Skip to main content
Home
plus.maths.org

Secondary menu

  • My list
  • About Plus
  • Sponsors
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Log in
  • Main navigation

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Maths in a minute
  • Puzzles
  • Videos
  • Topics and tags
  • For

    • cat icon
      Curiosity
    • newspaper icon
      Media
    • graduation icon
      Education
    • briefcase icon
      Policy

      Popular topics and tags

      Shapes

      • Geometry
      • Vectors and matrices
      • Topology
      • Networks and graph theory
      • Fractals

      Numbers

      • Number theory
      • Arithmetic
      • Prime numbers
      • Fermat's last theorem
      • Cryptography

      Computing and information

      • Quantum computing
      • Complexity
      • Information theory
      • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
      • Algorithm

      Data and probability

      • Statistics
      • Probability and uncertainty
      • Randomness

      Abstract structures

      • Symmetry
      • Algebra and group theory
      • Vectors and matrices

      Physics

      • Fluid dynamics
      • Quantum physics
      • General relativity, gravity and black holes
      • Entropy and thermodynamics
      • String theory and quantum gravity

      Arts, humanities and sport

      • History and philosophy of mathematics
      • Art and Music
      • Language
      • Sport

      Logic, proof and strategy

      • Logic
      • Proof
      • Game theory

      Calculus and analysis

      • Differential equations
      • Calculus

      Towards applications

      • Mathematical modelling
      • Dynamical systems and Chaos

      Applications

      • Medicine and health
      • Epidemiology
      • Biology
      • Economics and finance
      • Engineering and architecture
      • Weather forecasting
      • Climate change

      Understanding of mathematics

      • Public understanding of mathematics
      • Education

      Get your maths quickly

      • Maths in a minute

      Main menu

    • Home
    • Articles
    • Collections
    • Podcasts
    • Maths in a minute
    • Puzzles
    • Videos
    • Topics and tags
    • Audiences

      • cat icon
        Curiosity
      • newspaper icon
        Media
      • graduation icon
        Education
      • briefcase icon
        Policy

      Secondary menu

    • My list
    • About Plus
    • Sponsors
    • Subscribe
    • Contact Us
    • Log in
    • Stubborn equations and the study of symmetry

      Marianne Freiberger
      22 October, 2014
      3 comments
      Abel

      Niels Henrik Abel.

      In 1824 a young Norwegian mathematician called Niels Henrik Abel proved a shocking result involving a certain type of equation. A little later the French prodigy Évariste Galois provided deep insight into why that result was true — and in the process founded the mathematical study of symmetry. Neither of the two lived long to enjoy the fruits of their work. Abel died in 1829, at the age of 26, from tuberculosis and in poverty. Galois died in 1832, from wounds he received in a duel allegedly fought over a woman. He was only twenty years old.

      So what was their work about? And what do equations have to do with symmetry?

      Solving equations

      One of the most famous mathematical formulas is the one that gives you the solution to a quadratic equation. If the equation is ax2+bx+c=0 then the formula tells you that the solutions are x1=−b+b2−4ac2a and x2=−b−b2−4ac2a. No matter what a, b and c are, this formula hands you the solution on a plate. It's very handy.

      There is a similar formula, though a lot more complicated (see here), which gives you a general solution to a cubic equation of the form

      ax3+bx2+cx+d=0. Even more complicated formulas will give you a general solution to the quartic equation, which has the form ax4+bx3+cx2+dx+e=0. The formulas that give the solutions to the quadratic, cubic and quartic may look complicated, but they only involve a limited number of operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, as well as taking square roots, cube roots, or fourth roots. The obvious question you might ask yourself now is whether we can find similar general formula for the quintic equation ax5+bx4+cx3+dx2+ex+f=0, or polynomial equations involving even higher powers of x.
      Galois width=

      Évariste Galois, drawn from memory by his brother in 1848, sixteen years after his death.

