The Student Room Group

Maths Uni Chat

Scroll to see replies

Original post by assmaster
Damn, I missed University Challenge. But lemme know when you're next on, I want to cheer on a mathmo too..


You tried Iplayer?
Original post by boromir9111
You tried Iplayer?


His episode has been removed :frown:
Original post by TheTallOne
His episode has been removed :frown:


aahhhh, it's been more than a week.....shameee
Few questions.

Deciding what to pick next semester.

The problem is that I'm bad at combinatorics, graph theory, stats, number theory, complex analysis, linear algebra, groups e.t.c.

I'm good at logic and some small areas of algebra like rings, rubbish at groups through.

What is lie algebras? is it groups? as I can do rings, but not group theory. Also, is analytical number theory more like analysis than number theory? as I can do analysis, but I'm sort of rubbish with prime numbers.

Also what is group theory? is that like number theory? is hyperbolic geometry hard?

P.S. So many option. So bad at everything. Suck at everything that isn't logic.
(edited 12 years ago)
lettuce be cereal hare.

Things are not going to look pretty if you pick pure maths. Try to pick as many applied options as possible.

This is honest advice - after what I have seen I think you could get a good 2.1 by sticking to this. If you chose pure options a third would be a good result.

Think. Is £20,000 the amount you want to be in debt for a third?

Inb4 negs because I'm telling the truth.

seriousadvice.jpg
Original post by DeanK22
lettuce be cereal hare.

Things are not going to look pretty if you pick pure maths. Try to pick as many applied options as possible.

This is honest advice - after what I have seen I think you could get a good 2.1 by sticking to this. If you chose pure options a third would be a good result.

Think. Is £20,000 the amount you want to be in debt for a third?

Inb4 negs because I'm telling the truth.

seriousadvice.jpg


Highest grades are logic, algebra and analysis. Lowest grades are QM, mechanics.

Also, your assuming that applied maths is easier.

P.S. The internet is probably why I haven't got a first, also arrogance. Like did hardly any work last year. 62% is rubbish through, need to get 78+.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Simplicity
Highest grades are logic, algebra and analysis. Lowest grades are QM, mechanics.

Also, your assuming that applied maths is easier.


I was assuming you were better at applied than pure, which would be fair when looking at your posts here and your supposed grades.

Evidently I am overlooking something ..
Original post by DeanK22
I was assuming you were better at applied than pure, which would be fair when looking at your posts here and your supposed grades.

Evidently I am overlooking something ..


Hmm post grades here.

To be fair, a lot of my problems is arrogance and misguided philosophy. Like not doing examples and that costing me 10% from coursework test in metric. But, read in a book about bourbaki that said looking at examples is bad. Don't actually learn everything, which is bad and won't do that again. Plus, didn't know what a group was when did algebraic structures 2, which is stupid as it was all rings and then suddenly stuff on groups.

Note, the grades below 60% is from Christmas exams. When I had to do with family issue and couldn't revise because of stupid family, well my stupid sister. I'm sure I can get 2.1, however need a first. A pretty high first now if I want to do a PhD.
Original post by Simplicity
Hmm post grades here.

To be fair, a lot of my problems is arrogance and misguided philosophy. Like not doing examples and that costing me 10% from coursework test in metric. But, read in a book about bourbaki that said looking at examples is bad. Don't actually learn everything, which is bad and won't do that again. Plus, didn't know what a group was when did algebraic structures 2, which is stupid as it was all rings and then suddenly stuff on groups.

Note, the grades below 60% is from Christmas exams. When I had to do with family issue and couldn't revise because of stupid family, well my stupid sister. I'm sure I can get 2.1, however need a first. A pretty high first now if I want to do a PhD.


is this real life - notsureifsrs.

A start would be familiarizing yourself with basic definitions. I am forever in disbelief as to your grades when you don't even know what a group is.
Original post by DeanK22
is this real life - notsureifsrs.

A start would be familiarizing yourself with basic definitions. I am forever in disbelief as to your grades when you don't even know what a group is.


