By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Which one?

Maths 19 26.76%
 
Math 20 28.17%
 
Mathematics 32 45.07%
 
Total:71
sc94597 on 03 April 2016
fatslob-:O said:
sc94597 said:

I've taken a full Calculus sequence (and currently tutor it for extra cash while I study Physics), and learned Real Analysis from Apostol's Mathematical Analysis (I loved referencing his Calculus volumes when I was learning Calculus from Stewart's book - via my school's choice, so I decided to look at his intermediate text.) 

Neat, I too have done the entire calculus sequence except for the complex analysis but I've been meaning to get into abstract algebra specifically for group theory as I am interested in the applications along with the proofs ...

Ha! I just sat in a presentation last Friday presented by a first year Physics graduate student at my university where he talked about the applications of Group Theory to theoretical Condensed Matter Physics (which was his area of interest.) It was very interesting, but of course much of it went over my head because I don't know much of any group theory besides the basics I learned in my intro abstract algebra course and he chose the path of trying to derive everything in front of our eyes, haha. I've taken an intro course on abstract algebra, and it really made me love algebra a lot more than I had before that point. It is very beautiful. 



Around the Network
pleaserecycle on 03 April 2016
sc94597 said:
fatslob-:O said:

As an aside how many people here know calculus or some elementary real anaylsis ?

I've taken a full Calculus sequence (and currently tutor it for extra cash while I study Physics), and learned Real Analysis from Apostol's Mathematical Analysis (I loved referencing his Calculus volumes when I was learning Calculus from Stewart's book - via my school's choice, so I decided to look at his intermediate text.) 

Apostol's books are great!  I initially learned from Stewart, too. 

 

-----

 

If anyone wants math/physics book recommendations, I'd love to help.  :)



Teeqoz on 03 April 2016
JWeinCom said:
Teeqoz said:

People can think whatever they want about it, but it doesn't make it true (or false). I'm not saying the system doesn't have limitations, I'm saying that just because the system has limitations does not mean that this is "sorta true, but not really true".

And I didn't say anything like that... so I'm not sure what your point is here.

What I've been saying for the past three or so replies to you is that with the way you worded it, it might lead other people to think that way (the "sorta true, but not really" way), which is why yes, you can say that it's because of a limitation of the system, but (presuming you want to enlighten people about it), you then have to explain what the limitation is, and that it doesn't mean that it's not correct just because it's due to a limitation. I wasn't trying to say you thought so, just that saying things like it might lead other people to think so, so you have to be careful with how you word it.



Teeqoz on 03 April 2016
Aielyn said:
Teeqoz said:

I've never heard that word before. :/

While the language of math itself is international, some words which are related to math aren't, so I don't really know what that means :-3

"Truncate" means stop after a certain point. A truncated decimal is one that stops after a certain point - in base 10, it's fractions whose denominators are a power of 2 multiplied by a power of 5.

1/3 has only one decimal representation - it's not a truncated decimal.

Oh okay, I get it.



armodillo17 on 03 April 2016
fatslob-:O said:

As an aside how many people here know calculus or some elementary real anaylsis ?

I did at one point, but I haven't used any of that knowledge in over a decade, so it's mostly gone now, unfortunately.

(Did Calc 1-3, Real Analysis 1-2, and Complex Analysis, which was just absolutely ridiculous. I'm pretty sure no one in that class knew what was going on.)



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 03 April 2016
Teeqoz said:
JWeinCom said:

And I didn't say anything like that... so I'm not sure what your point is here.

What I've been saying for the past three or so replies to you is that with the way you worded it, it might lead other people to think that way (the "sorta true, but not really" way), which is why yes, you can say that it's because of a limitation of the system, but (presuming you want to enlighten people about it), you then have to explain what the limitation is, and that it doesn't mean that it's not correct just because it's due to a limitation. I wasn't trying to say you thought so, just that saying things like it might lead other people to think so, so you have to be careful with how you word it.

Meh.  I think I worded it just fine.  Seemed helpful to the person I was talking to.  I very  explicitly what the limitation was.

"They don't *have* to be repeating numbers, it just so happens that due to the limitations of working with the particular number system we use, we can't describe these numbers in decimals without them repeating."

Dunno how much clearer that could have gotten.



jonathanalis on 03 April 2016

1-0.99999... = 0.000... The one never comes, só is equal to 0.