Real analysis question

**FutureAcctPhD** · 08-13-2012, 08:10 PM

Hi,

I just got done speaking with my graduate advisor and he informed me that he could get me into real analysis based on my quantitative abilities and even though I've only taken through calc 1, I've self studied multi and linear. Should I jump all over this opportunity to take real analysis at the graduate level? Also will it look weird when applying to schools that I jumped from calc 1 to real analysis? I know this course is a really good course to have I just don't want adcoms scratching their heads over such a big jump.

Thanks

**taxPhD** · 08-13-2012, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by FutureAcctPhD

Hi,

I just got done speaking with my graduate advisor and he informed me that he could get me into real analysis based on my quantitative abilities and even though I've only taken through calc 1, I've self studied multi and linear. Should I jump all over this opportunity to take real analysis at the graduate level? Also will it look weird when applying to schools that I jumped from calc 1 to real analysis? I know this course is a really good course to have I just don't want adcoms scratching their heads over such a big jump.

Thanks

If you can make the jump from Calc I to real analysis and perform well in the course, then I think that will say a lot about your quantitative ability. However, if you make such a jump and do not perform well, then it could bring up questions.

Only you can really make an assessment of how you think you will perform in the course, I would base your decision on whether to take it or not off of that assessment.

**FutureAcctPhD** · 08-13-2012, 10:39 PM

Thanks for the response. Would I be able to forgo taking calc 2 and linear algebra if I took this course and did well?

**taxPhD** · 08-13-2012, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by FutureAcctPhD

Thanks for the response. Would I be able to forgo taking calc 2 and linear algebra if I took this course and did well?

In my opinion, and it's just one man's opinion, if I were on an adcom and someone did well in real analysis then I would not question whether they could perform well in calc II and linear algebra.

**hedgequant** · 08-14-2012, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by taxPhD

In my opinion, and it's just one man's opinion, if I were on an adcom and someone did well in real analysis then I would not question whether they could perform well in calc II and linear algebra.

I am counting on this to be true, since I jumped from calc 2 to Measure-Theoretic Probability at the PhD level (and made an A thank goodness). But as someone who went from the concrete to the abstract, be warned that RA and other proof-based courses will be nothing like what you know. That's not to say you can't knock it out of the park, but I would find a RA text online (there are many), and start getting used to reading mathematics like a language instead of a problem set.

**EE570** · 08-15-2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by FutureAcctPhD

Hi,

I just got done speaking with my graduate advisor and he informed me that he could get me into real analysis based on my quantitative abilities and even though I've only taken through calc 1, I've self studied multi and linear. Should I jump all over this opportunity to take real analysis at the graduate level? Also will it look weird when applying to schools that I jumped from calc 1 to real analysis? I know this course is a really good course to have I just don't want adcoms scratching their heads over such a big jump.

Thanks

Real Analysis is often considered one of the most difficult courses for many individuals--I worked my butt off an could only get an A- in both RA 1 and 2. As was just mentioned, it is not like other math classes so it would be hard to say how you might do. If you are applying to accounting (my conjecture given your name on the forum) then having RA will help, but not much unless you are doing theory work. Most accounting researchers do empirical research which will not require RA.

**yankeefan** · 08-18-2012, 01:39 AM

I'm sorry but that's a suicide mission. I accidentally ended up in a RA 2 class without the appropriate background (no intro to proofs or RA 1, in fact never saw a delta-epsilon proof prior to that class) and it absolutely floored me. If you are taking RA at the graduate level (I assume you would be using Royden or similar level textbook) without a solid background in rigorous proofs and conceptual calculus you must not be some kind of masochist. I don't know what kind of linear algebra you self-studied (whether it was computational or proof-based) but don't underestimate the transition from problem-solving cookbook mathematics (such as calculus & differential equations) to theorem-proof mathematics. My RA professor always said "This is the class where all the math majors dropout and become engineering majors because they want to go back to calculating derivatives instead of having to write proofs".

**FutureAcctPhD** · 08-19-2012, 06:41 AM

I was a little mistaken in my original post. The class is an intro to real analysis course but it is taught at the graduate level. It is split into two sections and uses a book called elementary analysis. There is a real analysis course which can be taken after these two have been taken. What this looks like to me is an advanced calculus with an introduction to proofs. The fact that it's broken down into two semesters leads me to believe the information will be learned at a slower and more tolerable pace than that of one course. So I don't think it will be as near of a suicide mission as thought. However an A in the course will still look solid in my opinion and will save me time and money from having to take calculus 2 and linear algebra at a community college.

**hedgequant** · 08-19-2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by FutureAcctPhD

I was a little mistaken in my original post. The class is an intro to real analysis course but it is taught at the graduate level. It is split into two sections and uses a book called elementary analysis. There is a real analysis course which can be taken after these two have been taken. What this looks like to me is an advanced calculus with an introduction to proofs. The fact that it's broken down into two semesters leads me to believe the information will be learned at a slower and more tolerable pace than that of one course. So I don't think it will be as near of a suicide mission as thought. However an A in the course will still look solid in my opinion and will save me time and money from having to take calculus 2 and linear algebra at a community college.

The only caution that I would offer is that if the course is taught at the graduate level, there will be some assumption that you have taken advanced undergraduate courses in math. Frankly, calc 2 will not even help in any Analysis course. If I were you I would buy Rosenlicht's "Introduction to Analysis" and if the first few chapters of that book leave you lost in the woods, be wary of what is to come. (FYI I think the book is like $5-10, so it's a quality and cheap way to see if you can handle the material.

**yankeefan** · 08-21-2012, 02:04 AM

If you are using the book written by Kenneth Ross then that should be baby stuff. You really should post the name/author of the textbook that you are using so that we can better asses the difficulty of the class. Saying that it is an elementary course taught at the graduate level sounds very contradictory, but hey this is coming from a guy who hasn't been speaking english that long. The phrase "same difference" still confuses me!