Posted my grades. Can't you see them.

Well, you don't really need to know the definition of a group to use rings. To be fair, I don't know why I forgot the definition of a group in algebraic structures 2 exam.

I'm not that bad at Maths. I'm really not.

P.S. Don't know how to be good at Maths and sane.

Also, anyone watch the Code? as it made no ****ing sense. Literally the worst Du Sautoy TV program, not even trolling. Most of it was like numerology with a stupid example of Mathematical biology. Also, I don't see what's so special about Pi or e. Like they are just bloody numbers.

The code was confusing. Literally, I don't understand it at all. Like first bit was mathematical biology, then bit about standard derivation to say look pi is here. Also what does he mean by the code? Plus the last ten minute made no sense. Also, the bit about complex number was poorly done and ending with Physics was stupid as hell.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Simplicity
Posted my grades. Can't you see them.

A quick look suggests that you should consider analysis courses, though you will need to get better at vector analysis and metric spaces for that to work.
Original post by Simplicity

Well, you don't really need to know the definition of a group to use rings.

Also, anyone watch the Code? as it made no ****ing sense. Literally the worst Du Sautoy TV program, not even trolling. Most of it was like numerology with a stupid example of Mathematical biology. Also, I don't see what's so special about Pi or e. Like they are just bloody numbers.

The code was confusing. Literally, I don't understand it at all. Like first bit was mathematical biology, then bit about standard derivation to say look pi is here. Also what does he mean by the code? Plus the last ten minute made no sense. Also, the bit about complex number was poorly done and ending with Physics was stupid as hell.


I don't get how don't know the definition of a group when you're using rings... I mean I know that you can work with rings without knowing about groups, but I just don't see how you can't know it, it's a weaker result.

I've always maintained that Du Sautoy is a hack and that the programme would be as you described it even though I haven't watched it.

Pi and e are pretty special as far as numbers go.

I think by "The Code" he means "the maths that underpins life and nature".
Reply 6412
Original post by Simplicity

Original post by Simplicity
Also, anyone watch the Code? as it made no ****ing sense. Literally the worst Du Sautoy TV program, not even trolling. Most of it was like numerology with a stupid example of Mathematical biology. Also, I don't see what's so special about Pi or e. Like they are just bloody numbers.

The code was confusing. Literally, I don't understand it at all. Like first bit was mathematical biology, then bit about standard derivation to say look pi is here. Also what does he mean by the code? Plus the last ten minute made no sense. Also, the bit about complex number was poorly done and ending with Physics was stupid as hell.

I watched it. Was not impressed, but then it's hardly aimed at people who have / are doing Maths degrees. I mean, it is part of his job as Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science to encourage uptake of the subject, and I think it's at a low enough level that it could spark interest in someone who wouldn't have considered taking it, say, past GCSE, or might encourage someone to do an Open University course, or something.

I'm honestly shocked that you don't appreciate the importance of pi or e. It's not like you've discovered any fundamental numbers lately... (If you have, apologies.)
Original post by IrrationalNumber
A quick look suggests that you should consider analysis courses, though you will need to get better at vector analysis and metric spaces for that to work.



Courses
Term 1
. Probability and stats MATH20701
. Intro to Topology
. Predicate logic
. Matrix analysis
. Fourier analysis
. Applied complex analysis

Term 2
. Linear Analysis
. Analytical Number theory
. Algebraic topology
. Commutative algebra
. Intro to Algebraic geometry
. Lie algebra

Sort of took your advice. To be fair, the only reason metric was bad because I refused to learn the definitions. However, realize that Deank22 is correct and will make sure I memorize the definitions.

My head is going to hurt badly, this September. Also, is matrix analysis, linear algebra+ analysis? Or am I being trolled by the analysis part.

henryt
I watched it. Was not impressed, but then it's hardly aimed at people who have / are doing Maths degrees. I mean, it is part of his job as Simonyi Professor for Public Understanding of Science to encourage uptake of the subject, and I think it's at a low enough level that it could spark interest in someone who wouldn't have considered taking it, say, past GCSE, or might encourage someone to do an Open University course, or something.

