Other Should I Become a Mathematician?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathwonk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematician
Click For Summary
Becoming a mathematician requires a deep passion for the subject and a commitment to problem-solving. Key areas of focus include algebra, topology, analysis, and geometry, with recommended readings from notable mathematicians to enhance understanding. Engaging with challenging problems and understanding proofs are essential for developing mathematical skills. A degree in pure mathematics is advised over a math/economics major for those pursuing applied mathematics, as the rigor of pure math prepares one for real-world applications. The journey involves continuous learning and adapting, with an emphasis on practical problem-solving skills.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3,092
  • #3,093


Group_Complex said:
You must also be able to do most of the problems from a good text on abstract algebra. Simply watching videos will not be enough.

of course. that's what i meant by "successfully complete".
 
  • #3,094


Since I'm still in undergraduate until at least Fall 2014 and not getting any younger, I'm starting to contemplate whether I should apply directly for a Phd. program.

Disadvantages: The time commitment. It's not over until it's over, or until (as I just read an old thread here, mathwonk says "until the fat guy says it is.") It'll also be an extraordinary jump in the kind of stuff I'm doing - but I think I'm mature enough to make that jump.

However if after 4 years, for some reason I can't finish, I won't have much to show for it.

Advantages: may save some time over FIRST doing a masters THEN a Phd. It might actually be funded rather than me having to pay (if I understand correctly), even if not very much, which is still more than what I get now, which is "zero minus tuition."

What am I missing, or where am I wrong?
 
  • #3,095


the only thing wrong with going to school is burnout. (except for poverty). So if you are well motivated right now, it makes sense to me to go straight for PhD, assuming you are prepared for that. But noticing again that you are not yet a senior, that decision should probably be made a little later, when you know more how much love you still possesses for "the life".
 
  • #3,096


by the way, in line of fascinating stuff about convergence, you might take a look at "Counterexamples in Analysis" by Gelbaum and Olmstead. Incredible kooky examples in there. Lots of fun.
 
  • #3,097


Yes, I'm planning way ahead right now. Basically information gathering.

Semester is wrapping up. Going to look at some of this stuff we've been talking about over the summer, and hopefully do some tutoring as well.

-DaveK
 
  • #3,098


Do you guys think "working memory" is what determines ones' math ability? Working memory is defined as "a brain system that provides temporary storage and manipulation of the information necessary for such complex cognitive tasks as language comprehension, learning, and reasoning."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1736359

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-yourself-smarter.html?pagewanted=allMy working memory is very poor and I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to try to improve it? Or will continuing to do math improve it do you think?

Thanks
 
  • #3,099


nickadams said:
Do you guys think "working memory" is what determines ones' math ability? Working memory is defined as "a brain system that provides temporary storage and manipulation of the information necessary for such complex cognitive tasks as language comprehension, learning, and reasoning."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1736359

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-yourself-smarter.html?pagewanted=all

My working memory is very poor and I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to try to improve it? Or will continuing to do math improve it do you think?

Thanks

I don't know about working memory, but I would say that if you push yourself to as far as you can go personally, then you will probably be very surprised how far you actually get.

The thing about learning and memory per se is that there is no real consensus on both in terms of how they work, why they work and so on.

Sure there are little bits of insight here and there, but the thing is that it's not something that is easy to generalize in a simple way as of yet and if there was (especially for learning), and it was known then teachers and pretty much everyone in general wouldn't be arguing and debating and the process of learning would be very much streamlined.

I know that there are things like the IQ workouts and so on, but really if you want to develop a skill you got to work at it period and for mathematics this meanings thinking about mathematics, reading mathematics, doing mathematics, talking to other people about mathematics and basically expending time and energy in some way on things related to a particular focus of mathematics.

But even then, the thing is also that if you isolate yourself too much on what you 'think' mathematics is vs what mathematics actually is in all its unbounded context, then I personally think you will be missing a large part of the picture.

When you see the entire world through your mathematical lense I gaurantee you will see things that you won't see in greek letter equations in a textbook or formal proofs. It's important to realize this because it's amazing how much is out there and if you spend all your time trying to look for the answers only in one place, then you will probably be missing out on a lot.

Also with regard to comprehension, if you want to improve that then comprehend. One recommendation I have is to answer questions that people ask in the forums: this is a great way to improve comprehension of a subject.

