I used to think that I was pretty good at maths, but now I feel dumb most of the times. I am taking a course in multivariable calculus that deals with abstract proofs, and I have a hard time doing the assignments. The biggest problem for me is that I don't really know my problem. I feel I understand the proofs, but when I am asked to prove other things based on those proofs, I get lost and takes me a long time to come up with proofs. I've tried talking to some of my friends and asked them for ways to improve my way of learning - but none have been effective so far. I've been working quite hard for some time now (when I realized that I wasn't smart enough, and had to work hard to learn maths) and things are slightly improving. But, I guess hard work combined with some good strategies might work better. Please spare some of your time, and give me a few suggestions about how I could do better. I'd be indebted to you forever!

Went through the same feelings when I was taking Real Analysis. I am assuming you are now talking about the analysis in multivariate calculus? Anyway, it took me a while to realise that I wasn't dumb..most of the proofs are hard to come up with anyway. Just keep on thinking about it alot. Spend more time of it. Realise what convex, concave, differentiable, integrable, uniform convergence, continuous, are, and remember some of those basic proof techniques. Key thing is to spend more time. Gone are the days when you could just do the math and run away to play caram board.

I was thinking the same fashion while I was taking discrete math in the undergraduate and later in the graduate studies, most of the courses (such as Advance Algorithm Analysis and Design, Advance Operating System , Compiler Design, Advance Computer Architecture) involved the higher level of  proofs and only proofs of the algorithms. To transcend in proofs, the principal ingredient is to carry some patient and brassboundness. After I read the book by Edward R. Scheinerman, my brain started to be exploding thus opening the all the loose connections. While you sit for doing proofs, always think in terms of "Class" instead of "an Instance of a Class".  Hope it will help you! Good luck!

" To transcend in proofs, the principal ingredient is to carry some patient and brassboundness. After I read the book by Edward R. Scheinerman, my brain started to be exploding thus opening the all the loose connections. "

Forget about writing clear proofs, you seem to be struggling in writing a correct sentence that others can understand.

Pire amigo,

Thanks for revealing the typo(s).

So you have "memorised" the Real Analysis, hun?. Just tell me "WHY" the derivative of x^2 is 2x . I want to make sure "HOW THICK"  your brain is. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bhrasta Kangressi,

I am surprised that all you could come up with is that trivial question. I thought you would ask something harder, like whether I remember the proof of uniform limit of continuous function is continuous or something like that. The question you asked is so trivial that it only exposes your inadequacy. And no it was not your typo. Anybody who has read your postings over time knows how dumb and stupid you are and yet how unaware you are of your own weakness.

To answer your question, the derivatives are always calculated by using limit argument. Take the value of the function, in this case x^2, at x and its neighborhood, x+h, and calculate the difference. Divide it by h. Now take a limit of h->0. You got your derivative. Since x^2 is a polynomial (quadratic) function, you know its derivative exists everywhere. But suppose say you are in a shaky territory. Then it is important to take both right and left limit, and proove that they are equal. If they are equal, then this limit value is the derivative. If they are not equal, the derivative doesn't exist at the point.

Bhrasta Kangressi,

I am surprised that all you could come up with is that trivial question. I thought you would ask something harder, like whether I remember the proof of uniform limit of continuous function is continuous or something like that. The question you asked is so trivial that it only exposes your inadequacy. And no it was not your typo. Anybody who has read your postings over time knows how dumb and stupid you are and yet how unaware you are of your own weakness.

To answer your question, the derivatives are always calculated by using limit argument. Take the value of the function, in this case x^2, at x and its neighborhood, x+h, and calculate the difference. Divide it by h. Now take a limit of h->0. You got your derivative. Since x^2 is a polynomial (quadratic) function, you know its derivative exists everywhere. But suppose say you are in a shaky territory. Then it is important to take both right and left limit, and proove that they are equal. If they are equal, then this limit value is the derivative. If they are not equal, the derivative doesn't exist at the point.

Without hesitation, you deserve an A on this!
In the college calculus courses, most students tend to memorize the formula of the dx/dy or skip the above concept. Even though trivial, it is a fundamental building block of calculus.  Thanx for response!

Mr Brasta Congressi

You seems to be pretty good in Math and Calculus. By percetange how much YOUR maoist responsilbe for the killing of 15000 people? How many percentage were inncont victim?

 

Bhrasta Kangressi,

 

You still don't get it, do you?

