >
> > I am thinking of starting a blog that will record my experiences as I
> > go through the book chapter by chapter. It would highlight my
> > difficulties and struggles :-). It could incorporate links to
> > supporting books/videos and websites (some of the one already
> > mentioned in this group for example). Solutions to some problems
would
> > be wonderful too although this would be a tall order (for me).
> >
> > I figure if it works right, the blog could be a useful aid for those
> > who are reading the book as well as a reference for readers yet to
> > come! What does everyone think?
> >
> > SB
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to
Yahoo! Answers.
>