With language, my best suggestion is to read (and read widely) as well as to write. Anything that forces you to organize, plan, and execute your thoughts for different audiences will help you immensely in this regard. Don't just read stuff by the same author or in the same style: read things with many styles and many themes. Listen to a wide range of people who organize and portray their thoughts differently. Force yourself to take the time to purposely have to comprehend something specifically for that person.

As for reasoning, again pay attention to how people reason and not just one group of people. Look at how layman reason, how mathematicians/statisticians reason, how lawyers reason, and how people who have been doing something for many many years reason about things that they have been involved with for a long time.

You can get some good guidelines from mathematics, statistics, logic and philosophy, but remember that if you want some good advice and good reasoning about something, ask someone who has been doing it for a while and is actively engaged in something. The thing is that an expert will be able to see what's really relevant and even if you had good reasoning skills, reasoning on assumptions that are either invalid or completely unknown to yourself is not much use. Also be aware of uncertainty and it's role in reasoning and how you treat reasoning.
 
  • #3,101


nickadams said:
Do you guys think "working memory" is what determines ones' math ability? Working memory is defined as "a brain system that provides temporary storage and manipulation of the information necessary for such complex cognitive tasks as language comprehension, learning, and reasoning."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1736359

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/can-you-make-yourself-smarter.html?pagewanted=all


My working memory is very poor and I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to try to improve it? Or will continuing to do math improve it do you think?

Thanks

I keep running into mathematicians that say they have a terrible memory, and these are also the "where did I put my keys" people. That also happens to be working memory.

I think you can find ways to compensate. In my case, I WRITE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. If an equation goes from (-4^2 + 9) my next step is not (25) but (16+9), and THEN (25) I can't do stuff in my head and hold numbers there at the same time. As a result, my work is very easy to follow and my professors appreciate this.

-DaveK
 
  • #3,102


mathwonk said:
by the way, in line of fascinating stuff about convergence, you might take a look at "Counterexamples in Analysis" by Gelbaum and Olmstead. Incredible kooky examples in there. Lots of fun.

Thanks. Summer fun. :)
 
  • #3,103


chiro said:
I don't know about working memory, but I would say that if you push yourself to as far as you can go personally, then you will probably be very surprised how far you actually get.

The thing about learning and memory per se is that there is no real consensus on both in terms of how they work, why they work and so on.

Sure there are little bits of insight here and there, but the thing is that it's not something that is easy to generalize in a simple way as of yet and if there was (especially for learning), and it was known then teachers and pretty much everyone in general wouldn't be arguing and debating and the process of learning would be very much streamlined.

I know that there are things like the IQ workouts and so on, but really if you want to develop a skill you got to work at it period and for mathematics this meanings thinking about mathematics, reading mathematics, doing mathematics, talking to other people about mathematics and basically expending time and energy in some way on things related to a particular focus of mathematics.

I wish someone would do a study on this, but I swear that just doing mathematics trumps all these other "brain booster" on the market, which may just be mathematics in disguise. I could even see "math therapy," though people would no doubt be terrified of it.

They've done studies that show that learning a language does this.

-DaveK
 
  • #3,104


Greetings I am attempting to self teach myself a major in math, my major is in physics. I'm doing analysis right now and after having a bit of a hard time with Rudin's definitions n theorems I'm starting to study the book of Apostol. I think Rudin is not the best when it comes to self teaching analysis or an introduction to it. I was wondering if anyone could recommend me a book on complex analysis and about functional analysis as well. I heard Kreyszig is good but long so perhaps it is a lot for me.

Im also interested in reading about operator algebras I was wondering what is the mathematical background needed for that?



homeomorphic said:
I do enjoy hyperbolic 3-manifolds, though, which involves a bit of geometry. And by the way, Thurston's book on that subject is a good place to get started on geometry, once you have the prerequisites for it.

Furthermore I'm interested in hyperbolic 3 manifolds, I'm curious what are the perquisites to start reading Thurston's book? and does hyperbolic 3 manifolds have applications in physics?

Thanks in advance.
 
  • #3,105


dkotschessaa said:
I keep running into mathematicians that say they have a terrible memory, and these are also the "where did I put my keys" people. That also happens to be working memory.

