hi just wondering if anyone can offer any advice on good honours courses in mathmatics to take.is fluid dynamics and solar theory as bad as fundamental of applied?!
thanks!
Home
TheSinner.net
maths honours courses..help!
29 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
maths honours courses..help!
by mary23 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:22 pm
-
mary23
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:21 pm
Re:
by ONeill on Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:19 pm
Not done Fluid Dynamics yet but I assume it falls under the same category as Solar Theory.
Solar Theory expands on what was done in Fundamentals of Applied in many ways. The energy equations in particular are important as well as the MHD equations. They go through them all again throughout the course though. There is alot of vector manipulation and you are expected to be able to perform a lot of it in your head instantly.
Tutorials are 'forced' meaning that unlike many other modules you have to turn out to them. They are also in small groups (5-8) and if you aren't confident of you vector manipulations and knowing your formulas they can become something to dread. Priest in particular knew I wasn't interested half the time and every 3rd question was passed my way despite 8 people being in the group. He also records who attends the tutorials which means you can't really go missing them.
The course itself isn't that bad, but you'll find that it's not all taught in the lectures. Despite seeing some examples in the lecture notes, you'll have to go to the tuts for further worked examples. There are also no handout type things for the tuts or the course as far as I remember.
Tell me what you've already taken and perhaps I can advise from those that I've done.
Solar Theory expands on what was done in Fundamentals of Applied in many ways. The energy equations in particular are important as well as the MHD equations. They go through them all again throughout the course though. There is alot of vector manipulation and you are expected to be able to perform a lot of it in your head instantly.
Tutorials are 'forced' meaning that unlike many other modules you have to turn out to them. They are also in small groups (5-8) and if you aren't confident of you vector manipulations and knowing your formulas they can become something to dread. Priest in particular knew I wasn't interested half the time and every 3rd question was passed my way despite 8 people being in the group. He also records who attends the tutorials which means you can't really go missing them.
The course itself isn't that bad, but you'll find that it's not all taught in the lectures. Despite seeing some examples in the lecture notes, you'll have to go to the tuts for further worked examples. There are also no handout type things for the tuts or the course as far as I remember.
Tell me what you've already taken and perhaps I can advise from those that I've done.
-
ONeill
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:25 am
Re:
by househunter on Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:19 pm
Solar is a very good course. Once Fundamentals of Applied clicks with you then you will find the other Applied honours courses are much more enjoyable.
At most the only thing you will need from the Fundamental of Applied course is a good grasp of vector calculus, you'll go over everything else in Solar.
As for Fluids, I'm taking it next semester. It's supposed to be insanely difficult and Reinhard (If thats how you spell his name) is not the best lecturer. Fortunately from this year on a new lecturer is taking the course, so we'll have to wait and see if he is any better.
At most the only thing you will need from the Fundamental of Applied course is a good grasp of vector calculus, you'll go over everything else in Solar.
As for Fluids, I'm taking it next semester. It's supposed to be insanely difficult and Reinhard (If thats how you spell his name) is not the best lecturer. Fortunately from this year on a new lecturer is taking the course, so we'll have to wait and see if he is any better.
-
househunter
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:08 pm
Re:
by OffHeGoes on Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:11 pm
if you're not comfortable with the vector calculus and manipulations in Fundamentals Of Applied then be cautious when picking Solar and Fluid.
Solar (& Advanced) are pretty straightforward seeing as they are both comprised almost entirely of manipulating MHD equations using all the vector stuff you've already learnt. Priest is very(!) enthusiastic, but he's a nice guy, puts all his stuff up on his website and is one of the few maths lecturers that doesnt seem pissed off when a student wants help outside of class. just don't miss his tutorials!
Fluid can be a little bit trickier because the equations you need to use aren't laid out quite so neatly as the MHD ones are, but again if you're comfortable with vector then you'll be fine.
also, if you're on your Fundamentals course now but havent taken the exam yet i wouldnt worry too much. it can seem daunting at first but in last years exam half the equations and vector expressions i was worried about getting mixed up were printed on the second page of the exam booklet. ask your tutor though
ps. avoid Financial & History
Solar (& Advanced) are pretty straightforward seeing as they are both comprised almost entirely of manipulating MHD equations using all the vector stuff you've already learnt. Priest is very(!) enthusiastic, but he's a nice guy, puts all his stuff up on his website and is one of the few maths lecturers that doesnt seem pissed off when a student wants help outside of class. just don't miss his tutorials!
