The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics (Oxford Quick Reference) 6th Edition

Couldn't possibly be better. A work of pure genius.

Quick delivery Great condition

The Oxford Chemistry dictionary left out TONS of stuff. Essentially I summarized that performance that ABSENT were any chemistry topics you'd encounter in your out-and-about wandering in the world. (Parabens, and many many more items = ABSENT -- chemistry stuff NOT IN a Chemistry dictionary). See that review if you wish.SIMILARLY, this MATHEMATICS Oxford dictionary is MISSING TONS of stuff.Rather than using my knowledge as a chemist and/or what POPPED up to my mind -- as I did for the chemistry dictionary, HERE FOR THE MATH DICTIONARY I was SYSTEMATIC. I took THE GLOSSARY OF A GREAT COURSES(r) COURSE ON DISCRETE MATHEMATICS. I took that glossary of (to my recollection) 119 terms and looked up each and every one of them in this dictionary. Not only did I do look-up by the word per se, but even any and all possible concepts entailed by that word of the discrete mathematics glossary. That is I looked up all 119 words PLUS any concept word that may have been used by Oxford. Again, to my recollection, 20 PER CENT (maybe more) were ABSENT.The linguistics Oxford dictionary. Terrible too. See my review of the SUPREMELY AMAZINGLY GOOD "dictionary" by Crystal & Yu on Linguistics (ISBN 978-1-119-18453-9). There you can read my disparagement of Oxford in its linguistics dictionary.So why did I BUY so many Oxford dictionaries if I hate them. ANSWER: I bought them all at once, at the same time. Discovery the deficiencies I would advise not buying ANY Oxford dictionary.Here is what I think are their common problems:[1] Out-and-about contact with the topic doesn't count. Especially true of their chemistry dictionary. As you know, the world is full of chemicals. Food additives, nutrition supplements, etc. These "don't count" and ARE NOT PRESENT in the Oxford Chemistry dictionary.[2] Concepts CRUCIAL for those knowledgeable in the field -- even THEY can be missing. In the chemistry dictionary, for example, the RADICAL PAIR concept was missing and yet that IS CRUCIAL to how birds NAVIGATE USING THE EARTH's MAGNETIC FIELD. Heck, that was even in a Great Courses(r) Course on Mind Blowing Science (a co-effort between Scientific American and The Teaching Company). And that mechanism of bird navigation was known well longer ago than just the last 2-3 years. C-2 and C-4 plants -- two entirely different ways to do photosynthesis: MISSING.[3] Oxford is STRICTLY, RIGOROUSLY a D-I-C-T-I-O-N-A-R-Y. Thus we DARE NOT teach anybody anything. This is SO patently obvious. And a MAJOR deficiency. The ONLY way being so eminently strict with MERE definition would be useful would be if you already KNEW the field, the term, the concept. Then, well, that's self-defeating. There would be almost no need for a dictionary. Just an aid TO YOU WHO ALREADY KNOWS, but MERELY FORGOT.[4] Oxford has an IVORY TOWER attitude, is a short way of saying much of the above. But to understand this "attitude" I allege, do focus your emphasis on [1],[2],and [3] problems.Just go somewhere else for your dictionary. A book that doesn't mind explaining, teaching. And a book that doesn't inexcusably leave things out.I will admit I find an irony here (other than the obvious one). I think the British are excellent explainers and teachers, generally speaking. I have found this to be true for electronics, film reviewing and also Craps (the Casino dice game). This last I will only briefly say what I mean: the WRONG approach is to too-soon start about betting winning losing. You must be ORGANIZED. First the DICE's MISSION. Second the ways. Third # ways dice succeed in mission & # ways they fail their mission. NOW (4th) what you can bet. etc. etc. The British teach it that way. Most American books and videos do not. All commingled & disorganized. Knowledge dump-out. Not teaching. British know how to teach. They just will not do it in those Oxford dictionaries. Don't buy any of them.

Great reference