Should determinants be taught early or not?

Should determinants be taught early or not?

Other urls found in this thread:

springer.com/us/book/9789400726352
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

yes

determinants of matrices of order 2 and 3, yes.

Wrong. They should be taught right in the middle.

It depends on the goal of the course. If it's taken by pure math majors, then sure teach them later, but if the course is mostly engineers or cs majors then you're depriving the students of must have knowledge.

Yes.

Not too early. I learned determinants in 9th grade but I was like "wtf is this shit" and never used them again until Calc 3 and Differential Equations.

Edit: 9th grade being Algebra 2 for us Amerilards

No. Shouldn't be taught at all. There is no evidence that the universe or quantum physics is determinant.

You never computed the area od a paralepiped.

KEK

Go away.

>linear algebra
>a whole book about y=mx+b
Fucking mathematicians.

kill yourself

It's pretty much just y=mx

>y=mx+b
>linear

normies get out

>MUH PRACTICALITY
>MUH SALLARY
>MUH STRAIGHT FORWARD

Kys engineer brainlet

What is the best book to relearn linear algebra for a math major?

springer.com/us/book/9789400726352

>monic and epic instead of injective and surjective
dropped

Learn the lexicon, set theory fag!

TRUE mathematicians don't even learn LA, they learn abstract algebra and then are like: "the entirety of LA is just a specific instance of a field lolol 2ez4me get gud you fucking loser engineers :^)"

>the entirety of LA is just a specific instance of a field
but vector spaces arent fields...

Why do we need an entire branch of algebra to study one simplest equation possible?

...

Is there such a thing as nth order algebra, or whatever it may be called?
Like the study of equations and systems of nth order polynomials, or am I being retarded and that's just the whole of algebra

...

>specifically teaching determinants of order 3
Lol.

algebra; ring theory and algebraic geometry specifically

This is the correct answer; I think around the end of a first intro linear algebra course is the correct time to put them.

You need to put them in lin. alg. 1 because they're really quite important for applications and many non-mathematics students will not take a second algebra course.
But doing everything with determinant voodoo that babby students aren't equipped to understand is horrible pedagogy.

Have you studied it properly? It is a full generalization of that equation, with multiple variables and equations and how these systems interact, and their geometrical significance. The concepts of linear algebra eventually generalize to become pretty much the foundation (along with calc) of modern mathematics. So yeah, not just y=mx+c

Tensors maybe?

you're right, it's practically useless

I hate linear algebra because of my prof last semester

fuck that guy

GO Veeky Forums !


[math]

\det
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0 & a_1 & a_2 & \cdots & a_{n-2} & a_{n-1} \\
a_{n-1} & a_0 & a_1 & \cdots & a_{n-3} & a_{n-2} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & \cdots & a_{n-1} & a_0
\end{pmatrix}[/math]

Any good newbie books about linear algebra that have transition into more complex stuff later on ?

[math]\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}P(e^{2ik\pi/n})[/math], where [math]P = a_0X^n + a_1X^{n-1}+ \dots + a_{n-1}X[/math]

Jesus fucking Christ, no. You need linear first, most would just quit.

Hoffman and Kunze

Yeah, if b=0 you fucking brainlet

affine algebraic geometry

Seconding Hoffman and Kunze. Also if you know any abstract algebra Curtis's abstract LA is good.

>
>
Denouncing Hoffman and Kunze because the way it does inner products and spectral theorem is needlessly complicated; use Linear Algebra Done Right along with Hoffman and Kunze. Plus there's always old school Finite Dimensional Vector spaces which is good because it goes over the theory in a very elegant way. The only downside is the are no exercises.
the Schaum's Outline to linear algebra is great for learning how to solve lots of different problems. (Stay away from Friedberg, it's not that good).

There's also the book Linear Algebra by Steven Roman, of which I've heard good things but never looked at myself; although just a glance at the chapters will tell you that it requires a strong background in Abstract Algebra.

Determinants should be taught in the simple cases, then fully fleshed out when covering dual spaces along side wedge products

Every field is also a vector space over itself. But yes, "vector space" isn't a subtype of field

The algebraist line is something like "modules over principal ideal domains," since V is isomorphic to F^n or whatever.

Algebra is gay though