Talk:Abstract algebra

message: While to mathematicians, Abstract Algebra is in the tradition of Hilbert's pursuit of rigor, it can quickly become "opaque" to the layman.  So how to bridge the snippy criticism of mathematicians about X being left out, etc. with the bewilderment of laymen if X were included?  Is the Wiki article to be an undergraduate text book for mathematics majors or a general reader's guide to what the general reader can legitimately view as difficult abstract topic? God bless any writer attempting to thread that needle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.63.134 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifications vs Rigorous Correctness 

message: It seems abstract algebra only has application in mathematics to develop more complex concept such as algebraic number theory or algebraic topology.kongshengxin (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More applications should be mentioned, particularly to computer science in areas such as error correction codes and cryptography. --136.160.159.161 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of abstract algebra? 

message: Am I the only one to find the flowchart unreadable?
For me, there is no box, and arrows everywhere, making very hard to figure which text refers to which arrows.
Plus, arrows are in all directions. I guess it would be better to have shorter text, draw boxes, start arrow from boxes edges and try to arrange this stuff so that all arrows are from down to up with no exception.
Sedrikov (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean of the flowchart 

message: I pulled the diagram "File:algebraic_structures.png". It really represents one person's conception of these relationships, and is not really encyclopedic material. I appreciate the poster's work and intentions, but I think the diagram is not as helpful as intended. This is why I have elected to pull it from the article. Rschwieb (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of diagram 

message: Functions under composition and matrices under multiplication are only monoids if the domain and codomain are equal and if the matrices are square (and the size is fixed), respectively. Otherwise, they are just categories. We must strive to not be misleading. --Eduardo León (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond that, the paragraph failed to mention the functions had to be linear endomorphisms of a finite dimensional vector space. The first two paragraphs were misbegotten in the first place, and they didn't really exemplify anything, so I took them out. Rschwieb (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of monoids? Really? 

message: I have reverted a recent edit for reasons that are too long for an edit summary:
* The edit replaced "abstract algebra is a usual name for the subarea ..." by "abstract algebra is the subarea ...". This would be fine if "abstract algebra" would be a well established subarea. But this is not the case. For example the Mathematics Subject Classification does not mention "abstract algebra" at all. It is important to warn the reader in the lead that the term "abstract algebra" is somehow controversial by itself.
* The edit removed "for themselves" in "that studies for themselves algebraic structures ...". Again, it is highly controversial to suggest that the study of an algebraic structure in view of applications is "abstract algebra". For example, the study of Rubik's cube belongs to group theory, but it is a wrong idea to consider it as "abstract algebra".
D.Lazard (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is that abstract algebra is not a well established subarea, then that should be stated directly rather than being hinted at. The following "History" section is where that already happens, so it's not like I'm being revisionary. And what is added by the parenthetical remark "(occasionally called modern algebra)" when modern algebra clearly redirects here and the evolution of both terms are spelled out in the following section? If nobody else objects, I would like to remove this issue from the lede and include the other grammatical changes that I made. Cutelyaware (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation of a revert 

message: Substituted at 01:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment