Do I Need Calculus or Another Mathematics to Use This Book?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether advanced mathematics, specifically calculus, is necessary to understand the first six chapters of "An Introduction to Mathematical Thinking: Algebra and Number Systems." Participants suggest that while exposure to calculus may be beneficial, it is not a strict prerequisite for reading the book. A background in discrete mathematics and pre-calculus is deemed sufficient for tackling the material, particularly if the reader has some familiarity with set theory and basic number concepts. The importance of having the requisite skills expected by the book is emphasized, as these foundational skills will aid in understanding the rigorous approach to proof writing presented in the text. Overall, the consensus is that a solid grounding in algebra and discrete mathematics is more critical than calculus for engaging with the book's content.
adelin
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Do I Need Calculus or Another Advanced Mathematics to Use This Book?

I would like to learn the material from the first to the sixth chapter in An Introduction to Mathematical Thinking: Algebra and Number Systems.

Here are the topics in the book
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~wgilbert/Books/MathThinking.html
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know a bit of set theory (Chapter 1 in that book)?

If so, look up these topics online: natural numbers, integers, well-ordering principle, peano arithmetic (get the sense from this of describing a known set by simple rules), rational numbers, construction of the rational numbers (skip this if it is too difficult), real numbers (skip if too difficult).

A brief look through this stuff should set you in the correct frame of mind to read Ch.6.
 
Simon Bridge said:
What level is your math now?

I have taken Discrete Mathematics and Pre-Calculus.
 
Reading the book description from pearson website, it sounds like a rigorous introduction to proof writing. Although exposure to calculus would probably be beneficial, I don't believe it is a necessary condition to read the book.
 
adelin said:
I have taken Discrete Mathematics and Pre-Calculus.
Doesn't really mean anything to me ... pretend that I am in a different country and culture so I am unfamiliar with your education system ;)

Generally - an introduction to algebra is unlikely to need calculus as a prerequisite - unless the book says so. Exposure to other areas of math is always helpful though. The main thing is to make sure you have acquired the prerequisite skills that the book expects ... which can be hard to judge before getting the book. That's why I'm asking about your level of learning - are those courses in the secondary or tertiary programs (i.e. for USA: high school or college)?

Off the names - it looks like you are better equipped to advance along a calculus track than an algebra one - both will teach algebra, but from different perspectives. I would also hope that you have been exposed to continuous mathematics as well as discrete :) If the discrete course had a lot of proofs in it, then you are probably prepared for the kinds of things in an algebra course.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
6K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Back
Top