<p>I’ll be a freshman this fall, planning to major in physics, and I was wondering if you guys had any advice on which maths to take. I know math 20 has a “physics/engineering” focus, but I’ve been wondering if the higher intensity of math 35 might be more beneficial for a physics major. Similarly for math 52 and 54. I’ve been thinking about doing math 20 1st semester, just so that it won’t be too difficult of a transition, and then math 54 2nd semester to try something more advanced.</p>
<p>Math 35 is more of a challenge. You’ll be able to handle pretty much equivalent math (if all you want is the “how do I apply this”), but 35 is better for abstract thinking. Really, don’t worry about it yet and just shop both, and choose the one you think you’ll get the most out of/be able to handle. If 35 has a terrible professor, take 20, and vice versa.</p>
<p>I’m not a scientist, so I can’t really say what’s best. I can speak as a mathematician and as someone who knows several physicists, however.</p>
<p>Math 18 has a reputation of being poorly taught. Lots of people struggle with it (admittedly, some people who get 5s on BC Calc retake Math 10 and struggle, so it may be a transition thing). Among my close physicist friends, one took 20 and one took 35. Both have taken further advanced math classes. I suspect the latter has more aptitude, but he’s taken harder classes and done better in them. 35 seems to have some proof aspect, though it doesn’t seem to be huge or vital. I’d suggest shopping courses and deciding what you want (both teaching-wise and difficulty-wise). If I had to guess, 20 would be sufficient for standard differential equations courses (not the version of 1110 that I took, though) and other more-numerical courses, which 35 would be a bit more useful (but not incredibly so) for proof-based courses like abstract algebra (which, I gather, has some use in physics). Chances are, 20 would be good enough - I got by without taking 35 (or any multi course at all) and have done fine in the advanced courses.</p>
<p>My two physicist friends also differed in linear algebra, with one taking 52 and the other taking 54. 52 is sufficient, but 54 goes into more depth and focuses more heavily on proofs than numerical solutions. The extra depth, however, seems not to have many immediately practical uses. 54 is hardly vital but I’d imagine it’d give you an advantage if you plan to take proof-based upper level courses. One disadvantage it has is that it doesn’t motivate concepts well at all. It was only a few days ago that I found out that singular value decomposition (the last topic in 52 and one of that later ones in 54) actually has practical uses in statistics, for instance.</p>
<p>All in all, you might benefit from the extra rigor, but you don’t absolutely need it and can succeed without it, and the decision should be made based on several factors like professor, schedule, and preparation.</p>