Timeline for Reference book for commutative algebra
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2023 at 4:19 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
MacDonald -> Macdonald, while this is on the front page
|
| Dec 23, 2023 at 2:15 | answer | added | Lucas Henrique | timeline score: 6 | |
| Nov 18, 2010 at 16:19 | comment | added | roy smith | If a paperback book is too thick, one can always take a razor blade and separate it into two pieces. The homological stuff and appendices say, would make a reasonable second volume. I will probably not do this with David's opus, but I did so with Robert Parker's last wine buyers guide, cutting French wine off as volume 1. Of course not everyone has arthritis in his joints. | |
| Nov 18, 2010 at 4:42 | answer | added | roy smith | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 24, 2010 at 22:27 | answer | added | Pete L. Clark | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 24, 2010 at 22:24 | comment | added | Jim Humphreys | Without getting boring, I should add (as in another post) that the "MacDonald" mentioned along with Atiyah is actually Ian G. Macdonald of Macdonald polynomial fame, etc. The group theorist "Ian D. MacDonald" gets confused with him, but I've met both in the past and know very well the difference. | |
| May 24, 2010 at 21:13 | answer | added | Karl Schwede | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 24, 2010 at 20:48 | answer | added | Bart Snapp | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 6:49 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | And for the record-I LIKE Eisenbud's book quite a bit.I seriously doubt such huge books-with the possible exception of Spivak's mammoth epic on differential geometry-are expected to be read and absorbed in one sitting.They are rich keepsakes you keep returning to for years,getting something new out of it every time. | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 6:45 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | Continued-I've never had the pleasure of speaking to Dr.Eisenbud;he has a reputation as a good guy,a first rate mathematician and teacher.One would hope a good guy as he's supposed to be would have a thicker skin then to be offended by someone's opinion.If not, since he's supposed to be so influential and well connected,the results for the author of such comments could be detrimental.(hint...)It WOULD be appropriate for the author of such comments to explain at some length WHY he has that opinion.It would then seem like a professional evaluation and not a half-assed stab at the target. | |
| Apr 2, 2010 at 6:37 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | @Pete L.Clark Pete-may I call you Pete?-as someone who actually reviews textbooks for the MAA online,I don't hesitate to use words like boring if a book puts me to sleep and doesn't educate me on a given subject by making it very unpleasant.A text's job above all is to educate and it's essential the experience be a positive one for that to occur.Fortunately,that hasn't happened often-most of the books I've reviewed have been quite good,some excellent. | |
| Mar 2, 2010 at 21:26 | vote | accept | Andrea Ferretti | ||
| Feb 27, 2010 at 6:06 | answer | added | Brian Jurgelewicz | timeline score: 7 | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 22:55 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @Anonymous: "wrong" is (in mathematics) an objective insight into someone's work, hence potentially extremely helpful. "Boring" is purely subjective and yields no useful information. It is a well-known principle of reviewing that one does not make negative comments without justification, let alone unjustifiable ones. | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 22:28 | comment | added | Anonymous | @Clark I'm not sure whether Eisenbud's book is boring, however why is it inappropriate to say so if he/she feels it's boring? It has nothing to do with the author being a nice person or not. If a nice mathematician writes a wrong paper, would it be inappropriate to say his work is wrong? (which seems to be more damning than "boring") | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 21:13 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @AF: I agree, you did not. | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 19:07 | comment | added | Andrea Ferretti | Actually it is a really good reference book; less so for self study. | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 19:07 | comment | added | Andrea Ferretti | I did not claim the book is boring, only that it is too thick, and that sometimes it deviates too much from the main exposition. | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 18:45 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | I don't think it's respectful to describe Eisenbud's algebra book as "boring". (Moreover, I don't find it boring, but that's not my main point.) David Eisenbud is an actual living person -- with internet access. He is a very nice man, one of the world's leading commutative algebraists, and one of the most influential and well connected mathematicians I know. "Boring" is not appropriate language for professionals publicly discussing his work. | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 15:21 | answer | added | Hailong Dao | timeline score: 32 | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 15:17 | history | edited | Andrea Ferretti | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 606 characters in body
|
| Feb 26, 2010 at 15:10 | comment | added | Andrea Ferretti | Bourbaki also seems a little too elementary. Maybe Zariski-Samuel is a bit more comprehensive. I think I will edit the question to be more specific about the level. By the way: why is everyone answering in the commments? It would be easier to use answers, so that other people can upvote and I (and other interested people) can see what the majority of people recommends. | |
| Feb 26, 2010 at 7:42 | comment | added | user2734 | Out of curiosity, is there a reason why nobody mentions Zariski-Samuel? I've never read it, but looking at the table of context, it seems to be more comprehensive than AM. Also, Milne writes about it that it is "very detailed and well organized." | |
| Feb 25, 2010 at 21:41 | comment | added | Shizhuo Zhang | My advisor recommended Bourbaki's commutative algebra. He said that the author of this book know a lot of functional analysis which is good to do algebraic geometry... | |
| Feb 25, 2010 at 19:38 | comment | added | Zoran Skoda | Eisenbud's book is indeed too thick and too boring, but if you know what to skip it is not that bad. If you are not into computer algebra calculations or alike than you probably do not need Groebner basis (actually ch. 14, 15) and in a way last two chapters 20 and 21 are too specialized. The thickness of the book is much due lots of appendices on the stuff which you either already know (like derived functors) or you probably do not need. | |
| Feb 25, 2010 at 18:12 | history | edited | H. Hasson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected spelling
|
| Feb 25, 2010 at 18:01 | answer | added | Alicia Garcia-Raboso | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 25, 2010 at 17:58 | comment | added | Sam Lichtenstein | It's not a book, so I'll just write this as a comment: I have found the lecture notes of Gaitsgory (math.harvard.edu/~gaitsgde/COMALG_2008) to be a useful complement to Atiyah-MacDonald, emphasizing different subjects than AM does. (Look at the homeworks on that page for even more!) Certainly many orders of magnitude less comprehensive than Matsumura or Eisenbud, though. | |
| Feb 25, 2010 at 17:08 | history | asked | Andrea Ferretti | CC BY-SA 2.5 |