Fluid can be a little bit trickier because the equations you need to use aren't laid out quite so neatly as the MHD ones are, but again if you're comfortable with vector then you'll be fine.
also, if you're on your Fundamentals course now but havent taken the exam yet i wouldnt worry too much. it can seem daunting at first but in last years exam half the equations and vector expressions i was worried about getting mixed up were printed on the second page of the exam booklet. ask your tutor though
ps. avoid Financial & History
-
OffHeGoes
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:26 pm
Re:
by househunter on Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:08 pm
Quoting OffHeGoes from 14:11, 14th Dec 2006
...ps. avoid Financial & History
Especially financial! Even if you are a whizz at financial maths, do not do this course!
Also about the Fund of Applied exam. You'll find that the exam questions are alot easier than the tutorial questions. It didn't click with me until I looked at the exam papers.
Oh and Priest is a fantastic guy and lecturer. But he only does the advanced course, although he may take some tutorial groups for the 4000 level course.
-
househunter
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:08 pm
Re:
by WashingtonIrving on Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:06 pm
Whats this about financial maths? I was planning on doing that one, what in particular is wrong with it? Its that or Symbolic Computation for me, which sounds nasty as its meant to be a pure-based course and I don't like pure maths much, or know much about it other than what was in MT2001.
[hr]
"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"
[hr]
"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"
"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"
-
WashingtonIrving
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:27 pm
Re:
by househunter on Fri Dec 15, 2006 5:13 pm
Quoting WashingtonIrving from 12:06, 15th Dec 2006
Whats this about financial maths?
He doesn't teach it very well, he doesn't do tutorial sessions, just gives a sheet with questions on it and if your lucky he will do a solution during a random lecture.
Also all of his notes are powerpoint presentations (which I personally hate) the notes do not mould well with the tutorial questions or the exam, he very rarely does examples. Just avoid the class full stop.
As to whether or not you should do graph theory or classical mechanics. Graph theory is said to be the easiest level 4000 course in the maths department, but I haven't done it so I can't lend any weight behind that claim.
Classical mechanics isn't easy, but Neukirch is a fantastic lecturer, so if your prepared to do the work, you will do well in his course.
-
househunter
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:08 pm
Re:
by ONeill on Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:51 am
You have to be brutally honest when it comes to course evaluations.
Solar Theory course material was fine, the fact I had to go the tutorials in small groups was not so fine. I really prefer doing things at my own pace and only understand them if I invest plenty of time into them. I've never been a fan of staying on the pace of the course. Prefer to read through things when I've got full sections of material in front of me and not just a couple of pages. Means I can still do the tutorial sheets but not necessarily reproduce the ideas from my head straight away.
For the same reasons as mentioned Financial Maths turned out alright for me. There are only some 16 sets of lecture notes and each one deals with an core idea or derivation of an equation. If you are statistically minded (I'm not), then you'll find a lot of familiar things in the equations. Tutorial work is covered in lecture time but you are given advanced notice of which lectures are used to cover tutorial solutions. A lot of the early tutorial work is simple statistics. I agree the lecturer isn't the best but if you have any bother with anything go and see him. I found most of the problem with the course comes from not picking up the meaning of half the terms he uses. Majority of these are covered in the first lecture so it's very important to be there.
Symbolic Computation I imagine won't be much different to Computing in Maths. It seems to be offered as the alternative every second year. Every Maths student has to take one or the other at some point and chances are I'll probably end up doing this one as well.
If you still have another year to go after this then please pencil in Number Theory for second semester next year. It's a pure course but the ideas are very simple and those who prefer applied courses like myself had no bother understand what was going on. Much of the exam came down to rearranging equations and simple application of the few methods from the course. I think McCabe even mentioned last term that it should have been a 3000 level module.
Solar Theory course material was fine, the fact I had to go the tutorials in small groups was not so fine. I really prefer doing things at my own pace and only understand them if I invest plenty of time into them. I've never been a fan of staying on the pace of the course. Prefer to read through things when I've got full sections of material in front of me and not just a couple of pages. Means I can still do the tutorial sheets but not necessarily reproduce the ideas from my head straight away.