      What we would like is a formula that gives a general solution and only involves addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and taking roots. If an equation has such a formula giving a general solution, then we say it is solvable by radicals.

      The result proved by Abel in 1824 is that there isn't such a solution: the general quintic cannot be solved by radicals. This doesn't mean that you can never solve a quintic. For example, the polynomial

      x5−1=0 has a solution x=1. But it does mean that there is not a nice, neat formula that gives the solution to the quintic in its most general form.

      Abel proved the result, but it was Galois who a few years later provided real insight into why the quintic isn't solvable by radicals. Galois is often credited with laying the foundation of group theory, the mathematical study of symmetry, with his work on equations. We usually think of symmetry as a visual thing: a picture, or a pattern might be symmetric. But what do symmetries have to do with equations? The answer is subtle, but beautiful.

      Unchanging symmetry

      First let's think about what symmetry really is. We say that a square is symmetric because we can rotate it through multiples of 90 degrees, or reflect it in various axes, without changing its appearance. So symmetry is immunity to change: something is symmetric if you can perform a certain operation on it without changing it.

      We can detect a hint of symmetry when we think about quadratic equations. As an example, the quadratic x2−2=0 has solutions x1=2 and x2=−2.

      These are two distinct solutions, but in some intuitive sense they are very similar: one is just the negative of the other. Perhaps swapping these two solutions does not really make a difference. Just as a reflection, which does not make a difference to a square, is a symmetry, so swapping the solutions of the equation might also be a symmetry. But a symmetry of what?

      Including irrationals

      Abel

      Like butterflies equations have symmetries too!

      To understand this, let's look at the numbers involved. The coefficients of our equation x2−2=0 are 1 and -2: these are nice and straight-forward rational numbers. The solutions, however, are irrational numbers: try as you might, you cannot write 2 and −2 as fractions. Most quadratic equations have solutions that are irrational numbers, so clearly when we think about them the collection of rational numbers is not enough. So let's extend it. Instead of looking only at the set of rational numbers (for which we write Q), let's form a new set of numbers, which we will call Q(2). It consists of all numbers that can be written in the form a+b2, where a and b are rational numbers. This new collection contains all the rational numbers themselves (set b=0) and also the two solutions 2 and −2 (set a=0 and b=1 or b=−1). The new set Q(2) is nicely self-contained: you can add, subtract, multiply or divide any two numbers in Q(2) and the result will also be in Q(2). Technically, Q(2) is what mathematicians call a field. The self-contained nature under the operations of arithmetic is one of the properties of a field. It turns out that Q(2) is the smallest field that contains all the rational numbers and the solutions 2 and −2 to our equation.

      Switching solutions

      Now we can go back to our idea of swapping the two solutions 2 and −2 of the equation x2−2=0. Doing this to all numbers in the field Q(2) amounts to swapping a number a+b2 with the number a−b2. Let's represent this swapping operation by a function f: f(a+b2)=a−b2. Applying f to all numbers in the field Q(2) does not really make a difference to Q(2) and its structure. It does not make any difference to the rational numbers in the field at all, as f(a)=f(a+0×2)=a−0×2=a. It does change the irrational numbers in the field, but once we have applied f to all of them, the overall collection of numbers is still exactly the same: it's still Q(2). (This is because if a+b2 is a member of Q(2), then so is a−b2.) What is more, applying f to all members of Q(2) preserves the structure of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Suppose you add/subtract/multiply/divide two numbers a+b2 and c+d2 in Q(2) to get a third number e+f2. Then adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing f(a+b2)=a−b2 and f(c+d2)=c−d2 gives as the result f(e+f2)=e−f2 In this sense, the function f (which comes from swapping the two solutions) is a symmetry associated to the equation x2−2=0. It does not make a difference to Q(2). To give it its proper name, the function f is called a Q-automorphism of the field Q(2): it is a bijective function from Q(2) to itself, which leaves members of Q unchanged and preserves the structure of the arithmetic operations.

