So what exactly is missing from this picture, apart from the dumb mistake x^n for n=-1?

Yeah a FT is a special case of the LT however the difference in uses and the difficulty to derive and FT from the LT warrants a mention.

Got it. And sorry to keep bugging you but can you think of anything else that's missing?

...

Isn't the chain rule incorrect, though?

It should be the derivative of f(x) taking g(x) as its variable and then multiplied by the derivative of g(x) with respect to x.

I've usually seen it written as (f(g(x)))' = f'(x)/dg(x) × g'(x)/dx

...

No abstract algebra whatsoever, no real analysis other than calculus definitions, no logic whatsoever, no inner product spaces, abstract definitions subsituted for common euclidean variants in linear algebra, no complex analysis, no linear transformations, no orthogonal subspaces, no fourier transform, no PDE's, no real statistics definitions (no moments, no pdf's, no moment generating functions), no topology... I could go on and those aren't even advanced topics. As a physics/engineering math reference sheet, sure, this looks great. From a math perspective, it is almost useless

Its a good start. I would definitely love to see more added to this

Yes it certainly is a good start. I would love to see more analysis and algebra added to it

this doesn't make any sense. this is NOT a "good start" for an advanced math redux, because it's focused on engineering applications and calculations. if you added math to it it would be completely strange and filled with useless shit for both parties

Control engineer fag here. Even for engineering purposes this is utterly useless.

It lacks at least complex analysis, dynamic systems theory, control theory, a lot of discrete math (like graph theory), mathematical programming.

Just to name a few fields that are quite useful in a practical engineering application.

As it is, it seems completely useless - there's nothing on here that you wouldn't already know from simply taking a module on it, these aren't really things that you'd forget.
It's like forgetting the definition of a basis.

What's wrong with graph theory?

The OP picture is just for high school math

It's just a cheat sheet for high school math.

Oh, I didn't think it was since it said undergraduate edition.

Meh, probably needs something about basic Logic like natural deduction.

True, all of the stuff mentions is still undergrad material, and should be included.

But it doesn't really belong on this cheat sheet.

Many on Veeky Forums are autistic, so I'll explain what you should've picked up about this image by looking at it: its contains math that will be useful in many upper-level undergraduate courses. These are things you may forget if you take a year of algebra and don't do any trig, for example. Or you take Complex a year after you last learned the ratio test.

It's not meant to be an entire undergrad education. Certainly you see how that would be far too large.

Why don't you just go post in the IQ circlejerk thread.

I'm not sure if you're OP, but I don't think it's a good idea to pander to multiple audiences.
From a mathematics point of view, this is useless.
From an engineering point of view, I'm not sure since I'm not one so can't say.
It said "MATH" so I assumed that it was for maths.
Can you define the scope of your cheat sheet so we can make suggestions to it properly?

I saved it, it's pretty decent.