TERRIBLE BOOK FOR CALCULUS!
937082
Didnt come with connect.. Book has tooooo much material you get so confused. I would not recommend this book. If you want to learn calculus well get a book that explains stuff well.. that way you'll understand easier. These complicated huge books have a huge price for nothing and the size is scary too. Meanwhile you won't understand what they are saying because they try to complicate the subject when its not meant to be too complicated..
4848975
So far, this book is a disaster(I have an authentic version, not this international version), never seen a book as confusing as this one. For example, in the Theorem part, it tells you "this problem refers to Figure 2.2" where the hell is that figure, you have to go back find that figure, then you forgot where you were. This problem happens all the time in this book. It tells you to look at which figure, equation, or example, and you don't know where they are. Why Not Just Reprint It Here for Readers' to Have Easy Access!!!
The concept is not clear explained, non does the example, for the parts you need more explanation, it skips it. for those obvious calculation, it's so detailed listed. I don't know what to say! if this is not required by instructor, I would never buy it. By the way, I learned this class by watching YouTube videos.
Not recommended to anyone who wants to learn Linear Algebra, not even as a reference book.
777819
I can't get over how terrible this textbook is! The book is very unclear, and does nothing to help you understand the various concepts of the already confusing subject (it'll confuse you even more). I've spent hours looking through this shameful textbook, looking for things that could help me with my homework. I've found that looking for whatever it is that I need help with, via Google is by far more helpful. Luckily this is a rental, otherwise I'd burn it.
151817
The book construction is poor; also, the type looks like it is from the turn of the century. If you are taking Calculus now, don't bother with it; but if you are taking the course later and are just "prepping" for the course, it is a definite recommendation.
2962788
Okay I never ever write reviews, but this time it is a must. I absolutely DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS BOOK! In reference to one of the other reviews, they say that students with "STRONG mathematical background" will find this useful. Well I am barely taking my first physics course which is calculus-based, And let me tell you EVEN IF YOU DO come from a strong mathematical background this book is garbage. I am taking calculus III along with university physics and this book is poorly written. I am familiar with introductory physics (as you will learn some doing calculus and in chemistry which I've taken). There are so many things wrong with this book. They did not put in any effort to explain concepts correctly. In fact, there is a lot material missing that is crucial to understand the physics behind the concepts. Not to mention alot of the practice problems are not correct nor are the answers. They complicate ideas when they shouldn't and when they should in the form of rigor to understand deeply they do not. Also they will throw random equations at you with out any relevance to what you're reading no derivations or reasons for the equations, and trust me I would find some relevance if there were. At my university I haven't gotten anything less than an A from college algebra to calculus II so you know that there is a problem with the book. With all due respect to the Author and collaborators, it is not a good book. I would stay away from this book atleast until an 8th edition comes out. Maybe they'll fix it up more by then. I'm actually going to buy another book completely different from what the university requires because I don't just want to half a** my way through physics I actually want to learn and understand it. So if your university or course asks you for this book don't get it. Get another like young and freedman or Halliday or Resnick.
3309380
This book is terrible ! There are even grammatical errors and sections switched backwards example : switch whole wheat Bread for white bread ! No it's the way around ! There are way better books out there !
700098
The book is very vague when explaining a certain topic. For example, on section of the book talks and explains for one page then has 4 pages of problems(mostly ones that were not explained in the 1 page description). I don't blame the author of the book because it is calculus however , maybe you should extend the explaining section rather than extending the problems section.
1507444
I used this book as a textbook for a Math class. Okay, I'm not a mathematician so it was suppoused to be a side course. Since I'm not precisely fluent in most of these topics I expected to learn at least the basic stuff. But, as I tried to use the book as a basis for my studies, I found only concepts and demostrations, and no clear examples about anything! I think the authors must think that putting examples in a book like this may be considered offensive by some of their most lectured readers!

