Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Online Courses
2022 Rankings
2022 MFE Programs Rankings Methodology
Reviews
Latest reviews
Search resources
Tracker
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
New profile posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering.
Learn more
Join!
Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job.
Learn more
Join!
An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models.
Learn more
Join!
Home
Forums
Quant Education
Education Advice
Must Take Undergraduate Math Courses ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bigbadwolf" data-source="post: 36073" data-attributes="member: 722"><p>In field and Galois theory, among other things, the results that a general angle can't be trisected, a cube can't be doubled, and the circle can't be squared (i.e., using straightedge and compass) are proved. Pick up any respectable undergrad text in abstract algebra to see these standard results (e.g., Herstein, section 5.4)<span style="color: Silver"></span></p><p><span style="color: Silver"></span></p><p><span style="color: Silver"><span style="font-size: 9px">---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------</span></span></p><p><span style="color: Silver"></span></p><p><span style="color: Silver"></span></p><p> </p><p>Opinion seems to be divided here. I'm a math major myself but I wouldn't push the advantages of the definition-lemma-theorem-corollary style. It seems to me that engineers and physicists who gravitate towards quant finance do just fine without the rigors of pure math. In fact I would argue that the pure math style can often work against a heuristic style of thinking and feeling, which is probably much more important in applied areas like physics and finance than sterile rigor. Sometimes I think the sterile rigor of modern pure math is akin to the sterile theoretical arguments of scholastic philosophers a thousand years ago. </p><p> </p><p>You definitely do not need abstract algebra. For analysis, at least work through a simple text by yourself -- say something like "Real Analysis" by Howie. This will come in handy if you look at stochastic theory. More important than this, however, is to learn to construct individual heuristic arguments by yourself. This is a valuable applied math and physics skill.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bigbadwolf, post: 36073, member: 722"] In field and Galois theory, among other things, the results that a general angle can't be trisected, a cube can't be doubled, and the circle can't be squared (i.e., using straightedge and compass) are proved. Pick up any respectable undergrad text in abstract algebra to see these standard results (e.g., Herstein, section 5.4)[COLOR="Silver"] [SIZE=1]---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------[/SIZE] [/COLOR] Opinion seems to be divided here. I'm a math major myself but I wouldn't push the advantages of the definition-lemma-theorem-corollary style. It seems to me that engineers and physicists who gravitate towards quant finance do just fine without the rigors of pure math. In fact I would argue that the pure math style can often work against a heuristic style of thinking and feeling, which is probably much more important in applied areas like physics and finance than sterile rigor. Sometimes I think the sterile rigor of modern pure math is akin to the sterile theoretical arguments of scholastic philosophers a thousand years ago. You definitely do not need abstract algebra. For analysis, at least work through a simple text by yourself -- say something like "Real Analysis" by Howie. This will come in handy if you look at stochastic theory. More important than this, however, is to learn to construct individual heuristic arguments by yourself. This is a valuable applied math and physics skill. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Quant Education
Education Advice
Must Take Undergraduate Math Courses ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top