<p>Is this (link below) book used from Math 53? It doesn't say "Early Transcendentals", but it is a Steward and 5th edition. </p>
<p>Also, is this (link below) the book for Chemical Engineering 140?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Is this (link below) book used from Math 53? It doesn't say "Early Transcendentals", but it is a Steward and 5th edition. </p>
<p>Also, is this (link below) the book for Chemical Engineering 140?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>isbn for math 53 textbook: 0-534-39321-7</p>
<p>You'll want hte Early Transcendentals book, the difference is that the chapters are reordered.</p>
<p>The cover has green on it.</p>
<p>Does Vol 1&2 cover Math 53 and 53?</p>
<p>You'll need to link me to what you're talking about.
With the custom editions, I believe it's split into 2 volumes: 1A/1B and 53.</p>
<p>Math54 is a completely different book (or rather 2 books).</p>
<p>This is the book I bought, so I hope it's the right thing. ;) </p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>Nice job with the Amazon link, as soon as I opened it, it says I've already bought it.</p>
<p>So yeah, same book I have, nice condition with hardcover and reference sheets on cardstock you can tear out.</p>
<p>It'll take you through Math 1A, 1B, 53. It's also great for reference in general. Stewart Calculus taught me everything, I never went to lecture.</p>
<p>If you're skipping 1A/1B, buying the whole book seems excessive. 53 only covers a couple (6 or something like that) chapters of that whole book, and you can get a customized paperback version at Ned's for something like $40.</p>
<p>Thanks for the book info. What teacher did you have for Math 53? Were there alot of A's? Did anyone have Rezakhanou and how was he?</p>
<p>I had Zworski. My discussion section was ridiculously easy, but his exams were pretty stupid in my opinion (they involved lots of huge calculations, instead of testing your knowledge of the concepts).
I thought I did terribly, but ended up with a B+. I'd assume a bunch of As cropped up then, given my terrible performance on the midterms.</p>
<p>I had Zworski, too. Hilarious lecturer, but I agree the test were terrible. I mean, when one question on the final exam is "Prove Stokes' Theorem" (a task purely of memorization), you know something is wrong (and I knew I was screwed).</p>
<p>I mixed up all my theorems and didn't know what was what so I just wrote down stuff on his final. I came out with a B so I guess I did fine.</p>
<p>My GSI gave us ridiculously hard quizzes (harder than that final) though :.</p>
<p>Zworski's final reminded me of Boggs' final where you just start deriving nonsense and hope it's right :).</p>