Like Rahasya said, just like your master Maoists never know how worthless their ideology is, how outdated they are in the world, how wrong they are overall, you still have no idea how weak your style of putting arguments or how weak your idea of learning math is. Maoists ko aashirbadmaa kunai position pae beglai kuro, but you will never be respected by any educated person, and I don't need your A. I already have enough of them from reputed universities.

Thank you for your advises pire, and bhrastacongressi!

haha. I can tell you that you never went to a good school, bhrasta.

And anyone who writes "Differenciation" needs to learn a lot.

1. First, where did you copy it from? How come you come up with 16x^2 here, eventhough your question is about x^2. It is obvious to anyone that you are just a cheat. Noone will give you a C if you calculate the derivative of x^2 like this.

2. Galileo's formula for distance? Haha. It is Euclid's distance, stupid. Galileo's work is about descent.

3. And yes, I took compsci as a minor. I wrote compiler code too using bison. I didn't want to waste my time writing code for others, so moved to finance in which I learnt the maths including Ito calculus, dynamic optimization, Game Theory, advance econometrics and many more stuffs. While I took convex optimization class with electrical engineering PhDs, I was ranked among top five in the class. Compare the salary of PhDs in elec engineers/comp engineers, and those of economics/finance, and you will see the difference. But more than that, engineering only produces stupids like you (and perhaps Babu Ram Bhattarai who claims he knows economics, eventhough he doesn't know jackshit.)

Go to Nepal, and kill a few more people for breakfast. That's what you all do. What are you doing here talking math? You don't know even a derivative anyway. As for my ego, normally I am polite, but the Maoists morons bring the worst out of me.I can and will never be friends with them. They should rot in hell for the number of people they have killed in Nepal.

Go to Nepal, and kill a few more people for breakfast. That's what you all do. What are you doing here talking math? You don't know even a derivative anyway. As for my ego, normally I am polite, but the Maoists morons bring the worst out of me.I can and will never be friends with them. They should rot in hell for the number of people they have killed in Nepal.

 

Exacty Pire....These morons should be sent to zoo .........This Bhrasta guy...whose real name begins with S and last name is shakya, I believe study in University of Philadelphia. I have seen his one sided comments in hamroblog.com endorsing Maoist voilence , justifying them as killing of Bhrasta people. He posts comments as Radical Democrats . Just go and read his comments, they are so disgusting.

I know this guy...a worthless Maoist,.. I mean how many Maoist supporters are there in America anyway? It is not hard to know who this guy is.:)

bhrastacongressi, i have no opinions regarding your political beliefs.

but you know when you go about proving pure math statements, or problems, you do not bring in something that actually comes out of the proof. i think velocity is a differentiation in itself. and also for a good proof you wouldn't want numbers flying around. gotta deal with symbols. i guess you might have taken math classes that focus on somehting else.. thanks for the help though!

I usually don't like to participate in these 'my-ego-so-big' version of 'yo-mama-so-fat' conversations but this one is too juicy to pass.

First, commando, yes writing proofs is very different than doing computational mathematics. Most people think they are good in Math because they can find answers to numerical problems. I thought that too, until I took a theoretical math class. I like to think of writing proofs as more closer to writing an argumentative essay. It's about being logical. Sometimes you might think you've proved something but it might be totally off.
Couple of things:
1. Know your basic proof techniques (i.e proof by contradiction, induction etc). Believe me they are used from the basic to some of the most advanced proofs.

2. You have to study other proofs in order to write ones on your own. See how your classmates write them. Ask your prof to help you reword or rewrite ones you think you've solved.

3. Remember that if you get stuck in the middle somewhere, sleep through the problem. Believe me when I say, I've had times when I got stuck in figuring out a proof and I would just stop. Then next day, it would just hit me, and walla. That means start your problem sets early!


Second, pire, you struck a chord there and I just had to bitch-slap back.
" I didn't want to waste my time writing code for
others, so moved to finance in which I learnt the maths including Ito
calculus, dynamic optimization, Game Theory, advance econometrics and
many more stuffs. While I took convex optimization class with
electrical engineering PhDs, I was ranked among top five in the class.
Compare the salary of PhDs in elec engineers/comp engineers, and those
of economics/finance, and you will see the difference. But more than
that, engineering only produces stupids like you (and perhaps Babu Ram

Bhattarai who claims he knows economics, eventhough he doesn't know jackshit."

I will dissect a sentence at a time. 'Many more stuffs?' Stuff is stuff. Why don't you take a language lesson before correcting someone else? So you think you are better than electrical engineers eh? Did you compare the salary of someone with a bachelors in EE vs. economics? Also, why is that all my engineer friends are employed and my econ friends had to go to grad school because they didn't get an offer?   And if you think salary is the only way to compare jobs, think again freakonomist. Did you take a look at cnnmoney's list of best jobs in America? Guess who got the number one spot? Oh Shit, it's Systems Engineers. How about that now?

