<p>I hear that electrical engineering's math is very theoretical. That is what makes it a nightmare. If you do electrical engineering, do you have to do classes like lobachevsky or riemann geometry? And what about classes in number theory? </p>
<p>Or are those just reserved for the physics and math majors?</p>
<p>I have heard (and can easily imagine) that number theory has important applications in advanced signal processing algorithms and design.</p>
<p>I’m going to be a 4th year EE. And no I haven’t taken those classes. Although I am more specialized in computer engineering rather than signals or devices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In general, not really. More along the lines of differential equations, linear algebra, and basic probability theory. But it depends on your subfield, and how far in it you go.</p>
<p>nope, only upper division math class I took was Complex Analysis/Statistics/Probability. Some colleges make you take combinatorics as well.</p>
<p>The topics you list seem to be fairly sophisticated fields of mathematics that most math majors would not encounter except perhaps as senior electives. I had never even heard of Lobachevsky geometry until I looked it up after reading your question. I can’t imagine why anyone would need to use Riemannian geometry to do anything in engineering except maybe for GPS because of its use in general relativity. Number theory may be useful for a Ph.D student in cryptography or signals but I can’t see any reason why a typical engineer would ever be required to learn it.</p>
<p>At least at the undergrad level, engineering math doesn’t go much beyond PDEs and linear algebra. People who go deep into continuum mechanics will work with tensors. Some engineers interested in scientific computing/computer modeling take numerical analysis.</p>
<p>The most advanced topics that a typical electrical engineer is likely to encounter are Fourier analysis and certain parts of complex analysis. Circuit design can involve fairly sophisticated graph theory, but you likely would not encounter this at the undergraduate level–and if you did, it would not be a requirement to take a whole math department class on graph theory. </p>
<p>In any case, all the math needed for studying EE is either covered in a typical two-year math sequence (calculus of single and multiple variables, introductory differential equations, introductory linear algebra) or is taught from an applied perspective in the relevant engineering course (or perhaps a course named something like “Methods of Engineering Analysis”).</p>
<p>Of course, what sort of engineer doesn’t know lobachevsky geometry.</p>
<p>Thats part of the standard curriculum. Circuits, signals, lobachevsky geometry</p>
<p>come on now</p>
<p>well, why do we have to learn about womans rights when we could be learning about more important things like lobachevsky geometry. I find it highly fascinating? Also, which engineering has the most theoretical math? That is my forte.</p>
<p>If your forte is theoretical math, then go into theoretical math. Or possibly physics, since you like Lobachevsky geometry (it’s really important there). Trust me, your engineering classmates don’t want to hear you whine for four years about how elementary the math is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or flame you for claiming that basic human rights for half the world’s population is less important than theoretical math. I’ll stick to pointing out that neither women’s rights nor Lobachevsky geometry have much (directly) to do with engineering, nor are either likely to be part of the engineering curriculum (though I could see women’s issues in engineering being incorporated into an engineering ethics or history class). The subjects in the engineering curriculum are, you see, generally determined by relevance to engineering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More than that, I’m impressed that “women’s rights” was the least-applicable thing he could think of!</p>
<p><a href=“though%20I%20could%20see%20women’s%20issues%20in%20engineering%20being%20incorporated%20into%20an%20engineering%20ethics%20or%20history%20class”>quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(I wish!)</p>
<p>I heard from my buddy that nuclear and electrical engineering become so theoretical if you specalize in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) or quantum electrodynamics (QCD) that you question how “real” everything you learn is. </p>
<p>My question: If you go into the theoretical aspects of theoretical things such as electricity or quark interaction, wouldnt you have to have a big tool box of math knoweledge at your side? Kind of like how every speciality of doctor must go through medical school.</p>
<p>Rixtehstix,</p>
<p>Just because you are an expert of a very specialized topic does not really mean you have a wide set of Math tools. I know plenty of engineers who can do vector/tensor calculations with ease but don’t really get basic statistics. It really depends on your field and how much it pertains to other math topics.</p>
<p>Yeah, I also heard that number theory retains significant applications.</p>