05.01.2013 Views

RePoSS #11: The Mathematics of Niels Henrik Abel: Continuation ...

RePoSS #11: The Mathematics of Niels Henrik Abel: Continuation ...

RePoSS #11: The Mathematics of Niels Henrik Abel: Continuation ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

92 Chapter 5. Towards unsolvable equations<br />

for the substitution which transformed the permutation A1 into A2 in the above-<br />

mentioned way. 91 He then defined ( A1) to be the product <strong>of</strong> two substitutions (A2<br />

A6 A3 )<br />

and ( A4 A5 ) if it gave the same result as the two applied sequentially,92 in which case<br />

CAUCHY wrote � A1<br />

A6<br />

�<br />

=<br />

� ��<br />

A2 A4<br />

Furthermore, he defined the identical substitution and powers <strong>of</strong> a substitution to have<br />

the meanings we still attribute to these concepts today. 93 <strong>The</strong> smallest integer n such<br />

that the n th power <strong>of</strong> a substitution was the identity substitution, CAUCHY called the<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> the substitution. 94 All these notational advances played a central part in<br />

formalizing the manipulations on permutations and were soon generally adopted.<br />

LAGRANGE’S <strong>The</strong>orem. In order to demonstrate LAGRANGE’S theorem, CAUCHY<br />

let K denote an arbitrary expression in n quantities,<br />

A3<br />

A5<br />

K = K (x1, . . . , xn) .<br />

With N = n!, he labelled the N different permutations <strong>of</strong> these n quantities<br />

A1, . . . , AN.<br />

<strong>The</strong> values which K would acquire when the corresponding substitutions <strong>of</strong> the form<br />

( A1 Au ) were applied were correspondingly labelled K1, . . . , KN,<br />

� �<br />

A1<br />

Ku = K for 1 ≤ u ≤ N.<br />

Au<br />

If these were all distinct, the expression K would obviously have N different values<br />

when its arguments were interchanged. In the contrary case, CAUCHY assumed that<br />

for M indices the values <strong>of</strong> K were equal<br />

�<br />

.<br />

Kα = K β = Kγ = . . . .<br />

<strong>The</strong> core <strong>of</strong> the pro<strong>of</strong> was CAUCHY’S realization that if the permutation A λ was fixed<br />

and the substitution ( Aα<br />

A β ) was applied to A λ giving Aµ, i.e.<br />

�<br />

Aα<br />

Aµ =<br />

A β<br />

�<br />

A λ,<br />

the corresponding values K λ and Kµ would be identical. Consequently, the different<br />

values <strong>of</strong> K came in bundles <strong>of</strong> M and CAUCHY had deduced that M had to divide<br />

n!. <strong>The</strong> central concept <strong>of</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> equivalence, which RUFFINI had introduced to mean<br />

91 (A.-L. Cauchy, 1815a, 67).<br />

92 (ibid., 73).<br />

93 (ibid., 73, 74)<br />

94 (ibid., 76). ABEL was later to change this term to the now standard order.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!