I think you can find ways to compensate. In my case, I WRITE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING. If an equation goes from (-4^2 + 9) my next step is not (25) but (16+9), and THEN (25) I can't do stuff in my head and hold numbers there at the same time. As a result, my work is very easy to follow and my professors appreciate this.

-DaveK

The more you practice maths, the more you remember the stuff you're doing and can apply it to other questions. For example you did remember that 4*4=16 and 3*3=9, I know it looks trivial, but I heard people saying that they don't remember how much is 8*6 (or was it 8*7).

So it all depends on how much you're acquainted to something and practice it, in the end you remember it.
 
  • #3,106


Greetings I am attempting to self teach myself a major in math, my major is in physics. I'm doing analysis right now and after having a bit of a hard time with Rudin's definitions n theorems I'm starting to study the book of Apostol. I think Rudin is not the best when it comes to self teaching analysis or an introduction to it. I was wondering if anyone could recommend me a book on complex analysis and about functional analysis as well. I heard Kreyszig is good but long so perhaps it is a lot for me.

For complex, there's Visual Complex Analysis, and for functional and a lot of other topics, maybe Robert Geroch's Mathematical Physics. You can skip towards the end where he covers measure theory and then functional analysis. He gets right to the point and doesn't delve that deep into the subject, but it's also pretty intuitive.
Im also interested in reading about operator algebras I was wondering what is the mathematical background needed for that?

Probably just a course in functional analysis, but I don't know that much about it.
Originally Posted by homeomorphic View Post I do enjoy hyperbolic 3-manifolds, though, which involves a bit of geometry. And by the way, Thurston's book on that subject is a good place to get started on geometry, once you have the prerequisites for it.

Furthermore I'm interested in hyperbolic 3 manifolds, I'm curious what are the perquisites to start reading Thurston's book? and does hyperbolic 3 manifolds have applications in physics?

Thanks in advance.

Maybe just point set topology, but I'm not sure. He (and co-author, Levy) doesn't assume that much. Probably covering spaces, too.
 
  • #3,107


Jimmy84 said:
I was wondering if anyone could recommend me a book on complex analysis and about functional analysis as well. I heard Kreyszig is good but long so perhaps it is a lot for me.

Im also interested in reading about operator algebras I was wondering what is the mathematical background needed for that?

For functional analysis, there are two main topics: geometry/topology of infinite dimensional vector spaces and the properties of operators on those spaces. For the former I really like A Course in Functional Analysis by Conway, and for the latter I really like Theory of Linear Operators in Hilbert Space by Akhiezer and Glazman. Another great reference is the series of books by Reed and Simon.

For operator algebras, there is a very exhaustive series of three books by Takesaki called Theory of Operator Algebras. Since you mentioned doing physics as well, you would probably like Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics I and II by Bratteli and Robinson. The first volume is almost entirely about C*- and von Neumann algebras, with the second one focusing on their applications to quantum statistical mechanics. Some books on noncommutative geometry have a good section on operator algebras as well (as well as A Course on Functional Analysis mentioned above).

Some functional analysis is needed to start learning about operator algebras, but nowhere near an entire course. If you are comfortable with undergraduate level real analysis, algebra, and topology then you could start learning about operator algebras and fill in the functional analysis knowledge as you go. If you know some quantum mechanics then that is enough functional analysis to get started.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,108


My favorite math professor offered to do some work with me and one other student in Summer B. He'll be teaching a pre-calc class, but he will be spending a lot of time doing nothing for the other hours he's there. So we're going to pick a book (one of those undergraduate texts in mathematics) and go over it about an hour a week. I'm super excited about this, and super privileged. Wowee wow. Can't let him down.
 
  • #3,109


^
Sounds awesome! Post here to tell us how things pan out. What is "summer B" though? A summer class for business students?

---

Does anyone have experience with the math departments at these colleges:
- Berea College
- Carleton College
- Reed College
- UChicago
- Colorado College
-Grinnell College
- University of South Florida

These are a few places I'm considering applying for next year. I don't know much about any of them except for what is found on their website and that a number of them are in cold, bleak places. And that they're quite selective...at least, for people who're non-US citizens requiring aid!
 
