/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9410239
>Instead of going through an intro to proofs book can I skip the crap and go directly to abstract algebra and learn how to do proofs that way? Otherwise I’m wasting a lot of time learning “how to do proofs” when all I want to do is learn abstract algebra

first chapter of pic related

>>9155362
>what are the prerequisites to learning abstract algebra?
nearly nothing, know what a set is

pic related is easy-going (starts with integers and polynomials)

threadly reminder to learn rings and fields before groups

>>9014842
Some algebra books do rings and fields before groups, there's not really any reason you can't do this unless you find it necessary to include the word group in your definition of rings and fields

>>8896539
>>8896481
can second hungerford

>>8814584
>>abstract algebra
hungerford has lots of problems and solutions for odds

>>8750903
Hungerford is the most babby's first algebra book that I know of

>>8641964 here
also if you do well enough in the first semester of math 110 (i.e. >~90%) you usually get invited to take math 210 (basic ring theory) in the second semester

Hated this book with a passion...until I understood what it was saying.

>>8405347
Yes I'm aware it seems odd, though in the textbook we used the rings came first (pic related). It was basic ring theory introduced by studying the integers (division algorithm, modular arithmetic, chinese remainder theorem, etc.), then extending things to polynomial rings, studying irreducibility criterion, and the isomorphism theorems for rings

The main section of it at least, going to try the additional topics at the end of the summer.

cover page has a picture