No bullshit guide to math and physics
minireference.com
minireference.com
You gloss over huge sections of algebra, and in doing so, ignore incredibly common mistakes that students make. Take a look at the top of page 9, 6 \sqrt{x} - 7 = [...]. You solve that out, but give no reason as to why you got rid of the 7 first, the 6 second, and the radical third. This is not an easy concept, nor is it an academic distinction.
Math might be easy for you, but it probably isn't for your target audience. You're assuming entirely too much about what your readers will know.
Beyond that, some of your math (and math history) has flaws.
"So this is what number meant during the whole middle ages. The notion of 2.5 goats didn’t make any sense to the people of those days. They would have been totally confused by the menu at Rotisserie Romados which offers 1/4 of a chicken."
This is entirely untrue. Even most illiterate peasants knew the basics of fractional parts in the middle ages. 2.5 goats didn't make sense, but 2.5 stone of barley did. The church prohibited usury, but lending still happened, so they had some knowledge of percentages as well. Despite the fall of Rome and the horrible loss of knowledge that followed, math wasn't completely lost. In 725, monks knew enough mathematics to predict the date of Easter (based on the lunar cycle, mind you) years in advance. And math flourished in medieval Islam.
Heck, if my memory serves, fractions were invented in Ancient Sumer, ~4000 years earlier.
"We can move a function f to the left by h units by subtracting h from x and using that as the input argument: g(x) = f(x − h)."
This actually translates the function to the right. This is also where I stopped reading.
I really want this to be good. I love finding wonderful new resources for teaching mathematics. I'm sure you put a serious effort into the text. But I fear your no bullshit guide is just going to scare the shit out of its readers.
Thx for spotting the f(x-h) typo. Fixed.
Of course, the notion of irrational numbers dates (at least) back to the classical Greeks (the proof-by-contradiction that root-2 is irrational is ancient and elementary, and will be known to some of your intended audience). In the Greek era, there was debate about the status of the irrationals, but sophisticated Greeks were well-acquainted with rational numbers. The statement in the PDF seems to ignore this.
Summary: I think this statement of yours is dubious to begin with, and in any event would have to be so qualified and referenced that its value to a novice is nil.
But I'm with pflats' judgement. I see text like "Indeed, on computers systems which don’t have a hardware multiplication circuit, every time you write ab the computer will repeatedly add the number a for a total of b iterations." and wonder first, won't the target audience be confused by "hardware multiplication circuit", and second, is this actually true? I'm pretty sure they use shift-and-add.
Or, there's a use of "=" to say that "a/b = ... = one bth of a" then on the same page there's a triple bar "≡" used for the same thing. Will your target audience understand the notation shift?
The language "It is worth clarifying what" and "It is interesting to note that" and "We will now illustrate how the equations of kinematics are used to solve physics problems" are part of the same stultifying language you complain about. There's a bunch of places where you can simplify text like "the expression 5×32 +13 is to be interpreted" to "the expression 5×32 +13 is interpreted" -- the "to be" is useless. And the voice changes from "we get" to "you get".
Why is x<sup>-1</sup> different from f<sup>-1</sup> ? That is, the first is 1/x and the second is the function inverse. As far as I see, you don't explain that those "-1"s mean different things. Nor do you say that "f" is another type of variable naming pattern, which describes a functions.
Suppose your student wants to actually do the Moroccan example as an experiment. It will fail, because of air friction. Yet friction isn't brought up here. Newton's laws are not intuitive, because we are used to a world which is full of friction, and frictional forces aren't easy to describe. But the text assumes that the clarity of Newton's laws will be self-apparent, even if it doesn't match expectations.
The Moroccan example also uses "44.145[m]". Who measures their balcony height down to the millimeter? The precision was chosen so the answer would be exactly 3[s], but other examples aren't that fussy. In any case, the answer should be 3.00". Significant figures are hard for students to understand, and I don't see any guidance that a fall of 44 meters should not be answered 2.9950690022496134[s], even if that's what the computer gives.
Finally, good on you for using SI for the file size instead of base 210 units. However, [Mb] is megabit, not megabyte. You should use [MB].
My interest was piqued. I've asked a question at one of the Stack Exchange sites.
(http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/2885/do-the-...)
"The fraction one-fifth is likewise common (Lev. 5:16; 22:14)." "In ritual observances the fraction one-tenth occurs frequently (Num. 28)." "The term pi shenayim originally meant two-thirds but subsequently came to signify "twice as much" (II Kings 2:9)."
