Just finished my calc3 final exam
pic related
How much of that did you know at the start of Calc 1?
>>8075608
Very easy you just need to know about the geometric series and telescoping sums.
>>8075605
part 2
also rate the exam
>>8075607
not much just (algebra)
>>8075610
No that's not enough, try to solve the first question if you can.
>>8075619
4. dy limits are x^2 to x in that order
dx limits are 0 to 1 in that order
5. integration of r^2 too lazy to do rest
6. integrate x+y with the bounds given
dy from 0 to sqrt(x)
dx from 0 to 4
7. really easy
8. integrate -2sin^2(t)cos(t) and cos(t) on the interval
9. integrate 2x-2y over whatever bounds that is
10. triple integral is too hard for me
11. idk what that's even asking
12. taylor expand around x=0
13. no idea
>>8075611
Isn't 12 just the binomial series for α = -1?
Also 13 can be solved using the Leibniz criterion
>>8075605
Guide's you through some of the problems.
Use 'x' to solve/compute this. Instead of just asking you to compute x.
How much time do you have to complete it ?
All is piss easy to be honest, just depends on the time you have.
>>8075689
This is probably a take home exam and he cheated his way though it
I took calc 3 from a community college over the summer because the course filled up at my real uni and it was a total joke. I don't thik I could have done any of the questions in your exam except #2, 3, 4 with only what the course covered
>>8075690
A take home calculus exam could easily be computed with WolframAlpha and/or Mathematica. Surely the teacher knows this and would never do something as stupid as giving a take-home calc exam.
>>8075605
Looks so much easier than the final I had last week for calc 3. I'm jelly
A lot of the stuff is mindless and trivial.
>>8075804
Same here, it was way too easy and I didn't learn shit. I have no idea what real cal III is now but at least I have a decent textbook for when I have to actually learn something later.
Half the people were still failing the class but half of the class was in civil engineering.
That's just filling in the numbers and doing the integral stuff, I wish my calc exam was this easy..
>>8075874
>Half the people were still failing the class but half of the class was in civil engineering.
kek
>guys look how hard my undergrad math exam was LOL
Jesus this is so much easier than mine was.
>>8075966
What the fuck was on your exam? How difficult does a calc 3 exam need to be in order to be /sci/ certified?
What multivar calc text could I use in order to be caught up with REAL calc 3.
>>8075994
Even wikiversity has proper calc 3 exams:
https://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Kurs:Analysis_3/3/Klausur
>>8076021
>calc 3
>link clearly says "Analysis 3"
Calculus is foreign to someone studying math at a German university.
Too easy. If you couldn't answer those questions, you belong in >>>/soc/
>>8076045
Analysis is the German equivalent of calculus you dumb fuck
Source: I'm German
>>8076079
But their calculus courses are less rigorous. Have you ever heard the term "proof-based math?" Because I only know that from /sci/.
What is done in German universities in "Analysis" courses is much closer to what is referred to as "real analysis" in American universities, which is not usually taken in first year in undergrad.
Calculus is the "Höhere Mathematik" an engineer might take in Germany.
>>8075605
I don't see a single task there where you have to proof something, also where are the other topics like Topology, Sigma-Algebren and manifolds? It looks like first or second semestre in Germany.
>>8076104
>What is done in German universities in "Analysis" courses is much closer to what is referred to as "real analysis" in American universities, which is not usually taken in first year in undergrad.
What the fuck?! Real analysis is not first year?!
>>8076119
It is a grad course as far as I am aware of, but do not quote me on this. I bet advanced(?) undergrads can also take that. And maybe some universities with more difficult math programs go straight to real analysis.
But as I said, their calculus is closer to "höhere Mathematik" that many non-math majors like engineers have in Germany, with an emphasis on techniques rather than proofs and rigor.
>>8076132
I don't actually want to believe that.
Topology is compulsory nowadays for research, without having even done analysis, how are post grads even supposed to do anything worthwhile?
I know that americans do vector analysis, but again, how do they even talk about results such as the extreme value theorem (for example) without real analysis?
>>8076138
>I don't actually want to believe that.
Well, look at the syllabus of this real anylsis course at MIT: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-100c-real-analysis-fall-2012/index.htm
Prerequisites include multivariable calculus and differential equations.
Over there, programs are just structured very differently.
