<p>So I'm taking Linear Algebra next semester which might be my last math class (after Calculus 1-2-3).</p>
<p>Does it have alot of hard Calculus? Does it have almost no Calculus? Or does it have Calculus, but easy Calculus?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Oh, my inner math geek is all a twitter at your posting, foxdie!</p>
<p>And you know what? </p>
<p>I am going to share some of my very own computer's bookmarks on this subject with you. </p>
<p>Here it is, foxdie!</p>
<p>Dude read this book or glance through it...</p>
<p><a href="http://joshua.smcvt.edu/linearalgebra/%5B/url%5D">http://joshua.smcvt.edu/linearalgebra/</a></p>
<p>From the site...</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's Linear Algebra about?</p>
<p>When I started teaching this subject I found three kinds of texts. There were applications books that avoid proofs and cover the linear algebra only as needed for their applications. There were advanced books that assume that students can understand their elegant proofs and know how to answer the homework questions having seen only one or two examples. And, there were books that spend a good part of the semester multiplying matrices and computing determinants and then suddenly change level to working with definitions and proofs.</p>
<p>In my classroom each of these types was a problem. The applications were interesting but I wanted to focus on the linear algebra. The advanced books were beautiful but my students were not ready for them. And the level-switching books resulted in a lot of grief: students estimated that these were like calculus books, where there is material labelled `proof' that can skipped in favor of computations, and when the level switched no amount of prompting by me could convince them otherwise.</p>
<p>That is, my students cannot now perform at the level assumed by the advanced books. But my goal is to work steadily to have them come up to that level over the undergraduate program. This course is a great place to make progress on this goal.</p>
<p>This goal leads straight to a number of tasks. It means first that we must prove things. It means also that we must step away from the rote computations of the applications books in favor of understanding the concepts (for instance, students must understand matrix-vector multiplication as representing the application of a linear function). But, it means also being sure that the approach is not too advanced for the current level of the students: the presentation must emphasize motivation and naturalness, have many examples, and have many exercises, particularly the medium-difficult questions that challenge a learner without overwhelming them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is it, dude. Have a swell day. I think it far easier to read over something a bit and draw your own conclusions when it comes to the wonderful world of high maths.</p>
<p>(^_^)</p>
<p>Want a short answer?</p>
<p>The answer is "no"</p>
<p>Pretty much no.</p>
<p>It's pretty painful, as in tedious...conceptually, it's medium-hard.</p>
<p>My LA course had no calculus in it. I have a book titled Linear Algebra, Differential Equations and Vector calculus which is a linear algebra text and if thats your book, good luck. Find out if its considered an analysis class or not.</p>
<p>thanks mildred!
In the world of overpriced textbook-rippoffs, I can't believe someone e-published a whole book an solutions manual.</p>
<p>Yeah, it doesn't look like there's much math except for one chapter. Looks like I'm done with Calculus...</p>
<p>Nope. And to top it all off, Linear Algebra 1 is usually a very easy class.</p>
<p>My understanding is no, much like Physics it is required as a pre-req, but a specific understanding on the more complex calc applications is not necessary.</p>
<p>Also, why not Diff-eq? Diff Eq lines up well with the Calc classes, and I would not want to take the class much after taking Calc 1-3 (you need stuff from each, and 1-2 semesters off would make the course a bit harder- first hand experience)</p>
<p>PS, as a student considering taking Linear Algebra next year to complete a math minor, my understanding was that the course required more in the way of matrix application understanding (diff eq would help a little there if it does). Likewise, if anyone has taken the course, how did they like their text? (I loved the standardized and structured calc/diff eq ones, but hated a poorly written matrices text and thus the class)</p>
<p>linear is just really annoying..it's not interesting like calculus, it just feels like your doing sudoku puzzles with weird rules. BTW, linear can be easy or it can be hard, as I've seen it taught both ways...it depends on how much they emphasize proofs in the exams, and if you plan on doing analysis, as others have said, good luck.</p>
<p>Linear algebra is similar to geometry in the sense that taught correctly, it can be very difficult.</p>
<p>My high school geometry teacher stopped assigning proofs after my classmates kept complaining. Geometry without proofs is naught more than Algebra II.</p>
<p>My linear algebra professor was retiring at the end of the semester, so he didn't make us do any proof-type questions. I've attempted a few on my own, and they are by no means easy.</p>
<p>To answer the topic question, though, there is very little calculus, and most of it is marked optional in the text.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, why not Diff-eq? Diff Eq lines up well with the Calc classes, and I would not want to take the class much after taking Calc 1-3 (you need stuff from each, and 1-2 semesters off would make the course a bit harder- first hand experience)
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>My major only requires Calculus 1-2-3 and Linear Algebra. Pending changing my major, there's no need to lower my GPA any further, lol.</p>