/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14880512
Can you think geometrically or are you stupid?

Yes. Calc 3 is basically just Calc 1 but pretending some variables are constants.

>>14880522
How much of Calc 2 is used in it?

>>14880527
>>14880512
fucking kek. never seen anyone so rekt by series and sequences before. this is like battered wife syndrome levels of abuse

>>14880527
Depends on each specific course. Most likely none but there's a slight chance you might have to do double/triple integrals and the very end. You'll probably have to take ODEs later which is basically entirely calc 2, though.

>>14880694
>calc 2 is largely integration techniques
oh shit, i forgot. for some reason i thought it was mostly infinite sequences and series. this is worse than i thought. op, you need to remedy this. integrals aren't going anywhere. you're definitely going to encounter them again in calc 3 but in 3D. it's not as bad as it sounds but that's assuming you know how to do normal integrals to begin with. doing double and triple integrals is pretty much just doing two or three nested integrals, where you feed the next the output of the first (plus some care being put into the bounds of integration; if you're comfortable with set theory and are geometrically inclined this won't be too bad). but yeah as the anon above said these will be your tools in ODEs as well as probability theory (i imagine you will need both of these with whatever you're doing). i found patrickJMT and paul's online math notes invaluable for calc 2 and 3, check them out

>>14880694
>double/triple integrals
mathlet here. How is that done? I already struggle with normal ones

>>14880803
See >>14880748
>doing double and triple integrals is pretty much just doing two or three nested integrals, where you feed the next the output of the first (plus some care being put into the bounds of integration; if you're comfortable with set theory and are geometrically inclined this won't be too bad).

>>14880803
https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/calciii/DoubleIntegrals.aspx

>>14880512
It’s not very hard. It’s more like CALC 1, but some things may be a little trickier. Nevertheless, it’s much easier than CALC 2.
>>14880527
There are some basic integral techniques, but I don’t think anything beyond u substitution is needed. Honestly it sounds like you’ll be fine if your understand CALC 1 and the very first part of CALC 2.

Yes

>>14880512
CS student here. Should I take calc 2 or just take calc 1 and linear algebra. I have the option to take all three, but I must do atleast 2.

>>14881996
linear algebra>calculus
but take all pls

>>14881996
Linear algebra without a doubt but all 3 would be ideal. Take a course in abstract algebra as well.

>>14880512
>studying Calculus in college
What the fuck is wrong with Americans?

>>14882713
Why?

>>14882016
Fucking undergrad dumb worthless kiddie worthless board

>>14881996
Take Linear Algebra. Matrices are essential for computer graphics, also for lots of other stuff.

The part of Calc II everyone struggles with is series and sequences, which are unironically the easiest part. Its just pattern matching.
They also have trouble with fractional decomposition, which your calculator literally have a "solve" button for, to save you 2 minutes.

Every single thing used in Calc I and II you will use again in Calc III, but with additional shit on it.
Calculus III is objectively harder than Calculus II.
People who say calculus II was the hardest, usually never took a math course beyond it. Every math course gets harder.

>>14882952
You're the one who sounds like you never took a math course beyond calc 2. There's nothing hard about calc 3.

>>14880512
>I’ve heard Calc 3 is easier, is that true?
Depends on your skills but I'd say no. Not by a long shot. Calc 3 is a fundamental change to how you understand math when you are first exposed to it, and if you don't have a good visual intuition for everything you're doing it can get difficult fast. Calc 2 is just integration and series stuff.
For me calc 2 by far was the easiest calculus class, because once you've done 1, there's not much more you need to learn to do 2.

>>14880522
Calc 3 is usually Calc with complex variable.

>>14880512
Stop taking nonsense courses. Take analysis 1 and be done with it.

>>14880803
You just do them iteratively for each dimension/variable. You'll do piss easy ones too since they are mostly testing you on whether or not you understand the concept, rather than mastery of integration techniques.

>>14880803
You have to do a mapping transform for most of them. Calc 3 problems will just give you functions that you assemble to construct the integral, which will be impossible in most cases without a transform.
Its expected that you can already flawlessly execute normal integrals and all the techniques of substitution, integration by parts, trig sub, fraction decomposition.

>>14883249
Calc 3 is just calc 2 with more stuff. If you didn't ace calc 2, you will do poorly in calculus 3. Sounds you went to shit school with easy courses.

>>14880527
When I went through, we used polar or spherical coordinates (which was taught in my calc 2) to solve some multivariable integrals. My impression was that calc 3 did not require the same amount of dilligence that calc 2 did

>>14880512
No sequences, series, or convergence
Calc 3 is just multivariate Calc 1, you don't really learn new things, just generalizing what you already know

>>14885489
>No sequences, series, or convergence
Literally the easiest part of calc II

Here's a syllabus I found online:
https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcIII/CalcIII.aspx

>>14884921
What? No. Calc 3 is multivariate. Your uni is weird.

>>14885408
lol you're either retarded or trying to scare op for no reason. Stfu.

>>14880512
calc 2 was ruined by all the fucking gay faggot series shit
calc 3 will be amazing and fun for you if you're a chad with 3d visualization capabilities. otherwise it'll be a slog.

>>14880803
You got several answers already but the answer is what you think. You do an integral and you do it again. There's a but more complexity to it when you consider other theorems and substitutions introduced but at its most bare level, you just integrate multiple times, usually with respect to different variables

>>14880512
>you're fucked
calc 3 is easily the hardest of the 3

i dont know what shitty education you got but here multi calculus was way harder that single. limits of multivariable functions has multiple directions to approach, you have 1 2 and infinity norms, extrema of these functions are harder, implicit and inverse functions theorems proof are crazy and finally you have non 1 dimensional domains to deal before apply calc 1 integration techniques, I knows average us higher education was shit but wtf

>>14882016
In terms of usefulness or difficulty?

>>14880694
in ODE right now, it’s really not that much calc besides some basic shit like undoing a product rule

>>14886796
Linear Algebra isn't much harder than Calculus conceptually. Both of them have applications in a variety of subjects going from computer graphics to statistical models of economics and electrical circuits.
>>14886806
DE also requires knowing determinants and how to solve linear equations using methods taught in Linear Algebra.

>>14880512
>I’ve heard Calc 3 is easier, is that true?
No.

>>14880512
>I’ve heard Calc 3 is easier, is that true?
Naah.

Yes

>>14882713
>https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu
School systems run by libtards

>>14882713
gb2 /int/ or 9gag or whatever cesspit you crawled from