When should I start reviewing Calculus while reviewing Algebra?

bloodasp
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm an amateur so please bear with my question. I'm reviewing Algebra, patienly answering every exercise in the my textbook. I enjoy answering the exercises but sometimes I get impatient especially when the questions look the same and are less of a challenge. I've read somewhere that in order to get better at Calculus, I'd have to master my Algebra, so that's exactly what I'm doing. What I'd like to know is at what point in (my) Algebra (review) can I begin reviewing Calculus. Is it a good idea or should I put of my Calculus review until I finish the whole Algebra textbook?

Thanks in advance!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Since you've actually already learned this stuff, have you considered only doing the most difficult exercices? Those are usually the last in the series as you've probably noticed.
 
depends on what algebra and what calculus you are learning...

if you are dealing with 1-D,2-D,3-D or unary/binary/ternary functions, or 1-dependent variable 2-dependent variable functions for root finding, function evaluation, integration,interpolation,differentiation,extrema..
you should have no real need for algebra.

If your doing higher dimensional systems(Linear systems of N equations, then linear algebra is needed, or if your studying vector calculus).
 
I never got good at algebra (which is arguable - how about somewhat proficient) until taking calculus. I found doing the calculus problems required me to consult my algebra book to be like, "oh, that's why I need to know that". To me, algebra just requires practice. Just do as many challenging problems as possible. The challenging problems will require you to know the really basic stuff in order to do them. Until I got decent at algebra I never really understood math... it all seemed like magic :smile:
 
quasar987 said:
Since you've actually already learned this stuff, have you considered only doing the most difficult exercices? Those are usually the last in the series as you've probably noticed.

Well yes I have. But I've been out of shape (mathematically speaking) since I got my undergrad in Physics more than 6 years ago because I took a programming job since. There's no concrete way for me to gauge my math skills unless I work on each and every exercise after every chapter in the text. So that's exactly what I'm doing. I'd like to build a solid foundation.
 
neurocomp2003 said:
depends on what algebra and what calculus you are learning...

if you are dealing with 1-D,2-D,3-D or unary/binary/ternary functions, or 1-dependent variable 2-dependent variable functions for root finding, function evaluation, integration,interpolation,differentiation,extrema..
you should have no real need for algebra.

If your doing higher dimensional systems(Linear systems of N equations, then linear algebra is needed, or if your studying vector calculus).

Precalculus Algebra and Differential and Integral Calculus. I'm starting with the basics following my course flow chart during college.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top