1 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Good Book Overall, May 9, 2007
This review is from: Algebraic Geometry 1: From Algebraic Varieties to Schemes (Translations of Mathematical Monographs) (Vol 1) (Paperback)
A nice book with details worked out but quite a few typos.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
0 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not good by comparison, June 27, 2008
This review is from: Algebraic Geometry 1: From Algebraic Varieties to Schemes (Translations of Mathematical Monographs) (Vol 1) (Paperback)
Algebraic geometry in modern times is not an easy subject. A better introductory text is
Introduction to Algebraic Geometry.
My beef with this type of Mathematical writing is old: the writer gives the student nothing but a new axiomatic language without "context" or contact with objective reality ( no real pictures of the geometry involved).
He also expects after we have read this badly written text to buy volumes 2 and 3? He is not alone in going over students heads in Algebraic Geometry.
I bought this hoping that it would give a decent introduction to Schemes.
It doesn't even give an a good introduction to Zariski topology or why
Zariski (T0) instead of Hausdorff (T2) ... ? The examples, problems and definitions are pretty bad too. If you want your grad students in massive depression while taking your course, use this as a text? I bought this book after doing several weeks of searching for a cheap book
that covered the areas I wanted to learn.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion there are some very strange people in this field and very few real teachers?
If in you are presenting a subject in Mathematics in an Axiomatic form like this, you have to tell the people why the axioms/ theorems are as they are: not just give definition in strange symbols and prove using the same new notation.
I've seen worse than this text, but not by much?
An Introduction to Homological Algebra for example.
Presenting Zariski tangent space without a diffeomorphism definition
is just really bad Mathematics with no excuse in my mind?
Presenting Schemes without reference to Galois theory is not a very good idea either? Not mentioning that Algebraic geometry uses Zariski topology because it excludes the transcendental numbers ( no algebraic variety has root that is Pi or e). Some bridge to measure theory for Schemes
seems necessary, since the use of "spectrum" in the definition tends to confuse the student for other areas that are more concretely defined?
The father of algebraic geometry is Descartes,yet he seems to never be mentioned. Instead Grothendieck appears everywhere where things get most dense? I repeat, if you are approaching a subject axiomatically, you have to made plain the basis for those axioms. And algebra without algebra ( polynomials) and geometry without geometry ( pictures) is probably very confusing to most students.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No