>real analysis class >Prof uses things that weren't

This is a complaint for your school's math department, not /sci/

>>8462458
Maybe you just suck at determining what is trivial and what is you being a lazy fuck

>>8462458
Cite what theorem you're using, don't just use a result implicitly in your proof.

Maybe your just a dumbass.

>>8462458
Read the damn literature

>>8462644
We can only refer to theorems proven on the lecture, if I wanted to use some other theorem I'd have to prove it, which can be a problem with limited time

>>8463150
Listen. It gets worse from here. You don't need to major in pure math to prove you're smart, plus it's mostly a useless degree. If you want to do math do applied and supplement it with something else.

With a pure math degree alone you can't get hired anywhere easily. You have to create a story how you can be a data scientist and that's stretching it because most pure math programs don't include a lot of statistics or computer science work, so you have to have external personal projects & teach yourself programming. There isn't any reason companies would choose you over a statistics major or CS major.

If you want to switch fields in graduate school you're screwed too. CS and physics is closely related but you probably wouldn't have many courses beyond the bare basics in those fields. You'd have to go back to school and take those courses before you applied to any graduate programs in non-math.

Not once have I ever used anything from pure math in any job or outside field any where. The most advance math I used even in CS is basic crap you take as a math major your first year.

I used to be into some very abstract mathematics like category theory and still am but I realize it's useless to jobs and makes you unemployable unless you want to become a professor.

Honestly if you're struggling in real analysis think about how you'll do in measure theory or functional analysis.

File: burka grill.jpg (26KB, 275x280px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 275x280px

>prof never defines infinity

>>8463289
>prof never defines infinity
the negation of finite

>>8463289
would smash that sand niggress. am I mentally ill?

>>8463242
>I used to be into some very abstract mathematics like category theory
Welp, you just lost your credibility. Better luck next time.

>>8463291
Then what is [math]-\infty[/math]?

>>8463242
>le math sucks and cs monkeys are superior meme

>>8463303
Not everyone understands grothendieck. It's okay pleb.

>>8463323
Most math I've encountered in CS is baby tier math found in a math degree. But CS majors are superior in terms of overall earning potential. Better yet, be a statistician with a little amount of programming knowledge.

Anyway OP. Still go for a math degree of you want. It prepared me well for a PhD in another field.

>>8463307
The same as ∞ just in the opposite direction

>>8463296
No, she's a cutie

>>8463423
>the negation of finite but in the opposite direction
What does this even mean? If it's not finite it should be equal to [math]\infty[/math].

>>8463289
>burka
That's a hijab, brainwashie.

>>8463453
A real number represents a quantity along a line. You pick a point on the line and define it as 0. You can travel away from that 0 point along the line in two direction, you pick one direction to be represented by positive values and the other direction to be represented by negative values. The distinction between +∞ and -∞ is just a matter of perspective. The negation of finite is ±∞

>>8462458
>"because you should know that from school"
Oh so he is one of those people.

>>8462458
Math profs in 2nd-rate uni are condescending as fuck. Imposiburuuu.

>>8463453
A set is finite if there is a bijection on it from a set of naturals less than some number N.
A set that is not finite is infinite.

the [math] \pm\infty [/math] signs are used to abuse some notation on certain types of diverging sequences.

>>8463289
There's no single object called infinity.
There are "infinite sets", points "at infinity", things that "diverge to infinity" (this one is a notation, it does not a priori require you to have a definition for infinity, in the same way that you can define "finite-dimensional" vector spaces without having defined what a dimension is), it's all context-dependent.

>>8463242
>Not once have I ever used anything from pure math in any job or outside field any where.
Thats why they call it PURE math you retarded fagot.

>>8463593
I'd say I'm quite the opposite of a retard since I did pure math.

But it doesn't take away the fact it's a useless degree outside academia.

You are literally more employable as a code monkey or stats major

>>8463506
>Math profs in 2nd-rate uni are condescending as fuck.
this. the arrogance and condescension from some math professors is absolutely ridiculous

>>8463651
Why the fuck are you even talking about being employable? you just started ranting that PURE math isnt used in the industry out of nowhere, maybe retards was the wrong word, autistic may be better.

>>8463150
Sounds like the prof. is trying to use the Moore method of teaching math.

>>8463242
>I used to be into some very abstract mathematics like category theory and still am but I realize it's useless to jobs and makes you unemployable unless you want to become a professor.

It doesn't make you unemployable. Having more knowledge cannot decrease your employment possibilities.

>proff gives hand wavy definitions of the reals

muh "rigor"

>>8463242
Mathfags btfo

>>8463242
How would you rank the different engineering majors?

>>8463677
You're right OP didn't mention anything about employment. But I was trying to save him from wasting his time. If he's struggling in real analysis then the likelihood of him doing well in upper division math courses is low unless things start clicking for him.

If he chugs through the math degree and decided he hates math and wants to do something else he'll be in a tough spot trying to get a job doing something else like being a code monkey or data scientist.

I was a bit harsh. Math has given me a tremendous edge in my new field and I still love math so whatever scares most people doesn't scare me. So yeah the is good value in a math degree

>>8463771
>Professor gives definition of numbers that don't even exist
>Professor claims there are infinitely many naturals and that there is number greater than [math]10^200[/math]

>>8463959
I've never said I struggle with real analysis, I'm just complaining about what we can or can't use in solutions. If I can't use log in a solution because it wasn't introduced yet but professor can give us exercises with the same yet undefined log then it's pretty dumb innit