Algebra Dummit and Foote vs Lang: Choosing the Best Abstract Algebra Book

  • Thread starter Thread starter SrVishi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    algebra lang
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparison between two prominent Abstract Algebra textbooks: "Abstract Algebra" by David S. Dummit and Richard M. Foote and "Algebra" by Serge Lang. Participants conclude that while Dummit and Foote is suitable for average graduate students, Lang's text is more advanced and better suited for those aiming to become mathematicians. Hungerford's book is also mentioned as a foundational resource that bridges the gap between beginner and advanced material. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards using Lang for its depth and perspective, supplemented by Hungerford for practical examples.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with basic algebraic structures such as groups, rings, and fields.
  • Understanding of mathematical proofs and the ability to engage with abstract concepts.
  • Experience with graduate-level mathematics coursework.
  • Knowledge of supplementary resources like Bergman's companion notes to Lang.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore "Algebra" by Serge Lang for advanced Abstract Algebra concepts.
  • Study "A First Course in Abstract Algebra" by Hungerford for foundational understanding.
  • Review Bergman's companion notes to Lang for additional insights and clarifications.
  • Practice solving theorems independently before consulting proofs to enhance mathematical reasoning.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics graduate students, educators in abstract algebra, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of advanced algebraic concepts.

SrVishi
Messages
75
Reaction score
15
Hi, I'm going to start learning Abstract Algebra, and I was wondering which book, either Lang (his graduate version) or Dummit and Foote, is better. I'm totally okay with terseness to any degree so that isn't an issue for me. Now, I know that Lang is a hardcore graduate book (at least according to what I heard), but I can take my time with it and probably look up whatever I don't understand online. So, which of the two would be "better?" Which covers more material? Are there any books that you feel are better or covers more material then these two? Thanks in advance for any response.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone?
 
Have a look at this thread, Mathwonk has given a very similar looking answer.

mathwonk said:
...
So Hungerford is more of a textbook for basic stuff and Lang more of a baby research reference. One tries to address the beginning grad student on his level, and the other tries to raise that level to nearer what it needs to be.
...
Trying to give the proofs of any theorem without reading the proof first, is a habit every student should acquire, in every book, and even every paper. That's how you learn to be a mathematician as opposed to remaining a student. So Lang is teaching you as if you want to become a mathematician, and Hungerford is teaching you as if you are a beginning student.
...
I would put DF noticeably below Hungerford in sophistication and depth. I.e. what used to be considered a basic book for average grad students, namely Hungerford, has now become considered a more difficult book, replaced for average students by DF. Lang on the other hand is almost never considered as a text anymore, as if it were some otherworldly and unrealistic book. I think, recalling using them both now, that one needs both Lang and Hungerford. Lang has the right point of view, and the right topics, and Hungerford has the examples that flesh out the basic topics. I thought DF looked appealing at first review, but now actually using it, I find it so verbose as to obscure the topics rather than illuminate them.
 
Thanks for the reply. I already try to solve every theorem in a book before checking with the proof (well, to the best of my ability at least), it just makes the reading a lot more fun! I guess I'll go with Lang then, perhaps with Bergman's companion to Lang notes online.
 
i am self learning physics. have you ever worked your way backwards again after finishing most undergrad courses? i have textbooks for junior/senior physics courses in classical mechanics, electrodynamics, thermal physics, quantum mechanics, and mathematical methods for self learning. i have the Halliday Resnick sophomore book. working backwards, i checked out Conceptual Physics 11th edition by Hewitt and found this book very helpful. What i liked most was how stimulating the pictures...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
9K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K