/sci/ - Science & Math

>he thinks being good at eu4 is impressive
holy shit cuck

>>9271804
Prove existance and uniqueness of integrals and derivatives then. See if your monkey brain can do it without help or external resources.

Calc1 is for engineers that don't need math in their life but need to know what an integral is, not for mathematicians. They just get forced in there because it would be too expensive to have a separate calc for mathematicians class.

>>9271804
>first year math major
lel

>>9271815
wait, americans shit tons of money for uni and don't even get separate classes? TURBO LOL

>>9271827
Yea, was also surprised to see that when I got here.
>tfw my calc 1 in .de was still shit in retrospect

>>9271815
>Prove existance and uniqueness of integrals and derivatives then
it's hard to prove an incorrect statement

>>9271876
Uniqueness up to an additive constant for you autistic math fucks then

>>9271815
>>9271881
no one proves this in calculus, although uniqueness is obvious. existence and fundamental properties are usually proved in a first course in analysis

>>9271804
stop wasting time. learn analysis while learning calculus, so when you take analysis you can learn even higher stuff. honestly, work hard.

>>9271804
>derivate


also
>taking calculus in college
>math major
lol good luck

>>9271881
and the existence part ? existence of what exactly

>>9271894
probably something retarded like
>derivatives exist for differentiable functions
and something not so retarded like
>integrals exist for continuous functions

>>9271804

>>9271886
>no one proves this in calculus,
maybe not at your shitty "college", pajeet

>>9271886
>no one proves this in calculus
Which college for brainlets do you go to?

>>9271886
That's like literally my calc2 class tho, minus some ODEs

>>9271895
Yes, something 'retarded' like this. Still needs to be proven. When you're done with that, look at lebesgue integrals and measure theory.

OP here.
The name of the course is actually "Analysis in one variable", so i guess that it's closer to analysis than actual engineering calculus. I'm not sure of the difference though. Swecuck here.

Don't know the difference tho, what surprised me most is that i did all this shit in high school, went through the definitions of both derivatives and integrals, and the fundamental theorem of calculus, Riemann sums etc.

Isn't that calculus, or am i completly unaware of how the american educationsystem works?

>>9271912
>Enjoy kebab amerifats

>>9271804
>derivate
Ah yes, such enlightened intelligence has rarely graced this board

>>9271827
#capitalism
It just werks lol

>>9271943
And to add on my post; I'm mostly fond of proving and i really developed a love for more abstract math. In some way, it isn't as mechanical as analysis/calculus.

Maybe its me doing babby-tier analysis right now, it'll hopefully grow into something more interesting.

>>9271943
>Don't know the difference tho, what surprised me most is that i did all this shit in high school, went through the definitions of both derivatives and integrals, and the fundamental theorem of calculus, Riemann sums etc.
.de poster again, calc/analysis 1 is nothing new compared to what you learned in school. However, you will do things way more rigurously. It used to be customary to start by the set theory axioms, construct the natural numbers from those, then get to Q and finally construct R. By that time at least half the semester is over and you spend the rest of the time talking about derivatives, then integrals.

My calc 1 was kinda different since we started with derivatives and never really talked about what real numbers are until calc 3 for some reason.

>>9271955
Take linear algebra, that has a lot of proofs from day 1. Most of them are easy too.
And the older I get the more I feel like algebra is where the really interesting shit happens.

>>9271956
It was something among those lines i imagined it to be, but it turned out to be wayy less rigorous then our algebra class we had before.

I mean, 80% of the algebra course was actual proving, which is the part of math i appreciate. But as i said before, its probably a babby-tier class. The fun will probably come later.

But i see where the rigourusness comes from. I honestly feel that it could be more rigorous as my algebra teacher was basically a facist when it came to formulating proofs, while our analysis teacher handwaves through them

>>9271959
i totally agree. I started with linear algebra not so long ago. I appreciate it much more, but im lagging a bit behind in analysis so i have to catch up. Went a bit too much ahead and started looking into some deeper group theory and stuff that was a bit over the introduction to algebra class we took.
I guess you have to build slowly.

>>9271967
>I guess you have to build slowly.
It took me approximately one year after writing the final until I actually understood a class.

Analysis 3 (measure theory in .de) was great, highly recommend that one.

>>9271804
there's engineering calculus and there's math's calculus. you probably go to a brainlet school

I wish i was as smart as you OP.

>>9271804
>playing EU4 instead of far superior EU3

sliders and minting >>>> RPG monarch points and SJW progressives

>>9271932
If you can prove it, then you understand compacity, uniform convergence and so on. Thats not calculus

>>9273721
>convergence
>not calculus
Feels great not to be a brainlet

>>9271804
https://cr.yp.to/papers/calculus.pdf
then after
https://usamo.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/napkin-2017-08-15.pdf
have fun

>>9273940
>https://cr.yp.to/papers/calculus.pdf

OP here. Oh shit this is gold thank you very much. Printed it out and working through it.