[eli_gottlieb]

I think it's probably just that you have far more relevant experience with reading code. Math is its own language, and math departments only really start teaching how to read and write it in Real Analysis classes. As my math professor stepfather said his advisor once put it, "Everything before that is just to keep the children from running in the halls."

[hiddencost]

This is too perfect. I did a minor in math, and covered two semesters of real analysis and two of algebra, plus an optimization class and some advanced (undergraduate) statistics, and holy crap I felt like I was joining the grown up table when I started.

[shockzzz]

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-100c-real-analysis...

Interesting. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!

[paulkon]

I've always wondered why Real Analysis isn't introduced earlier in math education. It might make it easier to grasp concepts introduced in upper-level math.

[eggy]

That's why so many people point to Spivak's Calculus book, since it has been hinted it should be called an analysis text. Strang's Calculus, as do others, start with real-world examples. Personally, I had to do the Strang route, and then come back to Spivak, since I had to admit to myself, I don't have that ability to think 100% abstractly; I need motivation from the real world.

[eli_gottlieb]

Because then even more students would fail their "engineering-level" math courses and write off the mathematics department as hateful and evil?