The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by boromir9111
All this extra reading is good but in the end all they will really care about is your ability to do maths and not how many books you read.....so I would focus on that!


Thats exactly my thought since i havent read any yet!!!!
Whats MORSE??
Original post by BeccaCath94

Original post by BeccaCath94
Whats MORSE??


"Mathematics, Operational Research, Statistics and Economics"
Original post by jameswhughes
"Mathematics, Operational Research, Statistics and Economics"


So you study all of those things?
Original post by BeccaCath94

Original post by BeccaCath94
So you study all of those things?


I suppose so. I don't really know anything about it.
Original post by jameswhughes
I suppose so. I don't really know anything about it.


Ok thank you anyway :biggrin:
Original post by around
They don't though. Anything you get from reading maths books is just an exposition, not the actual subject itself.
Depends on the book, surely? For example, Littlewood's Miscellany is definitely a "reading book" rather than a textbook, but there's some quite genuine mathematics in there too.
Original post by Jampolo
I prefer Ian Stewart though because he doesn't simplify it down to where you have notes in the book telling you what x^2 is, his books contain readable high level mathematics


I'm currently reading one of his books now "taming the infinite" some stuff I don't know about but so far a really good book :smile:
Reply 768
Original post by cpdavis
I'm currently reading one of his books now "taming the infinite" some stuff I don't know about but so far a really good book :smile:


ahh i loved that book :biggrin: First maths book i ever read. If anything, i found the parts about the historical side of maths the most interesting, eg the Babylonians Hexidecimal system, and Tartaglia's formula for cubics (to quote a few)
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 769
Original post by jameswhughes
I suppose so. I don't really know anything about it.


Yea you study all of the thiings at Warick and its integrated so it more applicable than a pure maths based degree...

Sounds extremely challenigng though! :smile: haha
Has anyone read "the lady who tastes tea"?......
Reply 771
Original post by Jampolo
ahh i loved that book :biggrin: First maths book i ever read. If anything, i found the parts about the historical side of maths the most interesting, eg the Babylonians Hexidecimal system, and Tartaglia's formula for cubics (to quote a few)


Sorry to be picky but it was sexagesimal, not hexadecimal
What is Fermats last theorom about? Is it worth reading or does everyone read it so it wouldnt make you stand out?
Reply 773
Original post by BeccaCath94
What is Fermats last theorom about? Is it worth reading or does everyone read it so it wouldnt make you stand out?


I'm gonna risk it and say it's about the wonderful french man i think pierre something fermat and his last theorem? I am yet to read it yet actually - it took like 300 years(?) to solve the theory and I would assume the book is about uncovering it?
Reply 774
Original post by RichE
Sorry to be picky but it was sexagesimal, not hexadecimal


ooops. Dont know where i got hexidecimal from :rolleyes: thanks,
hex is the new dec
Original post by BeccaCath94

Original post by BeccaCath94
What is Fermats last theorom about? Is it worth reading or does everyone read it so it wouldnt make you stand out?


Prove that there are no positive integer solutions for xx,yy and zz which can satisfy the equation

xn+yn=znx^n+y^n=z^n

where nn is an integer greater than 2 :wink:
Reply 777
Corollaries of Fermat's last theorem:

2n\sqrt[n]{2} for n greater than or equal to 3 is irrational (if it were, then p^n + p^n = q^n, contradiction).
Original post by around
Corollaries of Fermat's last theorem:

2n\sqrt[n]{2} for n greater than or equal to 3 is irrational (if it were, then p^n + p^n = q^n, contradiction).
I'd have to say a somewhat lame corollary, given you can easily prove 2n\sqrt[n]{2} is irrational for n >=2 by elementary methods.
Reply 779
Original post by DFranklin
I'd have to say a somewhat lame corollary, given you can easily prove 2n\sqrt[n]{2} is irrational for n >=2 by elementary methods.


I myself am a big fan of sledgehammer-nut methods.