3.1-3.2, due on May 6

(Difficult)
Another long section with a lot of theorems. Due to the section's rigor, the proofs all relied on the axioms for commutative rings with identity, integral domains, and fields. The most difficult part of this section will probably be the need to internalize the axioms so they can be used offhand.

(Reflective)
While rigor is difficult, it's a great exercise in developing a system from the ground up. It will be interesting and useful to be along for the ride.

2.3 3.1, due on May 4

(Difficult)
Learning the definitions of 3.1 seems like it will be the most difficult. I suppose it will be necessary to memorize the various axioms that must be satisfied for each type of ring or field.

(Reflective)
3.1 begins the sections on abstract algebra. The introduction to the chapter was interesting--Learning how to group mathematical systems by their properties will be a useful exercise, and gleaning what those properties imply will sharpen my ability cut to the essence of any problem.

2.1-2.2, due on May 3

(Difficult)
From section 2.2, the most difficult topic was addition and multiplication in congruence mod n. While I understood it, the intuition will be hard to internalize.

(Reflective)
It will be interesting to see how these equivalence classes will be used like vector spaces.

Introduction, Due on 28 April

I'm a senior (graduating after spring term), majoring in econ and math.

I've taken the following math classes: linear algebra, ord. diff. eq., multivariable calc, 290, real analysis 1&2, numerical analysis, complex analysis, and topology. I'm taking this class to finish the major.

My most effective math professor was Dr. Lawlor, for real analysis 1. It was my first real proofs class, and he effectively reduced the difficult concepts to their essence. His exposition was clear, and the logical progression was obvious.
My least effective math professor was Dr. Swenson, for complex analysis. He breezed through the proofs, and seemed to assume the class would be able to sort it all out. If I had not already taken real analysis 1&2, I would have been lost.
I guess the moral of these two cases is to find a happy medium. While I learned much with Dr. Lawlor, he often coddled us. And although Dr. Swenson rushed through the proofs, he treated us like math majors (which, I feel, is the level at which a 300 level class should be taught).

Next fall, I will start the econ Ph.D. program at the University of Rochester. Hence, I will probably slack off in this class, because grades don't really matter at this point. I'll still participate in class and do the reading and homework and all that jazz, though.