As for the translation, I used NIV. Some others will actually say 20% for that quote.
How about half a baby? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon
Seems like even with the problems you've listed, it might still fit a niche that I haven't seen filled very well.
There was an article on HN recently that mentioned the fact that most of a book's marketing is its reputation. This makes sense because you can't form a full opinion of a book until after you've read it, so buyers of the book are heavily influenced by the opinions of others who have already finished it. Nobody is going to shell out money for a book that they hear contains even a FEW glaring errors.
People hold books to such high standards because once you put your words into print, you cannot change them. There is no real-time editing of books. So people assume you have put the proper amount of preparation, thought, and diligence into your writing and editing. This is very difficult to do by yourself.
That said.... I do want to emphasize that the "traditional publishing industry" generally refers to the producers of hard-copy books. With the industry moving toward a digital future, real-time editing is becoming possible. I think we will see a move toward "crowdsourced" editing of for-profit books, not so much in the way that Wikipedia edits its content but more in the way that video games fix their bugs. We may start to see "beta releases" of digital books for early adopters. At the cost of reading what amounts to a rough draft, you will be able to access the content early, so long as you report any errors you find. I think on the whole this is a very positive change that will increase the world's general knowledge.
So I'm a very big fan of your first attempt at creating this book. I think the errors pflats points out are important to consider, but certainly nothing to discourage you. Don't let this criticism stop you from your pursuit. You are on a very good track.
> You gloss over huge sections of algebra
What do you have in mind?
> give no reason as to why you got rid of the 7 first, the 6 second ... third.
I think it is fine as is + math operator precedence //is// discussed.
> So this is what number meant during the whole middle ages.
You guys were all up on my case with the "number" thing. I took a Phil. of Math class at some point and learned that the pre-Newton notions of a numbers (referred to as "arithmoi" to indicate that they are distinct from the modern notion) was principally about the integers. Rationals were treated as separate objects (ratios) and irrationals like √2 were known only through geometrical arguments. I am sure bankers of Venice knew how to calculate too, but the point remains that Newton did something very special when he started using the word "number" to mean Real numbers: a concept which subsumes ints, floats and transcendental numbers. That being said, you and @mturmon are right that the wording could be better. Will fix / clarify.
For example, in Section 1.1 you explain how to go about solving the equation x^2 - 4 = 45, a topic which (I would venture) most 16 year olds should be comfortable with.
Then in Section 1.2 you, out of nowhere, introduce set-theoretical ideas and notation. Even seemingly innocent notation like
{0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
Q = { -1.5, 1/3, 22/7, 0.125, ... }
if x,y ∈ N, then (x+y) ∈ N.
The next couple of paragraphs contain both historical and mathematical inaccuracies (can you really always divide two rational numbers to get another rational number?). I'll stop there.
Like I say, I applaud what you're trying to do. I think you have a noble aim. But if the preview is anything to go by, your textbook in its current form is falling short of that aim.
I'll not give a formal proof, but intuitively the answer is surely "yes"!
Given the definition "The definition of a rational number is a number that can be expressed as the quotient of two integers where the denominator is not 0."
Let N be the set of all integers and Q be the set of all rational numbers.
Trivially 0 is in the set N, 5 is in the set N
by the definition 0/5 is in Q. Therefore 0 is in Q. QED.
A rational number is a number that can be represented as one integer divided by another. Take two rational numbers, A = a/b, and B = c/d. If B has an inverse, then A/B = a/b * d/c = ad/bc. ad and bc are both integers, so A/B is rational.
This is not what it says in the book, so there's potential for a newbie to get confused (and anyone reading the book in order to learn from it is, by definition, a newbie).
> Then in Section 1.2 you, out of nowhere, introduce set-theoretical ideas and notation.
Is there any decent "crowd editing" solution? Or at least, "crowd suggested edits" solution?
Smart people know the math and the grammar and can correct those errors, or improve diagrams, or tweak the wording. People with weak math can say where they get confused; where things ramp up too quickly or where things take too long to get going.
Errors in a book like this are especially dangerous for someone like me. Dunning Kruger and all that - I wont know enough to know what I don't know, or to know what I've learnt is not quite correct.
I think that would be OK. There is a fine line between having to define everything and just using the math and letting the reader pick up on their own.
> set membership, as in if x,y ∈ N, then (x+y) ∈ N.
