Notes for AKT-140314/0:02:29: Difference between revisions
From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:In fact, I guess you can add to the list of allowed functions any continuous multivalued function with up to 4 values and it won't help (of course with 5 values you can solve it since the solution is such a function...). Am I right? |
:In fact, I guess you can add to the list of allowed functions any continuous multivalued function with up to 4 values and it won't help (of course with 5 values you can solve it since the solution is such a function...). Am I right? |
||
I believe Boaz is right, and he is making a very strong point - not only there is no formula for the roots of a quadratic in terms of radicals - in fact this remains true even if we are allowed to use other ''univalent'' functions. |
I believe Boaz is right, and he is making a very strong point - not only there is no formula for the roots of a quadratic in terms of radicals - in fact this remains true even if we are allowed to use other ''univalent'' functions (or even up to 4-valent). |
||
Latest revision as of 13:51, 14 March 2014
Boaz wrote:
- I have one comment- you claim it is weaker than Galois. At least in one important aspect I think it is much stronger. I challenge you to show with Galois theory that if we add exp(z) to our list of allowed operations, a solution cannot be found...
- In fact, I guess you can add to the list of allowed functions any continuous multivalued function with up to 4 values and it won't help (of course with 5 values you can solve it since the solution is such a function...). Am I right?
I believe Boaz is right, and he is making a very strong point - not only there is no formula for the roots of a quadratic in terms of radicals - in fact this remains true even if we are allowed to use other univalent functions (or even up to 4-valent).