      Galois' group

      Are there any other Q-automorphisms of Q(2)? The answer is yes, there is one more, although it's a boring one. It's leaving every member of Q(2) unchanged. This is represented by the identity function g(x)=x So the collection of Q-automorphisms of Q(2) (that is, the collection of symmetries arising from x2−2=0) consist only of the functions g and f. The collection of symmetries of any object, whether it's a shape like a square or an equation, forms a self-contained system called a group. (A group is not dissimilar, though simpler, than a field.) The system is self-contained because when you follow one symmetry by another symmetry, the result is also a symmetry. In our example, following the symmetry (Q-automorphism) f by itself gets you back to where you started, so it amounts to performing the identity symmetry: f(f(a+b2))=f(a−b2)=a+b2=g(a+b2). Similarly, following f by g or g by f amounts to doing just f, and following g by g amounts to just doing g. The group of symmetries that comes from our equation, consisting of the two Q-automorphisms g and f, is called the Galois group of the equation x2−2=0.

      Why you can't solve the general quintic

      We can do all of this for any other polynomial equation P, for example for a quintic of the form ax5+bx4+cx3+dx2+ex+f=0, where the coefficients a, b, c, d, e and f are rational numbers. Again you can extend the field of rational numbers, Q, to form the smallest field (call it Q(P)) that includes Q and all the solutions to the equation P. This is called the splitting field of P. Just as we did for the quadratic, you can look at the symmetries of this splitting field. These are Q-automorphisms of Q(P), which leave all the members of Q unchanged, swap around the irrational members of Q(P) and preserve the structure of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. These form the Galois group of the equation P.
      Stamp

      A French stamp celebrating Galois.

      What Galois was able to show is that whether or not an equation is solvable by radicals depends on the structure of its Galois group. Sometimes the Galois group breaks up into smaller components that correspond to taking square roots, or cube roots, or nth roots for some larger n. If that is the case, then the equation is solvable by radicals. If, however, it doesn't break up into smaller components in the right way, if you can't disentangle the symmetries from each other, then you can't find a general solution that involves only addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and taking roots — in that case you can't solve the equation by radicals. It's possible to show that there are quintic equations that don't break up in the right way. These therefore aren't solvable by radicals. And this means that we can't find a general solution to the quintic as we have for the quadratic. The same is true for polynomial equations that involve higher powers of x too: there isn't a general formula that solves them by radicals. The study of the solutions of equations using group theory is known as Galois theory, after its inventor.

      You can read a more detailed, but still accessible, account of this on our sister site NRICH.


      About this article

      The article now forms part of our coverage of a major research programme on group theory held at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences (INI) in Cambridge. The INI is an international research centre and our neighbour here on the University of Cambridge's maths campus. It attracts leading mathematical scientists from all over the world, and is open to all. Visit www.newton.ac.uk to find out more.

      INI logo


      About the author

      Marianne Freiberger is Editor of Plus.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Comments

      Anonymous

      7 November 2015

      Permalink

      Hello,

      Great article! Just a small correction:
      In the second last line in the last paragraph of the section " Switching Solutions", it should read:
      " it is a bijective function from Q(2) to itself..."

      Thanks,
      Roy

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Marianne

      9 November 2015

      In reply to A Small Typo by Anonymous

      Permalink

      Thanks very much for pointing out the mistake, we have corrected it.

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Bruno

      12 October 2017

      Permalink

      The best introductory article on Galois' concepts that I've encountered till now. Very intuitive!

      • Log in or register to post comments

      Read more about...

      symmetry
      group theory
      Evariste Galois
      Galois theory
      INI
      University of Cambridge logo

      Plus Magazine is part of the family of activities in the Millennium Mathematics Project.
      Copyright © 1997 - 2025. University of Cambridge. All rights reserved.

      Terms