Problem Solving vs. New Material

AI Thread Summary
Starting a freshman year in college prompts a discussion on the balance between learning new material and problem-solving in mathematics. The individual is currently studying baby Rudin and contemplating whether to focus on problem-solving or continue exploring new topics. They own Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds and Engel's problem-solving strategies, indicating a desire to deepen their understanding. The perspective shared emphasizes the value of exploring new concepts over immediate practice, suggesting that university will provide ample opportunity for consolidation of knowledge. However, there is an acknowledgment that thorough practice may be necessary for comprehension, and engaging with problem-solving can be enjoyable and beneficial.
musicheck
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
I'm going to be starting my freshman year in college this september, and I've been spending my summer working on math. So far I've been working on baby Rudin (on chapter 5, plan to stop after chapter 7). I'm wonder whether people (*cough* mathwonk *cough* :-) ) thinks that it is important to spend time focusing on problem solving rather than learning new material. I currently own copies of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds and Engel's problem solving strategies, and I'm trying to pick what to study next.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it's better to spend more time on learning than practising those topics you've learned because chances are, you are going to have lots of time consolidating your knowledge in university and so why not spend time exploring? at least you have an idea of what's ahead. Of course, that's just what works for me. If you think you wouldn't really understand what you've learned without some thorough practising, I would practise if I were you. But, well, it's always more fun learning than practising.
 
I've done only a small handful of problems from Engel so far. It's fun and definitely worth spending a bit of time with.
 
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top