Warwick Maths Chat

Thanks fGDu. I have some experience of programming in Java and C, although I am not very good and quite rusty. I kinda feel like I could pick Java up again with the internet/a book. With the programming for scientists module in year 1 I would be on (not quite) 150 CATS, which seems like a lot. It's a shame as I would like to take the module, but I am also keen not to overload.

Reply 3983

Appeal to reason

14

Original post by m0zey

Thanks fGDu. I have some experience of programming in Java and C, although I am not very good and quite rusty. I kinda feel like I could pick Java up again with the internet/a book. With the programming for scientists module in year 1 I would be on (not quite) 150 CATS, which seems like a lot. It's a shame as I would like to take the module, but I am also keen not to overload.

I personally wouldn't go above 132, save the other 18cats for 2nd year (you can take up to 30cats of 1st year modules in 2nd), there is just no point without Seymour.
Sure, you can start with how many you like, I started with something like 144 cats and dropped/swapped modules as the year went on, but only did the exam/assessment for 132 of them (and I would in fact have done 126 if not for reasons I won't go into).

Original post by fGDu

In fact, logic 1 requires at most a weeks preparation, so you can think of it as not quite 138 really.

That may be true, but (this year at least), the week the logic 1 exam was in was packed, I had 7 or 8 exams that week, most of which being core modules, so I didn't have time to put in a full week. Came out of the exam really confident and got 58...

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3984

thanks again for reply. I get a sense that 138 will be hard work, which I would like to say I am willing to atleast give a go. I guess at the same time I don't want to jeopardise being able to dedicate enough time to different topics. I know about the Seymour formula and its abolition, however I am kinda trying to take extra modules to gain more knowledge and open more avenues for future study, rather than to boost my grade (if that's what you guys mean??)

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3985

TheIrrational

15

Original post by m0zey

thanks again for reply. I get a sense that 138 will be hard work, which I would like to say I am willing to atleast give a go. I guess at the same time I don't want to jeopardise being able to dedicate enough time to different topics. I know about the Seymour formula and its abolition, however I am kinda trying to take extra modules to gain more knowledge and open more avenues for future study, rather than to boost my grade (if that's what you guys mean??)

I did 138 this year, in my second year, and my actual average wasn't much lower than my Seymour average, which of course you wont have, but taking 138 is perfectly fine if you work for it. Logic 1 really pretty easy too. I don't think you'll be too limited in future if you took less than 138 anyway, so don't worry about that. I'd say take the modules in first year, and if you don't like them then drop them in first year because you won't want to take the follow on modules later. I took the mechanics first year module and dropped it because it was god awful - so take any modules you think you may like and decide later would be my advice.

Reply 3986

thank you for the advice much appreciated. Just out of interest, what were the specific things that you found god awful about the mechanics module?

Reply 3987

Smash50

8

Original post by m0zey

thank you for the advice much appreciated. Just out of interest, what were the specific things that you found god awful about the mechanics module?

I suggest that you wait until you start in September and try the modules out yourself, and see yourself whether or not you like them. It's pointless thinking about it now.

Reply 3988

yes I am going to be taking the module, however I am still interested to hear what theirrational personally found god awful about the module.

Reply 3989

Pterodactyl

12

Original post by m0zey

yes I am going to be taking the module, however I am still interested to hear what theirrational personally found god awful about the module.

I also took the module and then dropped it, my reasons were: the lecturer dimmed the lights as he projected what he was writing on paper onto a whiteboard which made me really, really tired; no compulsory work so I never really started to consolidate anything I was learning (this was obviously my fault for not doing the optional questions) and I think I deluded myself that I actually liked physics because it's the done thing for people who like maths, I wasn't interested in physics at A-level and I wasn't at university.

Reply 3990

Appeal to reason

14

Original post by Pterodactyl

I also took the module and then dropped it, my reasons were: the lecturer dimmed the lights as he projected what he was writing on paper onto a whiteboard which made me really, really tired; no compulsory work so I never really started to consolidate anything I was learning (this was obviously my fault for not doing the optional questions) and I think I deluded myself that I actually liked physics because it's the done thing for people who like maths, I wasn't interested in physics at A-level and I wasn't at university.

These were the reasons I dropped it. I'll try push through with it this year though, as I really need something to boost my marks (got a low 2.i this year).

Anyone in here taken Logic 2? I enjoyed logic 1 despite not doing as well as I thought I had, would like to do more.

Reply 3991

Pterodactyl

12

Original post by Appeal to reason

These were the reasons I dropped it. I'll try push through with it this year though, as I really need something to boost my marks (got a low 2.i this year).

Anyone in here taken Logic 2? I enjoyed logic 1 despite not doing as well as I thought I had, would like to do more.

Fortunately I done pretty well this year so I don't have to make up any marks. If you are looking for easy marks and haven't done it already I'd consider Stat Lab, the exam had hardly any maths in it at all.

I am tempted to try to take Logic 1 though, from what I've heard it can be relatively easy.

