So, based on my traffic, I’ve come to the realization that no one wants to see my ramblings about algebraic geometry “from the beginning,” so I’m going to attempt to go back to a less organized style of blogging, and will use those posts as references in lieu of wikipedia. I may stick other posts under the heading, but only when I’m intending to use them as references in the future.
Anyway, looking to get in at least one serious math post this week before the Carnival on Friday, and everyone, PLEASE submit entries, I’ve only got five so far, and a carnival that doesn’t make.
July 7, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I’m sorry to hear that. I liked them.
July 8, 2008 at 1:25 am
Hey, I read that series :P
July 8, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Me too.
July 8, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Me four.
July 8, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Keep in mind that you don’t see traffic from Google a given post stuff than you think. In fact, there’s an extent to which the posts with the highest hit count are the most transiently popular ones. They’re the hits from people just linking through and loading the actual page, not from subscribers reading the content through another feed reader.
July 9, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I’m also looking for a good introductory book (for the self-taught). Any suggestions? It would be nice if it went through varieties, schemes, and sheafs, but without leaning towards one or the other as they seem to do. Just a question..
Thanks!
July 10, 2008 at 12:18 am
Well, for varieties and schemes, you get best results really by picking one and studying it, and I recommend varieties first. However, I’ve heard good things about “Algebraic Geometry and Arithmetic Curves” by Liu and Eisenbud and Harris’s “Geometry of Schemes”
Both start from the position that schemes are best, but talk a lot about varieties as a special case. My recommendation though is that, if you’re a geometry person, learn varieties first, because they’ll match your intuition better and than general schemes will. For the true algebraist, though, schemes are a bit more natural, because finitely generated reduced k-algebras seem somewhat contrived when your real interest is in commutative rings.
July 29, 2008 at 3:19 am
This is very overdue, but thank you for the recommendations ;)