For the same reasons as mentioned Financial Maths turned out alright for me. There are only some 16 sets of lecture notes and each one deals with an core idea or derivation of an equation. If you are statistically minded (I'm not), then you'll find a lot of familiar things in the equations. Tutorial work is covered in lecture time but you are given advanced notice of which lectures are used to cover tutorial solutions. A lot of the early tutorial work is simple statistics. I agree the lecturer isn't the best but if you have any bother with anything go and see him. I found most of the problem with the course comes from not picking up the meaning of half the terms he uses. Majority of these are covered in the first lecture so it's very important to be there.
Symbolic Computation I imagine won't be much different to Computing in Maths. It seems to be offered as the alternative every second year. Every Maths student has to take one or the other at some point and chances are I'll probably end up doing this one as well.
If you still have another year to go after this then please pencil in Number Theory for second semester next year. It's a pure course but the ideas are very simple and those who prefer applied courses like myself had no bother understand what was going on. Much of the exam came down to rearranging equations and simple application of the few methods from the course. I think McCabe even mentioned last term that it should have been a 3000 level module.
-
ONeill
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:25 am
Re:
by househunter on Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:58 pm
Each to there own I guess. For financial I had to buy the book, but it didn't help much.
I did the Computing in Maths course last semester and found it quite easy, mainly because you're made to do the work over and over again and everything builds on each other, so in week 12 your still using everything you know from week 1 (also as Olsen would say, "the exams are isomorphic").
So when it came to exam time, I only had a days study before I felt fully confident to tackle the test, in which I did pretty well.
People are put off the course because you have to do the programming in a terminal window and use unix commands to navigate around your files. But it really shouldn't put you off and I think fortran is used quite alot in applied maths, so if you plan to do a Phd then you should get this under your belt.
I did the Computing in Maths course last semester and found it quite easy, mainly because you're made to do the work over and over again and everything builds on each other, so in week 12 your still using everything you know from week 1 (also as Olsen would say, "the exams are isomorphic").
So when it came to exam time, I only had a days study before I felt fully confident to tackle the test, in which I did pretty well.
People are put off the course because you have to do the programming in a terminal window and use unix commands to navigate around your files. But it really shouldn't put you off and I think fortran is used quite alot in applied maths, so if you plan to do a Phd then you should get this under your belt.
-
househunter
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:08 pm
Re:
by C.F. on Sat Dec 16, 2006 3:19 pm
Classical Mechanics is a very interesting course, but really hard. The content is very baffling and daunting. The exam we had was basically a copy of the last tutorial sheet we were given but then everyone I know got really low marks. As said above Neukirch is lovely though. However if it's on next semester you also wont get to do the tutorial questions on Santa dropping presents around the world...
Another good course to take is Mathematical Programming (it doesn't have anything to do with computers!), if you've ever done any discrete maths before it'll be quite a scive. The tutorials are compulsory and the lecture style is a little dull, however you get all the lecture notes word for word given out each class with gaps in them, and as the lecturer goes through them, you fill in the gaps! I don't know if this only offered every two years though?
Symbolic Computation - if you did MT1008 do this course!! It is honestly a repeat of 1008 with 3 extra lectures on how to draw a circle in MAPLE at the end. The exam is open book too. The only downside is the project, you get very little idea as to what you are supposed to do or what they are looking for, but you do get to choose your own topic. Also it is taught by JOC - but at least you can hear what he's saying as he uses the microphone in the microlab and you do get given the lecture notes (printed and on the computers).
I loved Solar Theory but have hated Advanced Solar. Having the compulsory tuts for it was really useful - it really made me go away and work at it during the semester instead of leaving it until the week before the exam and so there was much less pressure. I suppose it depends on how you like to work. It is nothing like Fundamentals Of Applied, all the stuff you actually need is re-taught and it all suddenly makes sense,and they show you all these quick ways of using the vector stuff which are useful.
Other honours courses I've taken - Groups (really well taught by Nik and not too bad, very pure though, although the exam didn't have that many proofs in it) - Number Theory (awful course - I'm biased though, I hate Analysis). Oh and steer well clear of dynamical systems!
