Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

tl;dr: Is mathematical maturity better obtained by doing hard subjects slightly out of your reach, or by doing more simple subjects to gain experience?

The end of the semester is close, and I have to pick my subjects for the fall. Being a freshman, I decided to do Abstract Algebra two semesters early, seeing as it seemed to fall closer to my interests. I am not able to clearly define what my mathematical interests are yet, but I start to see a trend where I prefer subjects that use a lot of discrete structures etc, while I tend to dislike subjects that forces me to memorize a lot of formulas, often omitting proofs, claiming we are to go more rigorously through them in future courses. (This was very much the case with HS-math and Calc 1, where in HS one simply memorized methods, we learned it a bit more rigorously in Calc 1, making it a very pleasant experience.)

I am doing fairly well in Abstract Algebra. Now, I do have the option of doing Commutative Algebra next semester. When I asked my professor about it, I was told that "while Abstract Algebra is the only course that works as a direct preparation for Commutative Algebra, the latter subject requires quite a lot of mathematical maturity."

Next semester the subjects Real Analysis and Calc 3 are mandatory for my degree. A third subject is optional (mandatory to have a third subject, which is optional), and I am wavering between Statistics, Discrete Mathematics and Commutative Algebra. I am already familiar with the most of the curriculum in Discrete Mathematics. Should I do Statistics to gain more "width" in my mathematical knowledge, or should I do Discrete Mathematics, which is more closely related to what I want to do in the future? Or should I go with Commutative Algebra, where I am confident my true interest lies?

share|improve this question
I think this would be better suited for the Math Educators StackExchange. –  Jack M May 18 '14 at 13:44
Isn't matheducators.SE for, well, math educators? Questions about being a teacher, not a student? –  Andrew Thompson May 18 '14 at 13:45

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

There is an old apocryphal quote from von Neumann: "Young man, in mathematics, you don't understand the concepts, you just get used to them."

It's not that bad, but there's a measure of truth in what he said. As you study more stuff, it all starts to make more sense: the new material sheds light on the old.

Much of your question asks for rather specific advice about what course you should take; not knowing you personally, I won't venture an answer. I'll just say a bit about your title question.

I think there are two aspects to mathematical maturity. One is just an increasing function of how much math you've read. Some is not even that specific to the subject area. Proof-writing has its own (mostly unwritten) conventions; you will surely find that your experience in abstract algebra helps with real analysis. Some basic concepts show up almost everywhere, like equivalence relations.

The other aspect is getting used to your own personal style of learning, and with time you will focus on what works for you and try to avoid what doesn't.

Example: when I was younger, I tended to stop after a reading a proof if it didn't "click"; I would mull it over for days before proceeding. I now find it's more efficient to keep reading, skim ahead, and try consulting other treatments.

Another example, more technical: given an equivalence relation on a algebraic structure, we often have a choice of (1) working with the elements of the quotient structure; (2) working with the equivalence relation; (3) work with representative elements of the equivalence classes. For example, say $N$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. We can write (aN)(bN)=cN (equation between elements of $G/N$), or $ab\equiv c\mod N$ (think in terms of congruence mod $N$), or pick elements $a\in aN$, $b\in bN$, and $c\in N$ (representative elements), and write the equation as $ab=cn, n\in N$. Depending on what you're doing, you might find one or another of these approaches more useful or just more congenial to your own mathematical style.

Final comment on commutative algebra, specifically: two of the big historical sources of the subject were algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory; algebraic geometry, in turn, has its roots in ordinary analytical geometry and also the theory of Riemann surfaces. Sometimes even a casual skimming of the historical roots can make stuff more understandable and less "just get used to it". I for one found the concepts of localization, and the ramification of prime ideals, much more intuitive when I learned how these come out of the theory of Riemann surface.

share|improve this answer
You interpreted my question very well, thank you. I strongly agree, by experience, that deeper understanding is obtained by doing one course, then another that is based, either a lot or just slightly, on the previous one. Considering all this, I intend to do both Discrete Mathematics and Commutative Algebra, and drop out of CA if I find it too difficult. (I can always do it next year.) –  Andrew Thompson May 19 '14 at 22:21
Sounds like a good plan, especially since you know most of the discrete math. –  Michael Weiss May 19 '14 at 22:58

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.