1

The abstract algebra and the unsolved problems of antiquity .

By George Mpantes mathematician

mpantes on scribd .

What is characteristic of pure mathematics is its irrelevance to

immediate or potential application. Some pure mathematicians argue that
there is a potential usefulness in any mathematical development and no one
can foresee its actual future application. We shall see an example.
With the elementary
theory of fields of abstract
algebra,
understand

we
why

can
the

Greeks were unable to

solve the famous three
problems, that of the trisection of the angle, doubling the cube and squaring
the circle, using only the compass and ruler. The conceptual and
chronological distance between the geometry of Euclid and abstract algebra is
huge, how they are connected? With the common algebraic structure of
constructible numbers with ruler and compass, and that of the field.
For example: what do they have in common, the set of polynomials
with real coefficients, all of the free vectors, all matrices mxn m, n N,
the set of real functions with a common domain, the set of complex numbers,
etc.
It's all vector spaces over the field of real numbers, so have a
common axiomatic basis. All theorems we prove in spaces, apply to all of the
above sets, if we define appropriately the operations.
The geometry of the Greeks standardized by Euclid , was originally
based on the concepts of point , straight line and circle, and for this reason,
tools for the study of geometry was the ruler for the construction of lines and
compass to construct circles . The ruler was not calibrated because that did
not account for distances but scratched lines between two points. Later began

2
studying shapes that are not constructed with only ruler and compass , but
the three unsolved problems mentioned above, raised in Euclidean ' genus '
of ' Elements'1. Why does in this genus we could bisect an angle with ruler
and compass , but no trisect it? ? Or why we could construct a segment
equivalent to 2 ( given ) and not to

? Its construction difficult or

impossible?
The answer will be given through the theory of the field extension.
In abstract algebra, we need some concepts for the three problems : the
concept of field, of field extension , of the degree of field extension , and
of the algebraic number.
The set of rationals Q is a field

( satisfies some axioms , has a

structure), if we add (attach ) the number 2 and all numbers with the
operations of 2 with the rationals, we have the extension of Q,

Q ( 2)

containing numbers of the form a + b 2 with a, b rationals .

The degree of extension is denoted [Q ( 2): Q] is the degree of the
irreducible polynomial over Q, with 2 as a root i.e. x 2 -2 (degree two,
irreducible on Q).
Algebraic number, is any number that is the root of a polynomial with
coefficients in Q, ie the 2 is algebraic because it is the root of x 2 -2, o
a root of x3 -2 , etc. Obviously the algebraic numbers are

as

extension of

rationals, any rational is algebraic .Every non- algebraic number is called

transcendental , ie the number

e.

The numbers and geometry in Greeks.

Greeks arithmetic and geometry were always together because they
were considered two different ways of exploring the same number system , so
seemed very natural

the geometric constructions to perform arithmetic

operations. Each number ought have a geometric construction. And as

the known numbers were the rationals , the coexistence of arithmetic with the
geometry was harmonious. After the shock of the revelation that 2 was not
1

The solution of Menechmos on the problem of doubling the cube using parabola and hyperbola,
could not be drawn with a ruler and compass

3
rational , and the fact that he had a geometric existence but non arithmetic 2,
strengthened the belief in the geometric construction of numbers. The
numbers were contructible in geometry of rule and compass , and vice versa
only numbers that would be presented in the geometrical construction of rule
and compass could exist , meaning that we construct geometrically the
number

mean that construct the segment length

a. Within the

framework of the three problems , our belief was that the numbers contained
in them, clearly exist, so

should therefore be a corresponding geometric

construction . But all numbers are constructible 3 ?

Geometric image construction .
.The geometry of the rule and compass basic constructions defining
constructible points and hence constructible numbers are
1. assuming any two points O ( 0,0) and A ( a, b ) ( with coordinates rational
numbers , key points )
2 . construction of a straight line through the two points or cycle from its
center and radius ,
3 . construction of a point of intersection of two straight lines ,
4. construction of the two points of intersection circles and straight or cycles.
So produced all constructible points in a problem since the shapes
made by rule, and compass is straight lines and circles.
Let's take an example of geometrical construction of a number through
the above process of constructible points :
Be constructed with ruler and compass the square root of any positive
integer

x.

