Talk:Michael Spivak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo (for example, during a public appearance), or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.


I heard that he was murdered a few years back.

Definitely false, see further down Phr (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

this article is totally plagiarized from this link:

Nope. The note at the bottom of that URL reads:
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Michael Spivak".
--Gruepig 07:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew wrote: Why cannot I find a single photo of this guy??

I probably have some photos of him in storage. I'll put one up if I can find them (not real soon). I'll try to check out the murder rumor tomorrow (removed from the article for now). Phr (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I just put up a crappy one that I got from him. I'll dig around for a better one sooner or later. Phr (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Calculus by Michael Spivak[edit]

This book, in my opinion, is for students who appreciate the beauty of mathematics, one of the few absolutes in this world. The best word to describe this book is "unique". Its the first of its kind that most students will encounter in their lives. It will most likely be confusing for beginners, and some might even find it useless as application is largely excluded.

Sadly, the author's intentions seem to be violated, as students always are required to rush through material. Proofs are often memorized instead of being understood.

This book is widely used at the first year university level.

Why is the book referred to as 'perhaps even misleadingly titled"? It's titled Calculus, and it's a calculus textbook. Relevence to science and engineering has nothing to do with whether something is a calculus text. 03:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it makes it appear to be merely an ordinary calculus text, whereas it takes a quite unusual approach. Michael Hardy 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mention should be made of the unusual approach, but I don't think it should refer to the title as misleading. The approach is unexpected, but it has nothing to do with the title. 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nathan Jacobson's "Basic Algebra 1" and "Basic Algebra 2" are algebra textbooks (graduate level). Some people would think they're misleadingly titled since they sound like high school books. Spivak's calculus book is maybe comparable to Tom M. Apostol's book and also to Richard Courant's book, which I think were both similarly titled "Calculus" and I'd describe it as a calculus book that's more theoretical than most, but not misleadingly titled. I will try to rewrite that section of the article later. Does anyone here have a copy? Mine is long gone. Phr (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Godsfantasy: I have :-). Calculus (Third Edition) - Michael Spivak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsfantasy (talkcontribs)

There already is another article on Spivak's book, Calculus. Why not let that article talk about the book instead of this one?

Rumor is false[edit]

I'm on the phone with him right now. He is fine. Phr (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Clean Up[edit]

Please do not revert the article back to its original form this time. It suffered from some severe structural problems and terrible writing. I've cleaned it up a bit and made it a tad more concise. CDiPoce 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Pigs[edit]

Why is there a link to Vincent Lefèvre's site at the bottom of the page? The page, while amusing, mentions Spivak once, and does not really count as an external resource for us to know more about Michael Spivak. weixifan (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Long list of what?[edit]

I think details about his "Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry" would be far and away more interesting and informative than a list of places and courses that use his textbook "Calculus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


This article is deficent in that it doesn't mention where MS did his work. Can anyone help? Or, perhaps I can see what I can come up with.. --Philopedia (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)