Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

136 submissions , 114 unreviewed
3,844 questions , 1,360 unanswered
4,805 answers , 20,346 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
489 active unimported users
More ...

Algebraic Geometry for non-mathematician

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
81 views

I think I sound stupid but I have heard a lot about Algebraic Geometry as a subject and wish to study it without actually studying abstract algebra. I have never studied abstract algebra since I am a physics student. I have always studied mathematics as part of math physics course. Means I know basics of analysis and some of the concepts of algebra (groups, rings, fields). If I plan to study algebraic geometry for interest, what should be an ideally strategy. Should I master commutative algebra first ?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Rahul Roy
asked Apr 9, 2014 in Mathematics by Rahul Roy (30 points) [ no revision ]
retagged May 19
In my opinion commmutative algebra and algebraic geometry are so intertwined that the only way to study them is to study them toghether. I'd start with commutative algebra though (say at least until you understand well things like localizations and noetherianness)

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Denis Nardin
The only "shortcut" I know of would be to play around with SURFER: imaginary.org/program/surfer. It shows you the roots of polynomials over 3 letters. Since varieties and algebraic curves are fundamental in AG this gives you a peek at the topic. Also an analytical statement about intersections (from eg lecture 1 of Vakil) can be envisaged with eg.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user isomorphismes

6 Answers

+ 8 like - 0 dislike

MR1075991 Abhyankar, Shreeram S. Algebraic geometry for scientists and engineers. AMS Providence, RI, 1990. It is really for scientists and engineers.

Another excellent choice is D. Cox J. Little and D. O'Shea, Ideals, varieties, and algorithms. An introduction to computational algebraic geometry and commutative algebra, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007.

Griffiths Harris is far too difficult, especially for "non-mathematician". Shafarevich is OK for a beginner but beginner-mathematician.

EDIT. B. Hassett, Introduction to AG, Cambridge 2007 is a very short book in the spirit of Cox, Little and O'Shea, aimed at undergraduates. Grobner bases are emphasized.

Another excellent book, in a very different style (classical geometry) is J. Harris, AG. A first course, Springer, 1992, 1995.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alexandre Eremenko
answered Apr 9, 2014 by Alexandre Eremenko (150 points) [ no revision ]
I personally find Abhyankar's book very helpful but always a bit hesitate to cite it due to its "for scientists and engineers" suffix....

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Henry.L
@Henry.L: I don't really understand why you hesitate. And the question was "for non-mathematician", this is why this book came to my mind first.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alexandre Eremenko
...cause it may make my article seems like "for non-mathematician", anyway I did cite it, and this is just my personal eccentricity :)

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Henry.L
@Henry.L: "for scientists and engineers" on my opinion means that scientists and engineers can also read it. A mathematical paper/paper which scientists and engineers can also read is something very good.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Alexandre Eremenko
Absolutely agree!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Henry.L
+ 6 like - 0 dislike

You might be better off studying an analytic approach to algebraic geometry first. The classical reference for this approach to algebraic geometry is Griffith and Harris' Principles of Algebraic Geometry. Of course, to really understand algebraic geometry at a deeper level, you will need to acquire some algebraic tools.

If you are a physics student, you most certainly should study abstract algebra, particularly group theory. However, I would adopt an attitude of learning commutative algebra as needed at this point. Depending exactly what level of ability you wish to reach in algebraic geometry will determine how much commutative algebra you need to know. But for a first introduction, focus on the geometric aspects instead of the algebraic aspects, and Griffiths and Harris is a great place to start when this is your goal.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Michael Joyce
answered Apr 9, 2014 by Michael Joyce (60 points) [ no revision ]
In addition, the OP might be better acquainted with complex geometry, so mastering related concepts from complex geometry (such as sheaves of functions, germs and say Dolbeault' cohomology) will be of value if and when he decides about doing the transition to the abstract algebraic setting.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Asaf
+ 6 like - 0 dislike