Another good course to take is Mathematical Programming (it doesn't have anything to do with computers!), if you've ever done any discrete maths before it'll be quite a scive. The tutorials are compulsory and the lecture style is a little dull, however you get all the lecture notes word for word given out each class with gaps in them, and as the lecturer goes through them, you fill in the gaps! I don't know if this only offered every two years though?
Symbolic Computation - if you did MT1008 do this course!! It is honestly a repeat of 1008 with 3 extra lectures on how to draw a circle in MAPLE at the end. The exam is open book too. The only downside is the project, you get very little idea as to what you are supposed to do or what they are looking for, but you do get to choose your own topic. Also it is taught by JOC - but at least you can hear what he's saying as he uses the microphone in the microlab and you do get given the lecture notes (printed and on the computers).
I loved Solar Theory but have hated Advanced Solar. Having the compulsory tuts for it was really useful - it really made me go away and work at it during the semester instead of leaving it until the week before the exam and so there was much less pressure. I suppose it depends on how you like to work. It is nothing like Fundamentals Of Applied, all the stuff you actually need is re-taught and it all suddenly makes sense,and they show you all these quick ways of using the vector stuff which are useful.
Other honours courses I've taken - Groups (really well taught by Nik and not too bad, very pure though, although the exam didn't have that many proofs in it) - Number Theory (awful course - I'm biased though, I hate Analysis). Oh and steer well clear of dynamical systems!
-
C.F.
Re:
by Dirac on Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:15 pm
Quoting from 19:20, 17th Dec 2006
thank you thank you thank you to everyone who posted here you are all wonderful and have helped me so much x
Solar theory isn't hard. Most of the stuff revolves around basic vector calculus and there aren't really any bits that are conceptually hard to grasp. Fluid Dynamics is conceptually harder, but again wasn't particularly tough. History of Maths is a doddle. Seriously, take it if you need to improve your average. Priest was a good tutor for Solar Theory, but for the advanced course this semester his lecturing has verged on a joke. Probably the least organised course i have ever undertaken.
-
Dirac
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:37 pm
Re:
by rocky mountain on Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:09 pm
Is anyone else finding MT4005 (Linear and Nonlinear Waves) awful?
-
rocky mountain
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:29 am
Re:
by househunter on Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:55 pm
Quoting rocky mountain from 21:09, 22nd Dec 2006
Is anyone else finding MT4005 (Linear and Nonlinear Waves) awful?
Probably don't wont to hear this but, my friend is hating every course this semester except that one.
-
househunter
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:08 pm
Re:
by paint_idle on Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:09 pm
Quoting househunter from 23:55, 22nd Dec 2006Quoting rocky mountain from 21:09, 22nd Dec 2006
Is anyone else finding MT4005 (Linear and Nonlinear Waves) awful?
Probably don't wont to hear this but, my friend is hating every course this semester except that one.
Argh! What's wrong with your friend!?!
I am too finding it awful! There doesn't seem to be any explanations in my notes, just lines of equations... :s
erm, yeah. Don't know where to start on revision really!
-
paint_idle
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:16 pm
Re:
by rocky mountain on Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:58 am
So glad to hear that! I don't suppose you've found anywhere with a good explanation of Jacobian elliptic functions?
-
rocky mountain
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:29 am
Re:
by paint_idle on Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:43 pm
Quoting rocky mountain from 10:58, 10th Jan 2007
So glad to hear that! I don't suppose you've found anywhere with a good explanation of Jacobian elliptic functions?
-
paint_idle
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:16 pm
Re:
by paint_idle on Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:48 pm
No not really. I've just been carefully reading through the notes and trying to add explanations where i can. It's taking a long time, but the context is starting to make more sense. Only i havn't tried to apply any of it to questions yet, which i think'll be the worst bit. :s
-
paint_idle
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:16 pm
Re:
by rocky mountain on Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:27 pm
Quoting paint_idle from 22:09, 1st Jan 2007
Argh! What's wrong with your friend!?!
I am too finding it awful! There doesn't seem to be any explanations in my notes, just lines of equations... :s
erm, yeah. Don't know where to start on revision really!
So glad to hear that! I don't suppose you've found anywhere with a good explanation of Jacobian elliptic functions?
-
rocky mountain
29 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests