<p>^In upper level pure math classes, you won’t. In applied math courses, you’ll either have a calculator to do so, or you won’t be given problems that require you to do it.</p>
<p>hate ti-89. buttons are so small and the equation solvers are useless. calculators do arithmetic, humans do math</p>
<p>I couldn’t use a calculator for Calc 1 or 2 either. </p>
<p>Seeing people in chem and physics with those fancy calculators initially made me angry, but then I realized, they are just screwed for the next level of that course since they become so dependent on their calculators.</p>
<p>A lot of chemistry classes limit you to a scientific calculator as well. It seems the harder the math in the chemistry class, the less likely they are to let you use a calculator. For physical chemistry 1 we were allowed a scientific calculator and for physical chemistry 2 we weren’t allowed a calculator at all, and we didn’t need it, either. For biochemistry we were allowed to use any kind of calculator at all, but anything with a logarithm button would have been enough.</p>
<p>In general if you aren’t allowed a calculator it’s because you don’t need it. They’re usually at best a safety blanket and at worst a crutch.</p>
<p>I don’t use a calculator at all in maths anymore, really. The only thing I used it occasionally for was my numerical algorithms class, where you sometimes had to plug in a simple equation. Once you hit calculus, there’s no real need for a calculator. If you need a TI-89 to do derivatives or integrals for you, you shouldn’t be in Calc I/II/III/etc.</p>
<p>For Calc I, II, and III they are allowed. </p>
<p>What they help you do is arrive at the answer faster. However, if you rely on them
too much and don’t know how to do the problems manually, you will pay for it later in
upper level math courses.</p>
<p>Also, calculators are most useful when you have to graph something. They let you visualize complex high order polynomial equations quickly.</p>
<p>In reality, a “math” class should involve the construction of proofs, and no calculator can determine whether an arbitrary mathematical statement is true or false.</p>
<p>No, service courses for the engineering department do not count as “math”.</p>
<p>That would be pure math. It doesn’t really apply to applied math were you have to manipulate higher order equations and then plug in the numbers. (Hence the need of a calculator) Same in most Engineering courses really. Specially statics, dynamics etc…</p>
<p>Theoretical computer science involves the construction of proofs, and by the Curry-Howard isomorphism, computer programs are fundamentally the same thing as proofs. I doubt anybody would contend that computer science (theoretical or no) isn’t a branch of applied mathematics… or would you consider computer science to be pure mathematics?</p>
<p>To be fair, I think it’s a fairly common thing to conflate “applied mathematics” with “applications of mathematics”… however, applied mathematics isn’t so different from pure mathematics in terms of “proofiness”, or at least that’s the consensus of most of the “math” guys I know. In any event, almost none of the math guys I know count what engineers (or e.g. economists or even most physicists) as “math”, pure or applied. As I pointed out in the example above, things like computer science, statistics, etc. are kinds of (applied) mathematics.</p>
<p>Note that none of these distinctions might be too meaningful.</p>
<p>Math has a major dedicated exclusively to computing.</p>
<p>At my school we had: Pure, Applied, computing, distributed, and education. (In terms of math majors) </p>
<p>And what you’re talking about sounds a lot like numerical analysis.</p>
<p>What? Applied math is a pretty large field, and a large portion of it has nothing to do with higher order equations. And you still need proofs for applied math anyways.</p>
<p>Edit: Wait, are you saying that theoretical computer science is numerical analysis?</p>
<p>At the graduate level, applied mathematics courses and pure mathematics courses can be very similar (at Brown, quite a few graduate courses in the two departments are actually the same), since the proofs are exceptionally important to both. Here, the undergraduate applied math courses include proofs but also numerical problems - these problems are generally chosen such that no calculator is needed on exams.</p>
<p>
This is an intriguing statement… perhaps what you mean is that some universities offer students majoring in mathematics the option of concentrating in computation. OK, but that’s not really what I’m talking about.</p>
<p>
What precisely did I talk about that sounded like numerical analysis? Numerical analysis involves the study of algorithms for computing answers to numerical problems and their properties (usually accuracy, although complexity-type analysis is sometimes considered).</p>
<p>
Right, and this is where I think a lot of e.g. engineers get it a little wrong… understanding how to compute the answer to even fairly complex calculational problems (with or without a calculator) isn’t really “applied math” in the sense I usually associated with the term.</p>
<p>Proofs in Applied Math? Extremely rare tbh. Unless you take an elective that requires proofs (like number theory or set theory).</p>
<p>Lets run by the courses:</p>
<p>Vector Analysis: Nope
PDE’s: Nope
Complex: Sometimes.
ODE’s: Nope.
Linear Algebra: Yep
Numerical analysis: Sometimes
Advanced calc I (Required Pure math course): All the time.</p>
<p>Then you have your electives.</p>
<p>As an applied math major I did PDE’s II (Nope), Math for scientists and engineers (sometimes), ODE’s II ( Nope).</p>
<p>Also, the reason I said numerical analysis is because our class was cross-registered with a CS class in the CS Dept. It was a requirement for their major as well (It was on numerical Analysis with matlab)</p>
<p>^Strong calc 3 classes, ODE classes, and PDE classes, even in an actual applied math department, will have some proofs, including on exams.</p>
<p>I didn’t include Calc I-III because those are considered basic classes that all math majors take.</p>
<p>@jsanche32:
It’s a little strange that you had classes in ODEs and PDEs and never did any proofs. That complex and numerical analysis involved proofs “sometimes” is perhaps to be expected at the undergraduate level… that vector analysis didn’t require them is, again, strange, for lack of a better word. Thinking back to my undergraduate, if you signed up for the right sections (the ones for math majors), the course proceeded on more of an axiom/definition/theorem level than a section/chapter/module level…</p>
<p>First you have to define what you consider a “proof”.</p>
<p>Solving 3-D heat,wave, and Laplace equations is not a proof by any measure of the word IMHO (PDE’s) Then ODE’s are mostly about solving homogenous and non homogeneous first and second order DE’s. </p>
<p>The only class were we did proofs constantly (Other than the required proof class) was Linear Algebra.</p>