<p>Is there a major difference in math curriculum? What is more advance than differential equations?</p>
<p>Abstract Algebra, Real Analysis, Topology, Partial Differential Equations, Fourier Analysis, etc.</p>
<p>Different kinds of engineers may learn some things in all of these fields, but the <em>way</em> they are studied in math is very different.</p>
<p>You may do a proof or two in an engineering math class, and you may do an application or two in a math math class, but you’ll practice solving problems in the engineering class and practice writing proofs in the math class.</p>
<p>You can just go to your university’s math department website and look at the requirements, electives, and course descriptions.</p>
<p>I’ll add an exception for Computer Science majors: the Foundations course is heavily proof-oriented.</p>
<p>Can a typical engineer student bear those course loads?</p>
<p>
A typical engineering student can barely take the engineering course load…</p>
<p>Is there any advantage to taking Real Analysis if you are an engineer? It sounds like a badass class but if it’s really intense, and it’s not gonna help at all…I’m unsure if it would be wise to take it.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t see how Real Analysis would be as helpful to an engineer as other subjects… perhaps for very advanced, research oriented things, and as a way to expand mental horizons, but as far as content is concerned… you may be better off with something else.</p>
<p>I’m just curious. I had to take Complex Analysis, but have never even looked at a course description for Real Analysis. What’s the difference in the sort of material you’d be covering (other than obviously the one extending into the complex plane)?</p>
<p>Real analysis is useful if you get into modeling, but other than that, no it wouldn’t be that useful.</p>
<p>
Real analysis is actually just normal 1d calculus but you do every proof stringently, in the normal math courses everything is very sloppily done so you basically have to start over from scratch.</p>
<p>Take a look at Michael Spivak’s book on Google Books.</p>
<p>As a ChemE I had to take a course in PDEs.</p>
<p>Ditto. PDE was required for all engineering majors in my school.</p>
<p>By the way, how do you “bear” something?</p>
<p>"Can a typical engineer student bear those course loads? "</p>
<p>
Considering I am the foreigner you should know this, but bear do have other meanings than a type of large predatory mammals.</p>
<p>In the context I wrote that “bear” should be interpreted roughly as “withstand”.</p>
<p>That’s actually the correct use of bear. As in “Bear with me…”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a bit more than that. I don’t remember getting much into set theory in first dimensional Calculus. Once you’ve seen RA, the connection makes sense, but I’d have to argue that it’s more than just stringent proofs.</p>
<p>Auburn, I tried to edit. It’s just one of the lame mistakes that I make.</p>
<p>[In the context I wrote that “bear” should be interpreted roughly as “withstand”. ]</p>
<p>Maybe that person hasn’t taken physics yet.</p>
<p>
Well, you need set theory to do it stringently, I just meant that there are no expansions made similarly to how the normal courses expands the content: One variable->multiple variables->multiple multiple variables or complex variables.(Vector and complex are not really extensions of each other)</p>
<p>And if you want to study set theory there are real courses to do that with instead of real analysis.</p>
<p>Just kidding, guys…</p>