Books >> Science

The only negative thing I really have to say about Snyder's book is that he tries to do two different things in it. This book is both a history and a survey of map projections, and what is appropriate for a history may not be best for a survey. In particular, it means that Snyder covers the various projections not in a sensible order (grouping similar types together), but chronologically. Projections popularized, say, in the 19th century are all covered in the same section.

I prefer the organization of Kennedy and Kopp's book, and I think the use of color in that book makes for a more attractive book. But my primary rating of a book on map projections is going to be based on three criteria: (1) Does it cover a large variety of different projections? (2) Does it give illustrations of what they look like? and (3) Does it give formulas or other information by which one can actually construct maps on the projections listed? This book ranks much higher than Kennedy and Kopp's on two of these three criteria (the first and last), and does not fall very far short of it on the remnaining one.

Over a hundred projections (actually, close to twice that many) are treated in this book, from familiar ones to novelty projections that never will be used in a serious atlas. And a large proportion of them are illustrated (though not all, and the ones that are do not use color as in the Kennedy & Kopp book) and either have the formulas for plotting them or are described in terms equivalent to giving formulas (By contrast the Kennedy-Kopp book has almost no formulas, and the descriptions do not allow you to produce them).

If you don't want to spend over $50, this is the one map projection book to buy.

Not many projection formulas, but plenty of illustrations, including timelines and original historic maps.

The huge bibliography only hints at the enourmous amount of research and cross-referencing provided by this work. From the viewpoint of map projections, this is *the* ultimate history book.

If I were teaching a logic course, I would choose a more user friendly text but supplement it with the tree method for doing proofs. It greatly simplifies doing proofs once the premises and conclusion have been restated in quantified predicate form. You can thus avoid having to memorize and apply traditional patterns of syllogisms like "modus ponens" and "modus tollens"

I might also use the method in a Discrete Math course because it can be used with logical circuit design and set theory as well as with the predicate calculus.

If I were teaching a logic course, I would choose a more user friendly text but supplement it with the tree method for doing proofs. It greatly simplifies doing proofs once the premises and conclusion have been restated in quantified predicate form. You can thus avoid having to memorize and apply traditional patterns of syllogisms like "modus ponens" and "modus tollens"

I might also use the method in a Discrete Math course because it can be used with logical circuit design and set theory as well as with the predicate calculus.

If I were teaching a logic course, I would choose a more user friendly text but supplement it with the tree method for doing proofs. It greatly simplifies doing proofs once the premises and conclusion have been restated in quantified predicate form. You can thus avoid having to memorize and apply traditional patterns of syllogisms like "modus ponens" and "modus tollens"

I might also use the method in a Discrete Math course because it can be used with logical circuit design and set theory as well as with the predicate calculus.