General chemistry

What Hacker News says

1. abecedariusJul 2026
   I don't know, I'm not very chemical, but fwiw: a friend and I were favorably impressed with Linus Pauling's general chemistry textbook. It tries to supply enough of the physics for the chemistry to make sense. We only studied for a few weeks before moving on, though, and it's a big fat book.
   thread
2. rramadassJul 2026
   > If I would have stuck with it, would things have improved?

   Yes.

   I have a B.Sc in Chemistry (Honours) from late 1980s and it was not until the final year that things finally began to click. The main catalysts were the books "Concise Inorganic Chemistry by J.D.Lee" and "Mechanism in Organic Chemistry by Peter Sykes". Both beautifully written and try to give a framework within which to think viz. the former based on the periodic table and the latter on carbon valence bond properties. I think i need to revisit these (and other books) to justify my degree in Chemistry :-)

   For background and inspiration, consult Linus Pauling's classics; The Nature of the Chemical Bond and General Chemistry - https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Pauling+Linus%...

   Linus Pauling (the only scientist in history to be awarded two undivided, unshared Nobel Prizes) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling

   Show morethread
3. lo_zamoyskiSep 2025
   FWIW, I find the classic texts of certain fields much more intelligible than the intellectually shoddy 56th iteration of some overpriced glossy Pearson textbook. Compare a typical chemistry textbook with something like Pauling's "General Chemistry" which you can get from Dover, modulo any dated information. You will walk away with a far more solid grasp of the basic principles.

   A lot of the failure of learning is a failure of teaching. Incompetent teachers throw disconnected information at you instead of trying to explain or lead you to an understanding of what something is about. I attribute part of this to a loss of solid philosophical coursework where you are taught to think from first principles, taught within a larger integral context, and taught to reason clearly. It used to be the case that everyone with a college degree had at least some basic philosophy under their belts (compare a Heisenberg to a Feynman to a Krauss; the progression is clear). And don't forget the success of the trivium and quadrivium or some variation of them that was often presupposed and prepared students for intellectual work.

   Show morethread
4. billfruitMar 2023
   "General Chemistry" by Linus Pauling.
   thread
5. KoshkinMay 2022
   Not such a bad idea, actually. Much of physics owes chemistry a lot. I find General Chemistry by Pauling a sort of a good book on physics (which has led to some complaints by chem students).
   thread
6. debbiedownerJul 2020
   Princeton companion regular and applied version 100% is the one book I wished I got in HS. Shows how big the world is which is very useful at that age.

   That's education wise. Story wise I like "love and math" despite the corny title.

   Puzzle/mystery wise "the Scottish book" would have seemed like alien speak to me in HS, aspirational but probably too tough.

   Inside interesting integrals is cool if you want to go on a computation spree.

   My fave academic book from HS was General Chemistry by Pauling.

   IMO the best calculus/real analysis book is by Benedetto & Czaja. But HS age much better is Advanced Calculus by Fitzpatrick.

   Introduction to statistical learning is very readable at that age.

   CS wise I think Skienas algorithm design manual is the best.

   Show morethread