Quote:
Originally Posted by poorboy44
I'm trying to choose between Advanced Calculus and Real Analysis in the Fall.
Advanced Calculus (undergrad) is taught at the level of Fitzpatrick.
Real Analysis (graduate level) is taught at the level of Folland or Royden.
Two questions:
1) Will Real Analysis be too difficult without first taking Adv. Calculus? My math preparation is limited to Calc 1-3, DE, LA and Math. Stats.
2) Which one is more useful for Econ?
3) Can someone clarify the difference between Adv Calc and Real Analysis? Apparently Adv. Calc is also known as "Elementary Real Analysis"
I'm hoping to apply to an Econ PhD program eventually.
|
I can't say much about the difference between Adv Calc and Real Analysis, but if you would be using Royden for your first RA class, it may be pretty challenging. Generally, Royden is used for a first course on measure theory and while it does touch on many of the topic from a first course on analysis, it glosses over a lot of them and omits a lot of stuff.
In many cases Adv. Calc is synonymous with undergrad RA. Based off of a amazon search for Fitzpatrick and Advanced Calc, if you are using:
Amazon.com: Advanced Calculus: A Course in Mathematical Analysis: Patrick M. Fitzpatrick: Books
then that appears to be a pretty standard UG RA class; I can't see the table of contents so I don't know for sure, but I would say you are probably much better off taking the Adv Calc course before the Grad Analysis course.