  • #3,110


Mépris said:
^
Sounds awesome! Post here to tell us how things pan out. What is "summer B" though? A summer class for business students?

Sorry, I guess that's not universal. It's just the second summer session. There's summer A, (six weeks) summer b(six weeks) and summer C (10 weeks, overlapping both).
- University of South Florida

These are a few places I'm considering applying for next year. I don't know much about any of them except for what is found on their website and that a number of them are in cold, bleak places. And that they're quite selective...at least, for people who're non-US citizens requiring aid!

I'm at USF. I've heard it's selective, but then they let me in!

Certainly not cold and bleak here. Quite the opposite. Shorts and sandals weather most of the year.

As you can see from my previous post, I love our math dept. I am here really by circumstance (moved to Florida to get married) but extremely happy with USF. There are lots of opportunities here to get involved in research as well. It's one of Florida's top 3 research universities.

Where are you coming from?

-Dave K
 
  • #3,111


I can see that, yes! I wasn't certain if it was USF or another Florida college that you were at. (you might have mentioned it in another post - I thought FIT or Florida Atlantic)

What texts do they use for the calculus sequence?

---

The Analysis notes of Terence Tao look amazing. I'm on a rather long study break for coffee and tried to read the first few pages.
http://terrytao.wordpress.com/books/analysis-i/

On the course page are additional notes on logic and naive set theory.
 
  • #3,112


James Stewart's Essential Calculus, Early Transcendentals.

Web component here: http://www.stewartcalculus.com/media/6_home.php

Generally a very disliked book, I have to say, at least by we mere undergrads. The book seems to be pared down from earlier editions to be more "concise," which actually makes it very hard to read if you're coming at it for the first time (which I was.) The earlier editions are much more readable. For one that is more mathematically literate than I was I think it's probably a fantastic book. I've just finished the three course calc sequence but I'll probably be digging into the book for years.Also, the online component is good but under-utilized. (In another attempt to pare down I guess he put stuff online.) People don't know it's there, so it doesn't get used.

You seem like you have more experience so you probably won't have a problem. What year are you, or are you a grad student?

-Dave K
 
  • #3,113


I want to be a mathematician. But I'm becoming a chemist instead. 8)
 
  • #3,114


dkotschessaa said:
James Stewart's Essential Calculus, Early Transcendentals.

Web component here: http://www.stewartcalculus.com/media/6_home.php

Generally a very disliked book, I have to say, at least by we mere undergrads. The book seems to be pared down from earlier editions to be more "concise," which actually makes it very hard to read if you're coming at it for the first time (which I was.) The earlier editions are much more readable. For one that is more mathematically literate than I was I think it's probably a fantastic book. I've just finished the three course calc sequence but I'll probably be digging into the book for years.Also, the online component is good but under-utilized. (In another attempt to pare down I guess he put stuff online.) People don't know it's there, so it doesn't get used.

You seem like you have more experience so you probably won't have a problem. What year are you, or are you a grad student?

-Dave K

Oh, don't let the link in the post above fool you! I will, hopefully, start college next year. (at twenty) I spend a lot of time reading about undergraduate study in mathematics/other quantitative fields because:

- I'm interested in the way higher education is structured in various parts of the world
- I made many poor academic decisions in the past, largely because I was unware of things. That was at the pre-college level, which is a good thing. I'd rather not have these happen during college, for the consequences will be

There is a blog which has a four year syllabus, with links to various books (with an emphasis on legally free stuff), somewhere on the internet. I believe it was Micromass linked it to me. At any rate, this is where I learned about the Terry Tao notes. If memory serves me right, they are intended to be used after one has gone through the linear algebra and calculus sequence.

I was studying algebra based physics, got incredibly bored and tried reading a few pages from there. I found a nice little result in the beginning of the file.

Consider the geometric sequence, S, below:

S = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...

How would one go about to calculate its sum, without using the "sum to infinity formula?

Multiply by 2 on both sides.

Thus,

2S = 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...

Which is equal to: 2 + [1 + 1/2 + 1/4 ...]

Which, in turn, is equal to: 2 + S

Now, since 2S = 2 + S,

it follows that S = 2.

This is nice.

Do things such as the above fall within real analysis or number theory? Terence Tao said that "real analysis is the study of real numbers...underlying theory of calculus" (paraphrasing here) but is number theory not nearly the same, except that it covers all kinds of numbers?
 
