/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes

Yes. You don't use much calculus beyond Differential Equations, Complex Analysis, and Analysis (in my experience)

>>2687313
Yeah, Calculus is pretty shit teir. Math majors arent really supposed to memorize those shitty integration techniques. Anyone can pick them up.

However, Countour integration and shit, is another story. They should know how to do that shit (real and complex analysis) implicity.

Sure it is possible. If you'd ask me right now, I couldn't integrate shit by hand - hell, even integration by parts would be a long stretch for me right now, simply because I don't use it on a daily basis.

But that's not something to worry about. As long as you can look up that shit and use it after reading some material, it's all good.

>>2687345
>>2687333

Good, I'm glad I'm not the only math major like that. I can prove all sorts of theorems, but I can't do anything beyond basic integration. My classes are so far beyond computation, I don't ever come across it.

Wait math majors don't just compute things all day?!!

Yeah computations are for fags.

>>2687363
Computation = shit teir engineering

They don't expact math majors to do that shit teir work.

>>2687369
Not sure if troll or idiot

>>2687369
Nope.

You are taking about engineers (homosexual) or computers.

>>2687369

As an engineer the math we have to take:
Calculus I-III, Differential Equations, Linear Algebra

>>2687424
Yes, you take shit-teir math (engineering math).

Also, you don't take "linear algebra", you take shitty "matrix algebra" but they call it linear algebra for yall, cause yall dont know better.

Yes, but to be fair, once you get to physics and shit, you can seriously just leave it as an integral and say "We know how to integrate by parts." The brutework is someone ELSE'S work (the undergrads lol), not the mathematician's.

What the fuck is wrong with you undergrads? Lazy pieces of shit. You should be able to derive most basic integration techniques with minimal effort.

>>2687372
>>2687446

Troll's trying too hard.

>>2687464
Why would anyone want to do grunt work? Thats what engineers are for.

>>2687464
Double clicking on Mathematica takes even less effort, though.

>>2687471
You should be able to at least know how to do the grunt work. I see this shit happen all the time. Undergrad math majors think their hot shit because they can prove a bunch of basic exercises from higher math courses. Then you ask them to integrate something simple and they can't do it. Guess what? That makes you look terrible. Grad programs will laugh in your face if you can't do basic calculus.

>>2687484
So what do you do to keep up with the grunt work? Study integration by partial fractions on Saturdays after doing Algebra & Topology homework all week?

>>2687510
Teach my classes. If you're an undergrad then you should look to become a tutor so you can keep those skills sharp.

>>2687484
Well I know examples where certain math majors can do calculus, and differential equations grunt work like machines, but can't prove anything in high level math courses. They make a lot of money tutoring the lower division courses.

>>2687484
Anyone can do the grunt work. And for a mathematican it is easy to pick that shit up again. Knowing how to do grunt work better isn't really a fucking benifit.

You really think math grad schools care how good you are at calculus? LMFAO

There is no "calculus research" dumbshit. No on gives a shit about that petty stuff.

>>2687544
>can't prove anything in high level math courses

You can't graduate if you can't do proofs. Those guys usually switch majors to something easier like engineering.

>>2687547
Grad schools care about it, because for most people in order to get a stipend you have to TA or teach calculus courses.

>>2687547

Maybe you should think twice. Of course there is research in calculus. Just the fact it is not called that way. doesn't mean it is irrelevant to higher math.

What would you call analytic number theory if not advanced calculus ? And differential topology ?

Somehow, most cohomological are more or less directly related to some version of differentiation, and the chain rule and Leibniz' formula are actually profound statements.

>>2687597
I don't have the time to tutor students. How can I review the basics on my spare time? What kind of Calculus is found on the subject GRE?

>>2687664
Basic calculus up through multi-variable calculus. Calculus comprises about 50% of the exam.

>>2687672
What calculus textbooks would you recommend to study Calculus I-III

>>2687692
Stewart probably.

>Is it possible to forget something abstract that you don't put into even semi-regular use?

You realize how stupid this question is, right?

>>2687692
spivak, apostol, morris kline, thomas and finney, there are so many good ones

>>2687692
If it's your first exposure or if you learned calc in high school and forget a lot I would go with Calculus by Spivak for calc 1-2.

I am a fan of Calculus of Several Variables by Serge Lang for calc 3.

What is a good book to study Analysis for the first time?

if you remember the basic form

inf(fg)=something(fg)-int(somthing(fg))

then you can re-arrive at partial integration by dimensional analysis.
i.e. left side is diemsnion fgx, therefore you have to integrate one of the functions in the first term of the left hand side and under the second integal you have to integrate one and take the derivative of the other.
(physicist do dimentional analysis all the time but I think you typically learn it in math undergrad courses)

Hell, I don't even remember long division.

>>2687313
Yeah, I had similar problems, but once you look up the rule itself, how to use it comes right back to you pretty quick.

Bartle and Serbert An Introduction to Real Analysis