<p>I am a sophomore and intended math major. I will definitely take Math 55 and 110 next semester. I was going to take Math 170 (optimization), but that isn't available for the spring, so it seems that I have to take Math 113 (abstract algebra).</p>
<p>But - is it possible to do this while taking Math 55 and 110? I am currently in Math 54 and am doing quite well, at least so far.</p>
<p>Math 113 requires very solid command over proof-writing, which 55 teaches. I don’t think 54 taught proof-writing very well. If you have independently strong training (e.g. through high school courses or your own readings) in writing and reading mathematics, then 113 should be fine, else I would wait!</p>
<p>Also, the framework for 113 is reasonably abstract, and 110 is a sort of “more familiar” version – notice they both have “algebra” in the title, and the idea is both will address some analogous issues, at least in part, but for different structures… Even 110 without 55 may be hard, because you really should know how to write proofs very well before 110.</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for answering. I’m trying to determine whether it’s possible to study ahead for 113. Currently I have already studied part of the 110 textbook (the one by Friedberg, et al.), and am using this book called “An Introduction to Mathematical Thinking” by Gilbert and Vanstone for writing proofs.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if that will be enough, and whether it will be enough to spend the winter break studying the Math 55 textbook in advance. Does it usually take a semester of proof-writing to be ready for Math 110 and 113?</p>
<p>I guess I can always add Math 113 in phase 2 and then drop it if it doesn’t work…</p>
<p>i believe most people in m113 have taken math 55 and math 110 and written a handsome number of proofs and read hundreds of proofs. some top students will be the ones who have taken m104 as well. i heard some people saying m113 is harder than m104. maybe this is the time to test how smart you are. but personally i wouldnt do it if i were you.</p>
<p>even m110 requires some proof writing skills. life is much easier if you take m55 before any other upper div math.</p>
<p>I already signed up for 55 and 110 by now. I actually thought about taking 104 instead of 113, but then the professor left for phase II will most likely be Givental.</p>
<p>According to MyEdu, some of the professors handling 113 and 104 are very … intense.</p>
<p>Givental, for example, gives around 6% As, and 44% Ds for his 113 class. In his 104 class about 8% get an A.</p>
<p>Ratner gives about 75% Cs or lower in her 104 class, and 26% get an F. In Ratner’s Math 105 about 23% get an F.</p>
<p>Do you know anybody who takes their classes and have survived? Can you recommend some easier professors for a newbie? How is Medvedev or Poirier?</p>
<p>I also wonder whether it’s easier to take something like 104 over the summer.</p>
<p>I got an A in both 113 and 104 so maybe i’ll be of help to you. Medvedev and Poirier are both new and will probably be better than the other professors for 113. This is Poirier’s website for this semester in case you want to take a look:[Fall</a> 2010 Math 113](<a href=“http://math.berkeley.edu/~poirier/113.html]Fall”>http://math.berkeley.edu/~poirier/113.html)</p>
<p>Anyways, the grading in 113 and 104 really depend on the professor. Ratner is supposed to be very harsh. My math 110 GSI and my stat 134 professor(Adhikari) told me about a semester where Ratner failed a bunch of math GSIs and they couldn’t keep up the GPA requirement to be GSIs for the next semester.</p>
<p>As far as the material goes, i found 113 to be harder than 104. Many of the thing in 104 can be related to the material you went over in calculus but 113 is different from anything you’ve seen in the lower division classes. Also, in 113 the expectations of your proof writing skills are higher than in 110 since most of the people in 113 have taken 110 and 110 has a lot of non-majors enrolled. If you have any questions about the contents of the courses feel free to ask me.</p>
<p>To JetForcegeminix:</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for aswering.</p>
<p>For 104, Jones is already filled up. Now there is Yilmaz, Givental, Dahl, Rycroft. Which one of these professors do you think is the best for 104? Are new professors always better?</p>
<p>Overall, is it better for a newbie to take 104 with one of the profs above, or 113 with Poirer or Medvedev?</p>
<p>Or: is it actually better to take one or both of these classes during the summer? If it turns out that 113 or 104 is too hard, then I’ll just drop it during the first 2 weeks and most likely take it over the summer.</p>
<p>Also I am curious: how did you get an A? Did you study ahead, or used anything other than the assigned textbook, and which professors did you take the classes from?</p>
<p>Is the only Math course you’re in currently Math 54? If so, it seems strange for you to take Math 55, 110, and 113 concurrently next semester. Are you sure you can handle that workload by itself? Out of curiosity, are you a freshman or a sophomore?</p>
<p>Sophomore, undeclared as yet. I was originally not a math major but switched to math, so I imagine that I am behind in course work.</p>
<p>The reason why I think I might be able to handle all that is b/c I am taking this filler class next year that involves virtually no work. Most of my current semester is on studying for Chem 3A, and then splitting the rest of the time between Math 54, History 4A and an EPS class.</p>
<p>Like I said it will most probably not work, so I will most likely drop 113 if I ever do sign up for it, and take it later. But it’s good to know if there’s a chance of taking it and surviving, if the professor is easy enough. That was really my question.</p>
<p>Edit: and the other reason is b/c I wanted to take 55 this fall semester, but Tele-Bears would not let me during phase II, so I need to make up for that.</p>
<p>I took 104 with Lim who is now at Chicago and 113 with Auroux who is visiting from MIT but is teaching 53 this semester. I didn’t really do much outside of class besides going to office hours. For 104, i’ve heard Yilmaz is pretty good. My PDEs professor has told me that the new PHDs are usually good teacher or at least try to be because they’re trying to land a tenure track job. Also, i don’t know if this any indication of the workload but i took 104 and 113 at the same time and didn’t have that much of a problem studying.</p>
<p>I’ve taken another math class with Yilmaz (185), and I have to say he’s good. He explains things clearly and has great examples. Sure, there are better professors, but Yilmaz is solid.</p>
<p>Damn, I just realized that Math 104 with Yilmaz (TuTh 8-930A) has a time conflict with the Math 110 with Grunbaum for next semester.</p>
<p>What about the other professors for 104 like Rycroft?</p>
<p>I’m not sure but I’m taking the class with Rycroft next semester simply because I dislike all the other options. The one with Jones would have been best, and two of the other sections are 8AM classes. This leaves Rycroft, who’s new, and Givental, who gives less than 10% As (6%? wow…). I think I’d stick my chances with the new PhD. Also you can look him up and he seems like a straight-forward guy. [Chris</a> H. Rycroft’s website](<a href=“http://math.berkeley.edu/~chr/]Chris”>Rycroft Group website - now moved)</p>