  • #3,115
university of chicago has one of the world's best math departments. i am not crazy about the local environment there in that part of chicago. i.e. it is right in the city and not the nicest part of the city, but that is true of some other urban campuses. the mathematicians there are incredibly good. some I have known or known of for a long time are: Nori, Drinfeld, Ginzburg, May, Nygard, Fefferman, Sally, Alperin... other younger people include Matthew Emerton, whom I have recently gotten to known through mathoverflow, and who is also very nice.

I believe the department at Chicago has long had a reputation as strong at undergraduate teaching. For a long time they were one of the few departments to continue to teach a very high powered introduction to calculus from Spivak's book, whereas other top places like Harvard discontinued it, under the (I think often false) assumption that a good grounding in beginning calculus is already known to all entering math types.

UC has a fantastic web site. read some of this:
which looks as if it describes the Spivak type class, which apparently still exists. Or ask Paul Sally.
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/undergraduate/faq.shtml

One of the best mathematicians at my department, a Sloan Fellow, and famous number theorist, Robert Rumely, went to Grinnell College for undergrad, so they should be good, and their website makes them look very engaged in student instruction. Carleton has long been well known also as good teaching college in math. I don't know the others as well. I have visited Colorado College in the summer and found it a friendly place in a nice location near Pike's Peak. The town is small but has some good restaurants.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,116


Mepris, that trick for adding up an infinite geometric sequence could be called analysis but in my opinion really isn't. There is no hard work there concerning whether the sum makes sense or not, just trick for finding the sum if it does make sense. I learned that trick in the 8th grade, when I certainly did not know any analysis. Analysis is properly more concerned with defining infinite sums precisely, and proving that such tricks make sense. Carrying out such tricks is a fun game that helps magnetize people who enjoy math, but there is no real work in it.

I.e. that computation shows that IF the sum makes sense, and IF it also makes sense to multiply it term by term, THEN it must equal 2. An analysis course deals with those IF's.
 
  • #3,117


Mépris said:
...but is number theory not nearly the same, except that it covers all kinds of numbers?

Number theory is based around the study of the Natural numbers and, by extension, the integers. Higher-level number theory gets into other algebraic structures, but that is where it starts. With the Natural numbers, you can't always divide things the way you want. Much complexity comes out of this simple fact. They are also the quintessential countable set.

As you say, Analysis is based around the study of the Real numbers. Though the distinction seems small from the outside, it is actually huge. The real numbers are the prototypical complete ordered field and you get to grapple with the brain-bending properties of uncountable sets. Most people just accept it, but I think the Real numbers are actually the most frightening thing in all of mathematics.
 
Last edited:
  • #3,118


Well you sound pretty conscientious for 20 Mepris, so I think you are doing alright. I'm 35 now so I'm way behind. It certainly isn't too late for you to make some good choices now.

I hope you find what's best for you, though of course I am heavily biased towards USF, and if you should come here, you would have some instant friends. (Just think, sunshine, girls in shorts all the time... oh and math.. lots of math). Here is the course flow chart: http://i47.tinypic.com/2vltump.jpg Let me know if that's not readable and I'll re-size. Looks a bit fuzzy.

-Dave K
 
  • #3,119


Mepris, I apologize for wording my answer negatively. Yes, making sense of that computation is exactly what analysis is about.
 
  • #3,120


mathwonk said:
university of chicago has one of the world's best math departments. i am not crazy about the local environment there in that part of chicago. i.e. it is right in the city and not the nicest part of the city, but that is true of some other urban campuses. the mathematicians there are incredibly good. some I have known or known of for a long time are: Nori, Drinfeld, Ginzburg, May, Nygard, Fefferman, Sallky, Alperin... other younger people include Matthew Emerton, whom I have recently gotten to known through mathoverflow, and who is also very nice.

I believe the department at Chicago has long had a reputation as strong at undergraduate teaching. For a long time they were one of the few departments to continue to teach a very high powered introduction to calculus from Spivak's book, whereas other top places like Harvard discontinued it, under the (I think often false) assumption that a good grounding in beginning calculus is already known to all entering math types.

