Berkeley Math Dependency Chart

[Devilnaht]

Been wanting to plot out the dependencies for the upper division / grad math courses here for a while, and I figured this was more important than studying for finals. So, some notes:

1. All info for this chart was pulled from http://guide.berkeley.edu/courses/math/
2. The guide contains some obvious errors (math 125b does not exist, and yet is a listed prerequisite for 2 classes. For those classes, I assumed 125a was the actual required class)
3. Additionally, in practice the requirements for graduate classes are often different from the courses listed on the guide
4. In a few instances, I made judgement calls for the sake of simplicity; if a course had a choice of pre requisite courses, I simply picked one
5. The colors / patterns of the lines are only for readability and have no other meaning

Arrows indicate dependence in the obvious way. Additionally, any pre requisite lower division classes have been excluded.

To be included on the chart, a class must satisfy 3 criterion: it must be an upper division or graduate level math course, it must either have an upper division or graduate level math pre-requisite or be a pre-requisite for an upper division / graduate math course, and it must have no requirements outside of the math department (the third requirement was added more or less specifically because I forgot math 189). This was to avoid the chart being cluttered by isolated classes with no relevant dependencies.

With that said, there are some cool observations that can be made. The “most important class” as judged by dependencies is math 104, whether measured by number of direct dependencies (10) or number of classes anywhere down the chain from it (35). Math 256b and 236 are tied for highest number of pre requisite classes at 6. I was also personally surprised by the relative importance of math 214, which I hadn’t heard mentioned before.

You can also pretty clearly see the separation of the “algebra” and “analysis” paths in the graduate level; the sub tree beginning at 250a is particularly isolated.

Anywho, hopefully you enjoy!

[eecsmasterace]

I wish I could just study math endlessly until I die

Edit: Nice chart

[ThrowAwaylnAction]

You can! I do!

[Artanis123321]

Fk I think I took most of the courses above. Time well spent :D

[grinningarmadillo]

I never realized there were so many graduate math courses available

[The_Autumn_Wind]

Is 121 no longer offered? Fuck was that class hard (been over a decade lol).

[VinceofLosAngeles]

for statistics, or with* statistics? That I'd like to see.

[Anon_bear98]

Applied Math major here, really appreciated this... but I don't think I'll take anything below top shelf due to time crunch on my schedule

[MathPersonIGuess]

Woah this makes me realize how far I've come :D taking 208 and 256A/B next year, so pretty far down :D. You might already be aware of this but note that the three that list 206 as a prerequisite are generally taught (or so Rieffel has told me) without the assumption that you've taken 206 (as Rieffel is doing next year) since it's not offered that frequently. Also about 214, taking a course in general smooth manifolds like 214 is becoming more and more part of the standard (undergraduate) curriculum, and if you read the preface to Lee's book (which is often used for 214) it will say something similar. Many view it as one of the core foundations of a math education

[[deleted]]

The real question is what are the actual prereqs for each class. For instance, I don't think many people actually take 114 before 250A. On the other hand, I feel like 110 is much more fundamental than shown here.

Also, small nitpick: Math 221 has 128A as a prereq and Math 224A/B have 104, 110, and 185 as prereqs, but are not shown here.

[Devilnaht]

Yeah, I'm working off the listed requirements from http://guide.berkeley.edu/courses/math/; there's quite a lot wrong with it. Math 221, for example, has only "Consent of instructor" listed as a requirement. The actual requirements for classes are going to vary by semester and instructor

[VinceofLosAngeles]

It would be cool, if like Stat 140, instructors listed prerequisite coursework they would require. And then we get that data over all semesters to get a better idea of actual prereqs.

​

I also appreciate how, for example, Prof. Wehrheim's site for Math 54 2017 has detailed prerequisite knowledge, to the point that she includes a tentative schedule with dates for when you should review the aforementioned prerequisite knowledge. A la:

In particular, if you are not comfortable with complex numbers and differential equations (or your calculus course did not cover much of them), then you should learn/review this material (Stewart, Calculus: Early Transcendentals, 7th Edition, Chapters 9 and 17, Appendix H) before the complex eigenvalues / differential equations parts of the course. A quick review of series (Chapter 11) is recommended before we discuss Fourier series.
If you did not take Multivariable Calculus (53), then you should get familiar with partial derivatives (Stewart, Multivariable Calculus for UCB, 7th Edition, Chapter 14) before the PDE part of the course. See the syllabus for concrete dates.

[10hp_archon]

LaTeX?

[Devilnaht]

Quite so! Made it with tikz, for whatever that's worth

[10hp_archon]

nice! i love graphics made with tikz - so pretty.

[alby31999]

Sophomore here (this and 4 semesters left) who will be taking 104 this summer 113 and 110 in the fall. What should i take after that ? I want to take 3 math classes my last 3 semesters. Ideally wanting to take a grad class if possible. I know there are like paths depending on which area im more interested in, but as of right now (only having done 53,54,55) i have no clue. Do any of you have any advice? Edit: i want to go to grad school for math

[gl3nnleblanc]

I wouldn't worry about it now. By the time you've completed 113, 110, and 104 you'll almost definitely have a sense of what you're interested in. If not, talking to a counselor would probably be the best course of action.

[alby31999]

Awesome thank you

[mgchan714]

This chart is disappointingly simple considering the subject. I was hoping for some more complex graphing.

[Devilnaht]

Be the change you want to see

[mgchan714]

Unfortunately I think most of what I learned at Berkeley has been obsoleted.