Every math course at uni should be proof based tbqh pham

>>7729527
what are they in your uni lol?
Even numerical methods have associated proofs of convergence.

>>7729527
I agree but I feel weird about it. I wish that everyone, not only math majors like myself, would approach mathematics through proof based problems instead of the usual 'solve it' approach. But then I think that no engineer, physicist, chemist, etc. will ever be even close to proving a new theorem by themselves so it is a bit pointless to teach them the logic of proofs.

What do you think about that?

>>Expects us to believe because he memorized a proof and it's consequences he understands the material.

>>7729578
But that isn't the point. The point is that in tests you are asked to do proofs instead of really long problems so that you can only pass if you really understand the subject.

It would be easy for a professor to ask us for proofs that are not directly in our textbooks and hopefully not on the internet either. Shit like use X Theorem to prove that you can whatever.

>>7729531
This might actually be the most smug thing I've seen posted on this board in some time. Of course physicists/chemists/engineers could do proofs if they were trained to do them like math majors are. There's literally no reason to think they couldn't.

>>7729527
Go to caltech.

>>7729595
Why is your skin so thin? I'm not trying to insult other majors but like you said they could IF they were trained to do it.

I will never be even close to making a building because I am not trained to do so. I will never be even close to discovering a new particle because I am not trained to do so.

What is your point? Everyone is special and everyone can do what they want? No. You can do what your major trains you to do.

My lower div classes (calc 1&2, vector calc, and intro ODEs) were not but lower div linear algebra was. After those we take intro proofs, then almost every course is proof based. I think its OK to not prove to let students ease into it, but then introduce how and why we prove.

then just tell them to deal or leave. If you can't do intro proofs you're fucked anyway.

>hard proof heavy classes starting 1st semester of uni if you choose so
>class averages end up really low and are curved to not punish those who choose to take harder (i.e. 3-4x time investment required) classes
life is good in non-america

>>7729531
If driving manual teaches you to drive automatic

Just teach them automatic
They will never need to drive manual.

>>7729608
>tfw rejected
JUST

>>7729595
>Implying he said that engineers/physicists/chemists are unable to learn the logic of proofs
He just said that those kinda people are unlikely to be "proving NEW THEOREMS BY THEMSELVES so it is a bit pointless to teach them proofs"
He wasn't being smug, he was being practical.

>>7729595
>There's literally no reason to think they couldn't.
There is no reason to think anyone, unless having genuine learning problems, would be unable to learn how to write proofs.
But I think the point is that nobody in such careers would apply proof-writing in their research, while math is pretty much proof-writing.

>>7729527
Math should be banned for the betterment of society. Only the selected few retarded maniacs with autism should be forced to study maths.

The rest of us normal people should focus our efforts on more interested subjects.

what does sci think of elementary real analysis? is it worth taking?