Can one excel in higher level math courses without studying real analysis?

[autre]

Can one truly appreciate mathematics without a course in real analysis? My main interest is in quantitative methods of economics and finance, or applied math. While I find the proofs behind calculus interesting, I can't see myself enjoying a purely theoretical math course. I prefer to explore that interest outside the classroom environment. Will I be at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis more theoretical math students when I take upper level courses such as Theory of PDE?

(I am an undergraduate economics major)

 

[micromass]

Can one truly appreciate mathematics without a course in real analysis? My main interest is in quantitative methods of economics and finance, or applied math. While I find the proofs behind calculus interesting, I can't see myself enjoying a purely theoretical math course. I prefer to explore that interest outside the classroom environment. Will I be at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis more theoretical math students when I take upper level courses such as Theory of PDE?

(I am an undergraduate economics major)

It depends on how the instructor approaches the upper-level course. My course on differential equations relied quite heavily on topology and real-analysis methods, so a student that didn't have real analysis would certainly have a major disadvantage.
However, I could see it happening that a course on PDE's does not use real analysis. In any case, it's best to ask the lecturer beforehand whether there will be a problem.

 

[autre]

Even if the class isn't very theoretical, will students who have RA under their belts have a strong innate advantage in understanding the concepts?

 

[pmsrw3]

I've actually never had a course in analysis per se. Of course, it's possible that I don't know what I'm missing, but I don't feel it's really held back my understanding of, for instance, PDEs. Instead, I think I've absorbed most of the concepts of analysis through their applications.