Při výběru garanta předmětu se zobrazují připomínky jak k němu, tak ke všem vyučujícím daného předmětu. Při výběru vyučujícího, který garantem není, se zobrazují připomínky vztažené pouze k němu.
Stevan Gajović, Ph.D. [32-KA], Algebraická teorie čísel [NMAG430, cvičení]
Stevan Gajovic is an extremely energetic man with a strong personality, and it really showed during the practicals. Even when I was hopelessly lost, it was still a great joy listening to him.
Professor went way too quick, not giving proper time to process the information nor ask questions. If he stopped a lecture in the middle of a proof he would just continue next week giving no recapitulation and leaving me (and a lot of other colleagues) completely confused.
Pavlo Yatsyna, Ph.D. [32-KA], Algebraická teorie čísel [NMAG430, přednáška]
I have little but praise to say about Dr Yatsyna. He is forthcoming, kindly, and always ready and willing to answer questions. I like that he made short breaks during the class, as I do believe it helped me better focus on the next half and combatted mental exhaustion from a long lecture. He seemed a bit shy, but I am positive this will be righted with further experience. I would appreciate a slower pace for long proofs.
Připomínka k předmětu, Algebraická teorie čísel [NMAG430, cvičení]
The practicals were well-organised and the exercises very diverse. They also served as an excellent basis for the assignments, which only manageably spiked in difficulty from the practicals. The notation was different from the one used in lecture (but I believe superior), which was confusing at first. I think short revisions of the theory (say, 5-10 minutes) would have made it easier to follow the solutions.
The teacher was very motivated and tried to share his passion about the topics with us. The practicals very helpfull to understand the applications of the lecture and to solve the homeworks. Sometimes it was only a little bit to fast, so that it was hard to keep up if you didn't understand something directly. But it was very nice, that he tried to include the students as much as possible.
Připomínka k předmětu, Algebraická teorie čísel [NMAG430, přednáška]
It saddens me to leave this course a 'below average' rating of 4. Professor Yatsyna is exceedingly kind and forthcoming, which will reflect in his personal evaluation I intend to give him in the second question-box. The truth remains, however, that the course was riddled with problems. I will attempt to be as constructive in my criticism as possible, as I honestly believe Professor Yatsyna could make this an excellent course in the future.
In the first place I believe Marcus's book 'Number Fields' needs to go, and absolutely should not serve as a basis for the course in the future. While the mathematics in it was completely sound as far as I can judge, it is extremely poor from a pedagogical viewpoint. It almost does not matter whether I critique Number Fields itself or the present course, as their shortcomings are in a one-to-one correspondence due to the course's very close adherence to the text. I shall now attempt to list some of (what I perceive as) these shortcomings.
- Large swathes of the material felt completely unmotivated. Oftentimes it seemed like we were dedicating long hours to wholly pointless calculations.
- While certainly ink-, chalk-, and (in the short term) time-preserving, starting half the theorems with 'Let K, L, R, S, P, Q, G, D, E, r, e, f be as above.' makes the lecture-notes nigh illegible and very difficult to reference (say, while working on an assignment). It needs to be noted that the above is not an exaggeration, but an actual quote from the lecture-notes.
- The speed of the lecture was highly variable. I cannot say whether the overall speed was too great (as this was my first course in Number Theory and I expected myself to struggle), but we would at times fly through long arguments with minimal explanation (besides what Marcus had to say) while at other times go easily over the proofs of small results (which is not a bad thing, but I wish this approach extended to some of the big results).
- (A minor point.) I do not believe prime-ideal ramification should have had as much of a prominent role in the syllabus as it had. While it is a somewhat interesting topic, I do not believe it is so interesting as to dedicate what seemed like at least half the course to it. Perhaps there is a good reason as to why we studied this phenomenon so closely, but, again, I would not know because the motivation did not extend beyond '(2) is a prime ideal in Z but not in Z[sqrt(-5)].'
- (A minor point.) The prerequisites on Galois Theory were very inconsistent. On the one hand, we gave the definition of a field-extension at the beginning of the course, while on the other hand nontrivial knowledge of the theory was required to fill in arguments in later proofs.
Except for the last topic, every topic was very interesting and good to understand. The last one seemed a bit disconnected and I didn't quite get the motivation behind it.
Course felt unmotivated for the first 8 weeks (after that i gave it up), we were just defining and doing computations with random things, the only reason to care about the material was given by another course completely.
