Compulsory Update


Almost nothing happens around here. All I ever get done is a bit of reading on the third book on the Riemann Hypothesis, The Music of the Primes by Marcus du Sautoy. I should start doing some music theory since I still have three quarters to learn by January. I want to do math though. I want to understand something at the conference, but I probably won’t.

My algebra notes are now on the web here in pdf and here in dvi. If you find any errors, please tell me. I want these notes to be perfect.

Happy 233rd birthday to Beethoven. It’s prime!

Advertisements

About Simon

Hi. I'm Simon Rubinstein-Salzedo. I'm a mathematics postdoc at Dartmouth College. I'm also a musician; I play piano and cello, and I also sometimes compose music and study musicology. I also like to play chess and write calligraphy. This blog is a catalogue of some of my thoughts. I write them down so that I understand them better. But sometimes other people find them interesting as well, so I happily share them with my small corner of the world.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Compulsory Update

  1. Anonymous says:

    erkerkerk
    erk, Simon is afraid he won’t understand anything. What is the world coming to?
    btw, what level of students was the conference designed for?
    -LV

  2. yuethomas says:

    A couple of questions. TeX notations are used to facilitate clearer understanding.
    1. Definition 1.5. $f(j) = j$ if $j \neq n_k$ for $1 \le k \le r$ means $\nexists k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $j = n_k$ right?
    2. Example of Proposition 1.6. Is multiplication of non-disjoint cycles from right to left? (Sorta like $(f \cdot g)(a) = f(g(a))$) Because if I write (1,2)(2,3) as one cycle from left to right, I get (1,3,2) which implies that 3 -> 1 not 3 -> 2. Same for (2,3)(1,2): I get the identity permutation in which case 3 -> 1.
    3. Proof of Theorem 1.7. In the 6th line (not counting the whitespace) of the proof, you say “for if $i_m$ is an $i$…” Do you mean “for if $j_m$ is an $i$…”, since $i_m$ is by definition an $i$?
    That’ll do for now – thanks for the file! I needed a pick-me-up in group theory. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s