Timeline for Undergraduate Level Math Books
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 11, 2010 at 13:44 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | (I deleted an off-topic comment.) | |
| Jul 15, 2010 at 2:36 | comment | added | Amitesh Datta | I have to agree that Atiyah and MacDonald is one of the best written textbooks in mathematics. There are very few proofs which exceed a given length (in part due to the fact that these proofs are condensed for the overall readability of the book), but it really is not that hard a book if you are familiar with the basics of algebra. Personally I feel that if you have some desire to become an algebraist in your undergraduate education, you should at least attempt to read Atiyah and MacDonald. The same goes for any potential algebraic geometer but to a lesser extent. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 10:31 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | Andrew, this is as much a function of time as it is a function of space: the lectures were presumably given in the 1960s, when people didn't shy from teaching and learning abstract mathematics. | |
| Jul 11, 2010 at 23:51 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | @Kiochi The exact line: "This book grew out of a series of lectures given to third year undergraduates at OXFORD UNIVERSITY......" Which would be first year graduate students at any ordinary but decent university.Again-WHICH undergraduates you mean is very important. | |
| Jul 11, 2010 at 14:33 | history | edited | Kiochi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Jul 11, 2010 at 14:33 | comment | added | Kiochi | The second paragraph of the introduction begins, "This book grew out of a series of lectures given to third year undergraduates ..." The authors also point out that their book is not intended as a substitute to the Zariski-Samuel or Bourbaki books. | |
| Jul 11, 2010 at 9:18 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Right. I definitely think Reid's book is at a much more manageable level than A&M. | |
| Jul 11, 2010 at 9:05 | comment | added | The Mathemagician | @Victor I totally agree on Zariski and Samuels.But if you're going to invest that much time in a tome that lengthy,then you may as well get Eisenbud.In any event,all these books will be too difficult for any but the best undergraduates,I'm sorry. | |
| Jul 11, 2010 at 8:15 | comment | added | Victor Protsak | I feel that in the case of AM, this criticism misses the mark: although not everyone is an algebraist, commutative algebra is a valid subject of undergraduate study (i.e. not "too deep")! The book is very clearly written (incomparably better than van der Waerden) and is good for self-study for problem-oriented people. Nonetheless, I wish that at the time I had the courage to read Zariski and Samuel instead: in spite of being 2 volumes, it is so much more relaxed because the authors take care to $\mathit{explain}$ the material, in multiple ways, and offer both breadth and depth of perspective. | |
| Jul 10, 2010 at 18:48 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Do you really think this book is undergraduate level? | |
| Jul 10, 2010 at 18:45 | history | answered | Kiochi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |