Which abstract algebra textbook is most cummulative

AI Thread Summary
For quick reference in abstract algebra, Dummit and Foote is noted for its cumulative approach, though some suggest alternatives like Serge Lang’s algebra for deeper exploration, despite its increased difficulty. Working through Dummit and Foote can take an average student about a semester, but many prefer to spread it out for better retention. Understanding abstract algebra fully often requires applying concepts in various contexts, which enhances comprehension beyond just solving exercises. While Dummit and Foote is comprehensive, other texts like Rotman's Advanced Modern Algebra offer similar depth with different focuses. A strong foundation in algebra is deemed essential for advanced studies in physical sciences and other mathematical applications, emphasizing the importance of not just using the book as a reference but integrating its concepts into broader learning.
aLearner
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
If I were to use an abstract algebra book for quick and easy reference which one would it be? Dummit and Foote is very cumulative, is there anything better in the market? And how long would it take to work out all of D + F for an average student with basic background in Algebra?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What does it mean to you to work out all of D+F? You could probably go through it in a semester or so if you kept at it and come out with a decent understanding (most people spread it out over a longer period though with other classes in between and I believe this is a better way to learn algebra), but you will only truly gain an understanding of it when you study other math and use the algebra in various ways and comes back to see a subject in a new light. If you have started with D+F you may have already encountered group actions and you may be able to solve the exercises, do some basic counting and list of the axioms, but you will not truly understand how significant and powerful this simple abstraction is till you have seen it strecthed in various ways in applications.

As for what is most "cummulative" I don't think there is a standard way to measure that, but I think Serge Lang's algebra (the GTM version of course) is the best answer without further context. However it is considerably harder than D+F and should in my opinion mainly be used when you are curious about a certain topic, not when you want to learn a lot of different algebra. However D+F is plenty comprehensive, and alternatives like Rotman's Advanced Modern Algebra are probably at about the same level as D+F but with a slightly different focus.

In the end I don't think knowing what books are "cummulative" is going to do you much good.
 
I definitely will be taking Linear Algebra and I'm using the book to gain command over Shankar's Principle's of Quantum Mechanics and J.J Sakurai's Quantum Mechanics. But more so, plenty of physical sciences use groups to explain theory, and so I truly believe a really strong foundation on the topic is essential. I'm no expert, but I am aware of its capabilities, which is another reason why I'm fascinated about it. I have every intention of applying it on certain ideas that have been boiling up in my mind, but before I dive into it I want to make sure that my intuitions are strong. I don't want to take it up as a "come back to it when you are stuck" book because I consider it as essential to higher learning as basic algebra was to college sciences. A semester sounds like a real short period of time to work out all the problems, but I could try that anyway. Thanks for responding.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Back
Top