Pure vs. Applied Mathematics. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Forbidden.
- Start date
x.Exhaust.x
Retired Member
Pure sounds pwnage, kthxbai.
I like Applied Mathematics because we can get some intuition from real-world problems. It really complements applied areas, ie, physics, engineering, some commerce majors like finance and actuarial studies.
The most interesting courses I did were applied: stochastic modelling, and also solving PDEs numerically (finite difference) and analytically (integral transforms, asymptotic expansions, etc). If I had to go back, I would have done more courses with physical applications, such as oceanography and atmospheric modelling, fluid dynamics, etc.
The most interesting courses I did were applied: stochastic modelling, and also solving PDEs numerically (finite difference) and analytically (integral transforms, asymptotic expansions, etc). If I had to go back, I would have done more courses with physical applications, such as oceanography and atmospheric modelling, fluid dynamics, etc.
I agree with you about doing more applied maths.§eraphim said:
It seems to me that the teaching of applied at UNSW in the first 2 years of the degree is distinctly unimpresive and this turns a lot of people off doing it in third year - I know many people who have decided never to touch applied again after doing DEs. (And that hideous dose of vector calc that they give you in HSVC.)
It is a pity because UNSW actually offers quite alot of interesting stuff in applied at the graduate level.
I wonder what applied is like at other unis?
darkliight
I ponder, weak and weary
Which book? I bought Rudin's a while ago, and it's great, but I was wondering what else was out there and good.3unitz said:omg guys bought a book on analysis <3
im gonna vote for pure
Applied Mathematics would be more useful in life (eg. for Engineering).
I guess it's like learning the piano. Most people learn Classical piano first, and then move onto Jazz or whatever styles they want and play/improvise songs.
We have a maths teacher at school, who comes from an engineering background. He put the repeater sign on top of a recurring decimal after about 5 sig numbers later, whereas you usually would put it on the first number.
He also writes that 0.9 repeater equals 1, which isn't actually really true, as it approaches 1 (0.9 repeated --> 1).
I guess it's like learning the piano. Most people learn Classical piano first, and then move onto Jazz or whatever styles they want and play/improvise songs.
We have a maths teacher at school, who comes from an engineering background. He put the repeater sign on top of a recurring decimal after about 5 sig numbers later, whereas you usually would put it on the first number.
He also writes that 0.9 repeater equals 1, which isn't actually really true, as it approaches 1 (0.9 repeated --> 1).
kaz1
et tu
Can't all maths be applied to real world situations?
Forbidden.
Banned
Fraud analysis is big buisness with financial institutions right now.kaz1 said:
As for now I work with physical problems.
me121
Premium Member
i think the definition of pure and applied is a bit of a blur. because things that are pure still have applications, and things that are applied are still very pure.. though i think the wikipedia article puts the sections in nice categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Fields_of_mathematics
darkliight
I ponder, weak and weary
So .. you didn't read the link? Or you're trolling.
Just in case you're not, or don't get the link, what is your 0.000...1 number divided by 10? If it's the same number (ie, you just get back 0.000...1 again), and I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion, then I guess you just invented a fancy (but unhelpful) way to write "0" (it's the only number that can be divided by 10 to give itself). In which case, 0.999... + 0.000...1 = 0.999... + 0 = 0.999... = 1.
Read the link given, it has plenty of simple proofs of the statement.
Just in case you're not, or don't get the link, what is your 0.000...1 number divided by 10? If it's the same number (ie, you just get back 0.000...1 again), and I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion, then I guess you just invented a fancy (but unhelpful) way to write "0" (it's the only number that can be divided by 10 to give itself). In which case, 0.999... + 0.000...1 = 0.999... + 0 = 0.999... = 1.
Read the link given, it has plenty of simple proofs of the statement.
so (1-0.99...)/(1-0.99...) is undefined (ie. is 0/0)?
+ it seems to me that the pure/applied distinction seems to only be relevant to university study - to tell you whether the course is related to the applications or not
would it probably be best to take mainly pure courses first, and then applied later on? (not that I need to think about this for a few years)
+ it seems to me that the pure/applied distinction seems to only be relevant to university study - to tell you whether the course is related to the applications or not
would it probably be best to take mainly pure courses first, and then applied later on? (not that I need to think about this for a few years)
Forbidden.
Banned
Indeterminate form, l'Hopital to the rescue?lolokay said:
i.e if f(x)/g(x) is in the indeterminate form 0/0 or infinity/infinity, then you seek f'(x)/g'(x) and so on until you get a limit?