User talk:Topology Expert

Welcome, Topology Expert!

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally. Red4tribe (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spat
Thanks for the suggestions. I am all for good, challenging excercises, but as I mentioned, I was simultaneously learning and editing the Topology book, and there are precious few tough problems a first time learner can come up with. However, keeping applications of theorems as excercises seems a great idea.

If you could spare some time, I suggest you glance over the book Real Analysis. I have added quite a bit of stuff there, but there are some flaws in it as it stands. (The heirarchy is tacky, some of the proofs (the ones I've come up with) look unpolished and there are no problems). Any comments for improvements (or improvements themselves!) are welcome.

Regards S Pat   talk 11:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks


 * I have noticed in the Topology book that there is a sharp jump in difficulty level (or rather the level of preparedness) between the parts General Topology and Algebraic Topology. Is it possible to make the algebraic topology section a bit more accessible (by adding sections on prereqiusites of Algebra for example)? I couldn't make anything in the chapter The fundamental group when I read it here, but I found Munkres' treatment quite accessible.

S Pat   talk 08:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers,


 * I was away for a while and was only able to come in today. Thanks for looking into my suggestion and great job improving The fundamental group. I'll try to take time to provide some excercises.

S Pat   talk 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers,


 * This is mostly because they are not very well-developed. I, as A have tried to make the beginning sections very concise complete, so that people can move on to the next sections. This is the reason why it is not very developed. I, too, am simultaneously learning Topology and writing out the pages of the Topology book simultaneously, and I have not really gotten much to the part on the Fundamental Group yet.--131.243.31.197 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Abstract Algebra [And Differential Equations]
It seems that the Abstract Algebra could use a lot of work. If you are able to, can you do what you can to help improve the Abstract Algebra one?--A (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it seems like the Differential Equations book needs a lot of work as well. I think that we should work on it.

Geometry for elementary school/Lines
I rolled back your changes to Geometry for elementary school/Lines. Although they may technically be correct, they are clearly beyond the comprehension of an elementary student (that is, a kid typically between the ages of 6 and 12, inclusive). I am actually assuming that your additions were correct - they were beyond my grasp too, and I have taken a few graduate-level courses in mathematics (though it was some years ago). I do not discount the possibility that there might be a half dozen or so elementary students somewhere in the world that could have understood what you wrote. But it is clearly beyond the scope of the book.--Jomegat (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Real analysis
Thanks,


 * I meant monotonically increasing. I thought the two terms were interchangeable.
 * I am specifically refering to two (arbitrary) adjacent members of the partition, but yes, perhaps your way puts it better.

As it stands the Calculus book is a high-school level calculus book, where as Real Analysis is what I would put as introductory undergraduate. Specifically, I think Real Analysis is kind of more proof-based than Calculus.

For Analysis as an advanced subject, we already have books on Measure Theory and Functional Analysis. I think this book fits in the gap between school level Calculus and advanced level Measure Theory.

Cheers,

S Pat   talk 10:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)