I would highly recommend first covering the book An Invitation to Algebraic Geometry by Smith et al. This requires very little abstract algebra as prerequisite (only understanding of very basics about rings) and gives a very well-written introduction to algebraic geometry. It has a great mix of theory and examples and gives a good idea of what algebraic geometry is and where it goes. As a plus, it has some good exercises asking the reader to work out some examples.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Corwin
answered Apr 9, 2014 by David Corwin (60 points) [ no revision ]
+ 5 like - 0 dislike

Modern algebraic geometry is closely linked to commutative algebra. It is almost impossible to understand some of the essentials without knowing some algebra. Unfortunately, learning commutative algebra with no knowledge of geometry makes it a tediously dry subject. As a result, when learning commutative algebra, people wish they already knew algebraic geometry. And when learning algebraic geometry, people wish they already knew commutative algebra. There are a few books out there that try to deal with this. Here are two that I know of.

An introduction that begins essentially at the high school level (but gets to sheaves by the end) is the book by Tom Garrity et al, Algebraic Geometry: A Problem Solving Approach (American Mathematical Society, 2013). The book begins by looking at quadratic curves in the plane. It gets to sheaves and Cech cohomology by the end. Concepts such as ideals are introduced about halfway through. As the title says, this is essentially inquiry-based learning. So you will learn algebraic geometry by doing lots and lots of problems that build upon one another. [Disclaimer: I worked with Garrity et al on this book. I am surely biased in favor of it.]

A good book that starts at a higher level (say, an advanced undergraduate math major) while attempting to minimize the amount of commutative algebra needed is Introduction to Algebraic Geometry by Brendan Hassett (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Hassett's clever idea is to emphasize computation, in particular Gröbner bases, rather than building up the formal machinery of commutative algebra. You probably need to know some abstract algebra to get started, but not necessarily commutative algebra. Hassett gets up through Grassmannians, Hilbert polynomials, and such. There is a computational flair throughout the book.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Edward Dunne
answered Apr 9, 2014 by Edward Dunne (50 points) [ no revision ]
+ 4 like - 0 dislike

If you are comfortable doing a lot of exercises, and even better if you can work with a group, then I recommend Ravi Vakil's notes for his course, which are frequently updated and can be found here: http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/ It is a hands-on treatment, and works through many facts you would need from commutative algebra and category theory.

From the introduction:

"Attempts to explain algebraic geometry often leave such background to the reader, refer to other sources the reader won’t read, or punt it to a telegraphic appendix. Instead, this book attempts to explain everything necessary, but as little possible, and tries to get across how you should think about (and work with) these fundamental ideas, and why they are more grounded than you might fear."

"The book is intended to be as self-contained as possible. I have tried to follow the motto: “if you use it, you must prove it”. I have noticed that most students are human beings: if you tell them that some algebraic fact is in some late chapter of a book in commutative algebra, they will not immediately go and read it. Surprisingly often, what we need can be developed quickly from scratch, and even if people do not read it, they can see what is involved."

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user Zack Wolske
answered Apr 10, 2014 by Zack Wolske (40 points) [ no revision ]
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

I would advise reading (in this sequence):

Algebraic Geometry: A First Course (Graduate Texts in Mathematics) (v. 133), J. Harris. This is very basis algebraic geometry with a lot of classical examples.

Basic Algebraic Geometry 1: Varieties in Projective Space, I. R. Shafarevich. This is a little more advanced.

If you want to learn something about sheaves, scheme and cohomology.

Basic Algebraic Geometry 2: Schemes and Complex Manifolds, I. R. Shafarevich.

Finally

Algebraic Geometry (Graduate Texts in Mathematics), R. Hartshorne. For sure you should read at least the first chapter.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user S_Z_S
answered Apr 9, 2014 by S_Z_S (30 points) [ no revision ]
I always found the Harris book much more difficult than the two Shafarevich volumes. There are many examples in Harris's book, but there are also many claims that are left to the reader, and the prerequisites are quite substantial.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user René
Yes, I know. I guess it's a matter of taste.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user S_Z_S
I would have put Harris's book last. My feeling is that one needs a lot of machinery to really understand a.g. Once one has mastered a lot of the abstract concepts, Harris's book provides numerous beautiful examples of actual varieties on which one can apply those tools.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-05-19 14:21 (UTC), posted by SE-user aginensky

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...