I don't think I will mind the location too much. One thing I appreciate with American towns is that all of them seem properly planned and everything is flat. At least, judging from what I see on TV shows and films, it looks so. I can imagine that from a bird's-eye-view, towns would seem as if they were chess boards. I am unusually fussy about such issues and it would make me happy to live some place where things are accessible and the roads are bicycle friendly. At any rate, I doubt I will have too many issues, location-wise.

http://math.uchicago.edu/~lind/161/

Yep, Spivak is indeed the prescribed text. It is interesting to note that it is merely intended to be used as a reference text. Students are expected to write a so-called "journal" in which they should each write their proofs. They call it "Inquiry Based Learning" (I think I got that right...) and it would seem that the students are expected to do the bulk of the work. (i.e, absence of spoon-feeding) Sounds like a cracking course. I will definitely try to see if I can adapt their own method when I learn from Spivak's book in the near future.

Is it not just the "higher ranked colleges" who now have multi-variable calculus as their freshman honours calculus course? My understanding is that everywhere else, where an honours variant of freshman calculus is present, the first part deals with single variables? I think of the "top schools", MIT (they use Apostol) and UChicago are the only exceptions.

Another thing. As you have pointed out before, the students who went to high school around the same time as you had access to more advanced mathematics than those students of today. Save for those participating in Olympiads or those who spend some time reading about mathematics, I doubt many have heard of that result and countless others. According to Wikipedia, the "New Math" of the 60s was created largely as a response to the threat that Soviet engineers were posing.

I'm unsure as to whether the dumbed down high school mathematics curriculum is a good or a bad thing. Only a minority will ever use such mathematics, let alone be interested in it. I think it might be a good idea to have everyone take a rigorous course (say, geometry) in mathematics and then have the next courses at varying levels of complexity and content. I cannot recall who, but a Math PhD turned coder from Stanford, had a few notes on how to change the system. He proposed three streams. One for those aiming to pursue math at university or those just interested in math. One for those going into the natural/social sciences or engineering. One which focused on more day-to-day uses of mathematics.

Sankaku said:
Number theory is based around the study of the Natural numbers and, by extension, the integers. Higher-level number theory gets into other algebraic structures, but that is where it starts. With the Natural numbers, you can't always divide things the way you want. Much complexity comes out of this simple fact. They are also the quintessential countable set.

As you say, Analysis is based around the study of the Real numbers. Though the distinction seems small from the outside, it is actually huge. The real numbers are the prototypical complete ordered field and you get to grapple with the brain-bending properties of uncountable sets. Most people just accept it, but I think the Real numbers are actually the most frightening thing in all of mathematics.

Perhaps it is because I have limited exposure to them but as of right now, my view is simply that they are fascinating, and much less scary!

The book "Challenge and Thrill of Pre-College Mathematics", which may be of interest to other prospective math majors on here, does a good job at explaining numbers. First, the set of natural numbers and the operations that can be carried out with that type of number is presented. From there, the set of integers is introduced, and the authors also explain how this new set can overcome the limitations of the previous set but also explain that new set's own limitations. They do likewise up until complex numbers and have a nice chart which shows what was "gained and lost" by "expanding" (?) the respective sets each time. A preview is available on Google Books. In fact, most of the book can be viewed.

This text and the result/computation in the previous page have made me look forward to taking an analysis course.

dkotschessaa said:
Well you sound pretty conscientious for 20 Mepris, so I think you are doing alright. I'm 35 now so I'm way behind. It certainly isn't too late for you to make some good choices now.

I hope you find what's best for you, though of course I am heavily biased towards USF, and if you should come here, you would have some instant friends. (Just think, sunshine, girls in shorts all the time... oh and math.. lots of math). Here is the course flow chart: http://i47.tinypic.com/2vltump.jpg Let me know if that's not readable and I'll re-size. Looks a bit fuzzy.

-Dave K

Sunshine and girls in shorts sounds awesome but then again, I might be liking the sound of it too much not inherently, but because of my new font. I'm currently running Xubuntu (a linux distrubution) and everything is in something which looks like "Consolas" or "Lucida" - not sure which.

Thank you for the flow chart. It's readable and helpful! The college I attend will depend more on the outcomes of my application, and much less on me, for getting aid (merit or need) is a massive crapshoot for international students. Nevertheless, I think I will apply to USF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
373
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K