Pire, let me quote your grandaddy as well. "It seems to me what our nation needs is more civil engineers and electrical engineers and fewer financial engineers." That was Paul Volcker on PBS.

Now if you had stopped at that, I would probably not be writing this tirade but then you had to go on and say that engineering produces stupids. Damn, why did you have to do that? That's asking for trouble. Engineering produces stupids? So you are calling the people who built the empire state building, the automobile, the airplane, the computer, the internet, and also the software that you fu(king economists use to churn out numbers, stupid? It's true as they say, economists will never agree on anything. All they do is fu(king babble, and piss off engineers. :)

FF

Fortunefaded:

Ouch, it hurt you, didn't it?

Agreed on "stuffs", but you know it is a minor mistake. Am not going to justify it! So, let me go ahead and enroll in a language class.

As for your econ friends going to grad school, economics is a field made for grad program. Some programs are made for associate degree , some for undergrad, and some for grad. Doctors in the states are employed only after the completion of their grad program (MD). Nurses in Nepal are employed after passing 13th class, and so on. All professions have to go through their due time. But if you have an economics degree in undergraduate, then if your degree is from a top school, you are still likely to make shitloads of money in top financial and consulting firms. (Btw, economics and finance are slightly different fields, particularly after specialization.)

40% of top 1% wage earners (tax filing basis) were related to finance field, according to a paper by this year's Bates Clark medal winner economist, Immanuel Saez and his coauthor (a brief copy can be found in internet, Striking it rich, but you have to read his detailed paper to see this.I think it came out in QJE.)

Personally, sure I went overboard when I said engineers are stupid, but that's how we see it from our profession. ke garne, it is ego problem. Like you agreed, you engineers write programs like horse, we use it. From your definition, a farmer who plants crops should be the highest profession. But does anybody give a fu(k? No. The reason why economists and finance guys dont' care too much about engineers is that they are substitutable and expendable--India and China producing a million each year. But nobody respects China (and even India) produced economists and grad schools in America has only limited opening in econ/finance programs. That's how we control the supply of people in our profession and keep the salary high:)[One reason why people has to study in USA in econ/finance is because of research papers.. most of the papers use American data, so understanding american system is a must.]

An Indian friend of mine, who was topper in his IIT and did okey in our university before being employed by our firm, is looking for some opening to join finance field. I don't need any proof about which job is more lucrative.In fact, most of the engineers in our field want to work in finance field, and not the other way around.

I will be the first one to admit, like justice Scalia once did about his own professional colleagues, that finance guys make money for doing nothing. No one can really predict anything. But as long as we do things reasonably well, either by luck or sometimes by the sheer strenght of mathematics, we are trusted and we get job. These are tough times for our profession, but hey, not many of us are actually fired..they are firing engineers first. Seriously, cost cutting re. Ouch.

Teso vae padna lekhna, mehanat garna nai kina paryo ra pire? Eso Jagga Dalali gare pani paisa ta kamai halinchha ni haina ra? kina office nai join garnu paryo? kathmandu ma jagga dalali garne manchhe sab bhanda seth chhan kyare!!!

You showed a typical corrupt Nepali mentality who want to earn million without any real work (just corruption). Can any thing move forward with corrupt mentality? If there are no hard working people like engineers or doctors or scientist, what the shit you will sell to keep your market robust and make the money.

I am not good in English. Please do not comment on english part.

yes, Sirjana, jagga dalali is not a bad thing. It is called Real Estate business, and it has traditinally been one of the most lucrative business. hamro nepaliko mentality kharab bhaera arule paisa kamaeko irshya gareko matra ho...

arulai corrupt mentality bhanna sajilo chha, but when someone says something along the line of 'all my friend got jobs after undergrad, but economics majors went to grad school' what is he asking for? Isn't he making the same comparison?

Everybody is necessary in this world. Farmers. Carpenters. Masons. Drivers. Pilots. And doctors are corrupt too. I was reading a report in a nepali newspaper about how doctors went to strike after a son of their chef got into medical school on staff quota. They were opposing it. At the end of the day, Srijana, it is the economists, the financiers and mathematicians who matter because they are the smartest people around, and they will always make money wherever they end up. Believe me. I have seen smart people too closely to say this with some confidence:)

Truth hurts, but hey, it is truth. Even in Nepal now, bank CEOs/managers/stockbrokers make the highest amount of money:)