Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Maths and Theoretical Physics Course Thread TR031 TR035

12357…14

Comments

  • #122
    dabh
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭dabh


    Aoibheann wrote: »
    That's certainly a good idea! I got to read a bit about it, as I was using the Yang-Mills existence and the mass gap Millenium Prize problem as motivation for the project I was doing and I really enjoyed it - so I'd love to be able to take the course. I chose DG for this year, and I'm taking the three standard TP maths modules as well (and trying to find room for Lie Algebras!), so I'd be hoping to take QFT, GR, the Standard Model course and the Yang-Mills module next year (should they be offered, of course). I have the previous DG notes and have read through them a few times, it's just a matter of getting stuck in now I suppose!

    If you are doing DG this year, maybe you should enquire whether you can continue on to GR this year, rather than waiting till next year. The GR may specify both MA3432 as a prerequisite. But it would be worth enquiring whether MA3431 would be sufficient. Some background in Electromagnetic Theory would be necessary for the treatment of the Reissner-Nordström metric. But maybe the stuff in MA3431 (Classical Field Theory) might suffice?


  • #123
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    dabh wrote: »
    If you are doing DG this year, maybe you should enquire whether you can continue on to GR this year, rather than waiting till next year. The GR may specify both MA3432 as a prerequisite. But it would be worth enquiring whether MA3431 would be sufficient. Some background in Electromagnetic Theory would be necessary for the treatment of the Reissner-Nordström metric. But maybe the stuff in MA3431 (Classical Field Theory) might suffice?

    Would GR be manageable for a JS student, do you think? I think it was originally on our list of choices, but it was removed days before we were required to submit our choices initially. I think we all took it that the module this year would probably be too advanced because of that! It does currently state MA3432 is a pre-requisite, but I'll definitely make enquiries - there's a few of us in the class that would potentially be interested in doing this (those few of us all switched from TP in order to get additional maths courses we found more useful for TP!), so it's worth a shot.


  • #124
    dabh
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭dabh


    Aoibheann wrote: »
    Would GR be manageable for a JS student, do you think? I think it was originally on our list of choices, but it was removed days before we were required to submit our choices initially. I think we all took it that the module this year would probably be too advanced because of that! It does currently state MA3432 is a pre-requisite, but I'll definitely make enquiries - there's a few of us in the class that would potentially be interested in doing this (those few of us all switched from TP in order to get additional maths courses we found more useful for TP!), so it's worth a shot.

    I suggest it is worth making enquiries. Also some module may be taken by TPs in their fourth year because they were otherwise engaged in their 3rd year. (Exception to this is of course QFT, which is probably unimaginable except as a 4th year course.) Also maybe certain modules might be problematic for single-honor maths students who haven't got the necessary background in Physics. But for those who have made the switch...


  • #125
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    Really appreciate all the helpful advice, thank you so much! I'll make enquiries early in the week so.


  • #126
    Tears in Rain
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭Tears in Rain


    So any tips for surviving 2nd year TP?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    Tears in Rain wrote: »
    So any tips for surviving 2nd year TP?

    Switch to Maths. :pac:

    Do your assignments, particularly mechanics. It really, really helps, and it makes the exam very pleasant (especially in that subject). Don't assume if you got away with dossing in first year, that you will this year. It's unlikely that it will work two years in a row - if it does, I take my hat off to you. If you have any problems following geometry (analysis in several real variables/calc. on manifolds), do ask questions. I can not imagine that learning off theorems the length of the inverse function theorem without having any understanding of them is pleasant. It's actually a fascinating course, which is incredibly useful, but you really need to pay attention.

    In physics, make sure you understand what you're writing in your lab report because you will be asked. I'd also suggest LaTeXing your reports - the lecturer questioning me asked why nobody else apart from me did theirs in that format, and it looks a lot nicer and neater than MS Word, or a scrawled report. Actually, if you don't know LaTeX, I suggest you learn. It's useful and it means you can make your notes nice and pretty. :D

    Oh, and try schols. It's worth a shot at least. :)


  • #128
    PurpleFistMixer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭PurpleFistMixer


    Re: LaTeXing reports. I agree and it's good to learn LaTeX. However, it's just "nice" to do. In 2nd year, of the 3 people in my lab group, one of us used LaTeX, another used Word, and another handwrote the stuff, and there were never significant differences in the grades we got.

    Also, re: mechanics. The exam is pretty much the homeworks, it's perfectly possible to get 100% in it if you learn the right stuff, so don't be intimidated by how difficult it appears at first.


  • #129
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    Oh, I agree in that it certainly doesn't make a difference to the grades (fairly sure my group's grades were similar in the one assessment I was at), it's just a lot easier to read. Also, as you say, it's "nice".