Yeah that was non-sense. It definitely didn't belong so early on in the book. Several people emailed me about this and it has been fixed in print/pdf versions now.
More on set notation: http://cnd.mcgill.ca/~ivan/miniref/set_notation.pdf
Would it be possible to create a version without the 'bullshit' language? Outside of the cover there are two 'bullshits' in the first chapter. It doesn't bother me but I don't think the directors of my program or parents would be very happy about it.
I'm sure the kids would like it but in a program such as ours, adding unnecessary friction to the relationship with parents is not a good idea. The older kids are spending time in our program that could be used to work jobs to help support their family (and it is a real pressure on these kids and families), so anything that threatens that is a non-starter.
The reason I asked about a 'clean' version is this: we serve kids from relatively low-income households. The goal is to increase high school graduation rates and college attendance. This is a long-term goal that conflicts with short-term needs. Often times it might be better to have a 13-17 year old boy or girl go to work with a family member, instead of spending time being tutored or participating in athletics.
In this situation, I can't send a kid home with this book if they want to check out the new approach. I love profanity and curse more than I should, but there are certain situations and audiences where it's not appropriate. Perhaps much of the audience for this book could use a cleaner approach.
Thanks and good luck!!
I am definitely going to do a cleaned up version with less attitude. I will start by cleaning up the examples. The theory sections are mostly OK. Please send me an email so I can keep you updated on that front.
For v4.0 of the book, I am thinking of making it customizable. Before you order the book, you will be able to adjust the level of "attitude" with a slider.
There are also some howlers in the preview text, such as "after thinking very hard the mathematicians were able to classify all the different number like objects into sets" and then lists the naturals, integers, rationals, reals, and complex numbers. Except that these are nested subsets of each other, not disjoint, and the four normed division algebras are the reals, complexes numbers, quaternions, and octionions, so if you're going to talk about all the number like objects without including those last two, you're off the mark.
I haven't seen the physics sections, but I will say that teaching physics is actually remarkably difficult. I tend to recommend 1960s editions of Halliday and Resnick (not the recent ones!), though I will probably switch to recommending Karl Wiemann's work (http://c21.phas.ubc.ca/).
I absolutely agree that mechanics and the differential and integral calculus should be taught together, though. They don't make any sense without each other.
Can you see why I would not want to talk about quaternions and octionions in a chapter which is meant to introduce math to people who have math phobia?
> these are nested subsets of each other, not disjoint, >
This should have been more clear. Will fix.
Granted I am only going from the quote but I see nothing in there that indicates he considers them disjoint. Given most people have seen the Euler diagram of numbers since grade school i think the default interpretation would be correct. Could be clarified but not a howler.
quaternions, and octionions,
Considering the intended audience I do not see what purpose that would serve beyond intimidating the audience with how clever he is. Counter productive. This is just intro physics - the places where quaternions might be useful are just not there. And in the cases where introducing the terms actually served a purpose one would be better served by just going with the neater geometric algebra framework.
There are some helpful suggestions in some posts but it would be nice if people swapped their easily flabbergasted expert tones for a more helpful one. He has a vision and has begun acting on it. Has a good start with lots of potential. No one gets it just right from the outset.
This kind of assumption is one reason so many textbooks suck so much. This assumption is not true for me. I don't know why you'd assume it would be true for "most people."
I'm curious why. I remember reading the second edition back in 1998. Recently, I got one of the new editions (8th) but the new ones seem too verbose. What went wrong?
So you put out a new edition in which you shuffle all the exercises so that students can't do their homework, and you have someone mess with the text and the formatting to make it look like a real change. You add glossy pictures, because you get a much bigger visual impact from changing the pictures than from actually changing content.
For an old book, this is a problem because often the authors are dead or retired, or think the book is just fine. Now you have to find someone who would like his name added to a classic text who will sign off on the job. Today it's Halliday, Resnick, and Crane. For Arfken's old mathematical methods for physics text, it was Weber.
It would be better to point out what really matters in the hierarchy N, Z, Q, R, C:
Everybody will accept that N is an interesting object for counting.
Z is the quotient group of N under addition, more elementary: In Z you can compute arbitrary differences of elements of N, and it is the smallest "reasonable" such object.
Similarly, Q is the quotient field of Z, i.e. "the smallest reasonable object containing Z that allows division of non-zero elements".
R is the completion of Q under a natural metric (i.e., "fills the gap on the number line of Q"), and therefore allows one to have a reasonable notion of limits and calculus.
