Why do professors go through proof after proof with no rhyme or reason?
One theory is that this is an "easy" way to give a lecture (to be negative about it, a "lazy" way.) This may be true in some cases. But on the other hand, much of the instructor's education might have been this way, and maybe they even think the experience is valuable. So, they might actually be giving the students the best path they know of. Some students might even feel like that is the way they are most comfortable learning. So to be fair, such instruction may be given in good faith, and may have good points.
The fact is that really good exposition requires a really skillful teacher, and it's not easy to do. Incidentally, I found Artin a very good expositor, but I did observe that by doing this, some less dedicated readers might get bored or distracted during his exposition.
One of my books learning abstract algebra was Martin Isaacs' Algebra. At the time I did not like it very much, but looking back on it now I think I do like its exposition. This just goes to show that reasonable exposition is not always easy to evaluate.
My question is How do I prevent this from happening to me in future?
Oh, well that's easy! Go skim through a lot of alternative books on the same topic and soak up whatever you can! Don't pretend like it's your teacher's responsibility to put text on your plate. You already applied this when you picked up Artin's book and learned something from it.
why are textbooks like Gallian's popular in math instruction?
The "like" part here makes this a loaded question, but I could just say that this book is probably considered basic, safe and affordable. It probably also depends upon the teacher's experience with texts too.
How are you supposed to read them?
This varies a lot from person to person. Personally I discovered that I learn best by having three or four texts on the same topic that I can use to cross-reference topics. Usually at least one of the authors is going to say something that makes things click.
And most of all, this sets me up with a big supply of problems. Doing problems does a lot more than plain reading, for me. Of course you have to spend some time reading or you won't know what tools you have at hand, and you won't see the themes in the proofs.
Is math supposed be learnt like you are learning a game where you are given all the rules ( definitions) and you have to play the game according to those rules( theorems, exercises) ?
I guess ideally "no", but for some people, that's how mathematics first begins! Those who persist eventually find their own appreciation for the subject matter, and develop their ability with it. This "game" analogy certainly doesn't paint a pretty picture of pedagogy, but it's very rare to find teachers with enough ability to get the beauty of mathematics across from the very beginning.
Luckily, it sounds like you at least know mathematics is more than a string of memorized definitions and theorems and proofs, so you, my friend, are already well ahead of many other students. The rest are in the even sadder situation of thinking "Yes, that's all mathematics is. Isn't it awful?!"
Let $R$ be a ring without unit. Suppose
for each ordered pair $(a,b)\in R$ with $b\neq 0$, there exists a unique $c\in R$ such that $a=bc=cb$.
We claim that $R$ is a ring with unit.
Let $b \in R$, $b \ne 0$. Then there is a unique $e_b$ such that $b = be_b = e_bb$.
We must show that $e_a = e_b$ for all nonzero $a,b$. Then this will be the unit in $R$.
Let $a,b \in R$, both nonzero. There is $c$ so that $a = cb = bc$. So
$$
e_b a = e_b b c = b c = a,\qquad
ae_b= c b e_b = c b = a.
$$
Thus, $e_b$ satisfies the defining property of $e_a$. By the uniqueness, $e_a = e_b$.
Best Answer
Localization is a technique which allows one to concentrate attention to what is happening near a prime, for example. When you localize at a prime, you have simplified abruptly the behavior of your ring outside that prime but you have more or less kept everything inside it intact.
For lots of questions, this significantly simplifies things.
Indeed, there are very general procedures, in lots of contexts, which go by the name of localization, and their purpose is usually the same: if you are lucky, the problems you are interested in can be solved locally and then the "local solutions" can be glued together to obtain a solution to your original problem. Moreover, an immense deal of effort has been done in order to extent the meaning of "local" so as to be able to apply this strategy in more contexts: I have always loved the way the proofs of some huge theorems of algebraic geometry consist more or less in setting up an elaborate technology in order to be able to say the magical "It is enough to prove this locally", and then, thanks to the fact that we worked so much in that technology, immediately conclude the proof with a "where it is obvious" :)
Of course, all sort of bad things can happen. For example, sometimes the "local solutions" cannot be glued together into a "global solution", &c. (Incidentally, when this happens, so that you can do something locally but not glue the result, you end up with a cohomology theory which, more or less, is the art of dealing with that problem)