Requirements:

0. The meaning of words and symbols used in the discussion must be understood clearly by all involved in the discussion.

1. Certain statements called axioms (or postulates) are accepted without justification.

2. Agreement on certain rules of reasoning (i.e. agreeing on how and when one statement follows another).

A set on whose elements is defined a single operation. The group is called additive if the symbol for the operation is "+". It's multiplicative if the symbol "·" of multiplication is used instead. There is always a unique element (1, for multiplicative, and 0, for additive, groups) that leaves elements unchanged under the defined operation, like a+0=a. For every element a there exists a unique inverse b such that, for example, in the case of the additive symbol, a+b=0 and b+a=0. The group operation must be associative like in a·(b·c)=(a·b)·c. A ring is an additive commutative group in which a second operation (normally considered as multiplication) is also defined. The multiplication must be associative, i.e. a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c and the distributive law a(b + c) = ab + ac and (b + c)a = ba + ca must hold.

Back | Table of Contents |

## Historical PerspectivesThe subject of algebra began thousands of years ago at the hands of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. Although their methods of solving algebraic problems have been lost to history, it seems clear that the accomplishments of their highly developed civilizations necessitated being facile with a wide spectrum of algebraic tools. For example, their vast architectural programs, astronomical calculations, and calendar computations must have required a practical knowledge of the solutions of linear and quadratic equations. The mathematics of the Babylonians and Egyptians is characterized by its empirical nature; They were more interested in the solutions to specific problems than the general techniques for solving them. The great contribution of the Greeks to mathematics was, of course, the axiomatic method, which we must rank as one of the most original creations in the history of human thought. According to the Greek conception, geometry consisted of theorems, which are deduced, via an accepted method of logic, from a set of axioms. Of course, for the Greeks, there was a preferred set of axioms - the axioms of Euclidean geometry. They felt that this set of axioms had a certain metaphysical significance, reflecting the "true" geometrical state of the universe. And if the Greek's failure to recognize other axiom systems was a failure of Greek mathematics, then it was but a slight shortcoming when weighed against the successful development of the axiomatic method. The geometric viewpoint of the Greeks led to certain shortcomings in their development of algebra. For example, the Greeks solved quadratic equations by "completing the square." However, negative
roots were ignored since they did not have any geometrical significance. The introduction of negative numbers was due to the Hindus in the first centuries after Christ. Algebra prospered at the hands
of the Hindus, who were much more oriented toward arithmetic than the Greek geometers. The algebra of the Hindus was brought westward by the Moslems, who embellished it considerably and gave the
subject its current name. One of the most significant algebraic results which dates from the Moslem period is the ax
^{2} + bx + c = 0has roots x =
where D = b Mathematicians searched for several hundred years to find a "cubic formula" which could be used to solve cubic equations in much the same way that the quadratic formula is used to solve quadratic
equations. Such a formula was discovered by the Italian mathematician (The early Italian algebraists were known as the Cossists from the Italian word x
^{3} + bx^{2} + cx + d = 0One of Tartaglia's discoveries was the observation that if one performs the change of variable y = x + b/3,
The cubic can be put in the form: (2)y
^{3} + py + q = 0Therefore, it suffices to consider equations of the later form. Let = (-1 + )/2.
Then is a cube root of 1; that is 1, ,
^{2}.Let X X
_{1} = + X
_{2} = + ^{2} X
_{3} = ^{2} + where D = q
^{2}/4 + p^{3}/27is the discriminant of the cubic. On examining Tartaglia's formulas, it is hard not to admire their beauty and to envy the cleverness of the man who
discovered them. The above formulas for X In 1545, Cardan's pupil, Ferrari, obtained the solution of the general fourth-degree (or biquadratic) equation. Ferrari's formulas are along the same lines as Tartaglia's, only much more complicated. After Tartaglia's and Ferrari's successes in treating equations of the third and fourth degree, there was a feeling of optimism in the
mathematical community that within a short time, a "general solution" of equations of the fifth and higher degree would be discovered. We should ponder for a moment what we mean by a "general
solution" of an equation of degree The first real breakthrough was due to Joseph-Louis Lagrange, who, in the late eighteenth century, gave a uniform technique for solving equations of degree at most 4,
thereby incorporating a single method all that was known about general solutions to equations. His idea was to reduce the solution of a given equation to the solution of certain auxiliary equations
called The failure of Lagrange's method to solve the quintic suggested the startling possibility that no general solution of the quintic exists. This is indeed the case and was first proved by Neils Heinrik Abel in 1828. What Abel's theorem states is that it is impossible to find a general formula for the roots of a quintic equation if the formula is only allowed to use arithmetic operations and extraction of roots. However, what is even more surprising is the fact that there exist particular quintic equations, with ordinary integers as coefficients, whose roots cannot be expressed in terms of arithmetic operations and extraction of roots. It is important to recognize that Abel's theorem required a very novel proof. It is fairly easy to determine whether or not a given formula provides a solution of a given equation. But to prove that no formula can be written down is quite a different matter. A necessary and sufficient condition that a given equation be Let us consider a polynomial X
