itt math triggers

>>8485074
Can you blame them? Undergrad analysis is one of the most boring classes I have ever taken.

File: 7jn0htj.jpg (230KB, 1337x1289px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1337x1289px

>>8485080

yeah i agree, analysis wasn't really my thing but i loved group theory

Why is that many mathematicians hate calc, real anal, d.e. and the like? Many people studying phyisics like myself loves those courses.

>>8485097
dunno, but it seems that niggers on sci are heavily biased towards algebra

File: ec9603bc80ce46a8a0202ce33cc3fc4a.jpg (47KB, 469x463px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 469x463px

>>8485074
>higher category theory

>>8485097
>Many people studying physics like myself loves real anal
OK

>>8485110
It is really just undergrad analysis that I found boring, just so dry. Functional Analysis, PDEs I found interesting.

>>8485097
I liked calc but didn't really liked lebesgue integrals and such. I love ODE on the other hand.

File: image.jpg (34KB, 992x744px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 992x744px

>le judgmental frog meme xDxdxDDD

Real talk, fuck Analysis and Algebra, b. If you ain't talking combinatorics then you best check yourself before you wreck yourself.

>>8485097
theres a number of excuses i can see someone might have for hating analysis but liking algebra:

Analysis, at least when you start out, is anchored to the real numbers which turns out to be an intricate, thorny object, in contrast to groups which, at least when you start have very simple '''elegant''' (contrived) structure.

Analysis reveals that familiar ideas are flawed and more delicate than you thought before. There are a million pain-in-the-ass counterexamples to things you wish held e.g.
> continuous functions can be nowhere differentiable
> Riemann integrals aren't stable enough to hold in limit
> density and measurability are totally independent of one another
> sometimes the idea of space induced by norms is too fine and breaks things so you need to work in weak topologies.
> linear algebra doesn't directly translate to infinite dimensions

Analysis at the courses level is motivated by its applications, sometimes coming from outside of math. (probability theory, physics, dynamical systems, etc)

OTOH group theory starts with study of really unfamiliar objects right from the get-go, so students get deluded into thinking they are interesting

>>8485195
>group theory starts with study of really unfamiliar objects right from the get-go, so students get deluded into thinking they are interesting

kek

Lang has a quote to the effect that Galois theory is a great topic for a first "serious math" course because it gives the illusion of depth.

File: image.png (1MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 750x1334px

>>8485122
>real anal

>>8485195
The problem is that a first course in algebra focusing on group theory focuses too much on group theory.

What I mean is that groups come up in essential ways all across mathematics, and it's only by seeing them in a myriad of situations does one start to understand them. Someone who's taking their first pure math course doesn't need to see things like the sylow theorems (although they are good for a sequence of guided exercises when learning about group actions), they need to see places where groups arise naturally. Once you actually have a need for more specific results, it's a lot easier to learn and remember them.

>>8485195
i a gree

good job