MHB Galois Theory: Textbook recommendations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kiwi1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Textbook Theory
Kiwi1
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
I have been working my way through the book "A book of Abstract Algebra" by Charles C. Pinter. By the time I get to the end it will have taken me 2 years of self study, solving every exercise during my daily commute. A great little book!

The last two chapters are titled:

Chapter 32: Galois Theory: The heart of the matter
Chapter 33: Solving equations by radicals

Can anyone recommend a book on Galois theory for me to choose as my next "project"? If you happen to know Pinter's book even better because it really suits my style and is at a good level for me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Kiwi,

You might enjoy "Galois Theory" by Emil Artin and "Galois Theory for Beginners: A Historical Perspective" by Jorg Bewersdorff.
 
Kiwi said:
I have been working my way through the book "A book of Abstract Algebra" by Charles C. Pinter. By the time I get to the end it will have taken me 2 years of self study, solving every exercise during my daily commute. A great little book!

The last two chapters are titled:

Chapter 32: Galois Theory: The heart of the matter
Chapter 33: Solving equations by radicals

Can anyone recommend a book on Galois theory for me to choose as my next "project"? If you happen to know Pinter's book even better because it really suits my style and is at a good level for me.
Hi Kiwi ...A possible text would be ...Galois Theory (Second Edition) by David Cox (Wiley 2012)I have only just purchased the book ... but at first glance it looks pretty good ...Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K