    And +1,000,000 on the mechanics. There's also a couple of exam problems covered entirely in class (some of the Euler angles stuff and the discrete rod one) but you'll see that when you start going through the papers after you get started.


  • #130
    Tears in Rain
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭Tears in Rain


    I enjoy LaTeX so I'll probably do my reports in it anyway, even if it's not necessary, I can't imagine anything with more than a couple of simple equations would look anything but horrible if done in MS Word or similar. :)

    So would you say Mechanics is the most difficult of the second year courses? Or just one where doing assignments is particularly important? (I intend on doing all the assignments anyway!)

    I've heard that the Physics doesn't really compare in terms of difficulty to the Maths, would this be accurate?


  • #131
    PurpleFistMixer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭PurpleFistMixer


    It's quite difficult to compare the difficulty of courses. For me, I found...
    • hardest exam: complex analysis
    • hardest conceptually: geometry
    • hardest questions: mechanics
    • hardest because you underestimate it: methods
    I just added that last one because everyone seems to do that with methods (coincidentally it was my worst result in 2nd year maths). By hardest questions I mean that, if mechanics were not so predictable as an exam it would be much harder, but you can prepare for it a lot so it's not too bad.

    For me, physics is usually easier than maths, just across the board. But maybe I'm bad at maths/good at physics or something. That said, there is less of a difference between them in 3rd year, ie, physics gets much harder/less elementary.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    fh041205
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭fh041205


    PurpleFistMixer wrote: »
    • hardest exam: complex analysis
    • hardest because you underestimate it: methods

    Was complex Zaitsev? I found the opposite with his exam, it was much easier than I expected. The way he does it will reward you if you have a general idea of whats going on and are willing to play with equations and stuff. And also learn theorem statements.

    Also 100% agree about methods. I would add that doing schols and learning LaTeX are superflous IMO. If you feel that you're keeping up with lectures/assignments then by all means give it a lash, but otherwise its just an elaborate form of procrastination.


  • #133
    Tears in Rain
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭Tears in Rain


    fh041205 wrote: »
    I would add that doing schols and learning LaTeX are superflous IMO. If you feel that you're keeping up with lectures/assignments then by all means give it a lash, but otherwise its just an elaborate form of procrastination.

    I can understand that about LaTeX but I don't see why Schols could be considered superfluous...after all wouldn't the worst case scenario be that you studied hard for Schols, didn't get it, but would be well prepared for summer exams?


  • #134
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    fh041205 wrote: »
    Was complex Zaitsev? I found the opposite with his exam, it was much easier than I expected. The way he does it will reward you if you have a general idea of whats going on and are willing to play with equations and stuff. And also learn theorem statements.

    Also 100% agree about methods. I would add that doing schols and learning LaTeX are superflous IMO. If you feel that you're keeping up with lectures/assignments then by all means give it a lash, but otherwise its just an elaborate form of procrastination.
    Tears in Rain wrote: »
    I can understand that about LaTeX but I don't see why Schols could be considered superfluous...after all wouldn't the worst case scenario be that you studied hard for Schols, didn't get it, but would be well prepared for summer exams?

    Well, I'd hardly say the benefits of schols render it superfluous. Okay, if you're not willing to put in at least a bit of effort, it's a poor idea, but I think for anyone who tries, it's worthwhile. You end up making better notes - well, I did anyway. You have more practice at the intensity level of an exam, and, if you end up getting schols it would also be rather amazing.

    Obviously, keeping up with assignments is the most crucial thing - but it was the first thing I said before I even mentioned the other two so I would assume that it's a given! :P

    As for complex, Zaitsev took the course this year, but Stalker taught it last year and they certainly seemed to differ a bit. I definitely found the complex exam this year to be quite easy, and tbh I hadn't studied nearly enough. Kitson is down for teaching it this year, so it could be different once again, but he's an excellent lecturer in any case (any maths students will also have him for metrics). :)


  • #135
    PurpleFistMixer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭PurpleFistMixer


    fh041205 wrote: »
    Was complex Zaitsev? I found the opposite with his exam, it was much easier than I expected. The way he does it will reward you if you have a general idea of whats going on and are willing to play with equations and stuff. And also learn theorem statements.

    Also 100% agree about methods. I would add that doing schols and learning LaTeX are superflous IMO. If you feel that you're keeping up with lectures/assignments then by all means give it a lash, but otherwise its just an elaborate form of procrastination.
    It was Stalker. I've heard that Zaitsev sets rather easy exams (though I've never taken any of them).

    FWIW I learned LaTeX and did schols in second year, and neither did me any damage. LaTeX takes about an hour to learn (to make basic looking things) so it's not like it's taking much out of your study time.


