rubikford

I was referring to the second one. I think I mixed up the title with this other book.

It's not really an economics book, but it sure is interesting. How I Became A Quant - Emmanuel Derman

Can you comment on each of these books, and if they complement Rudin? My advisor suggested these to me. 1.) Pugh's Real Mathematical Analysis 2.) Bressoud's A Radical Approach to Real Analysis 3.) Strichartz's The Way of Analysis

I wanted to apply, but my adviser told me to work on my math skills over the summer, and apply for the 2009 program instead.

Aside from famous economists (e.g. Steven Levitt), have there been cases of successful Economics PhD applicants who do not have the "requisite" math classes that most of us are taking, or who lack the sufficient math requirements? (e.g., someone who lacks linear algebra, differential equations, math stats, analysis, or someone who only took classes up to multivariable calculus, and only took the required math economics and econometrics classes, like a friend of mine from abroad)? I was just wondering because most of us are taking a lot of math classes, and some of us (like me) are kind of freaking out with some of the math that we've been seeing (for instance, I've been reading the first few chapters of Baby Rudin, and I'm so afraid that I might not understand the proofs that I always try to replicate them. Hope this does not happen when I get to my analysis class next year). If so, how do they cope with their "lack of math"?

Thanks for your replies. I hope I do well on the analysis series (which I cannot avoid since I'm an Econ/Math major, sadly.) Uhm, would taking grad econ classes help? I'm planning to take grad metrics and micro during my senior year.

Two questions: 1.) When adcoms evaluate your appplication, which GPA matters more, the overall GPA or your Math GPA/Econ GPA? I recently got my transcript from the registrar, and my overall GPA kinda sucks (3.526, thanks to Physics) but the Math GPA (3.814) and the Econ GPA (3.775) are considerably higher. 2.) Uhm, yes, I will take the first of the three-course Analysis series during the Fall semester, but does real analysis matter if you are interested in macroeconomics/econometrics? Or, are there much more "valuable" courses?

Yeah, it is possible to take courses from one UC and get it credited to your UC campus. You just have to inform your department earlier, and fill out a form so that it would get credited. I'm not a PhD student, but I did ask my adviser if that can be done.

In a nutshell, that's my dilemma. I'm kinda doubting myself right now. The third examination in abstract math was just over yesterday, and I kinda hyperventilated while looking at the test questions. I'm pretty sure I only got a quarter of the problems right, and the rest... Well, you get the picture. We don't have a final examination, so I'm projecting that the highest grade that I might get is a B-/B (unless a miracle happens and I get a B+). Does getting a B in an intro to advanced math class signal that you're "unfit" for a PhD program? I'm kinda nervous, because I'll be taking the first of the three-course Analysis series next quarter, and although I got an A in Calc I-III and Vector Analysis, I think that my "dismal" proving ability won't help me out on this one.

In a nutshell, that's my dilemma. I'm kinda doubting myself right now. The third examination in abstract math was just over yesterday, and I kinda hyperventilated while looking at the test questions. I'm pretty sure I only got a quarter of the problems right, and the rest... Well, you get the picture. We don't have a final examination, so I'm projecting that the highest grade that I might get is a B-/B (unless a miracle happens and I get a B+). Does getting a B in an intro to advanced math class signal that you're "unfit" for a PhD program? I'm kinda nervous, because I'll be taking the first of the three-course Analysis series next quarter, and although I got an A in Calc I-III and Vector Analysis, I think that my "dismal" proving ability won't help me out on this one.

So, I don't actually have to find a rule or something, like what I did for the problem where I had to show that the set of even integers and the set of integers are numerically equivalent?

I kind of feel dumb about asking this, but here it goes. I have a homework problem that I have to finish and I'm a bit stumped. We're asked to prove that N (set of natural numbers) is numerically equivalent to Z (set of integers). I know that to show that two sets are numerically equivalent, there must be a bijection. That's where I'm kind stuck. How do I construct the function? I was thinking of a mapping from Z to N, where x goes to lxl (absolute value). Any comments?

You can take probability and stats at the same time? That's weird. At my college, probability theory is a prerequisite for the math stats series. I took linear algebra, vector calculus last spring quarter and they were manageable as there was some overlap. It also helped that seven of us are taking both classes at the same time, because we had a study group. I was supposed to take the mathematical reasoning class during the same quarter, but my advisor counseled me against it. I would suggest that you take only two classes, as it would be hard to juggle four during summer quarter.

I grew up loving tennis, having been introduced to it at an early age by my parents. I still play tennis whenever I find the time (that is, if I do find the time. I'm studying for the actuarial exams this fall - my backup plan if I don't get into a PhD program, but heck, I still have three years to go before I apply for a PhD Econ). I do love American football and soccer, but my love for these two games was developed because of my high school friends, some of whom recruited me to play in their summer league games (soccer).

I just pre-ordered our textbook for intermediate micro (Nicholson's Microeconomics Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions). I also went to the library to look for a previous edition, and as I was scanning it, I felt that Nicholson's coverage of game theory wasn't thorough enough. I emailed my (future) professor about it, and he recommended Myerson's Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict, but looking at the reviews on amazon, I felt that I am not that much prepared for Myerson's book. He also recommended Osborne's Intro to Game Theory (which is the textbook for the game theory class at my uni), but looking at the reviews, it seems that it's not that rigorous. Are there other good books on Game Theory that I could use as a companion to the Nicholson text? Thanks.