Topology or logic or other start point?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges faced when preparing for advanced math courses, specifically topology and math logic, due to difficulties with proofs. The individual has dropped these courses and seeks advice on the order of study for better preparation. There is a consensus that taking an introductory proof course is crucial for success in upper division courses, but the individual is unable to enroll in one due to their academic standing. Suggestions for self-preparation include studying proof books and drawing on intuition from related subjects, such as Visual Complex Analysis and electricity and magnetism, which can enhance understanding of proofs. The order of studying topology or math logic is deemed less critical, with emphasis placed on strengthening proof skills overall.
trap101
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
So i just recently had to drop two math courses, topology, math logic, because my math maturity wasn't up to the level needed to excel in them. I intend on taking them again, but not without first more preparation which leads to my question. Which order would i benefit more from in preparing for the courses? Topology first and then math logic? Or math logic first and then topology?

The reason is that proofs tend to be my major weakness and it is coming to haunt me in these more advanced courses. Anyother suggestions would also be appreciated

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you taken an intro to proof course? The rest of your upper division courses will rely on that foundational course (unless you are focusing on numerical applied math.)
 
The most my school offered when i took the courses was "concepts in abstract math" so there was no direct intro to proofs course, of course the school has now realized their mistake and created the course, but it is a first year course and i don't think i am eligible for it anymore considering i am in 3rd year. So it appears i will have to self prepare. Suggestions of any good proof books?
 
I don't see any particular advantage to doing one or the other first. My own success with proofs, especially in something like topology, I attribute to reading Visual Complex Analysis and studying subjects like electricity and magnetism that boosted my intuition. In a subject like topology, my thought process was usually a matter of translating my intuition into a logical proof. Proof books may help, too, but they may not be the whole story.
 
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top