As
we will construct a right triangle with hypotenuse (x +1 ) / 2
and vertical side (x -1 ) / 2
Let OA = (x-1) / 2 and OB = (x +1) / 2 M
midpoint of OB, then PB = P B = x (the PB, PB are
tangents to the large circle so the OPB rectangle at
2
3

The 2 is the hypotenuse of a right triangle perpendicular sides 1.

We always mean with the use of the rule and diabetes

4
P etc ...)
Here the constructible number x, which corresponds to segment PB defined
by a series of constructible points A, B, P, P which emerged with the above
four possibilities provided by the rule, and compass. Similar constructions with
ruler and compass we can remember many of the high school as:
If the ends of a line segment are constructible then the midpoint is
constructible (join with the ruler the intersections of two circles with centers of
the two points and the radius length equal the length of the section) or
If the three peaks parallelogram level are constructible then the fourth is
constructible etc.
Abstract algebra .
Relations 2 and 3 reduce to rational operations. The intersection of a
straight line and a cycle or two cycles, are reduced to the solution of quadratic
equation , ie the square root extraction . So considering that the integers are
easily constructible , it is known from high school constructions to show that
A. Each rational is constructible .
B. if a > 0 is constructible then and a similarly is constructible

( design

radius of a circle (a +1 ) / 2 and the center ( (a +1 ) / 2,0 ) and from the point A
(1.0 ) draw perpendicular to the x-axis that meets the circle at B. The segment
AB is a).
C. if a, b is constructible similarly are and a b , ab , a / b ( b 0) , ie the
constructible numbers with compass and ruler are a field ( these are the
conditions) , which contains the rationals , is an extension of rational since
it contains the a.
An example of constructible number is
Theorem 1, if k is a constructible real number
then k is the algebraic on Q , and the degree of
extension Q [( k ) / Q] is a power of 2 .
This theorem is a necessary condition for the existence of a
constructible number k and applying it, we can show that there is no
geometrical construction for the three problems of antiquity using only
compass and ruler. .

Trisection of angle . The first solution was Hippias by using the

squared curve. We show that there is no always geometric construction for
trisection angle using the rule and diabetes.
Knowing an angle is equivalent to know the cosine of the angle . So on to
trisect the angle 3 have to construct the solution of the equation cos3 =
4cos3 3cos . ( 1 )
If the angle =200 so cos3 = 1/ 2, the equation (1 ) becomes
8x3 - 6x -1 = 0 and the polynomials is irreducible with a real root a = cos200
and degree of extension and [Q ( cos200 ): Q] = 3 therefore cos200 is not
constructible , i.e. the angle 200 is not constructible . ( Theorem 1 ) .
If the angle 3 = 900 ( 1 ) becomes 4x3 - 3x = 0 which is not irreducible , and
also know that the 30 angle is constructible .
Doubling cube . Solutions given by Hippocrates , Archytas
Menechmou etc. If x is the edge of cube with twice the volume of the cube
with edge 1 then x3 = 2.13 ie x=

. To construct, the point (

constructible . But from the theorem 1 appears impossible since

of the irreducible polynomial x3 -2 and thus [Q (

, 0 ) must be
is the root

): Q] = 3. (theor. 1).

Squaring the circle The problem is the construction of a square with

an area equal to the area of a circle 1. We investigate if the number is
constructible . But from a classical result that was shown by the F.Lindemann
in 1882, we know that the number (pi) is transcendental over Q, ie it
doesnt

satisfy some polynomial equation with rational coefficients ( not

algebraic on Q, Theorem 1 ) . Hence the is transcendental too, so it is not

constructible with ruler and compass . Therefore, we can not square the
circle using only rule and compass.
Books :
Algebraic extensions of fields : Paul J. McCarthy Dover books
Field and Galois theory :J.S.Milne (inernet)

6
Introduction to Galois theory:Adrew Baker (University of Glaskow)
Web sites :Wikipedia, Wolfran Mathdord, Planet Mathword, Proofwiki
George Mpantes mathematician

www.mpantes .gr