I recommend this book only if you are fluent in mathematics, if you already know about the topics and just want a reference book, or if you want to put your "genious" to the test trying to find out what's going on without any kind of aid.
4433080
I used the Stewart book for my Calculus I course, and needed this one for my Calculus II course. This book is unequivocally the worst mathematics book I've ever encountered. In almost every section of every Chapter there is a proof that is needed to understand the material that the author leaves for the student to work out for themselves in an exercise. The most of the examples are grossly oversimplified compared to the work that the exercises require, so the student has no confidence at all in what they're doing when they get to the problems. The definitions involving critical subjects, like the introduction to integrals, are very wordy and hard to decipher. I had to resort my Stewart book many times just to get a grasp of the material. And when it comes to the problems, there are many where it's impossible to understand what they want you to do. In short, there are other Calculus books out there with a much more straight-forward approach, so if your so unlucky to need this book, I hope your professor is good, otherwise you're in for a rough semester.
500795
OMG this is a bad book. I'm sure it gives a lot of warm fuzzies to humanities majors who don't actually have to produce results. However, if you'd like to actually learn a bit about science and math, try:

Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences
by John Allen Paulos

How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff

 Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

How to Lie with Maps (2nd Edition) by Mark Monmonier and H. J. de Blij

Calculus for Cats by Kenn Amdahl and Jim Loats
Algebra Unplugged by Kenn Amdahl

Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery
(you won't learn any more about math (but certainly not any less) than in "Rethinking Mathematics", but at least L. M. Montgomery doesn't lie to the reader about the contents and it's an infinitely better book.
1123821
Apparently this book costs too much and hasn't much to show for it.  The examples are unclear and incoherent.  The chapter problems also lack the re-enforcement usually required in introductory calculus.  Simply put, I  feel that the book is not sufficient for introductory calculus
4678340
Had to use this horrible textbook for a JavaScript college course. It's very time consuming and stressful because so much of the example code has typos and errors. I've spent more time finding and fixing errors, because their code had something wrong, than actually reading the book! Made me think less of my school for using this book as well.
1279315
The information is incomplete. Stewart goes out of his way to make calculus as confusing as possible. Concepts are not fully explained. Some proofs are incomplete. I had to refer to an old textbook from the clearence rack ... written by Sokowski to learn the concepts. The author does an exceptionally poor job of explaining derivatives and integrals of exponential functions.
Book weighs a ton!
3718046
I actually read this book quite some time ago and I remember thinking afterwards that it was the worst book I ever read.  It does not teach you calculus and, in fact, the errors are so numerous that your understanding of calculus might be damaged by reading this book.  The authors verbosity has been addressed adequately by other reviewers.  In the acknowledgements at the end of the book, the author quotes his college instructor who wrote on one of his papers, "You have again said nothing at great length, Mr. Berlinski."  Indeed.
501637
This book is a waste of money. I got an A in the class, but ended up relying completely on the internet to learn VB. The majority of this textbook is homework problems. Example: Chapter 6 (Repetition) has 19 pages of how-to versus 25 pages of homework problems. Most of the how-to pages are just pages of code with minimal explanation. Don't use this book unless you love making loan calculators and have an affinity for baseball stats. It's incredibly math centric.

The problems definitely require skills that are not covered it the text. It's extremely frustrating, especially when most of the online help is for earlier versions of vb. It's nearly impossible to find tutorials or help for anything after chapter 6.
248388
This book is a terrible reference for learning students new to differential equations. The readings are very complex and are certainly not written on a level suitable for newcomers. The problems at the end of each section often do not have examples, so one is forced to figure out the solution from scratch. No key concepts are emphasized; walls of text must be deciphered to identify vital components of the lesson. I would not recommend this book to anyone. I have never truly hated a math textbook until now.
3891165
This book is more than likely the worst Math book I have ever had to use. I am actually supplementing this book with Stewarts Calculus Early Transcendentals. As a student (an adult one at that), I find the Rogawski book is an evil trick to play on your students. If you are an instructor reading this book consider this (with respect): More than likely you have a PHD in Mathematics and understand where the author is going with the concepts and formulas in calculus. Many of your students do not. The First Chapter 2.1 deals with slopes and limits. Why not just out right tell us (as Stewarts book does) that this will deal with derivatives? Why does Rogawski teach rates of change and not mention derivatives even once, and then he jumps into limits (I do understand the connection, but still)! The placement of 2.1 makes no sense to me at all! I would have bombed this semester had I not accidentally purchased a used copy of Stewarts book thinking my school was going to continue using Stewart. Switching to Rogawski was a bad idea. !