<p>Might just be you're not a visual thinker. I know when I had to start thinking about 6n dimensional phase space my brain started to hurt a little since I'm a very spatial thinker, and trying to cram all of those orthogonal directions into each other got a little hard. Also hard is trying to visualize crap like 2.8 dimensions.</p>
<p>I've heard that the only hard part of calculus is limits.Is that true?</p>
<p>Thats actually the easy part lol.</p>
<p>Integrals are the harder parts of calculus.</p>
<p>I got a decent university, Top 50. </p>
<p>I got 5s on both AB and BC Calc tests so went straight to Calc 3 in college. I got a 3.7 in Calc 3. I wanted to be top 5% of my major. So is math NOT the right one to go into?</p>
<p>How is the math major set up at your school? Do you have different concentrations, or is the major based on abstract math in the upper-division?</p>
<p>It's a math major. So it has like Advanced Multi variable calculus, probability, diff. equations, analysis, probability, and optimization.</p>
<p>If analysis is the only abstract math course you'll ever have to take, then you'll probably like the math major and do well in it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've heard that the only hard part of calculus is limits.Is that true?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Understanding the epsilon-delta definition of a limit took me a while, and is probably the most difficult thing in the calculus series. You can get A's in those classes without understanding it, but if you do understand it, you'll really get all of the rest of the stuff in the calculus courses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I got 5s on both AB and BC Calc tests so went straight to Calc 3 in college. I got a 3.7 in Calc 3. I wanted to be top 5% of my major. So is math NOT the right one to go into?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can do it; it's just that you didn't have the right background going into calc III. The AP calculus tests are garbage. I got a 5 on AB and really didn't know what I was doing. Just make sure to work hard in your later classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Might just be you're not a visual thinker.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, that's true. I still don't think that Stokes can be got by thinking about area under a curve.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know when I had to start thinking about 6n dimensional phase space my brain started to hurt a little since I'm a very spatial thinker, and trying to cram all of those orthogonal directions into each other got a little hard. Also hard is trying to visualize crap like 2.8 dimensions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah it is. This is why it pays off to have slightly more sophisticated interpretations of calculus, because once you start talking about functions that are more complicated than from those that map from R -> R, your intuition doesn't shut down.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
I still don't think that Stokes can be got by thinking about area under a curve.
[/Quote]
Just think "Area under a set of curves". In one dimension stokes and gauss are both just the normal integral, then if you ad a lot of those by the side of each other you get stokes and gauss, stokes gets abit harder to imagine if the surface is curved but you just have yo straighten it out with your imagination first since in reality it doesn't really matter if its curved or not.</p>