<p>Is it just me or is "Calculus: Graphical, Numerical, Algebric" by Finney/Demana/Waits/Kennedy a poor textbook?</p>
<p>I find the explanations really lacking and it's not very readable. Can some one recommend me a better textbook to learn from? My teacher swears by this textbook because he taught his Precalculus class with the same publisher.</p>
<p>We use the text by Larson/Edwards in my class. It has decent explanations and proofs, but the exercises are rather lacking.</p>
<p>You might want to check out Gilbert Strang’s free text from MIT OCW: [Free</a> Online MIT Course Materials | Supplemental Resources | MIT OpenCourseWare](<a href=“http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/resources/Strang/strangtext.htm]Free”>http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/resources/Strang/strangtext.htm)</p>
<p>The most common textbooks I know of are Larson/Hostetler/Edwards and Stewart</p>
<p>Well, my school uses “Calculus and Analytic Geometry” by Thomas/Finney. It is a very old textbook, but I’m sure there is a newer edition. It’s great though.</p>
<p>I use the textbook referenced by the OP and have found it very good.</p>
<p>i thought larson/edwards was terrible. it’s laid out nicely but many sample problems & proofs are worthless, especially in the later chapters. stewart is much better imo.</p>
<p>i remember having to self-teach myself simpson’s rule for physics. larson had a one line sample problem that was helpless while i was able to learn the concept using stewart’s sample.</p>
<p>For those who use Stewart’s book, what edition and version? I’m finding Calculus, Early Transcendals and Vectors, etc.</p>
<p>@silverturtle: Maybe it’s my teacher 
but the book is alright but there are some parts where I would like to cross reference it with another source :/</p>
<p>Thanks for the suggestions guys :)</p>
<p>
It really depends on what your goals are. I posted two recommendations above that fill very different niches. In my opinion, Larson/Hostetler/Edwards is a great book if you just want to do well on the AP exam. The explanations are fairly easy to follow and the problems are very plug-and-chug in the same vein as the test. However, those of us who are interested in the math for its own sake rather than just for the grade/score will probably find the problems dull and the proofs low on detail. Strang does a much better job in this regard and is far better for an in-depth self-study. Another free book came to my attention recently, and from a brief examination it looks like a good compromise between the two (and a very enjoyable read):</p>
<p>[Elementary</a> Calculus](<a href=“http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html]Elementary”>Elementary Calculus)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i’ve never thought of it that way but that’s a very good way to put it.</p>