Programs Math and ME double major, math course selection

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the value of taking real and complex analysis courses for a mechanical engineering and math double major focused on applied mathematics. The individual has completed undergraduate differential equations and plans to take computational, modeling, and numerical analysis courses, along with possibly some graduate-level courses. While there is a perception that analysis is purely theoretical with limited applications, the individual argues that proof-based mathematics is utilized in fields like theoretical physics. They seek advice on whether pursuing proof-based real and complex analysis would be beneficial or a waste of time, emphasizing that they believe most math and physics courses can benefit engineering students. The individual prioritizes applied math and numerical courses over proof-based ones but remains open to insights from others.
anonymity
Messages
162
Reaction score
0
I am a mechanical engineering and math double major at a state-university, and as far as math goes am mostly focusing on math that can be applied to the fields of engineering (specifically mechanical and nuclear).

I am going to be finished with all of the undergrad differential equations sequences my school offers after the coming school year is completed (end of my sophomore year). My school offers graduate level applied math and differential equations courses, as well as undergrad level computational math/modeling courses. I plan on taking all of the computational/modeling/numerical analysis courses (fairly small math dept.), and maybe a grad level course or two, but my real question has to do with real and complex analysis.

Is this something that is worth taking, for someone like me, with my (rough) plans in mind?

Everything that I have *READ* basically says that analysis is entirely pure mathematics, and has no applications. I don't really believe that this is fully true (for starters, because I know for a fact that theoretical physicists use proof-based math all the time), and was wondering if you guys could help me decide whether or not these courses (intro to proof based real and complex analysis) would be a waste of my time (our math program basically let's you pick whatever courses you want to take,they require a few basics, like linear algebra and an intro proof course, but it's pretty lenient). I will also talk to my adviser, but would like to hear what you guys have to say.

Thanks =D

edit/ps:

I added an edit, but it was just a few sentences of my bias inclination, so i took it out. =0
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I feel that there are very few math or physics courses that do not benefit engineering students in some way. Having said that, I would assign the applied math, numercical & modeling courses a higher priority than ones based on proofs.
 
Hey, I am Andreas from Germany. I am currently 35 years old and I want to relearn math and physics. This is not one of these regular questions when it comes to this matter. So... I am very realistic about it. I know that there are severe contraints when it comes to selfstudy compared to a regular school and/or university (structure, peers, teachers, learning groups, tests, access to papers and so on) . I will never get a job in this field and I will never be taken serious by "real"...
Yesterday, 9/5/2025, when I was surfing, I found an article The Schwarzschild solution contains three problems, which can be easily solved - Journal of King Saud University - Science ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT https://jksus.org/the-schwarzschild-solution-contains-three-problems-which-can-be-easily-solved/ that has the derivation of a line element as a corrected version of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation. This article's date received is 2022-11-15...

Similar threads

Back
Top