  • #136
    Tears in Rain
    Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭Tears in Rain


    Aoibheann wrote: »
    Well, I'd hardly say the benefits of schols render it superfluous. Okay, if you're not willing to put in at least a bit of effort, it's a poor idea, but I think for anyone who tries, it's worthwhile. You end up making better notes - well, I did anyway. You have more practice at the intensity level of an exam, and, if you end up getting schols it would also be rather amazing.

    Obviously, keeping up with assignments is the most crucial thing - but it was the first thing I said before I even mentioned the other two so I would assume that it's a given! :P

    As for complex, Zaitsev took the course this year, but Stalker taught it last year and they certainly seemed to differ a bit. I definitely found the complex exam this year to be quite easy, and tbh I hadn't studied nearly enough. Kitson is down for teaching it this year, so it could be different once again, but he's an excellent lecturer in any case (any maths students will also have him for metrics). :)

    Don't like these courses where the lecturer seems to change every year :<


  • #137
    dabh
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭dabh


    Tears in Rain wrote: »
    Don't like these courses where the lecturer seems to change every year :<

    Welcome to the world of the School of Mathematics!

    On the other hand, there are modules like MA2321/2 (SF geometry), MA3431/2 (JS classical fields and electromagnetism) and MA3441/2 (JS quantum mechanics) where lecturers have been teaching the material for decades...


  • #138
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    Tears in Rain wrote: »
    Don't like these courses where the lecturer seems to change every year :<

    Well, it's understandable that there's a new lecturer for Complex given last year's lecturer is teaching a year-long, sophister version of the course, and the previous year's lecturer is on sabbatical. As far as I can tell, most courses don't change hands too much, but this year is obviously different as there's been so many newly hired lecturers.

    Out of curiosity, are the maths timetables (particularly for sophisters) appearing on portal for anyone? I know that most timetables are currently available on it, and I can get my timetable through some searching/module selection, but just wondering if it has actually appeared on anyone's personalised timetable yet?


  • #139
    dabh
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭dabh


    Aoibheann wrote: »
    Well, it's understandable that there's a new lecturer for Complex given last year's lecturer is teaching a year-long, sophister version of the course, and the previous year's lecturer is on sabbatical. As far as I can tell, most courses don't change hands too much, but this year is obviously different as there's been so many newly hired lecturers.

    Out of curiosity, are the maths timetables (particularly for sophisters) appearing on portal for anyone? I know that most timetables are currently available on it, and I can get my timetable through some searching/module selection, but just wondering if it has actually appeared on anyone's personalised timetable yet?

    So far as I can tell, students have not been registered for optional modules. I went looking for classlists for Sophister modules, but nobody was registered on the system for them.


  • #140
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    dabh wrote: »
    So far as I can tell, students have not been registered for optional modules. I went looking for classlists for Sophister modules, but nobody was registered on the system for them.

    Aha, thank you! I thought as much, but was afraid it was just myself. I appear to have some clashes as it stands, which is a shame - but I expected as much. Now to either switch modules, or arrange a rota between the people with the clash! :pac:


  • #141
    dabh
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭dabh


    At undergraduate level, the subject does not change much from year to year. The text below is quoted from the course description for first year analysis (course 121) in the academic year 2001-02, as taught by Prof. Trevor West:---

    Textbooks
    No text book will be followed slavishly. It is difficult (if not impossible) to learn this material from a text book for the very good reason that text books start with axiom systems whereas analysis (calculus) was discovered and used highly successfully long before axiom systems were developed.
    For those who wish to see a text book the following may appeal (this is a highly personal matter).
    1. W. Rudin Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
    2. D.G. Bell An Introduction to Real Analysis.
    3. M. Spivak Calculus.
    There are literally, hundreds of similar texts on which the light never shines in the bowels of the library.
    Oct 9, 2001
    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    KarlD93
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭KarlD93


    Seems like were in the same course :p
    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • #143
    fh041205
    Registered Users Posts: 992 ✭✭✭fh041205


    Aoibheann wrote: »
    Well, I'd hardly say the benefits of schols render it superfluous. Okay, if you're not willing to put in at least a bit of effort, it's a poor idea, but I think for anyone who tries, it's worthwhile.

    It just depends whether you think studying the entire courses twice in two 4 months periods or once in an 8 month period will benefit you more. I prefer the latter. Having said that, I recommend anyone reading takes your advice ahead of mine since you actually did it.
    PurpleFistMixer wrote: »
    It was Stalker. I've heard that Zaitsev sets rather easy exams (though I've never taken any of them).

    Well if you do no work you'll still fail, but he rewards you for having a general good idea of complex analysis rather than rote learning proofs and stuff which is nice.

    Huh thats weird, it took me ages to get used to LaTeX and even now I still look up stuff all the time. Different strokes I guess...


