Timeline for Algebraic geometry
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2012 at 7:35 | history | edited | M T | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo os->of
|
| Jun 3, 2011 at 7:18 | comment | added | Amitesh Datta | I hasten to emphasize, however, that there are difficult exercises in Hartshorne; but it certainly is not true that *most" (or even a reasonable portion) of the exercises are "hard". Furthermore, Hartshorne does explain some proofs (at least in the part that I have read thus far) in at least as much detail as Liu. The moral is (at least in my view) that one should read Hartshorne and, if one is stuck, one should refer to other texts (on algebraic geometry). I have heard that EGA is a good supplementary source. | |
| Jun 3, 2011 at 7:09 | comment | added | Amitesh Datta | I have to disagree that Hartshorne "is as difficult as people say". I am not saying it is not difficult; however, I have seen people saying on the internet that "it takes hours to understand some exercises in Hartshorne". After reading comments such as this, I decided not to learn algebraic geometry from Hartshorne. (I used Liu.) However, a few weeks ago I picked up Hartshorne, interested to see why it is considered difficult, and I have to say that it is not as difficult as some people say. There are hard exercises but it would not be an exaggeration to say that most are do-able ... | |
| Nov 23, 2010 at 14:29 | vote | accept | user10118 | ||
| Oct 18, 2010 at 1:27 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Oct 17, 2010 at 14:19 | comment | added | mathphysicist | Just to clarify: the Shafarevich's book Andrew means is called Basic Algebraic Geometry. | |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 7:54 | history | answered | The Mathemagician | CC BY-SA 2.5 |