- #1
James M
- 11
- 1
Do you have to take algebra/trig based physics first in order to understand calculus based physics better? Or is algebra based physics even required for calculus based physics?
NO! You may not learn very much from something called "introductory physics" or "elementary physics" if the prerequisites are Algebra 2 and just basic Trigonometry. You will learn much more from the real Physics series intended for the Math/Science/Engineering students. All of that "NO!" depends on actual course content, instruction length, and how deeply the topics are actually treated.James M said:Do you have to take algebra/trig based physics first in order to understand calculus based physics better? Or is algebra based physics even required for calculus based physics?
Okay, haha. Thank you, didn't know that. :)symbolipoint said:NO! You may not learn very much from something called "introductory physics" or "elementary physics" if the prerequisites are Algebra 2 and just basic Trigonometry. You will learn much more from the real Physics series intended for the Math/Science/Engineering students. All of that "NO!" depends on actual course content, instruction length, and how deeply the topics are actually treated.
It is not, in fact, required. Applying algebra-based Physics on your own as a prerequisite may give you no realistic advantage; may not hurt, but not likely to be a boost either.James M said:Do you have to take algebra/trig based physics first in order to understand calculus based physics better? Or is algebra based physics even required for calculus based physics?
symbolipoint said:NO! You may not learn very much from something called "introductory physics" or "elementary physics" if the prerequisites are Algebra 2 and just basic Trigonometry. You will learn much more from the real Physics series intended for the Math/Science/Engineering students. All of that "NO!" depends on actual course content, instruction length, and how deeply the topics are actually treated.
NOT true in general. I took an intro/elementary Physics course which was simple Algebra2/Trig based, and a few years later took the regular Calculus-based Physics 1 for science & engineering majors. Very different courses. The algebra-based course did not need much analytical thinking. The calculus based course was much tougher, deeper, required great use of analytical thinking, everything much more detailed, and making intricate vector diagrams for forces and velocities. Having had the simpler algebra-trig based course meant nearly nothing for any kind of preparation for taking the regular Physics 1, calc based course.MidgetDwarf said:...
To response to Symbol. The problems from a trig/algebra based book to not differ from standard introductory calculus based books, such as Serway, Halliday, and Giancolli. They were the exact same problems.
symbolipoint said:NOT true in general. I took an intro/elementary Physics course which was simple Algebra2/Trig based, and a few years later took the regular Calculus-based Physics 1 for science & engineering majors. Very different courses. The algebra-based course did not need much analytical thinking. The calculus based course was much tougher, deeper, required great use of analytical thinking, everything much more detailed, and making intricate vector diagrams for forces and velocities. Having had the simpler algebra-trig based course meant nearly nothing for any kind of preparation for taking the regular Physics 1, calc based course.
Maybe a difference in instructors. Still, the exercise problems were absolutely not the same. Nearly all the exercises from the Physics 1 course were a much higher level of advancement than the exercises from the intro/elementary algebra-trig based course. The two courses were way too much a contrast.MidgetDwarf said:Maybe a difference in instructors? Our teacher never gave us problems to do from our assigned textbook. She made the problems herself. You could not google search the problems, she made sure of this. And no the problems from a typical intro Calculus based Physics book are the same as the ones in the Algebra based book. I should know, I took both courses.
symbolipoint said:Maybe a difference in instructors. Still, the exercise problems were absolutely not the same. Nearly all the exercises from the Physics 1 course were a much higher level of advancement than the exercises from the intro/elementary algebra-trig based course. The two courses were way too much a contrast.
YOU were lucky to have who taught you.
Do you know what it is like to study a demanding but not complicated course and earn an easy grade of A?
Do you know what it is like to struggle hard for a far tougher course and never be sure if you will earn an F, D, or by some slim chance, a C ?
Maybe a few decades ago makes a difference. Maybe the different type of institutions makes a difference. The two courses in particular did not compare.
No. the level of the two courses were far too different. You were still lucky and had the right choices of instructors and textbooks. We each know our experiences and course content. Mine were different than yours.MidgetDwarf said:Yes, I chose to travel 1 hour and half to another college, which required me to ride a train and 2 busses to get there. The reason being, was that the linear algebra course i needed at my main college, did not emphasize proof writing. I went to the other school, I knew the teacher who taught this course was rigorous, was good mathematician in the mathematical circles, and who also taught at one of the most prestigious schools for 20 years. I struggled hard with the course, 2 hours of sleep for 3 months, only to receive a B. I am well aware of how it is to struggle with a course, and not know the outcome. I took calculus 1 with a professor who teaches grad school at UCLA and received a B, when i could have taken an easier teacher and got an A.
The problems are the exact same. There is no thinking required for problems out of Giancoli: Physics for Scientist and Engineers, Serway: Physics for Scientist and Engineers, and Halliday/Resnick: Physics for Scientist and Engineers. I stand by my previous comments. There is no calculus in introductory mechanics from these book, they go over both algebraic and calculus derivations for the formulas. If the problems require calculus, it is usually simple integrals and derivatives. Ie find the acceleration of a particle given the equation of its position.
Maybe you had problems grasping the material and in your mind, the problems were different because of the "mysticism" of the phrase CALCULUS that scares students. The problems are the same. I still see the block sliding from a plane problem, and the elevator problem in both books.
atyy said:I rook algebra/trig based physics first. Till this day, I always think in terms of algebra/trig based physics, and I believe that is the correct way of thinking about calculus (divide everything into little triangles and rectangles).
Drakkith said:I started with a Calculus-based physics course personally. That doesn't really mean too much though, as we didn't actually use calculus to solve any of the problems. Not sure if that's normal, or if it's just because of where I'm going to school at. I remember that the problems were challenging for me and I found myself struggling to get through them much of the time.
"Algebra based physics first" is an approach to teaching physics where students are introduced to fundamental concepts of physics through the use of algebra. This means that students do not need to have a strong background in calculus to understand and apply these concepts.
No, a strong math background is not necessary to succeed in "Algebra based physics first". This approach focuses on using algebraic equations to solve physics problems, so as long as students have a basic understanding of algebra, they can be successful in this course.
One of the main benefits of this approach is that it allows students to focus on mastering the fundamental concepts of physics without the added complexity of calculus. This can help students develop a strong foundation in physics, which can be beneficial for future courses and careers in science and engineering.
One potential drawback of this approach is that it may not adequately prepare students for more advanced physics courses that heavily rely on calculus. Additionally, some students may find the use of algebra more challenging compared to calculus, which could affect their overall understanding of physics concepts.
This approach is best suited for students who have a strong interest in physics but may not have a strong background in calculus. It is also beneficial for students who plan to pursue careers in fields that require a strong understanding of physics, but may not necessarily require advanced knowledge of calculus.