I am currently reading a paper which treats Abel’s original proof of Ruffini-Abelian theorem but I got stuck on a theorem at the beginning of the paper.

Theorem 1 in the paper

I understand the argument prior to theorem 1, but I don’t understand why the argument just before theorem 1 indeed proves it.

The link of the original paper:

On the Ruffini-Abelian Theorem


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.