[HN Gopher] The Quintic, the Icosahedron, and Elliptic Curves [pdf]
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Quintic, the Icosahedron, and Elliptic Curves [pdf]
        
       Author : mathgenius
       Score  : 53 points
       Date   : 2024-04-03 16:29 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.ams.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.ams.org)
        
       | empath-nirvana wrote:
       | > In 1963, the Russian mathematician Vladimir Arnold gave an
       | alternative topological proof of the unsolvability of the quintic
       | in a series of lectures to high school kids in Moscow.
       | 
       | ...
       | 
       | > Arnold's insight was to show that if there is a radical formula
       | for the roots of a general polynomial, then the "dance of the
       | roots" cannot be overly complex, in the sense that the image of
       | the monodromy map must be a solvable subgroup of . But, for
       | example, the 1-parameter Brioschifamily of quintics () = 5 + 103
       | + 452 + 2, [?] C has monodromy group 5 (see Figure 1), which is
       | certainly not solvable since it is simple, as we will see by
       | relating it to the icosahedron in the next section. Hence the
       | unsolvability of the quintic.
       | 
       | ...of course, well within the reach of most high school students.
        
         | dhosek wrote:
         | Not "most" high school students, but the more talented ones?
         | Sure. Likely they were exposed to a lot of algebra before this
         | lecture to bring them to a point where they could profitably
         | follow along. The kind of kids who take AP Calc can learn
         | abstract algebra (and, for that matter, I'd say that any kid
         | who's had Algebra II and properly taught geometry (with proofs)
         | can learn abstract algebra).
        
         | ilnumyre wrote:
         | I'll paraphrase a famous piece of public speaking advice "avoid
         | talking down to your audience, they will catch up".
         | 
         | Also, who knows how the lecturer presented the information.
         | Perhaps it was well composed, and in fact could be understood
         | by anybody.
         | 
         | When fields highly specialize they seem to attract a certain
         | personality of people who revel in their 'insider knowledge'
         | and make the learning of it for others more difficult in order
         | to inflate their standing in the eyes of their students, "How
         | did you learn this stuff!?"
         | 
         | The reality of these fields, like mathematics, music theory,
         | computer science, and the like is that the ideas themselves are
         | so ridiculously simple that they could be understood by most
         | anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the 5 basic
         | arithmetic operators if presented coherently.
         | 
         | After all, "Coding is basically just ifs and for loops."
         | 
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29442307
        
           | euroderf wrote:
           | > When fields highly specialize they seem to attract a
           | certain personality of people who revel in their 'insider
           | knowledge' and make the learning of it for others more
           | difficult in order to inflate their standing in the eyes of
           | their students
           | 
           | This is one reason why Wikipedia is so very valuable. A well-
           | done article gives you a foot in the door, even if by doing
           | little more than decoding jargon.
        
         | wging wrote:
         | The actual argument is a bit simpler than implied by the
         | quote's use of the terms 'monodromy', 'solvable subgroup', etc.
         | Here's an explanation of Arnold's proof that doesn't use those
         | words at all, and while not precisely _easy_ is much easier
         | than you 'd think from the quoted bit of the OP article:
         | https://web.williams.edu/Mathematics/lg5/394/ArnoldQuintic.p...
        
         | nicf wrote:
         | I agree that this is not within the reach of most high school
         | students, and if I had to guess, I think that either these
         | Moscow kids were very carefully selected to be in this group or
         | most of them didn't follow it.
         | 
         | But I do think some very talented and motivated high school
         | students could at least follow the gist of this argument! I've
         | worked at a summer program for mathematically talented high
         | schoolers, and while I didn't teach this particular class, one
         | of the years I was there someone taught what I think is
         | essentially the same proof this article is talking about, and
         | they did get through it in five weeks.
        
         | wbl wrote:
         | The pictures of monodromy are called dessins de enfant because
         | they are little pictures that are simple to understand. The
         | hard part is why we care so much.
        
         | zyklu5 wrote:
         | This was published as: Abel's Theorem in Problems and Solutions
         | by VB Alekseev if you are interested in taking a look.
         | 
         | https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-2187-9
        
         | jcranmer wrote:
         | But it actually is! It's just written in an excessively jargon-
         | laden manner. Here's an explanation that's less jargon-laden:
         | 
         | We can describe a polynomial by its coefficients, standard x^5
         | + ax^4 + bx^3 + cx^2 + dx + e = 0 form. Actually, we're going
         | to restrict a, b, c, d, and e so that they are all determined
         | by a single parameter B (this is the Brioschi family of
         | quintics). Remember that all values here are complex numbers,
         | not real numbers.
         | 
         | Now what happens if we move around B a little bit
         | (https://duetosymmetry.com/tool/polynomial-roots-toy/ is _very_
         | helpful for seeing what I mean here)? Well, the roots will
         | change a little bit. There 's a continuous mapping going on.
         | Now move around B in a large, closed path that includes a
         | specific point in the interior. It turns out that the
         | continuous motion of the roots will result in them swapping
         | places--a permutation. This is the "monodromy map".
         | 
         | Now it turns out that the set of possible permutations has
         | implications on whether or not you can solve it with
         | polynomials. The paper here doesn't go into details, since it's
         | written for a high-math audience (this is the "A_5 is not
         | solvable since it is simple" bit).
        
           | zyklu5 wrote:
           | If the terms: fundamental group, covering space etc are
           | jargon then more so is the case for words like 'explanation',
           | 'laden' and well, 'jargon' itself. They have precise
           | definitions meant to capture mathematical concepts and ideas
           | for which there can be no adequate words in natural language.
        
       | joecarmody wrote:
       | Nice to see some Riemann Academy on the front page of HN...
        
       | ykonstant wrote:
       | What a great exposition; very happy this dear topic of mine
       | garnered some interest from HN folks.
        
       | JadeNB wrote:
       | See also the lovely discussion by Baez at
       | https://classes.golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2017/12/the_ico... .
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-03 23:00 UTC)