C finally is the algebraic closure of R, so that every non-constant polynomial has a root in C.
Thus, these objects are all constructed from the natural numbers to satisfy certain "niceness" properties.
Of course, it would take quite some space to explain this in a very elementary fashion. So perhaps it is instead better to simply refrain from such a statement in a textbook aiming for shortness above all, or at least make sure that any statement in this direction is substantiated and supported by a suitable reference to a place where your readers can learn more.
A textbook that gains conciseness from vague statements and half-truths would seem to be much worse than a textbook of twice the length that explains its content well.
Ouch! A bit offhand no?
My choice was to cover N,Z,Q operationally -- as in what you can do with them. Everyone knows about +,-,/ and so I think it makes sense to connect with this previous knowledge of the reader rather than get into the formality of sets and set containment. I stand by my choice.
This is good stuff. Thanks for the pointer. http://www.amazon.com/Algebra-Israel-M-Gelfand/dp/0817636773 http://www.amazon.com/Trigonometry-Gelfand-Mathematical-Semi...
> I haven't seen the physics sections
You should take a look ;) Check out the "Free tutorial" in particular. It is just 7 pages and you can print.
[Jan 7th] Calculus: Single Variable - https://www.coursera.org/course/calcsing
[Jan 7th] Calculus One - https://www.coursera.org/course/calc1
[Jan 28th] Algebra - https://www.coursera.org/course/algebra
[Jan 28th] Pre-Calculus - https://www.coursera.org/course/precalculus
I like the end, where you emphasize that math is a great exercise in abstract thinking and modeling. But I would start with something more neutral saying something like, "Many people had suboptimal experiences with math in school because it was often presented well, and some teaching styles don't work for some people. And some may have just always found other things more interesting. However, my goal with this book was to make math more accessible and interesting to many people by presenting material in more a more intuitive manner and emphasizing the core skills of abstract thinking and mathematical modeling of the real world."
That's definitely not perfect, but it's something to start with. Try to imagine that you're someone who never found math all that interesting and always thought that literature or history or art was far more interesting and meaningful, and that possibly you had some bad experiences with math and got the idea that you're not good at it. Now try to imagine what might trigger those bad feelings about math and turn you off to a book, versus what might make you decide to give it a chance. If you don't trust your ability to imagine this way, try to find a close friend who is in this situation and will be honest with you.
I have some experience encouraging groups who tend to be less sure of their abilities in an academic subject to study that subject and am friends with many people who are much more involved in these efforts, and I know that being confrontational is counterproductive and that you have to be very careful about how you suggest to them that they have a "problem", even if you are telling them that they can overcome that problem. You want to stay positive and show empathy toward their struggles, emphasizing that the struggles are not any failing or inherent shortcoming on their part and are very common.
PS: I know a lot of people who say that they absolutely hate math because they think, for some reason, that they are not good at it. You should consider giving math another try. Math is not just about algebra ...
I like the abrasive comment "you have issues", but it is better to stay positive rather than point fingers. Everyone has issues ;)
Also, textbooks are long. But most courses don't use the entire textbook. I took 3 math courses and 2 physics courses in first year using those two textbooks and we didn't use every section, nor did we have to read every page.
I think having example problems which have stood the test of time (more than 20 years for those 2 textbooks, I think) is worthwhile.
1/ The response by the community was amazing. You guys are great! Especially the ones who are nitpicking and fact checking me! I love it. http://cnd.mcgill.ca/~ivan/miniref/HN_wave_Jan1_Jan2.png
2/ By popular demand, I created a PDF version of the book -- mostly changed the font and added more space on each page. Preview is here: http://cnd.mcgill.ca/~ivan/miniref/noBSmath_preview.pdf PDF is available on gumroad: http://gum.co/noBSmath
3/ Will write up a detailed post about the experience later today here: http://minireference.com/blog/
4/ The notation "∈" stands for "is an element of" and is covered later on in the book. See http://cnd.mcgill.ca/~ivan/miniref/set_notation.pdf for more info.
Thank you everyone for the feedback and the support.
If you send me a proof of purchase of the print version (screenshot of lulu receipt that shows your email), I would be glad to send you the PDF.
Shouldn't the barriers to entry be much lower for the author to get this out electronically?
I see that the author is responding to comments here, so if you're like me and will buy it if it comes out electronically, please let him know in the comments that he can count on your purchase.
