Talk:Cambridge Mathematical Tripos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Part 3
No (explicit) mention of the distinctive Part 111...
- True. This was mostly about the ancient history, for which I have a reliable scholarly source. I did Part III myself, but the memories aren't all good (John Conway's exam paper contained a technical term not defined in his course ...). Charles Matthews 09:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I once sat in on Denis Sciama's Part 3 lectures on GR - a foolish mistake for a mere post-grad physicist. The lectures used to conclude with questions and comments; most of them were from some guy at the back in a wheel-chair, who was a little hard to follow... 'Yes, yes Stephen' Sciama would enthuse ' that's an excellent point...'
[edit] Tripos
This is a pretty short article. Why isn't it merged with Tripos? Rklawton 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not too short; I think it deserves its separate existence, due to its fairly distinctive history and reputation within the field (i.e. this article can analyse the course's particular influence within mathematics, rather than just as another exam within the Cambridge system).
Furthermore, I am currently considering writing a longer section on the current Mathematics Tripos to put the development in context - this should bulk things out somewhat. If there's anything you would like to see included, let me know! Aquilina 14:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Considering that there is a very substantial book devoted to the Mathematical Tripos alone, this doesn't really need an answer. Charles Matthews 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I know they're physicists, but...
Oddly, this official history of Physics [1] at Cam gives details about the Maths Tripos that I've never heard before. I prob won't have time to work on this article for a while, so be my guest... JackyR 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
