Is maths hard G100

Depends on how good at Maths you are

Sorry...

I'd suspect with it being a degree course it'll be very advanced, but it can vary from uni to uni.

That depends on where you go. I find it pretty challenging.

completely depends where you do it. warwick or imperial's g100 will be much harder then somewhere like queen mary or kingston...

I just went on the course outline and it says there is a lot of work on computers, have i read the wrong thing or have i chose the wrong course, i just wanted to do maths.

Surely you're not talking about Queen Mary college, University of London? If so, they've actually got a large and pretty well respected maths department.

Surely you're not talking about Queen Mary college, University of London? If so, they've actually got a large and pretty well respected maths department.

for example a few of the second year maths modules at queen marys are things covered in first year at warwick or imperial (and of course other top unis)..some of the queen mary 3rd year modules are first and second year modules at these unis..

The converse is also true: At Queen Mary you study Complex analysis in the second year, at Warwick it's postponed until the third year. Does this mean that Queen Mary is better than Warwick? No, of course not. Module names are misleading, Warwick's will be a third year level course in terms of content, whilst at QM it will be a second year course. Even course descriptions aren't that reliable: QM's complex analysis course (which they call complex variables) looks very similar to a third year course in complex analysis at Bristol (which they called complex function theory). The only difference I can tell looking at the module description is that QM's doesn't cover harmonic functions.

As a second example, I once sat a third year course in differentiable manifolds. Now, they feature on Cambridge's advanced certificate, Imperial don't seem to cover it until the fourth year (from what I can tell from their syllabus), and they don't feature at Warwick at all. Sadly, I'm not justified in saying all three universities offer easier degrees than mine, as our course was very much a third year course: we developed all the basic technical details for the Euclidean domain, and only introduced manifolds proper in the last couple of weeks, and took only the most nervous of glances as the general case.

I don't doubt that there are differences between QM and Warwick's courses (for a start QM seem a little more applied, which is only to be expected since I believe they have a pretty hot astronomy department). But I honestly don't think that the difference in quality are going to be a great as people may think.

Exactly my point. Counting up module titles and noting in which year they occur is no way to assess the quality of a department.