- #1

- 20

- 0

I have Abstract Algebra Course, and my teacher is using the book, "Abstract Algebra" of David S. Dummit, and Richard M.Foote. This book, and other books which my teachers are using for the courses, seem to give definitions, theorems, and problems, in no historical order or are not mentioning the utility or conformation which might have created them. I don't know the utility of this order of giving data. These textbooks seem to be not historical, and seem to be not mentioning on for what the entire particular math (example: Abstract algebra "has its roots in the issue of solvability of equations by radicals"*) was constructed for, i.e. they seem to be not mentioning the utilities/reasons for which they might have been constructed for, and on how each of its components (or entire theory) got created for attaining them.

Order of Dummit and Foote book seem to be giving discrete theorems and definitions, which seem to have come for particular utility of knowing the bigger utility of solvability of equations. It seems that these textbooks (?) are not allowing us to participate (?) in the search of conformations for the attainment of the same utility from our new data, or seem to be not allowing us to modify the theories (create math?) for our own utilities for our custom needs (?). I am in Science college and not Engineering college, I thought they could have constructed syllabus to make creators of math, and not just make us know what is there in the math.

One of the reason my teacher of Abstract Algebra gave for not using historical approach is the time. It seems to me that historical approach books, (here, if historical approach mean to give the reasons for which the certain topic was started, and on how each of its component got created for the attainment of it) could be of ~500 pages, as that of Saul Stahl's mentioned below, and seems to be of not too great length.

And history seems to allow knowing math as it really is, and seems to allow knowing the recurring conformations (laws or principles) of math creation. I don't what other unknown consequences occur on changing this natural (?) order, and I don't know on who decides the order of data given in the textbooks, and on whether they have thought on the consequences of order or not.

I don't know why these books (as Dummit and Foote, or any other textbook?) have evolved (?) and are standing now, as they are. What utility do they have? Can we not have a book with historical order of data in math?

*extracted from Introductory Modern Algebra, A Historical Approach, Saul Stahl.

Order of Dummit and Foote book seem to be giving discrete theorems and definitions, which seem to have come for particular utility of knowing the bigger utility of solvability of equations. It seems that these textbooks (?) are not allowing us to participate (?) in the search of conformations for the attainment of the same utility from our new data, or seem to be not allowing us to modify the theories (create math?) for our own utilities for our custom needs (?). I am in Science college and not Engineering college, I thought they could have constructed syllabus to make creators of math, and not just make us know what is there in the math.

One of the reason my teacher of Abstract Algebra gave for not using historical approach is the time. It seems to me that historical approach books, (here, if historical approach mean to give the reasons for which the certain topic was started, and on how each of its component got created for the attainment of it) could be of ~500 pages, as that of Saul Stahl's mentioned below, and seems to be of not too great length.

And history seems to allow knowing math as it really is, and seems to allow knowing the recurring conformations (laws or principles) of math creation. I don't what other unknown consequences occur on changing this natural (?) order, and I don't know on who decides the order of data given in the textbooks, and on whether they have thought on the consequences of order or not.

I don't know why these books (as Dummit and Foote, or any other textbook?) have evolved (?) and are standing now, as they are. What utility do they have? Can we not have a book with historical order of data in math?

*extracted from Introductory Modern Algebra, A Historical Approach, Saul Stahl.

Last edited: