I have come across this Engineering Mathematics book Higher Engineering Mathematics by B. S. Grewal and wanted to go into details of a sub-topic not keenly mentioned in any other related books. However, I realized that this book, which is extensively used as Mathematics textbook for about the 200 engineering colleges I know in Delhi NCR (India) since 1990s, does not have any References section.

Am I uninformed here? Is there supposed to be a separate URL providing references?

Is it a convention to not include this section in Textbooks?

What should I do in such cases?

  • 1
    How carefully did you examine it. Some books put references at the ends of chapters, others in footnotes. If you just looked at an index you might have been misled.
    – Buffy
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 19:45
  • Is having references the norm? I have seen many textbooks that have them, and many that don't.
    – GoodDeeds
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 19:48
  • 3
    @GoodDeeds, many do, but textbook knowledge is considered "settled" in most cases so few, if any, are required. Some might have a "Further Reading' section somewhere.
    – Buffy
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 19:49
  • @Buffy I see, thanks, but then I guess that's an answer to this question then?
    – GoodDeeds
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 19:50
  • @Buffy , I have examined it very carefully. Checked it all.
    – Sachin
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 19:55

1 Answer 1


Some textbooks don't require a references since they contain only "settled" knowledge. Perhaps in math especially. Some will, however, and some will include a "Further Reading" section, perhaps at the end.

But if you are using a book without references and you want to know more, then Wikipedia is generally pretty reliable for math and some other (non-controversial) topics. I use it quite a lot for general math knowledge (physics, astronomy, ...). Search for keywords in the textbook, to get started and follow links. Most Wikipedia articles do have references also. So, it is a nice complement.

  • I understand your point. But I did my homework. I did google the term. It seems not much work has been done to combine the two words written in conjunction in this book so casually (only at one place, but in bold).
    – Sachin
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 20:09
  • For clarity on my previous comment Convolution has been put synonymous to falting , which I now know comes from the faltings's theorem . But not well explained there. Hence wanted to see the reference. [B. S. Grewal, Ed. 44, p.p. 748]
    – Sachin
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 20:13
  • 3
    @SachinMotwani "What should I do in such cases?" - perhaps ask about it on a relevant SE site? It's always even possible the words you are looking at involve a typo or other mistake and someone familiar would recognize it as such. There have been a few such questions on Biology.SE.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 20:15
  • 1
    @SachinMotwani Not having access to Grewal's book, there's a good chance I'm misunderstanding you here. But 'falting' is sometimes used as a synonym for convolution. I think this comes from the German word for convolution, "Faltung", (or the Swedish 'faltning') - not from Falting's theorem in arithmetic geometry.
    – Anyon
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 21:03
  • 2
    @Anyon OP also posted here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4163398/… Comments there would agree.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 4, 2021 at 21:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .