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!

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

## 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.

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

Re: erkerkerk

It wasn’t designed for students at all.

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. 😉

I agree with all. Thanks.