As briefly mentioned in the book, for polynomial equations of degree five or higher we cannot find solutions the same way that we found solutions to the equations of degree at most four.

Implicit in this statement is the notion of `solution’ that we are interested in. From the point of view of Abstract Algebra, the expressions we are looking for are what one usually calls solutions `by radicals,’ although we have not made this too precise yet. Informally, we look for a formula in which we are allowed to use:

The coefficients of the given polynomial, and

complex and real numbers,

and in which we can make use of

the elementary operations , and

radicals—i.e., we can take -th roots of any of the expressions we can obtain, for any positive integer

The amazing result that motivates our work through this course is that, indeed, no such formulas exist for polynomials of degree five or higher.

However, it is a bit misleading to read this as saying that no `formulas’ exist at all. The situation is similar to what mathematicians had to face before having the notion of complex numbers. Then, some equations could not be solved, since their solutions would involve the extraction of square roots of negative numbers. Nowadays, we understand that we can solve those equations, as long as the use of complex numbers is allowed, and we cannot otherwise.

Indeed, although no solutions by radicals are possible for the roots of quintic polynomials, if we allow a larger class of operations to be used, then solutions exist. For example, more general hypergeometric series than -th roots allow us to find the roots of the quintic. Although not nearly as popular now as they once were, hypergeometric series (a particular kind of power series) are still fairly used, for example in partition theory.

There is a well known poster from Wolfram Research explaining how Mathematica can be used to solve the quintic with the help of these functions; their webpage actually is very interesting.

Besides the usefulness of hypergeometric functions, Felix Klein found an approach using the symmetries of the Icosahedron. His book, Lectures on the Icosahedron and the Solution of Equations of the Fifth Degree, is available online for download from Cornell.

These approaches essentially propagate to higher degree equations, with some new obstacles appearing along the way, but in this sense, one can solve

any polynomial equation. The solutions are less satisfactory in that general hypergeometric functions are less well understood and much less intuitive than -th roots. For the purposes of the course, we will concentrate on solutions by radicals, since also these are the ones that lend themselves naturally to algebraic (rather than analytic) study, and the arguments work in much more generality than just over the complex numbers.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 5th, 2009 at 4:13 pm and is filed under 305: Abstract Algebra I. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The only reference I know for precisely these matters is the handbook chapter MR2768702. Koellner, Peter; Woodin, W. Hugh. Large cardinals from determinacy. In Handbook of set theory. Vols. 1, 2, 3, 1951–2119, Springer, Dordrecht, 2010. (Particularly, section 7.) For closely related topics, see also the work of Yong Cheng (and of Cheng and Schindler) on Harr […]

As other answers point out, yes, one needs choice. The popular/natural examples of models of ZF+DC where all sets of reals are measurable are models of determinacy, and Solovay's model. They are related in deep ways, actually, through large cardinals. (Under enough large cardinals, $L({\mathbb R})$ of $V$ is a model of determinacy and (something stronge […]

Throughout the question, we only consider primes of the form $3k+1$. A reference for cubic reciprocity is Ireland & Rosen's A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. How can I count the relative density of those $p$ (of the form $3k+1$) such that the equation $2=3x^3$ has no solutions modulo $p$? Really, even pointers on how to say anything […]

(1) Patrick Dehornoy gave a nice talk at the Séminaire Bourbaki explaining Hugh Woodin's approach. It omits many technical details, so you may want to look at it before looking again at the Notices papers. I think looking at those slides and then at the Notices articles gives a reasonable picture of what the approach is and what kind of problems remain […]

It is not possible to provide an explicit expression for a non-linear solution. The reason is that (it is a folklore result that) an additive $f:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is linear iff it is measurable. (This result can be found in a variety of places, it is a standard exercise in measure theory books. As of this writing, there is a short proof here (Intern […]

Very briefly: Yes, there are several programs being developed that can be understood as pursuing new axioms for set theory. For the question itself of whether pursuing new axioms is a reasonably line of inquiry, see the following (in particular, the paper by John Steel): MR1814122 (2002a:03007). Feferman, Solomon; Friedman, Harvey M.; Maddy, Penelope; Steel, […]

This is a very interesting question and the subject of current research in set theory. There are, however, some caveats. Say that a set of reals is $\aleph_1$-dense if and only if it meets each interval in exactly $\aleph_1$-many points. It is easy to see that such sets exist, have size $\aleph_1$, and in fact, if $A$ is $\aleph_1$-dense, then between any tw […]

Say that the triangle is $ABC$. The vector giving the median from $A$ to $BC$ is $(AC+AB)/2$. Similarly, the one from $B$ to $AC$ is $(BA+BC)/2$, and the one from $C$ to $BA$ is $(CB+CA)/2$. Adding these, we get zero since $CB=-BC$, etc.

The usual definition of a series of nonnegative terms is as the supremum of the sums over finite subsets of the index set, $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i=\sup\biggl\{\sum_{j\in J}x_j:J\subseteq I\mbox{ is finite}\biggr\}.$$ (Note this definition does not quite work in general for series of positive and negative terms.) The point then is that is $a< x