Hi /sci/
I'm about to wrap up a math undergrad. I focused my curriculum on probability & statistics since I found this to be the most interesting. This means that I've omitted a lot of abstract algebra that I could have taken. Pic related is the textbook used for the algebra sequence at my school. I think the Dummit & Foote book is split into a 3 course sequence on abstract algebra. Is this book any good for self study? Is this too babby tier? I'm fairly strong (for an undergrad) in analysis & functional analysis but I only have experience in babby linear algebra when it comes to abstract algebra
I'd say bad overall for self study. It's a classic though, and there are lots of solutions online. Be ready to discuss with other people if you want to work through the book and complete all exercises.
>>8060542
i thought it was shit, fraleigh is much better
First of all what do you plan on using algebra for?
Second of all, at least for self-study, Aluffi > D&F
https://zr9558.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/algebra-chapter-0-aluffi.pdf
>>8060572
>fraleigh
No, that's shit for babies too scared to take a real Algebra course.
>>8060576
>using math
just for fun, self growth, etc. mathematics is a way to view the world, and i'd like to be exposed to as much as possible
>>8060579
Then yes, you want something other than D&F.
Rowen's two books on graduate algebra are also very good
>>8060576
Damn, that looks a lot like my linear algebra book by Harry Dym.
How good is the Dover series book by Pinter?
inb4
>statistics
>math
>>8060611
yeah, it's a shame that I found it to be the most compelling for some reason
>>8060601
That's because all the AMS grad texts look the same
>>8060624
Oh really? I didn't know that. I'm finishing off an undergrad degree in a few days and this is the only class that I've had that uses a textbook like this. The class was rough, senpai.
>>8060576
I never use higher algebra in my work (proba / stochastic analysis) but this was a fucking GOOD read. Except for the last chapters a little bit messy
>>8060601
Ant-man wrote a lin. alg book?
>>8060602
Superb, but you will need a more in depth book for background as it only covers about half a year's worth of material and barely discusses actions, which are a core concept.
It's good, don't do all the exercises, it's excessive.
I plan to study abstract algebra with Lang's book. Is it possible? I just finished Calc III and Differential equations.
>>8062351
You would be a masochist for trying. Just do Artin, D&F or something.
>>8060576
I hated this book. Worst book on category theory I've ever read.
>>8062351
I don't know about Lang, but I used D&F for an abstract algebra shortly after a multi var and a basic ODEs class.
>>8062351
hell no
read something easier as a main text and Lang as a more in depth look as you go
Lang is the driest textbook you could possibly pick up. It's really a reference. Not good for any sort of introduction.
Its alright to start with a "baby tier" book as long as shit's making sense and you're making progress. Any book used in a decent undergrad curriculum will include all of the topics for a good intro.
Make sure to fuck around with the morphisms quite a bit. There is some subtly to stuff like Aut(G) that needs careful attention.
>>8060542
OP I am in the same boat as you. Here are some notes I sent a friend. I am learning math for physics so I don't care much about Ring Fields and Ideals mainly groups and representations.
My main book.
Pinter A book of abstract algebra. It has most of what I need and has solutions.
Doesn't have group representations. For that I will probably use Riley et al Mthematical Methods for Physics and Engineering chapter 21.
For the main book it was a close call with Gallian Contemporary Abstract Algebra (later editions have selected solutions which is essential for self study). Good to read.
I also have Byron and Fuller Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics but it has no answers. It was good to read for a second view.
Artin Abstract Algebra also really good including representations but no answers. I read it.
Herstein Anstract Algebra No solutions did not look further (solutions manual is not for sale $119 second hand)
Did not like Bhattacharya Basic Abstract Agebra (physically fell apart and overall confused and seemingly little effort to find good instructive proofs). Does have answers though.
Schaum's outlines Group Theory No representations otherwise fairly good. Some of the proof s are lazy/messy e.g., Sylow theorems. I read this.
Hungerford Algebra this is a graduate text but I also found it really annoying. E.g., would it really kill him to set the proofs out in a reasonable fashion e.g., start new ideas in new paragraphs, signal where you are heading before diving into the detail.
I don't have "visual group theory" will look into it.
I like to read a few texts to get different points of view also if gives me a chance when I get stuck (e.g., when there is an error in a book I can look at another tone).
OP can you recommend good stats books? I am especially looking for good books on Bayesian methods with exercises and answers to selected prblems.
>>8063294
I don't know the book you suggested and there is no preview on Amazon so can't help there.
