What do you think of these two books about Geometry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter folksong
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Books Geometry
AI Thread Summary
A.T. Fomenko and S.P. Novikov's "Modern Geometry-Methods and Applications" is more accessible for physicists, focusing on the geometry and topology of smooth manifolds from both differential and algebraic perspectives. In contrast, Phillip Griffiths and Joseph Harris's "Principles of Algebraic Geometry" delves into algebraic geometry through complex manifolds, which is less applicable to physics, particularly in string theory. The discussion highlights that the first book is more beneficial for physicists due to its practical examples and relevance. The second book, while a standard reference, is considered less useful for those in the physics field. Overall, Fomenko and Novikov's work is recommended for its applicability to physical concepts.
folksong
What do you think of these two books about Geometry??

1. A.T. Fomenko, S.P. Novikov, Modern Geometry-Methods and Applications PartI,II,III
2. Phillip Griffiths ,Joseph Harris , Principles of Algebraic Geometry

What's the main difference between these two books?
Which one is more suitable for a physicist?
Thanks!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
(1) A.T. Fomenko, S.P. Novikov, Modern Geometry-Methods and Applications PartI,II,III

These survey the geometry and topology of smooth manifolds from both the differential and algebraic viewpoints, and in a language and using examples that make it especially accessible and useful for physicists, and certainly more useful than...

(2) Phillip Griffiths ,Joseph Harris , Principles of Algebraic Geometry

This covers algebraic geometry from the standpoint of complex manifolds (as opposed to the more abstract but more general algebraic perspective, which at this point appears to be of little use in physics, including in string theory) and is still the standard reference in the field.

At this point, (1) is much more useful for a physicist than (2).
 
Algebraic geometry allows the mathematical objects that have isolated, and sometimes not so isolated, singularities, which are forbidden from manifold theory, the thrust of differential geometry.
 
What do you think of these two books about Geometry??

1. A.T. Fomenko, S.P. Novikov, Modern Geometry-Methods and Applications PartI,II,III
2. Phillip Griffiths ,Joseph Harris , Principles of Algebraic Geometry

What's the main difference between these two books?
Which one is more suitable for a physicist?
Thanks!
 
Have you asked this enough times, yet?
 

Thread 'What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight'

Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
View full post »

Thread 'Fermat's Last Theorem'

Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
View full post »
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'

Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'

I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
View full post »

Similar threads

Classical Source recommendation on Differential Geometry
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Sticky
Other Collection of Free Online Math Books and Lecture Notes (part 1)
Replies
16
Views
10K
Relativity Mathematics book before General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
Courses What kind of class is differential geometry?
Replies
8
Views
2K
I'm looking for someone to talk to about mathematical physics
Replies
1
Views
604
Does this forum include euclidean geometry?
Replies
29
Views
9K
Classical Books about tensor analysis just good enough for physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
Applied A question about mathematics textbooks for physicists
Replies
34
Views
6K
Other Can I (with a math major) do a masters in theoretical physics?
Replies
16
Views
2K
High Energy Recommended books in HEP, QFT, QM, GR
Replies
9
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top