Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJun 16th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI know that it's pretty elementary, but sometimes teaching algebra makes you think of things, so I preserved some observations (mostly not my own) on the [[quadratic formula]] the other day.

   I know that it’s pretty elementary, but sometimes teaching algebra makes you think of things, so I preserved some observations (mostly not my own) on the quadratic formula the other day.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
   • CommentTimeJun 18th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ian_Durham
   Format: MarkdownItexActually, I think this might be a cool place to point out that attempting to find similarly simple solutions to higher-ordered polynomials is eventually what led to the invention/discovery of group theory (Mario Livio's got a a really great book about the whole history of that). Plus, my students often find it really cool that, since group theory is the language of symmetry, there's a link between polynomials and symmetry.

   Actually, I think this might be a cool place to point out that attempting to find similarly simple solutions to higher-ordered polynomials is eventually what led to the invention/discovery of group theory (Mario Livio’s got a a really great book about the whole history of that). Plus, my students often find it really cool that, since group theory is the language of symmetry, there’s a link between polynomials and symmetry.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 18th 2010
   • (edited Jun 18th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexGauss was using group theory for a significant amount of time before the work of Abel/Ruffini and Galois. What they discovered was the notion of solvability and the use of groups to probe the symmetries of finite separable field extensions (or in the classical formulation, the symmetries of polynomials).

   Gauss was using group theory for a significant amount of time before the work of Abel/Ruffini and Galois. What they discovered was the notion of solvability and the use of groups to probe the symmetries of finite separable field extensions (or in the classical formulation, the symmetries of polynomials).

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
   • CommentTimeJun 18th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ian_Durham
   Format: MarkdownItex<blockquote><p>What they discovered was the notion of solvability and the use of groups to probe the symmetries of field extensions (or in the classical formulation, the symmetries of polynomials).</p></blockquote> Still, I think it's an interesting connection and it's certainly an interesting historical point since a lot of the ideas developed there filtered into the broader theory along the way.

   What they discovered was the notion of solvability and the use of groups to probe the symmetries of field extensions (or in the classical formulation, the symmetries of polynomials).

   Still, I think it’s an interesting connection and it’s certainly an interesting historical point since a lot of the ideas developed there filtered into the broader theory along the way.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJun 18th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI made a sly link to [[solvable group]] (which is not yet written).

   I made a sly link to solvable group (which is not yet written).

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDexter Chua
   • CommentTimeSep 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dexter Chua
   Format: MarkdownItexRemoved the comment that the $a x^2 + b x + c = 0$ is soluble in characteristic $2$ only if $b = 0$, since $x^2 + x$ is a counterexample ($0$ is always a root). The sly link is thus no longer present.

   Removed the comment that the $a x^2 + b x + c = 0$ is soluble in characteristic $2$ only if $b = 0$, since $x^2 + x$ is a counterexample ($0$ is always a root). The sly link is thus no longer present.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeSep 6th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexMight it be worth keeping a comment that it may or may not be soluble in char = 2?

   Might it be worth keeping a comment that it may or may not be soluble in char = 2?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDexter Chua
   • CommentTimeSep 6th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dexter Chua
   Format: MarkdownItexI've added the content of #6 to the entry.

   I’ve added the content of #6 to the entry.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeSep 15th 2016
   • (edited Sep 15th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Dexter. David, I\'ve done as you suggested. Zoran wrote [[solvable group]] back in 2011 (and I\'ve since edited it), but now I made the link to [[solvable polynomial]] (which I just wrote).

   Thanks, Dexter. David, I've done as you suggested. Zoran wrote solvable group back in 2011 (and I've since edited it), but now I made the link to solvable polynomial (which I just wrote).

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeOct 29th 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: TobyBartels
    Format: MarkdownItexState more explicitly why no version of the quadratic formula can never give a result for the examples in $F_2$. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/quadratic+formula/15">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/quadratic+formula/15">v15</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quadratic+formula">current</a>

    State more explicitly why no version of the quadratic formula can never give a result for the examples in $F_2$.

    diff, v15, current