Exams

So how did your exams go /sci/?

>>19
The nice thing about Lin Al was the bit that I think the lecturer did worst (Or I missed the most lectures on) on weak topology was non-examinable.

Just noticed I wrote analysis where I meant algebra in the post above.

Number fields however was a bastard. I basically taught myself the key bits of the course a week before the exam cause the lectures were shit. Managed to get at least 2 alphas on all the past papers I did, but the questions they set were ridiculous.
For one thing they asked or a proof of dirichlet's unit theorem, which was only "statement of" in the schedules. Also his terminology was incredibly opaque, who refers to ideals as sub Z-modules?!

The one thing I was surprised by was I only dropped 2 marks on galois theory, even though I know for a fact I got half of one of the questions entirely wrong. I got the answer right, but my reasoning was literally nonsense, and to be honest I wouldn't have given me full marks for any of the other questions either.

>>20
Didn't take number fields but I sympathise. Baron's terminology has always been, and always will be, opaque. I've heard he's one of the most brilliant minds in DPMMS and his lectures are rigorous and well-structured... but you tend to have to go through a couple of hours worth of decoding and thinking for every hour of lecturing to really see why. That's my experience from his GRM anyway.

I knew Galois would screw me. I love algebra but there's something about the way you have to fiddle around with polynomials and radicals in that course that always throws me. I thought I'd do better than I did in Rep Theory too. PQM was alright though, my other big scorer. Thinking of some of the quantum foundations stuff next year, looks fascinating.