This question already has an answer here:

I am looking for text books of the same style as 'Nuclear and Particle Physics' by W.S.C.Williams - that is, with clearly labeled definitions and sections of concise explanation. However, I am looking for such textbooks in a range of subjects - GR, atomic physics etc.

How is such a question best asked on this site? I feel if asked directly it will be closed for being to broad but if I was to ask for each individual topic it would needlessly clog up the home page.

Is such a question appropriate for this site? And if so what is the best way to approach it?


marked as duplicate by Kyle Kanos, AccidentalFourierTransform, heather, tpg2114, Qmechanic Feb 11 '17 at 14:12

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


That's not the sort of thing we have in mind for questions. As the answer to the recommendation question says,

It should be of the form "What are good books to learn/study [subject] at [level]?"

The style of the book shouldn't factor into the question. It's a fairly subjective thing, anyway.

The recommended way for you to get the information you're looking for is to read through the existing answers to the recommendation questions for the topics you're interested in. Those answers should describe characteristics of the books, and you can judge which ones might have the style you're looking for.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On the meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4697 (for which the tag wiki links to) it explicitly says that questions asking for books which cover a topic in a specific way ('How it covers it — is it rigorous? Intuitive? How is the writer's style?') are allowed. My question is specifically asking about writer's style. On top of this I don't think a book with 'clearly labeled definitions' is very subjective. $\endgroup$ – Quantum spaghettification Feb 4 '17 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Quantumspaghettification: Perhaps it is the misplaced comma throwing you off, but it seems to me that the statement you are referencing says that the answers should specify those parameters of the subject you are inquiring (think about it this way: how are you as the questioner expected to know what the books you're inquiring about cover and what are the prerequisites? Clearly then those points are for the answers, not the question). $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Feb 4 '17 at 19:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos I am not sure, I am a 'questioner' and in my specific case I know the style. The sentence 'Actually, this becomes more of a constraint on answers...' makes me think the comments are initially referring to the types of question that can be asked. They are also not in the 'How should I answer...' section but the 'What sort of resource recommendation questions...' section. $\endgroup$ – Quantum spaghettification Feb 4 '17 at 20:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Quantumspaghettification: Yes, that is explained in the line I referenced; you are asking for references on the subject and those types of questions listed are the expectation of what is contained in the answers to come. They are clearly not at all for the questioner to specifically ask because, as I pointed out earlier, it makes little sense for someone to discuss the prerequisites and topicality of a book they don't know exists! $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Feb 4 '17 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos May be your right. Although the very fact that we are having this debate indicates, at very least, that the intended meaning of the post is not clear. $\endgroup$ – Quantum spaghettification Feb 4 '17 at 21:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .