battousai
- 86
- 0
http://www.extension.harvard.edu/open-learning-initiative/abstract-algebra
If i successfully complete the course above, will I be ready for graduate level algebra?
battousai said:http://www.extension.harvard.edu/open-learning-initiative/abstract-algebra
If i successfully complete the course above, will I be ready for graduate level algebra?
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.
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
battousai said:http://www.extension.harvard.edu/open-learning-initiative/abstract-algebra
If i successfully complete the course above, will I be ready for graduate level algebra?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
Mépris said:^
Sounds awesome! Post here to tell us how things pan out. What is "summer B" though? A summer class for business students?
- 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!
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
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.
Mépris said:...but is number theory not nearly the same, except that it covers all kinds of numbers?
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.
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.
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