Elements of Mathematics: Algebra I Chapters 1-3 by Nicolas Bourbaki - Worth It?

[JasonRox]

Elements of Mathematics : Algebra I Chapters 1-3 by Nicolas Bourbaki

Is this a worth while book?

I wouldn't mind reviewing my Linear Algebra and Abstract Algebra which to all be included in the textbook plus more in a condensed way. Sounds perfect. Reading my old textbooks just gets freaking boring with all the examples I've seen a billion times.

So, is it worth it? What are the downsides?

Thanks.

Note: I know who Bourbaki is.

 

[JasonRox]

I just saw the Topology one too.

It looks so thorough! Like, it goes through everything. No reading from another textbook because your textbook is missing this part or something.

 

[JasonRox]

The books look pretty sick! It's like one big series. Let's hope they're readable.

I'll check them out at school if we have any.

 

[JasonRox]

I don't anymore. Some of the notation seems pretty rough, and it looks like they might using some of the older definitions in the topology book.

Do they have any modern textbooks with similar styles?

I have Munkres which is good, and I'll read that first.

 

[AlephZero]

Some of the notation seems pretty rough, and it looks like they might using some of the older definitions in the topology book.

Do they have any modern textbooks with similar styles?

It seems like you don't know much about the history of maths - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki

 

[mathwonk]

i recommend trying bourbaki. in some ways it is the best possible textbook, it has a beautiful, authoritative presentation, historical comments, and exercises.

maurice auslander, my algebra teacher, and a world famous researcher, recommended it to us as well.the authors are famous mathematicians. they are also available in english translation.

 

[JasonRox]

It seems like you don't know much about the history of maths - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki

Did you not read my first post?

I read a whole book about him (or them).

 

[mathwonk]

the only reason I did not include these books among my top textbook recommendations is they used to be available only in french and hence i myself am not that familiar with them from personal usage.

I read french but i read english better and faster, so it has been my primary language for reading and learning math. the french used in bourbaki is very easy for english speakers to read however, at least in the math parts. the historical sections are harder.

i think there is nothing at all to worry about certainly in algebra, as regards learning from these books. one is more likely to get a better version of the material than an old version.

E.g. I would recommend Bourbaki to future professionals, over say Dummitt and Foote or Hungerford (or my own notes), but as always one should read "just as inclination leads him".

 

[AlephZero]

Did you not read my first post?

I read a whole book about him (or them).

Yes I read all your first 4 posts (and I wondered if you were replying to some other posts that had been deleted).

My conclusion from what you wrote was that you didn't know the history of what "Bourbaki" set out to do, otherwise you wouldn't have made comments like

Some of the notation seems pretty rough, and it looks like they might using some of the older definitions in the topology book.

and

Do they (i.e. Bourbaki) have any modern textbooks with similar styles?

No offence intended.

 

[JasonRox]

Yes I read all your first 4 posts (and I wondered if you were replying to some other posts that had been deleted).

My conclusion from what you wrote was that you didn't know the history of what "Bourbaki" set out to do, otherwise you wouldn't have made comments like



and



No offence intended.

Bourbaki is still around, so it wouldn't surprise me if more modern books exist. I guess you don't know what's going on.

And, yes the notation and definitions seem older or atleast European.

And, I know what Bourbaki set out to do, but Bourbaki was also well aware of the fact that it was becoming outdated.

 

[JasonRox]

Check this book out...

http://trashotron.com/agony/reviews/2006/aczel-artist_and_math.htm

 

[JasonRox]

the only reason I did not include these books among my top textbook recommendations is they used to be available only in french and hence i myself am not that familiar with them from personal usage.

I read french but i read english better and faster, so it has been my primary language for reading and learning math. the french used in bourbaki is very easy for english speakers to read however, at least in the math parts. the historical sections are harder.

i think there is nothing at all to worry about certainly in algebra, as regards learning from these books. one is more likely to get a better version of the material than an old version.

E.g. I would recommend Bourbaki to future professionals, over say Dummitt and Foote or Hungerford (or my own notes), but as always one should read "just as inclination leads him".

These books are in english. They're translated. Also, my first language is French so I shouldn't have too many problems reading some French work.

I'll check my library if they got one, and if not, I'll pick one up and see how it goes. I couldn't find any reviews online.

 

[mathwonk]

these are gorgeous books. bourbaki treatments are if anything too perfect. i.e. there is no way to change even one word without reducing the quality of the explanation.

 

[goniff]

these are gorgeous books. bourbaki treatments are if anything too perfect. i.e. there is no way to change even one word without reducing the quality of the explanation.

I had improved a Bourbaki's proof for a few weeks.

 

[maze]

Founding member Henri Cartan is apparently still alive (age 103). Sorry for the thread-jack, just thought that was interesting.