31–40 of 102 posts
Can someone please explain how MIT course numbers work? I get that "18" means maths, but why do specific courses sometimes have two digits after the "." and sometimes three, and if the level of study is encoded in it, why does it seem to jump to starting with "6"?
Can someone please explain how MIT course numbers work? I get that "18" means maths, but why do specific courses sometimes have two digits after the "." and sometimes three, and if the level of study is encoded in it, why does it seem to jump to starting with "6"?
18.1XX Analysis / Calculus
18.2XX Discrete
18.3XX Applied
18.4XX Computational
18.5XX Logic
18.6XX Probability and Statistics
18.7XX Algebra and Number Theory
18.8XX Just project lab
18.9XX Topology and Geometry
Can someone please explain how MIT course numbers work? I get that "18" means maths, but why do specific courses sometimes have two digits after the "." and sometimes three, and if the level of study is encoded in it, why does it seem to jump to starting with "6"?
6.82x tend to be systems classes like networks or OS. But 17.828 isn’t like an intro to constitutional law and 6.42 isn’t Causes and Prevention of Software Project Failure.
It's amazing and wonderful you can get an MIT education from watching youtube videos of their lectures. I've used them to fill in gaps in my education. Highly recommended, and it's to MIT's great credit that they're doing this.
Can someone please explain how MIT course numbers work? I get that "18" means maths, but why do specific courses sometimes have two digits after the "." and sometimes three, and if the level of study is encoded in it, why does it seem to jump to starting with "6"?
Two numbers like 18.XX means that it is intended for non-math majors so 18.02 is the basic multivariable calculus that every MIT alum needs to graduate, 18.022 is multivariable calculus with an emphasis on theory and 18.023 is with an emphasis on application and usually taken by people considering math majors (though also fulfill the core requirement) The class numbering schema is by field: http://math.mit.edu/academ…
A suggestion: 18.01 and 18.02 are typically taken in the first two semesters of freshman year (and many take 18.03 the first of sophomore year, or even the semester before). As you're well past the high schoolers who push up at MIT, I suggest 18.014 / 18.024 / 18.034 for more theory (those weren't available when I was a student).
It's funny: when I was an undergrad Math was quote popular because it had so few requirements and on your page it still looks that way (compare to course 6). I wonder if they same dynamic still applies?
In particular, I'm hoping to self study the Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics, but can't find the answers anywhere.
Speaking frankly, it's ambitious to complete even one of these courses in a single summer. Most students would be taking one or two of these in 12 - 16 weeks while doing nothing else but being a student. Accomplishing the same in about eight weeks from video lectures will be more difficult. I would strongly urge the author to slow down, choose a single course they have the background for and work from there. I can't…
having (somehow) completed many of these requirements for my 18c degree, i would say that analysis is not necessary if your interest is actually applied math. There's a great line in rudin's preface that says that his approach is ~"pedagogically sound at the expense of being logically incorrect," and recommending analysis for somebody that's not looking to mainline a pure math degree to me feels "pedagogically unsound (but logically correct)"[0].
I took analysis and i appreciated it, but i really loved the applied classes in my degree: 18.310, 18.311, 18.781 (theory of numbers) along with algebra 18.701/702. If you haven't taken a higher-level algebra class, it will let you know if analysis is right for you because you'll brush up against the edges of it without (what i consider to be, at least) its hallmark punishing density.
There are other great electives in math at mit, shop around the 18.4* classes and dial in by interest, most of them only require a prereq of 18.02/18.03/18.06 and you can sort of figure the rest out along the way.
Something to be aware of is that for a while 18.310 didn't have a dedicated instructor, so it really was all over the place. 18.311 was also somewhat hastily structured the semester i took it, but it is actually pretty good material.
You may find that after you've done all these classes that you are actually interested in pure math and at that point i would suggest looking at 18.100b (analysis), 18.700 (linear algebra), 18.100c(real analysis), 18.901(topology) and the rest of the "hard math classes," but i really do think that you'll find that the rationale for those classes doesn't click if you haven't taken a few classes like 310 or 701 first.
just my two cents! good luck, have fun!
[0]: this is the actual quote, it's in the preface rudin's principles of mathematical analysis 3rd ed. which is the 'textbook' for 100b.
I did Strang's linear algebra course[0] (link goes to Youtube playlist of lectures) several years after graduating and recommend it highly. I was looking for refresher but I gained a deeper understanding of several important concepts; in particular it's fair to say I barely understood, or perhaps even misunderstood, SVD until Strang. If you're not sure if you need something like that, I suggest doing something like t…