>>8076153
Fortunately that's an undergraduate course, but yes, that is quite bizarre.
>>8076190
>>8076119
>>8076132
>>8076138
>>8076153
>>8076165
"Typical" burger undergraduate program is:
Calculus 1 --> Calculus 2 --> Calculus 3 --> ODE/proof course/Calculus 4/bunch of bs,
leading to a real analysis course in the first semester of year 3 of undergraduate.
Prepared students start year 1 in analysis or in an honors sequence isomorphic to analysis (not a canonical isomorphism).
Ill-prepared students might not see analysis until year 4 of undergraduate. Cry for the burgers!
>>8076217
>proof course
What's this? UK here and I've never heard of a course dedicated for proofs, we usually prove things as soon as we start university in analysis.
>>8076217
I can't see how they do complex analysis, fourier analysis, functional analysis and ODE/PDEs (rigorously) if they start with RA in the first year.
I assume they do topology before RA, even though it may be unmotivated.
>>8076229
USA (USA! USA!) "Calculus" courses run at the level of Stewart's Calculus. Computation, not thinking, not abstraction. Hence, roughly two years of mundane calculation.
Consequently, most burger programs require a "proof" course to wean students. Wat is induction? Wat is 'implies'? Wat is quantifier? Wat is epsilon? Wat is isomorphism? Wat.
For the "proof" course, think Rudin, think Pugh.
In "algebra proof," think Gallian. Only strong undergraduates see Artin or D & F, etc. etc.
>>8076255
How come, for example, MIT is ranked so highly if that's how it is?
I'm genuinely puzzled and just talked about this with a friend of mine too. "How do they do topology?", "the calculations they're doing must be really difficult if they're doing it for that long" are things that came up.
Care to enlighten us on this?
>>8076412
There is a difference between MIT and your average state school in the US.
They still teach very basic calculus at that level at MIT, but the people who take it are mostly people who major in business or biology. Most people who study math or physics start with more advanced versions of classes or the intro to analysis class (Rudin).
>>8076412
Note modifiers "most" and "typical." MIT is not typical. Think instead of many University of X or X State University places. At those, the honors or elite might do topology.
How to do topology? "Most" and "typical" might not see a full Munkres-esque topology.
Hard calculations? Not at all.
Exercise for reader: Take a moment to look up an undergraduate math sequence at three burger University of X instances. Summarize your findings in a 3--17 word essay.
>>8076255
My state school used Artin for undergrad Algebra, and one semester of algebra was required by all math majors. I am pretty sure this isn't atypical.
Good for you op
>>8075605
Oh my gosh I almost wish my calc3 final where like that. But then my degree would feel worthless.
>>8076132
Europeans actually come onto /sci/, make up unfounded things about American education, and then sit around swapping apocrypha without any clue of what actually goes on. I'd really like to know what prompts this behavior.
>>8075619
-1/2
>>8076536
Because some of them did some time in the States, teaching in those programs?
Because they are French acolytes of Grothendieck and Deligne?
Because they are secret Australian shitposters?
>>8076412
It's the same shit at Harvard. If analysis were really essential, then these yuropoors and Ausfags would have universities that are at the top of the list, but because the aforementioned fields are useless, it explains why their people come to our country to study.
>>8075605
Look like a pretty standard calc 3 test, very similar to mine except we covered sequences and series in calc 2
Pretty standard, except queston 1-4, they were already covered in calc 2.
Our calc 3 was easier though.
http://courses.mai.liu.se/GU/TATA43/Tentor/TATA43-20160107-UL.pdf
>>8077189
your post reads like a trainwreck and it's impossible to understand. what are you trying to say?
>>8076475
I can confirm. My ex-gf did math at Podunk State University. She did a calc sequence, diffy q's, 2 semesters real analysis, something called "discrete math" (which was apparently just truth tables for 16 weeks), 2 semesters of linear algebra (both semesters were properly contained in 1 semester of LA at my university), and probability.
Here's the bad part:
According to her, you couldn't even take classes like topology or differential geometry unless you got approval to enter a special program that allowed you to register for grad classes (plot twist: it cost 3k extra in tuition).
She did get a 20 on the Putnam exam, so I guess it wasn't that bad of a program.
>>8077189
>Cambridge
Retry anon
>>8077334
Not sure how much tuition is already there, but here it's £9000, or £23000 if you're an international student.
