4 ms·

I don't remember needing anything except Discrete Maths when I took this course in the Uni, so I think multivariate calculus is overkill.

by mikevm 5y ago

vkazanov 5y ago
Judging by his (excellent) textbook mostly basic familiarity with math logic and proofs should be enough. Calculus helps as a first example of proof technique application but should not be a necessity. In fact, I went through most of his book on my own - my own electrical engineering degree was enough to follow and solve exercises.
- jimhefferon 5y ago
  To do Big O, you'll need L'Hopitals rule. And, rates of change in general.
  - vkazanov 5y ago
    Well, the author does a great job of giving intuitive explanations for things not covered throughly in the book. Besides, rate of change is high school material: physics and last year math lessons do cover it. At least in eastern europe they do.
    - jimhefferon 5y ago
      I'm a math prof in the US. Here, I don't find that "physics and last year math lessons do cover it." If they do where you are, I'm envious.
      - vkazanov 5y ago
        The explanation was shallow at best, omitting key definitions, coming up with Newton-style "infinitesmall" hand waiving. They mostly made sure we were familiar with relevant notation. This somewhat helped in early uni physics-related courses, until calculus caught up. That was in a math school back in post-soviet lithuania, so russian approach to math schooling implied.
      - vkazanov 5y ago
        Btw, as much as I know, basic set theory, math logic and proof techniques (e.g. "How to prove it" level roughly) are almost universally delayed till university years. These generic tools are much more important than calculus! I don't really understand why. This results in many omissions in school-level curriculum, I.e giving formulas with no proofs. This results in kids seeing math as a kind of meaningless and boring symbol manipulation. Was there ever a discussion around this problem in the US?

I don't remember needing anything except Discrete Maths when I took this course in the Uni, so I think multivariate calculus is overkill.

by mikevm 5y ago

I don't remember needing anything except Discrete Maths when I took this course in the Uni, so I think multivariate calculus is overkill.

vkazanov 5y ago

Judging by his (excellent) textbook mostly basic familiarity with math logic and proofs should be enough. Calculus helps as a first example of proof technique application but should not be a necessity. In fact, I went through most of his book on my own - my own electrical engineering degree was enough to follow and solve exercises.

jimhefferon 5y ago
To do Big O, you'll need L'Hopitals rule. And, rates of change in general.
- vkazanov 5y ago
  Well, the author does a great job of giving intuitive explanations for things not covered throughly in the book. Besides, rate of change is high school material: physics and last year math lessons do cover it. At least in eastern europe they do.
  - jimhefferon 5y ago
    I'm a math prof in the US. Here, I don't find that "physics and last year math lessons do cover it." If they do where you are, I'm envious.
    - vkazanov 5y ago
      The explanation was shallow at best, omitting key definitions, coming up with Newton-style "infinitesmall" hand waiving. They mostly made sure we were familiar with relevant notation. This somewhat helped in early uni physics-related courses, until calculus caught up. That was in a math school back in post-soviet lithuania, so russian approach to math schooling implied.
    - vkazanov 5y ago
      Btw, as much as I know, basic set theory, math logic and proof techniques (e.g. "How to prove it" level roughly) are almost universally delayed till university years. These generic tools are much more important than calculus! I don't really understand why. This results in many omissions in school-level curriculum, I.e giving formulas with no proofs. This results in kids seeing math as a kind of meaningless and boring symbol manipulation. Was there ever a discussion around this problem in the US?