# Calc II needed for Linear Algebra?

1. Mar 31, 2007

### bob1182006

At my university (UNLV) in order to take Linear Algebra Calc II is required.

I'm thinking of taking Calc II + Linear Algebra over the summer, so I can take Calc III this Fall, but both of these courses are only offered during the same 5-week session, I might be able to talk to my advisor/math department and get into Linear Algebra without completing Calc II.

So is Calc II really needed in order to learn Linear Algebra?

2. Mar 31, 2007

### Dr Transport

I would say yes and m any cases I'd suggest Calc III before Linear Algebra also.

3. Mar 31, 2007

### bob1182006

Really? I've heard so much about Linear Algebra being fundamental for Calc III

ok I guess I'll take Linear Algebra this Fall and go from there

4. Mar 31, 2007

### JasonRox

You don't need anything.

I first took Linear Algebra while take Calculus I. I don't see how not knowing Calculus will hinder someone from understanding what vector spaces are and linear transformations.

5. Mar 31, 2007

### bob1182006

How much of linear algebra are matrix transforms? I read on ratemyprofessor.com about the teacher thats teaching this coming fall and most of his ratings for Linear algebra just said like
"all he does is mainly matrix transforms"

6. Mar 31, 2007

### JasonRox

Well, that is the heart of linear algebra, so it is expect to be mainly matrix transformations, which is linear transformations, like I pointed out.

You don't need Calculus at all to do. None whatsoever. I'd be surprised if I've ever seen a textbook saying Calculus is a pre-requisite in the preface of the textbook.

7. Mar 31, 2007

### bob1182006

Ok thanks I thought maybe the teacher was skipping out on important things in his class.

I think I'll wait and take linear algebra over the summer since I've never had summer school and Calc II + LA + work might be too much for me :/

8. Mar 31, 2007

### JasonRox

You might be able to handle it. I found Calculus I harder than Linear Algebra. So if you found Calculus I alright, then Linear Algebra might be alright too.

9. Mar 31, 2007

### mattmns

I don't see any need for Calculus 2 either. Our calculus 3 and linear algebra class had a similar first week, but after that were almost completely different. I would say go for it.

10. Mar 31, 2007

### bob1182006

I just "re-did" my finances which were the only things nudging me away from doing it, but now I think I'll be able to with little problems

11. Mar 31, 2007

### mr_coffee

Same, i took linear algebra after calc 1! I dont think I needed calc 1 even, they just taught you chunks of what you needed.

12. Mar 31, 2007

### mathwonk

logically it is the other way around, linear algebra is needed to understand advanced calc, maybe calc 3. but calc 2 is is used as a sort of maturity test for taking any kind of abstract math, like linear algebra.

so no, it is not needed, but yes it is useful experience.

13. Apr 1, 2007

### mr_coffee

Interesting the only thing from matrices I've used so far in calc III is when applying parametric/substitution and you have to take the determinant with partial derivatives but thats all so far, maybe there was other times and I just didn't realize it.

14. Apr 1, 2007

### Beeza

I found linear algebra incredibly difficult-- as did the rest of the class with a class average of 30s on the midterm. However, we never ever needed any sort of calculus. But, you might get more out of the topic of eigen vectors/values/functions and their applications to differential equations if you've studied a bit of Diff EQ.

15. Apr 1, 2007

### mgiddy911

I am about to finish Linear Algebra for the spring semester. I would again state that Calc 2 is not needed at all. No amount of Calc is needed for Linear Algebra, however it may help on a few small problems. We talked very briefly about how to show that differentiation and integration of polynomial functions can be shown to be a Linear Transformation and did one problem involving finding the matrix that corresponded to that transform. As stated in an above post, Calc 3 was similar to Linear in the first week or so, in the vector subjects but thats about it. The similar topics were dot and cross products and projections of vectors to lines or planes.

16. Apr 3, 2007

### PhilosophyofPhysics

17. Apr 3, 2007

### JasonRox

Not knowing this will not hinder your knowledge of Linear Algebra. In fact, not knowing that does not say anything about whether or not you know Linear Algebra. So, the fact above is irrelevant when learning Linear Algebra. Of course, I'm talking about the abstract sense.

If you get Linear Algebra down, and then learn Calculus I (you don't need Calculus II to know the above), and then someone told you about the fact above, you should be no doubt capable of figuring it out without much trouble.

18. Apr 3, 2007

Not to mention that most calculus books point that fact out.

19. Apr 3, 2007

### JasonRox

True. As well as other things like the Wronskian.

20. Apr 3, 2007

### Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Many introductory linear algebra books use examples from calculus. For instance the book I teach from explains that $D=d/dx$ is a linear map $D: P_n(x) \rightarrow P_{n-1}(x)$. You would need some basic calculus for that, but certainly not Calc II.