/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #7622270

[16 / 2 / ?]

84KiB, 800x547, 3562345.jpg

Anonymous Wed 28 Oct 2015 20:12:24 No.7622270 View Reply Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7622285 >>7622313 >>7622420 >>7622800 >>7622804 >>7623388 >>7623516

I'm a non math major and I've signed up for a class on introductory abstract math. An old syllabus says it's all proof righting along with some things I'm already familiar with like vector notation. Am I setting myself up to get rekt, or will I actually enjoy looking at math differently than just calculations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Oct 2015 20:16:35 No.7622285 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7622296 >>7623885

>>7622270

Is this an intro to proof writing course? Like basic set theory and stuff?

Take it, you'll have a blast and you'll learn more about what math really is than any class you've taken.

It will also make you a better thinker/arguer/writer believe it or not.

For my baby proofs class I thought it was a cake walk, as did most people. A few kids seemed to struggle even though calc ii was a prereq.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Oct 2015 20:22:04 No.7622296 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7623834

>>7622285
That sounds like the same thing I've signed up for. I expect it to be fun even if it kicks my ass. I've been coming across proofs and more abstract math recently in what I read, so I hope this class will help me gain a deeper understanding of whats going on and what nuances are at work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Oct 2015 20:31:09 No.7622313 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7622270
>An old syllabus

Link?

>vector notation

You mean vector $spaces$ ? It's a bit more involved than just notation...

>Am I setting myself up to get rekt

Unless you're brain dead or a CS major, no.

>or will I actually enjoy looking at math differently than just calculations

If you like puzzles/video games then yes. This will be the first time you actually see math and be confident in your knowledge of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 Oct 2015 21:22:41 No.7622420 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7622270
you'll be fine. i was a non-math major and i didn't too to bad in it. calculations are minimal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 00:06:31 No.7622800 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7623992

>>7622270
These are my favourite courses.
My uni offers them at the 200, 300, and 400 level. Always looking forward to the next year.

Course is basically learning how to problem solve mathematically. And how to write proper solutions, worrying more about the how and why and less about the final answer.

Usually they start out easy, but later on you will start to see the benefit of algebra/trig/functions.

They are also designed to introduce higher maths like combinatorics and topology.

All cleverly disguised in problems like "The handshake problem" or "Ramseys Party Problem".

My first course we had to submit a proof to a modified futurama theorom. 4 seperate versions actually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 00:08:51 No.7622804 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7622270
Introductory? If you passed 3rd grade, you'll be fine. The intro class is really simple. When you get 3 or 4 classes deep is where it picks up and gets intense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 04:21:36 No.7623388 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7622270
>proof righting
fixing wrong proofs is certainly worth it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 07:01:55 No.7623516 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7622270
An intro to abstract algabra does not have direct prerequisites. Any prerequisites imposed are to make sure the student has enough mathematical maturity. If you have taken any college level math and you understand the basics of proofs you will be fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 08:01:52 No.7623570 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7623870

What the heck is abstract math? Like negative numbers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 11:59:50 No.7623834 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7622296
Don't get your hopes up too much. This sort of thing is often a weeding out class that doesn't do much but introduce the basic ideas behind proofs and some set-theoretic machinery like induction and well-ordering arguments. I wouldn't expect deep conceptual understanding or powerful abstraction in the MO

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 12:29:15 No.7623870 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7623570
usually refers to modern algebra.

in an intro class, this usually means systems which can be defined axiomatically, in which you can perform algebraic manipulations which are "deductive" processes based on the axioms. The main examples are groups, rings, and fields. These are structures which you can do algebra on but strictly speaking don't have to be numerical in natural (though many have some sort of numerical representation and applications in solving numerical problems, which is sometimes also covered).

For example, the automorphisms on a set have a "composition" operation which can be viewed as a kind of multiplication from which you can form and solve algebraic problems, even if non-numerical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 12:41:45 No.7623885 Report Delete

Quoted By:

sounds like a great course OP, take it.

>>7622285
intro proofs at my uni is similar, but we also do intro number theory, group theory, and a ton of stuff. we also never write an idea without a proof. there is a rule in our proof discussion sections (20 person supplementary seminars with a grad student) where we are required to provide evidence or proof for all claims in the class.

it isnt a cake walk by any means, but it definitely is changing how well i can think, argue, refute, and most of all prove.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:45:58 No.7623986 Report Delete

Quoted By:

Sounds like this is "how to write a proof" class, so no you won't get rekt but it's always hard when figuring out how to write an actual proof for the first time. It's for sure one of the biggest learning curves. It just takes practice, no shortcuts there.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 123123123.jpg, 164KiB, 1058x899

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 13:47:42 No.7623992 Report Delete

Quoted By: >>7624929

So say I take this class and it's a lot of fun, but there isn't like a clear next step like in >>7622800 's program. What class would I look into doing next. The math program at this school isn't very broad. btw I'm an evolutionary biologist and I've been reading about evolutionary game theory mostly, but math and evolution come together in some really interesting ways that go far beyond game theory. The reason I'm interested in proofs is because all of this starts with people who are more mathematicians than biologists, and nobody really takes the time to bridge the gap between the suspects. Biologists tend to just be plugging things in even though is a ton of fascinating inferences that come from the math behind it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Oct 2015 20:46:37 No.7624929 Report Delete

Quoted By:

>>7623992
babby's first proofs, then linear algebra 2: electric boogaloo and analysis

Subject

Name

E-mail

Password

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these boards

Your latest searches