Do you prefer Topology or Algebra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLRDX91
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Topology
TLRDX91
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
To all who have taken an introduction course to topology and abstract algebra, which did you prefer and why? Does the preference of one course over the other reflect a certain from of intuition that we rely on for reasoning or heuristics for problem solving?

For these classes, I used textbooks by Munkres and Gallian. Quite frankly, I found topology a lot more abstract and conceptually difficult but after a long while it started clicking and made sense after a few months of study. On the other hand, abstract algebra was a lot more straight forward from the get-go and the problem were fairly easy. Overall, the challenge of learning topology was what made it appealing to me but it's style of thinking is alien to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What about algebraic topology?? Does that classify as topology or algebra? :-p
 
I preferred Abstract Algebra it extended what I already learned in basic algebra and made it easier to do proofs.

Topology was so abstract, I got lost in the definitions and couldn't understand the practical nature of it. To be fair I was a physics major out of water taking topology because I thought it'd be cool to learn. I guess I thought I'd be learning something about rubbersheet topology.

One of my math profs encouraged me to take it, saying if you throw enough mud at the wall some of it will stick. He hoped I'd switch to math since in general most of my courses were math oriented. My topology class had mostly junior level math majors and I was very weak in proofs but I squeaked by. Later I took abstract algebra still weak in proofs but at least I could see some practicality to it.

In our college, Abstract Algebra was taught as a precursor to topology so that may be a clue as to how you should approach them. In my case, they let me in since I had several other higher level courses under my belt.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
463
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Back
Top