4 ms·

> Why do advanced-math classes bother with proofs almost no student can follow? Because they're for math majors. And less-advanced ones are filters for potenti

> Why do advanced-math classes bother with proofs almost no student can follow? Because they're for math majors. And less-advanced ones are filters for potential math majors. Me, I hated that stuff. Engineering math actually taught useful skills. > I’m cynical about students. The vast majority are philistines. I was a horrible TA. I was mainly an RA, but had to TA one semester. I had no patience for the "what do I need to know for the test?" ones. Especially pre-meds. But ~five kids loved me, because we all cared about the ideas. It was actually easier as a professor, because I had TAs to deal with most students. Only the ones who cared bothered to see me personally. Or maybe I was just too rude to the others.

swiley 8y ago
I personally was pretty happy I got to take the math classes full of proofs that were “for math majors.” I feel like if you just want something practical you can go take an engineering class.
bjs250 8y ago
Politely disagree. I'm going to take engineering math to mean ~4 semesters of calculus (differentiation, integration, multivariable, and differential equations) as well as maybe a Linear Algebra class and a discrete mathematics class (probability, set theory, combinatorics). I would argue only the discrete mathematics course is practically useful Anecdotally, as an engineer in industry, I use very little of the engineering math. Number sense and sort of general quantitative reasoning are used. Let's suppose for sake of argument that I actually used engineering math though. Analytic solutions to derivatives and integrals (2 semesters of calculus) are largely useless because of applications like Wolfram Alpha that will solve these problems for you. The small class of ODE/PDE problems that are handled by analytic undergrad math classes will most often be solved using numerical methods such as Runge Kutta. Linear algebra is actually super useful in practice because you can use matrix solvers to solve systems of linear equations -- but a first course in undergraduate linear algebra is often just basic by-hand computations on matrix systems, and don't discuss higher order concepts at more than a shallow level (spans, invertibility, spectral decomposition, canonical forms, etc.)
- mirimir 8y ago
  I'm old. There were no PCs then, so the analytic stuff was useful. What I remember most about the pure math classes were proofs about whether or not something was solvable. But never anything about how one might actually solve anything. And far too much number theory. All too abstract for me.
  - bjs250 8y ago
    Yeah, well I totally agree on that end. Proofs are almost never practical for anyone. Number theory is also a huge bore

swiley 8y ago

I personally was pretty happy I got to take the math classes full of proofs that were “for math majors.” I feel like if you just want something practical you can go take an engineering class.

bjs250 8y ago

Politely disagree. I'm going to take engineering math to mean ~4 semesters of calculus (differentiation, integration, multivariable, and differential equations) as well as maybe a Linear Algebra class and a discrete mathematics class (probability, set theory, combinatorics). I would argue only the discrete mathematics course is practically useful Anecdotally, as an engineer in industry, I use very little of the engineering math. Number sense and sort of general quantitative reasoning are used. Let's suppose for sake of argument that I actually used engineering math though. Analytic solutions to derivatives and integrals (2 semesters of calculus) are largely useless because of applications like Wolfram Alpha that will solve these problems for you. The small class of ODE/PDE problems that are handled by analytic undergrad math classes will most often be solved using numerical methods such as Runge Kutta. Linear algebra is actually super useful in practice because you can use matrix solvers to solve systems of linear equations -- but a first course in undergraduate linear algebra is often just basic by-hand computations on matrix systems, and don't discuss higher order concepts at more than a shallow level (spans, invertibility, spectral decomposition, canonical forms, etc.)

mirimir 8y ago
I'm old. There were no PCs then, so the analytic stuff was useful. What I remember most about the pure math classes were proofs about whether or not something was solvable. But never anything about how one might actually solve anything. And far too much number theory. All too abstract for me.
- bjs250 8y ago
  Yeah, well I totally agree on that end. Proofs are almost never practical for anyone. Number theory is also a huge bore