Reading math in print is really good: you can flip back and forth through the pages.
How much should the PDF cost? 29$ sounds a bit steep for a PDF no?
patio11 talks about this a lot. Here's a podcast where he talked about it (more in the context of B2B software, but many principles still apply): http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/09/21/ramit-sethi-and-patrick-...
If you scroll through his comments, you'll see many instances of him telling people to charge more for things and explaining some of this stuff news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=patio11
1) If a book is interesting and its priced around 15$, I would purchase it no question asked.
2) I hope you can release a EPUB/Mobi version of the book in the future and make it available to people who bought the PDF.
3) This might be pushing it but if someone has purchased the ebook and wants to get the paperbound after certain period of time, it would be sweet if you can offer major discount on paperbound for those people (look at Oreilly for an example)
4) Similarly offer ebook version of the book with the paperbound copy, almost every publisher does it these days.
Regarding pricing, yeah, you probably want to go cheaper than your print version. Maybe $19 or $9, depending on how much profit you are expecting to make on the physical copies.
To be honest, you're probably best off a/b testing the price, as it can be very surprising how consumers will react to various price points. I've seen situations were significant price hikes result in much higher sales, presumably because of the implied value of the product.
I'd be selling it for $24 for Ebook (and make it available in PDF/Epub/Mobi to cover all readers), $29 for print, $32 for Print + Ebook.
As far as pricing the ebook alone, I think it should be somewhere around 14.99 to 19.99.
If it helps, I am probably a good example of your target customer. I didn't take my education seriously until I was out of high school for a few years, and now I find myself trying to catch up with all of the stuff I should have learned when I was younger.
The lifetime ability to download the most-current version of a book in any current format is, IMO, worth a few dollars more than a free but unmaintained ebook in what may very easily become a legacy format within a few years.
Also you mention formats in another comment. It'd be nice to have a choice. ePub is easier to read on some devices, but then PDF is easier to mark up (I'm thinking Goodreader) later on, which is nice for this sort of thing. Anyway, once you have an ebook version that's another sale from me :)
I think after a few iterations of this book, this should be a real money maker for you.
BTW, the language is a bit strong, and may distract from the message. I have two daughters in University but I won't buy your book for them until the language is toned down. There are probably others like me as well. Worth considering.
http://minireference.com/miniref/lib/tpl/miniref/landings/im...
I'm not a big fan of that picture. We're trying to compute f'(400), judging by the text (scroll down a bit on the first page). What the image suggests, afaict, is that f'(400) that can be computed as the limit [f(x+h) - f(x-h)]/2h with x=400 and h -> 0 (in the picture, we see the case h=80). At least the graphic appears to connect the two somehow.
Nothing to that effect is mentioned in the text... just the cookbook recipe 'at^n becomes ant^{n-1}'. So why is there even a triangle here? Two things are fishy here. The limit and the triangle.
The limit: Taking the aforementioned limit for the derivative is rather weird. If the function is differentiable, you'll get the right result, namely f'(x). If you consider the limit for the function x -> |x| at x=0 e.g., you'll get a limit as well, even though that function is not differentiable.
The triangle: I would expect it to connect the three points [x-h,f(x-h)], [x+h,f(x-h)], [x+h,f(x+h)]. Instead, we get three points whose X-coordinates match the ones I mentioned with Y-coordinates that are chosen to have the slope of the triangle match the slope of the function. Why? (If this were about the mean-value theorem... but it's not!)
So what I'm left with is a plot with a triangle, no text that explains any of that, and nothing I can make of it myself.
Well, technically speaking, you are not supposed to talk about derivatives in the picture answer. I am just trying to connect the notion of "download rate" with the "slope of the file size function".
The triangle with the hypotenuse touching the function (tangent line) is a way to compute the slope from the graph. As such the actual size of the triangle is not important -- so long as it helps you compute the rise-over-run.
So to answer your question -- the triangle is not meant to illustrate the derivative calculation. Indeed, it would be quite difficult to show an infinitely small triangle ;)
If I needed to fill a gap in my knowledge or learn a new subject I would never resort to a textbook until I had exhausted every other available option.
Helena Curtis wrote a wonderful college level intro textbook as of 1980 when I last used it, but the publisher (Worth) let it die after she retired (which also pretty much killed them as I recall).
Thanks!
The getElementById got me! Will jQuerify that ASAP.
> "Check this shit out:"
Could be "Consider this example:"
> Now get ready for some crazy shit. Using your...
