Courses Which Course Should I Take: Numerical Methods or Analogue Circuits?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the decision between taking a numerical methods course (MATH 174) or an introductory analogue circuits course (ECE 35) for an upper division physics transfer student. MATH 174 focuses on essential skills such as floating point arithmetic, solving linear and nonlinear equations, optimization, and numerical methods for differential equations, which are crucial for experimental and computational physics. In contrast, ECE 35 covers fundamental circuit theory, including Kirchhoff's laws and transient circuit analysis, which are deemed useful for practical applications in everyday life. While the student expresses an interest in physical modeling over circuit design, the numerical methods course is viewed as more valuable for future physics work. Ultimately, MATH 174 is recommended for its broader applicability in physics, while ECE 35 is acknowledged as foundational knowledge that could be acquired through other means.
T dawg
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I'm an upper division physics transfer student and currently deciding on whether I should take a course in numerical methods for physical modelling or basic into to analogue circuits course. Here are there descriptions:

math 174 - Floating point arithmetic, direct and iterative solution of linear equations, iterative solution of nonlinear equations, optimization, approximation theory, interpolation, quadrature, numerical methods for initial and boundary value problems in ordinary differential equations.

Ece 35 - Fundamental circuit theory concepts, Kirchoff’s voltage and current laws, Thevenin’s and Norton’s theorems, loop and node analysis, time-varying signals, transient first order circuits, steady-state sinusoidal response.

As to what my future goals are , they are totally undecided. at this point I just want to gather as much knowledge as I can then go live on a farm somewhere. I guess hypothetically I would rather do work in physical modelling vs circuit design but the ece course seems like something basic that I should know... Math one seems more interesting but the ECE more useful in everyday life. Any input? Thx.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The numerical modeling course was very valuable for me.
 
MATH174 looks a lot more valuable - you can learn a lot of the circuitry stuff through classes on differential equations (input-response analysis is covered more generally there, and the rest of the stuff can likely be learned elsewhere). On the other hand 174 covers a lot of essential knowledge for an experimental or computational physicist
 
Hey, I am Andreas from Germany. I am currently 35 years old and I want to relearn math and physics. This is not one of these regular questions when it comes to this matter. So... I am very realistic about it. I know that there are severe contraints when it comes to selfstudy compared to a regular school and/or university (structure, peers, teachers, learning groups, tests, access to papers and so on) . I will never get a job in this field and I will never be taken serious by "real"...
Yesterday, 9/5/2025, when I was surfing, I found an article The Schwarzschild solution contains three problems, which can be easily solved - Journal of King Saud University - Science ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT https://jksus.org/the-schwarzschild-solution-contains-three-problems-which-can-be-easily-solved/ that has the derivation of a line element as a corrected version of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation. This article's date received is 2022-11-15...

Similar threads

Back
Top