Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 0 down vote favorite
1

It is said that there is a proof of fundamental theorem of algebra using Lie Theory. I have seen this claim at various places. But I could never find such a proof. Can anybody help me out?

share|improve this question
By who? I've never heard anybody make this claim and it's far from clear to me what it could mean. And why is this tagged complex-analysis? – Qiaochu Yuan Aug 12 '10 at 22:24
@Qiaochu: the claim sounds dimly familiar to me too, and I even thought that it had come up recently on MO. I looked there just now without success (but I am not very good at searching for things on MO...). – Pete L. Clark Aug 12 '10 at 22:38
@Qiaochu: I wanted the tag complex-variables as Fun. Thm. is a theorem about complex numbers. But I am a new user and I cannot create tags; so I went for complex-analysis. – George S. Aug 12 '10 at 22:47

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The references can be found in the comments here:

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/34699/approaches-to-riemann-hypothesis-using-methods-outside-number-theory/34718#34718

For those who don't know it, the (well, a) Lie-theoretic proof of Fund. Thm. of Algbera due to Witt is on p. 245 of the book "Numbers" by Ebbinghaus et al. – KConrad Aug 6 at 4:44

Witt's Lie-theoretic proof of Fund. Thm. of Algbera seems to be Witt (Ernst), Über einen Satz von Ostrowski, Arch. Math. (Basel) 3, (1952). 334. – Chandan Singh Dalawat Aug 6 at 6:11

share|improve this answer
There it is. If you found it by searching rather than sheer memory, would you mind divulging your methods? I have a tough time finding things on MO. – Pete L. Clark Aug 12 '10 at 23:01
1  
Professor Clark: I remember vaguely that KConrad mentioned it, so it was easier to find. – curious Aug 12 '10 at 23:07
I looked in page 245 of Ebbinghaus et. al. and the theorem is not there. A chapter/section name and number might have been more helpful. – George S. Aug 13 '10 at 1:32
6  
George: See p. 245 on Google Books! Here is the Lie-theoretic proof Dick Gross found as a graduate student: if R^n were a field for n > 2 then the Lie algebra of its (comm.) unit group would be trivial. Since R^n and its unit group would be n-dimensional connected and simply connected real Lie groups with trivial Lie algebra, the bijection between connected and simply connected real Lie groups and real Lie algebras makes the field R^n and its unit group isom., but one has torsion and the other doesn't (-1 is in a field of char. 0). So n is at most 2. – KCd Aug 13 '10 at 3:49
1  
KCd: +x! To unpack a couple of statements: "if R^n were a degree n extension field R[x]/(p(x)=0 then (...) "; unit group is connected and, for n>2, simply connected because it is (R^n minus one point). – T.. Aug 13 '10 at 6:23
show 1 more comment
up vote 0 down vote

Muad: Are you talking about this www.fc.up.pt/mp/jcsantos/PDF/artigos/FTA.pdf

share|improve this answer
Thanks Chandru .. It could be the one, as it uses the exponential map. – George S. Aug 12 '10 at 22:45
@George S: Hey no problem! Please vote, for everyone – anonymous Aug 12 '10 at 22:52
@Chandru1, @George: Removed discussion of an interesting, but clearly off-topic paper. – Larry Wang Aug 14 '10 at 17:02

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.