^{n} + a_{1}X^{n-1} +...+ a_{n}having roots X
_{1},...,X_{n}where we have labeled the roots in some fixed (but otherwise arbitrary) order. A X
_{i1},X_{i2}, ...,X_{in},where the set i where the notation indicates that X The basic idea of Galois was to associate to the polynomial X
^{n} + a_{1}X^{n-1} + ... + a_{n}a certain collection of permutations belonging to S
and .
The algebraic properties of a polynomial are mirrored by the Galois group. For example, solvability by radicals of the equation determined by a polynomial is translated into a very simple property of the Galois group. And when a given equation is solvable in radicals, the properties of Galois group enable one to write down the solution in radicals. In fact, if a given equation is solvable in radicals, the solution can always be obtained from the Galois group using a fixed procedure. And when this fixed procedure cannot be carried out, the equation cannot be solved in radicals. In this way we can establish both Abel's theorem on the insolubility of the quintic and the formulas for the quadratic, cubic, and biquadratic equations. If all this sounds somewhat obscure, we hope to clarify matters later. The problem of solving polynomial equations led mathematicians to study groups and is thus one of the historical cornerstones on which contemporary algebra is based. The introduction of groups into mathematics and the great triumphs in the theory of equations had a very profound influence on many fields of mathematics which were undergoing development in the early nineteenth century. One of these fields was geometry. Although the influences of algebra on geometry were many, let us be content to cite three examples. The Greek geometers were interested in the problem of constructing geometrical figures using a straightedge and compass, and by the time of Euclid, many such constructions were known. For example, the Greeks knew how to bisect a line segment, bisect an angle, construct a line perpendicular to a given line, and even construct a regular pentagon. However, there were three seemingly elementary constructions, which the Greeks were unable to solve. The first was to trisect an angle; that is to construct an angle equal to one third of a given angle. The second was to construct a cube whose volume was twice that of a given cube. The third was to construct a square whose area was the same as that of a given circle. It was finally shown in the nineteenth century that these three classical problems have no solution. That is, the required constructions cannot be carried out in general, at least if the only tools allowed are a straightedge and compass. It is rather amazing that the proof of the impossibility of these three classical problems used the ideas of algebra and not those of geometry. Perhaps even more surprising was the fact that the relevant algebraic ideas came from the theory of equations and the work of Galois. There will be a detailed description of these classical geometry problems later. The nineteenth century was a time of great ferment in the field of geometry. The chief feature of this period was the emergence of many new systems of geometry, which satisfied all the axioms of
Euclid's geometry except for the axiom which asserts that if we a given a line and a point off of the line, there is one and only one line passing through the given point and parallel to the given
line. Once the first such geometry was created, many more followed, and in the middle of the nineteenth century there was a fundamental confusion about the axioms and goals of geometry. In the later
part of the nineteenth century, Felix Klein proposed the idea of unifying all these different geometries around the notion of a group, a notion which had been created, as we have seen, for an entirely different purpose. Klein's conception of geometry was
called the A third point of contact between algebra and geometry in the nineteenth century was the y = 0,^{ n} + a_{i}(x)y^{ n-1} + a_{2}(x)y^{ n-2} + ... + a_{n}(x)where a
X
^{2} + Y^{2} = 1,XY = 1, X ^{3} = Y^{2} + Y^{3} + XY.You are probably accustomed to thinking of an algebraic curve as a solution in real numbers (x,y) of an equation. The reason for considering complex solutions is to avoid examples of curves with
no points on them. For example the equation Nor was geometry the only field which experienced a fruitful interchange with the field of algebra in the nineteenth century. Another field was the ...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...
It is one of the most difficult fields of mathematics, which for centuries has been the source of countless ideas for other branches of mathematics. Although it is impossible to describe completely all the algebraic ideas which arose in the consideration of problems in the theory of numbers, lets look at one well known example. In the early part of the seventeenth century, Pierre Fermat, an amateur mathematician, claimed to have proved that if x
^{n} + y^{n} = z^{n}.Fermat never wrote down his proof, and it seems unlikely that he actually had a proof. Indeed, three and one-half centuries later, until 1994, no one could
prove or disprove Fermat's assertion. A particularly good try at proving Fermat's statement was made by German mathematician
Ernst Kummer in 1835. It was subsequently pointed out to Kummer by Lejeunne Dirichlet that Kummer's alleged proof
was actually wrong, but for a rather intriguing reason. Kummer then made a very detailed study of his proof in order to better understand why it was wrong. As a result of
this study, Kummer was able to make his proof correct for certain values on |

Back | Table of Contents |