Can Mediocrity and Proofs Co-Exist? Physics Major Asks

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathsciguy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proofs
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
4 replies · 2K views
mathsciguy
Messages
134
Reaction score
1
I'm a physics major a bit of inclination to mathematics. The semester just ended, and I didn't particularly have a bad one. It's just I had a really mediocre grade after the semester, I'm a bit disappointed since while I'm busy reading through the proofs it seems it didn't really do me much good to make my grades better.

I'm actually planning to go in either applied or pure math, or if I'm sticking in physics I'd go into the more theoretical route. I wonder if all those proofs are going to pay off later?
 

Discussion

Physics news on Phys.org
mathsciguy said:
I'm a bit disappointed since while I'm busy reading through the proofs it seems it didn't really do me much good to make my grades better.
Maybe I'm reading into that line too much but there's your problem. Math is about doing problems, not reading about the solutions.
 
Well yeah I guess you kinda nailed it. I know how to do most of the problems, I'm quite familiar that it's gotten quite boring. It's just that I don't want to mindlessly do the problems without at least having the familiarity of why they work or how the maths is constructed that way, hence why I keep reading the proofs as much as I can.

Now, come the examination day, I'm equipped with a few practice problems that I did. When I look at the paper, most of it seems doable but for some reason I just miss out some stuff that end up stripping me off some credit.

It seems that I know what my problems are and the thread is more like a 'rant thread' but I could sure appreciate more insights that anyone is willing to give me, especially the math guys.
 
mathsciguy said:
Well yeah I guess you kinda nailed it. I know how to do most of the problems, I'm quite familiar that it's gotten quite boring. It's just that I don't want to mindlessly do the problems without at least having the familiarity of why they work or how the maths is constructed that way, hence why I keep reading the proofs as much as I can.

Now, come the examination day, I'm equipped with a few practice problems that I did. When I look at the paper, most of it seems doable but for some reason I just miss out some stuff that end up stripping me off some credit.

It seems that I know what my problems are and the thread is more like a 'rant thread' but I could sure appreciate more insights that anyone is willing to give me, especially the math guys.

Math is a lot different (and better) than what you see in calculus. If you like proofs, take more proof-based math classes. Do two years of calc and then take real analysis. That's the beginning of real math. Some people say it's harder; but for a lot of people it's easier, because for the first time everything makes sense from the ground up. And it's all about the proofs.

So I'd say that if you like math, try not to be put off by calculus.
 
I've still got some calculus left for me. I'd be sure to study analysis after the calc series.