Actuarial Outpost Advice? - math preparation for exam
 Register Blogs Wiki FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

 Enter your email to subscribe to DW Simpson weekly actuarial job updates. li.signup { display: block; text-align: center; text-size: .8; padding: 0px; margin: 8px; float: left; } Entry Level Casualty Health Life Pension All Jobs

#11
07-16-2013, 10:17 PM
 cmind Member SOA Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 1,312

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie Because nonlnear says it's not real calculus
What's "real" calculus? Analysis? Analysis has a place, but it's a very very small place...
__________________
P FM MLC MFE C

ECON FINANCE STATS

JOB
#12
07-16-2013, 10:28 PM
 StudyingIsFun Member SOA Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 515

Buy an exam P manual. Teach yourself.
__________________
ASA QFIC IRM
#13
07-16-2013, 10:33 PM
 FactuarialStatement Member CAS Join Date: Oct 2012 Studying for 5 Favorite beer: Beer Posts: 2,045

Stewart Calculus ftw.
Then probability from a manual.
But IMO you won't get a job going this route unless you 'know somebody' - you will be lacking the signal of a rigorous degree on your resume. If you are really set on it, then go back for 2 yrs and get a B.S. I did it with high school algebra while working full time.
__________________
P | FM | 3F | 3ST | 3LC | C | 5 | 6 |
OC1 | OC2 | COP
Econ | Stats | Corp Fin
ACAS
#14
07-16-2013, 11:13 PM
 Kaner3339 Guest Posts: n/a

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie Because nonlnear says it's not real calculus
THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL CALCULUS!

JK it is but it's not as formal as a real book. Not that I've seen a more formal calculus book but I do know that part 1 of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus isn't stated in Stewart and the whole book in general isn't very formal. So I'll assume there's better
#15
07-16-2013, 11:59 PM
 AB89 Member Non-Actuary Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 736

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kaner3339 THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL CALCULUS! JK it is but it's not as formal as a real book. Not that I've seen a more formal calculus book but I do know that part 1 of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus isn't stated in Stewart and the whole book in general isn't very formal. So I'll assume there's better

Having taught various Calculus classes for around 5 years, I can say Stewart is much better than the other textbooks I've seen used (it may not be the best book in the world, but it is one of the better ones). Sure most of the proofs are pretty handwavy, but who cares? College freshmen aren't going to be able to work through a legit real analysis book (assuming they haven't taken Calculus in high school or whatever), and even if they can get through, say, Rudin instead of Stewart, they'll be able to prove Dini's theorem but unable to integrate arctanx.

Plus, Stewart has plenty of interesting exercises that give some exposure to more advanced math topics.
#16
07-17-2013, 12:02 AM
 Squirrelious Non-Actuary Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 4

I picked up a Stewart book when I took Calc I to supplement that class's odd, proprietary book. It seemed alright. Why would people yell?
#17
07-17-2013, 12:08 AM
 Squirrelious Non-Actuary Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 4

Heh, didn't refresh my browser for a while and missed the explanation.

As for degree, I have a B.S. it's in nursing. Why the career change? I'm not that fond of vomitus, excrement, or hospital smells.

I figure that more math will be entertaining, at the very least.

#18
07-17-2013, 08:10 AM
 clarinetist Member Non-Actuary Join Date: Aug 2011 Studying for Rcpp, Git Posts: 6,872

Quote:
 Originally Posted by AB89 Are you sure about that? Having taught various Calculus classes for around 5 years, I can say Stewart is much better than the other textbooks I've seen used (it may not be the best book in the world, but it is one of the better ones). Sure most of the proofs are pretty handwavy, but who cares? College freshmen aren't going to be able to work through a legit real analysis book (assuming they haven't taken Calculus in high school or whatever), and even if they can get through, say, Rudin instead of Stewart, they'll be able to prove Dini's theorem but unable to integrate arctanx. Plus, Stewart has plenty of interesting exercises that give some exposure to more advanced math topics.
I've tutored Calculus now for about 4 years, and the university I attend recently switched from Smith/Minton to Stewart, which was an amazing decision on the math department's part. I thought Thomas was the best Calculus book out there, but Stewart is the best I've seen so far.

Rigor is not something to be developed in a Calculus course. Most of it should be saved for the Real Analysis students after getting through a few introductory proof courses (like Linear Algebra). For example, as much as I love doing $\delta$-$\epsilon$ proofs and mathematical induction, what bugs me about teaching these topics to Calc. I students is that most students don't actually understand what it is they are doing, and are just memorizing a process to solve a problem, plus, Calc. I students typically do not know how to write proofs.
__________________

Why I hate Microsoft Access.

Studying/Reading: GLMs, Bayesian Stats, Time Series
#19
07-17-2013, 09:16 AM
 BanDodger Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 249

Quote:
 Originally Posted by StudyingIsFun Buy an exam P manual. Teach yourself.
Need to learn how to do integrals first...
#20
07-17-2013, 09:23 AM
 nonlnear Member Non-Actuary Join Date: May 2010 Favorite beer: Civil Society Fresh IPA Posts: 30,071

Quote:
 Originally Posted by cmind Why would someone yell at you?? Stewart's first year calc text is easily the best math textbook I've ever read. Most of my math maturity comes from the things I learned directly from that book. And it covers pretty much all the general math you would ever need in a statistics field.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie Because nonlnear says it's not real calculus
Ouch.

Stewart is a well designed book for its purpose, which is training people looking to learn about calculus for purposes other than creating mathematics. I hope that anything negative I said about Stewart was looking at its value in training mathematicians. For some reason there is an undercurrent that sucks a lot of threads in that direction. Stewart is useless for training mathematicians. That sounds like a pretty biting criticism of a math book, but it's really not.

 Tags career change, math, study