Reply 3992

BobLoblawLawBlog

16

Original post by m0zey

thank you for the advice much appreciated. Just out of interest, what were the specific things that you found god awful about the mechanics module?

I actually quite enjoyed the mechanics module, especially the second half on relativity. The lecturer was definitely one of the better lecturers i've had, and it wasn't too difficult either (it ended up being one of my highest modules and partially saved me from my analysis II mark). There were a lot of resources available for the module, and so it's easy to catch up should you happen to miss a lecture. The first half of the module was just a recap of M1 and M2, with a couple of new things such as inertia thrown in. But the second half was new.

Reply 3993

Are there any MathPhys students around that could help me with a couple of questions?

I've just finished first year and passed everything apart from Analysis (Mathematical Analysis, that is). Passed Mathematical Analysis 1 in Jan and got over 70% average in the assignments but I just did really bad in Analysis 2 in the summer and got 38% overall. My tutor said that if I don't increase my score from 38% to 40% in the resit that I won't be able to carry on with Maths and Phys and will probably have to move to straight Phys. Over the years I haven't had good experience with tutors giving me accurate advice so I was wondering if anyone could confirm that?

Secondly, is there anyone I can go to for Analysis help in the Maths department over the next month? My tutor does not know any of the Maths and I don't think my supervisor will be on campus at the moment. Thanks :smile:

Reply 3994

bump - if anyone can give me some help/advice with Analysis that'd be great. The content in the notes and the exam questions just seem to be 2 completely different things at times.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3995

Gantal

Mathematical Analysis (which I didn't know existed) seems a lot like normal Analysis to me, why the distinction? The exercises and notes at least, basically the same. Anyway, if they are similar as seems to be the case, the best thing to do is learn all the theorems and their proofs (there aren't too many of them) and do all the exercises, the assignments have rather a lot of questions in them. If you can do all the exercises, I can't see that you'd do poorly on an exam

Reply 3996

Original post by Gantal

Mathematical Analysis (which I didn't know existed) seems a lot like normal Analysis to me, why the distinction? The exercises and notes at least, basically the same. Anyway, if they are similar as seems to be the case, the best thing to do is learn all the theorems and their proofs (there aren't too many of them) and do all the exercises, the assignments have rather a lot of questions in them. If you can do all the exercises, I can't see that you'd do poorly on an exam

Just thought I should mention it as it's not exactly the same as Analysis but yeah it is very similar. To me it seems like there is a LOT of theorems and proofs (the notes are 150 pages long and there is a theorem on every other page pretty much. How should I learn the proofs, just going through them each individually making sure I understand them and then just copying them out until they're stuck in my head? On the assignments there were harder questions that were not for handing in that I struggle with but as there is no solutions I don't really find attempting them that helpful? Thanks for the reply btw!

Reply 3997

Gantal

The best way to remember things is to do the following

Go through the notes, write down every single word you think is important (like, 'continuous' - though I imagine that's a word drilled into your head by now) and write down the statements of any theorems/propositions you think are important and not obvious (e.g. the 'non-vanishing lemma' should be obvious and needn't be written down, 'intermediate value theorem' should be written down). With the caveats of not writing down unimportant or obvious things, you shouldn't write too much (definitely less than say, 5 pages).

Now you read through what you have written,

Every word you should try to write down a definition (on a different bit of paper), if you think your definition isn't very good, look it up.

Every statement you come across, try to write down a proof, if after say, 10 minutes, you can't work it out, look up the proof (the trying to work it out is very crucial though) and write it down.

Now you go through again (some time later) and do the same, you'll pretty quickly find that you can define and prove everything on your list, keep up with the routine for a while afterwards, and the proofs and definitions won't be escaping your head for a long time.

All in all this process takes about 10 days in my experience, reading through your sheet of words and statements twice a day, the plus side is that once you've learnt the material in a module very well, the questions you're asked seem a lot easier

edit - I think I failed to stress the importance that you write things down, in particular if you had to look up a proof, you should definitely write the proof down, with reading, things seem to go straight in and back out

edit 2 - the first couple of days are the stressful ones, after that it actually becomes pretty relaxing

edit 3 - Last thing, with proofs, if you resort to looking them up, it's also good to try and think why the method the proof uses was a sensible thing to try

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3998

Pterodactyl

12

Original post by Gantal

Mathematical Analysis (which I didn't know existed) seems a lot like normal Analysis to me, why the distinction? The exercises and notes at least, basically the same. Anyway, if they are similar as seems to be the case, the best thing to do is learn all the theorems and their proofs (there aren't too many of them) and do all the exercises, the assignments have rather a lot of questions in them. If you can do all the exercises, I can't see that you'd do poorly on an exam

I think the main reason there's the distinction (other than a slightly different course and a different exam) is so that the marks from people doing MORSE/MathsPhys/etc. don't get adjusted along with people doing Maths since Mathematicians will likely have a better mark on average in Analysis. I think they only changed it to this system this year.

Reply 3999