  • #144
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    fh041205 wrote: »
    It just depends whether you think studying the entire courses twice in two 4 months periods or once in an 8 month period will benefit you more. I prefer the latter. Having said that, I recommend anyone reading takes your advice ahead of mine since you actually did it.

    I did schols while rather ill.. My advice is to be taken with a pinch of salt seeing as the venture wasn't exactly successful. :P This year, perhaps! Actually, did you have many timetable clashes last year/the year before? If so, did you just vary which you went to/get notes off others/something else? Trying to figure out the best way to do things, DG and QM are clashing and I imagine that either would be rather difficult to catch up on!


  • #145
    asdfghjz
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭asdfghjz


    Why not just leave DG for SS?


  • #146
    EuropeanSon
    Registered Users Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭EuropeanSon


    Maybe_Memories wrote: »
    Yeah to be honest the vast majority of maths and TP students are very laid back. I mean we all (or nearly all) take our respective courses seriously but there's no crap like "you can't do such and such you're clearly going to fail and I'm so much better." Obviously there is healthy competition and that's good.

    I agree with your comment on Gel'Fand's book. When you first read it it's like a kick in the face. Getting used to the style takes a while. But when you do get used to it it's a very interesting and dare I say entertaining book to work through. :)



    Personally I can't wait 'till second semester this year. ODEs with Pete. Gonna be awesome! :p
    Clearly I haven't been vocal enough. :D

    Gelfand's book is lovely. I didn't see anything wrong with the style at all. Also, Durbin's Modern Algebra is excellent.


  • #147
    Aoibheann
    Registered Users Posts: 6,383 ✭✭✭Aoibheann


    asdfghjz wrote: »
    Why not just leave DG for SS?

    It's looking more and more likely at this rate. I think at the time, I was afraid of leaving it 'til next year as I already have 60+ credits of modules I'd ideally like to take then (should ones that tend to occur every 2 years be offered again), also the fact that I know it would be useful for some SS modules I'd be interested in, and I'd like to have the background down before I get on to them. However, I may switch it out in favour of PDEs and take it next year. I'm inevitably going to have some sort of a clash though, so I'll see! I might just switch out DG and attend it as an extra, and take it properly next year.


  • #148
    PurpleFistMixer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭PurpleFistMixer


    fh041205 wrote: »
    It just depends whether you think studying the entire courses twice in two 4 months periods or once in an 8 month period will benefit you more. I prefer the latter. Having said that, I recommend anyone reading takes your advice ahead of mine since you actually did it.
    If you think you have a chance to get schols then it's definitely worth it to try... Then again, I too am biased since I did get it, so obviously I think it's worth it.
    fh041205 wrote: »
    Huh thats weird, it took me ages to get used to LaTeX and even now I still look up stuff all the time. Different strokes I guess...
    I look stuff up all the time as well, still, but if you just want to do your lab reports in LaTeX, it doesn't take terribly long to get the bare minimum down.


  • #149
    KarlD93
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭KarlD93


    Could someone tell me in what building are the Physics SNIAM & Schrodinger Lecture Theatres. Thanks!


  • #150
    PurpleFistMixer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭PurpleFistMixer


    KarlD93 wrote: »
    Could someone tell me in what building are the Physics SNIAM & Schrodinger Lecture Theatres. Thanks!
    The Schrodinger Lecture Theatre is in the top floor of the Fitzgerald building. When you're walking to the Hamilton from the front of college (so going west to east), just after the cricket pitch, the big old looking building to your left is the Fitzgerald building (it has a little green garden infront of it with a few benches - we call this the Physics Garden). The first building after this on your left as you continue walking is the SNIAM building (it has lots of bike racks beside it). In there are your lab classes (first floor, if I recall correctly), and the SNIAM lecture theatre is in the basement of this building.

    It will all become very apparent once you get there though!


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Unisaur 64
    Registered Users Posts: 22 ✭Unisaur 64


    dabh wrote: »
    At undergraduate level, the subject does not change much from year to year. The text below is quoted from the course description for first year analysis (course 121) in the academic year 2001-02, as taught by Prof. Trevor West:---

    Textbooks
    No text book will be followed slavishly. It is difficult (if not impossible) to learn this material from a text book for the very good reason that text books start with axiom systems whereas analysis (calculus) was discovered and used highly successfully long before axiom systems were developed.
    For those who wish to see a text book the following may appeal (this is a highly personal matter).
    1. W. Rudin Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
    2. D.G. Bell An Introduction to Real Analysis.
    3. M. Spivak Calculus.
    There are literally, hundreds of similar texts on which the light never shines in the bowels of the library.
    Oct 9, 2001

    Thanks, Dabh :)


Advertisement