I have been thinking about doing another Master’s degree in a distinct area from academic background but somehow related in some practices.

In this case, many universities would require math background especially in calculus from undergraduate level. And typically, universities grant applicants of graduate studies conditional offers to take the required courses as part of the study plan. For many international students, this means that they need to spend more time away from home as well as more money on their life expenses and tuitions.

I looked up online for math certificates that allow a smooth transition from one area to another that requires some advanced math topics such as calculus and linear algebra. I found a few but I struggled to find programs that are globally recognised by the majority of universities in the United States, UK and Australia.

Any idea what universities or institutions offer (globally recognised) online math courses that except prerequisites of undergraduate math courses for graduate studies?

Apparently there is no such a globally recognised program as mentioned in the comments. But is there any program widely recognised in the UK and/or Australia?

As we all know, the salary prospects of students majoring pure mathematics is not good. And maths must be harder than statistics, I think so I want to apply for a PhD in statistics.

But my big concern is that I haven’t taken many statstics courses, all the recommendation letters I get will be from professors of the department of mathematics in the pure mathematics field. I have no recommendation letter from professor in the statistics field. Will it matter?

Thank you so much!


I am a junior undergraduate(gonna turn senior) who majors in pure mathematics. My home university is not a prestigious one, but some professors have a few good reputations.

I have a GPA of 3.8+. Most courses I took are pure mathematics courses. Maybe some of them are related to statistics, such as Introduction to Probability Theory, Mathematical Statistics, Measure Theory. I am going to spend my senior year at UC Berkeley by a international study program, and I am planning to study some pure mathematics courses, and one course may be the advanced Probability Theory, which may have a little connection to statistics.

The best result of application for PhD in Pure Mathematics in my university is UC San Diego.

——————————-Splitting Line——————————

As we all know, the job prospect of students majoring pure mathematics is not good. I mean, the average salary. And maths must be harder than statistics I think. So I want to apply for a PhD in statistics.

The problem is that I rarely take statistics course. But I do well in mathematics and most mathematics courses are above 90(with full mark 100). While I have a graduate mathematics course having a D+ grade, I am sad with it. Besides, I have a A+ graduate mathematics course and one with grade B.

My questions are that,

1) do I have a chance to get admitted into top statistics universities(Like UC Berkeley or some else)?

2) All recommendation letters I get will be from professors of the department of mathematics in the pure mathematics field, which means that I have no recommendation letter from professor in the statistics field. Will it matter?

Thank you so much!

I am really confused with these questions.

I’m writing my BSc thesis in computer science right now, for which I’m implementing Fast Fourier Transforms. Now a really important paper on the topic is making a proof which I think I got what they are doing, but I probably could not replicate myself. Now I was wondering if there is a go-to way to cite the proof and especially use the result of the proof, without having to re-write it all by myself because going into all of the math would be beyond the scope of my thesis since it is more about the implementation, even so confirmed by my assistant.
The way I would go about it is to describe how they proof what in words, with a citation to the paper, e.g. like that:

“In [xy], yz show that equation a can be solved by doing …”

Any hints are appreciated.

This is question that should primarily be answered by theoretical physicists, as mathematicians always are going to want to say to take more math.

I am going into my third year of undergraduate study major in math and physics and I hope to eventually end up in a good theoretical physics PhD (probably cosmology or particle physics). I have the ability to add a year at my current institution and do a masters in math, and I am trying to figure out if pure math at a graduate level is interesting/useful for serious theoretical physics.

Some classes I would be interested in taking as part of the degree would be (all grad level) Functional Analysis, Complex Analysis, Lie Algebra, Differential Topology, Riemannian Geometry, Theory of ODEs, Theory of PDEs, Operator Algebras, Real Analysis, Topology, Algebra (a lot of these classes are two semester sequences).

I am interested in hearing how useful people think having such a formal mathematical education would be to doing the physics. I am primarily interested in very foundational physics, and I am concerned that the brief treatment the math is given in physics books will prevent me from having a full understanding of the math at play in fields such as QFT and some the more out-there cosmology. I of course understand one can self-study some of these topics, but it seems fairly clear one would get a deeper appreciation by actually taking the courses in a proper academic setting.

I have only seen a handful of people writing about the supplementary centre application for the GRE Subject on the Web and I wanted to see if anyone could be kind enough to answer some of my concerns.

I wanted to take the Sept 15th 2018 GRE Subject test and I saw a centre that offered it on the September sitting when I was looking at the 2017/18 centre lists. However, when the new list came out, I found out that that centre no longer offered that sitting and unfortunately, I did not have a centre in the nearest 125 miles which is the requirement to make an application for the Supplementary Centre Application.

Part of this involves me to include the name of an institution and a member willing to administer the test. However, as I am no longer in education, I don’t have an affiliated institutions to ask such a request. I am thinking of contacting the institutions that offer the sittings in other periods but I have a few worries.

  1. The institution is an exam authority rather than a school/university/college. Surely, that is okay?

  2. Are theses requests to unaffiliated institutions ever entertained?

Sorry, the questions are a bit daft but maybe I just want some assurance that this is not as crazy as it seems. If you have done a supplementary center request in the past, I would like to hear about it.

Below, I paste the link on the GRE website.


When submitting papers to journals, I understand from experience that acceptance can take quite some time (on the order of several months), even when a reviewer is immediately assigned to the paper. But can a referee usually tell fairly quickly if the article should be rejected? Are there any horror stories of waiting several months after a reviewer agrees to look at your paper, only to get a rejection letter?

Are translators of mathematical texts (books or articles or whatever) from a foreign language into English in demand today? Specifically, I’m interested in German and Russian. If they are, then what kind of organizations (or what specific organizations) are interested in such translators? Do people working for those organizations usually combine the translation job with a teaching and/or research job?

In a paper I am presenting, a key equation contains the term $1 / floor(n/k)$, where n and k are some integers. This term is quite cumbersome, so I thought that, when I present my paper in a poster or slides, it can be better to present it approximately as just $k/n$.

My questions:

  • Is it desirable to simplify equations in this way in slides or posters?
  • What is a simple way to convey the message that the equation is not entirely accurate?