My mother liked it, however she fell asleep at the end. Saying that she understood nothing from it. But, she is pretty bad at Maths.

I suppose if you look it at in views of aiming for kids, then I guess you have a point. But, like if ISA was watching it I bet she would get confused. Like the explanation of complex numbers was confusing. Also, it confused me and I know this stuff.

Why can't someone produce a Maths programme like the Atom programme. Atom was great and normal people could understand it, even if they can't grasp what QM is. Don't understand why you get programs that can explain say Relativity, yet none that can explain say complex numbers. It's a bit depressing. As when someone ask what you study, it's impossible for average people to understand. Yet the same isn't true for Physics, and Physics is harder than Maths.


P.S. Can people give me tips on how to memorize definitions and stuff?

I believe that Maths should be about logic and reason, not memorization. But, it's pretty bad if say the definition of basis doesn't come straight into my mind. However, like all my subjects are pure and they each have about 40 definitions and stuff I need to memorize. Like 40 times 12 is pretty big.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 6414
Original post by henryt

I'm honestly shocked that you don't appreciate the importance of pi or e. It's not like you've discovered any fundamental numbers lately... (If you have, apologies.)


I propose we rename 0 Simplicity's constant.
Honestly simps, I question whether this is actually happening.

Lettuce beef cereal and romaine in real tea - just go over stuff once or twice, answer some problems and you will be sorted. There is no need to spend hours every day worming through books or drawing up revision plans. Just get the material covered!
Original post by Hedgeman49
I don't get how don't know the definition of a group when you're using rings... I mean I know that you can work with rings without knowing about groups, but I just don't see how you can't know it, it's a weaker result.

I've always maintained that Du Sautoy is a hack and that the programme would be as you described it even though I haven't watched it.

Pi and e are pretty special as far as numbers go.

I think by "The Code" he means "the maths that underpins life and nature".


To be fair. I did know groups just that I was confused on what third axiom was, then I remembered it has to be associative. Rings are less complex to me. Like rings look like stuff, yet groups don't look like anything. Rings are like castles and then groups are like blurry pictures.

You should watch it. Marcus Du Sautoy is not weird. That's good as people assume Maths people are eccentric, yet most are normal.

I thought that, but he was going on like prime numbers explain the universe. It was weird.

They aren't really special. Don't see what's so useful about them, especially pi. Also, I might invent a new number when I'm older. Probably will. Also, what is a number? Like 1/2 and pi don't really exist. So it's pointless studying numbers.

around
I propose we rename 0 Simplicity's constant.

Everyone on here says I'm bad at Maths. Yet, I'm not. Really I'm not. Also, I would be a exotic number like a surreal number.

DeanK22
Honestly simps, I question whether this is actually happening.

Lettuce beef cereal and romaine in real tea - just go over stuff once or twice, answer some problems and you will be sorted. There is no need to spend hours every day worming through books or drawing up revision plans. Just get the material covered!


I suppose.

Off topic. What is your height and weight? I'm assuming you are 5'9-6'1. As you did say Marcus Du Sautoy was short. Also, how is your powerlifting routine going?
Original post by Simplicity
Off topic. What is your height and weight? I'm assuming you are 5'9-6'1. As you did say Marcus Du Sautoy was short. Also, how is your powerlifting routine going?


I wouldn't say he was really short; around 5'7 or 8 with shoes. He was around 2 inches shorter than me at least and I was 5'9 last year. Luckily I have grew to 5'11 so stuff be good. Also put on some weight - 70 kg now (was pretty ill so lost loads last year).

Will bulk to 87-89. It's going fine, just got some more supplements and shizzle this morning. Already broke 350 kg total so I reckon I will be a member of the 1000 lbs raw club by the end of next year.

l33t stats.
Reply 6418
Original post by Simplicity

Original post by Simplicity
Rings are like castles and then groups are like blurry pictures.

Eh?
What've you been smoking, Simps?

Quick Reply

Latest