Now for something even more interesting. Using your...
You are right that there is no //need//, but I find that a little swearing goes a long way to make the student who is scared of the subject feel more comfortable. "This is not a math book", they will think -- this is informal narrative like a blog post.
A cleaned up version is in the works. ETA March because I have to finish Linear Algebra and E&M first.
see: http://ipython.org
We need better, deeper, broader understanding of math and physics. This fast food-styled stuff is really not for us. Why? Think you're going into approximated algorithms without knowing the wonderful essentials of constant e? Think you're going into pattern recognition without a throughout understanding of linear/quadratic/etc systems?
A thick textbook only to charge you $150? That sounds like "6-pack abs the quick way" advertisement... XD
Guys! Please stop joking!
A thick textbook only to charge you $150? That sounds
like "6-pack abs the quick way" advertisement... XD
On the other hand, for what purpose would you like to choose a book that you call "racket"? If forced by your school, then it's done, no choice. If it's your willpower to learn something, why don't do some mining and research first before diving into a pile of junk? :-)
P.S. I'll buy it in ebook form!
dokuwiki | dokutexit | sed (cleanup) | pdflatex
The latex document class is extbook -- the regular book class does not have the 9pt option.
@READERS Sorry for inflicting upon you the 9pt font. I know it is tiny, but look at how small and portable the book is now ;)
____
I am still researching how to generate .epub and .mobi form latex files. If anyone has pointers to articles which discuss this, I would be very interested to hear. PM me, or post them here so that everyone can learn. (plasTeX? MathJax? MathML?)
Then I saw that there is no e-book option. It's 2013. Get with the times.
While we're on the topic of exams, I've recently came across the following book[1] that deals specifically with doing better in maths heavy exams - you might want to have a look whether it's something that can help you in your exams:
[1] Exam Mastery - How to excel in maths-heavy exams http://www.amazon.com/Exam-Mastery-excel-maths-heavy-ebook/d...
I will have the PDF version ready by later tonight. How much should the PDF cost? Is a DRM-free PDF good enough or should I do the .epub format?
(in the meantime, check out the free preview: http://cnd.mcgill.ca/~ivan/miniref/miniref_v3_preview.pdf about one third of the book is there)
PDF is good for PC viewing and will work on pretty much everything, though EPUB and Kindle formats will make things better on e-readers and phones/tablets since they support re-flowable content, but I guess would probably require more work on your part to support.
Definitely epub, makes it just much easier to read, at least on my used platforms (kindle, ipad mini)
Preview on your device: http://cnd.mcgill.ca/~ivan/miniref/noBSmath_preview.pdf
If you like what you see, check out at: gum.io/noBSmath
This is nonsense. I am likely to survive being hit by a car at 10 mph, but I will certainly be killed if I'm hit by a 1 kg projectile travelling at 2000 m/s, even though it has less than half the momentum.
Note: I didn't even know this book existed ten minutes ago, but now I'm annoyed that I have to wait until tomorrow for the ebook version. Sometimes my demand for instant gratification shocks even me.
Breaking a problem down six times to actually start applying the principle I am learning is my largest downfall. It makes me lose interest in the subject at hand. I would rather understand and be able to reference the concepts.
Like many others, an ebook would be more delightful. Yet, I may buy the paperback this weekend.
Did you end up giving Jarryd an editor credit?
I wish you continued success.
For the physics part, I also have a simple physics game engine which is in the works. Instead of answering questions about different //points// of the motion the user would have to specify the js function which describes the entire motion. There will be not "grades" just test suites your code has to pass ;)
What do you have in mind exactly when you say "interactive book"?
I would advise that you make the digital copy of the book available as soon as possible—I am an interested buyer as well.
Otherwise, this looks incredible. Exactly what I've wanted when wanting to learn math!
It is important to see the connections between the three different ways of finding the answer: the intuitive notion of download speed that we are all familiar with, the graphical notion of slope and the more abstract calculus notion of function derivative.
Do you in your book mention that calculating the exact download speed is impossible (and why this is the case)? Do you mention that the download speed one sees in their web browser is an approximation via a limit? These are the kind of important connections that get lost in the bullshit and the calculations.
BTW, what does the preview include? It seems to have just random sections of the book.
http://cnd.mcgill.ca/~ivan/miniref/mech_in_7_pages.pdf
Page 8 - it reads "manitupation".
Anyone want to suggest some?