

FlashChat  Actuarial Discussion  Preliminary Exams  CAS/SOA Exams  Cyberchat  Around the World  Suggestions 


Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
#13




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.
__________________

#14




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




Quote:
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




Thank you your replies, I really appreciate the suggestions and advice.
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




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




Quote:
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  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.
__________________
If you want to add me on LinkedIn, PM me. Why I hate Microsoft Access. Studying/Reading: GLMs, Bayesian Stats, Time Series 
#20




Quote:
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 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

