Deciding whether to audit, take the class, or take pass/fail

  • Thread starter Thread starter dh363
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Class
AI Thread Summary
A sophomore is considering enrolling in a complex analysis class but is uncertain about the necessity of prior knowledge in real analysis, which they have not taken. The course description includes topics such as analytic functions, contour integration, and conformal mapping, suggesting an introductory level. The professor has not listed real analysis as a prerequisite, and the student has performed well in previous proof-heavy classes and multivariable calculus. Discussions indicate that while a solid understanding of real analysis can enhance comprehension, many introductory complex analysis courses do not strictly require it and often introduce necessary concepts as needed. It is recommended to consult the professor for clarification on course expectations. Overall, a background in single-variable calculus should suffice for success in this course.
dh363
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, I'm a sophomore thinking about adding into a complex analysis class. The thing is, I'm not sure whether the class would require concepts from Real Analysis (which I haven't taken) or not. The professor didn't list analysis as a prereq but from a conceptual standpoint speaks of the class as if it comes after analysis. I attended the first class and kept up perfectly fine, but that doesn't really say anything, since we haven't gotten into anything difficult yet.

The course description states "Complex numbers. Analytic functions including exponential, logarithmic and trigonometric functions of a complex variable. Geometric and mapping properties of analytic functions. Contour integration, Cauchy's theorem, the Cauchy integral formula. Power series representations. Residues and poles, with applications to the evaluation of integrals. Conformal mapping and applications as time permits.
"
That Conformal mapping is only "as time permits" leads me to believe that he doesn't go through stuff too quickly and this is really an introductory course. He also uses Brown/Churchill, which I've heard doesn't assume very advanced mathematical knowledge. As such, I was wondering whether y'all thought if I would be ready for this kind of intro level complex analysis course. I've had proof-heavy classes before and I aced multivariable and linalg
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Oftentimes, introductory complex analysis courses will not strictly require tools from real analysis in the sense that the course will introduce those concepts when necessary. That said, analysis is hard enough over the reals; unless you have a good intuition for the things covered in a solid real analysis course, you're going to find a lot of complex analysis unmotivated and quite difficult.
 
If you know single-variable calculus you shouldn't have any problem. In my course, we had to resort to L'Hopital's rule at some point, Taylor series, etc. but I think the course was pretty self-contained assuming you've covered everything in one of those massive high school/1st year college Calculus texts at some point or another. Speak with your professor about your situation just in case though.
 
Question: Is this a general introductory course on complex variables (e.g. learning to do calculus with complex numbers), or a full blown course on complex analysis? Looking closer at the course description you offered, analysis would certainly offer some motivation, but you should be able to manage without that background.
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
Back
Top