Contradiction of Galios theory

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Galois theory and its implications regarding the solvability of polynomial equations, specifically the polynomial $x^5-6x+3$. The original poster expresses confusion about why this polynomial is deemed unsolvable by radicals, despite attempts to factor it and find roots using numerical methods.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the distinction between approximate roots and exact roots, questioning the validity of using numerical approximations to assert solvability. There is a discussion about the nature of roots found through methods like Newton's method and how they relate to the definitions in Galois theory.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the differences between approximate and exact roots. Some participants challenge the original poster's reasoning and clarify the implications of Galois theory, indicating that there is no consensus yet on the interpretations being discussed.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific numerical values and calculations that are being debated, highlighting potential misunderstandings about the nature of roots in polynomial equations. The discussion also touches on the use of notation and the importance of distinguishing between different types of roots.

footmath
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Hello.
Galois theory tell us $x^5-6x+3$ is not solvable by radical but every equation lower than fifth can solve by radical.
If $G$ is solvable and $H$ is solvable too $G*H$ are solvable. For $x^5-6x+3$ we can use Newton’s method and find one root of this equation.
We obtain $x=1.4$ and factor this equation.
$x^5-6x+3=(x-1.4)(ax^4+px^3+qx^2+sx+t)$
$a=1$
$p=1.4$
$q=(1.4)^2$
$s=(1.4)^3$
$t=-6+(1.4)^4$
$x^5-6x+3=(x-1.4)(x^4+1.4x^3+(1.4)x^2+(1.4)^3x-6+(1.4)^4)$
$(x-1.4)$ is solvable and $(x^4+1.4x^3+(1.4)x^2+(1.4)^3x-6+(1.4)^4)$ is solvable too so $(x-1.4)*(x^4+1.4x^3+(1.4)x^2+(1.4)3x-6+(1.4)^4)$ are solvable.
Why did Galois theory say that $x^5-6x+3$ is not solvable by radical?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[itex](1.4)^5- 6(1.4)+ 3= -0.02176[/itex], not 0.

1.4 is NOT a root of the equation so x- 1.4 is NOT a factor.

Don't confuse approximate roots with roots.
 
When we want to calculate the root of a equation for example x^3+3x+1=0. The root of x^3+3x+1=0 is $-0.3221853546 $ but if you substitute $-0.3221853546 $ in the equation x^3+3x+1=0 you will see (-0.3221853546)^3+3(-0.3221853546)+1=0.00000000000846 . we cannot obtain a rational root but we say this equation is solvable by radical . $ \sqrt[5]{5.40985+0i} $ is the root of x^5- 6x+ 3
 
footmath said:
When we want to calculate the root of a equation for example x^3+3x+1=0. The root of x^3+3x+1=0 is $-0.3221853546 $ but if you substitute $-0.3221853546 $ in the equation x^3+3x+1=0 you will see (-0.3221853546)^3+3(-0.3221853546)+1=0.00000000000846 . we cannot obtain a rational root but we say this equation is solvable by radical . $ \sqrt[5]{5.40985+0i} $ is the root of x^5- 6x+ 3
You are not understanding approximate roots, such as x = -0.3221853546, with exact roots. BTW, why are you putting $ symbols around your numbers?

Iterative approximation techniques such as Newton's method, give approximate values for the roots of equations, even equations of degree five and higher. Galois theory has to do with finding exact roots of equations.

As a simple example of the distinction between approximate roots and exact roots, you can use Newton's method to find a root of the equation x2 = 2. One approximation is 1.414. The exact value is [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex], which is not the same as 1.414.
 
Mark44 said:
You are not understanding approximate roots, such as x = -0.3221853546, with exact roots. BTW, why are you putting $ symbols around your numbers?

Iterative approximation techniques such as Newton's method, give approximate values for the roots of equations, even equations of degree five and higher. Galois theory has to do with finding exact roots of equations.

As a simple example of the distinction between approximate roots and exact roots, you can use Newton's method to find a root of the equation x2 = 2. One approximation is 1.414. The exact value is [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex], which is not the same as 1.414.

What is your opinion about$ x^5 + 20x^3 + 20x^2 + 30x + 10 =0 $
Are you accept that the one root of this equation is $\sqrt[5]{2}-\sqrt[5]{2^2}+\sqrt[5]{2^3}-\sqrt[5]{2^4} $ ? if you substitute this answer in the equation you will see very, very close to 0 but NOT 0.
$ \sqrt[5]{5.40985+0i}$ is close to 0 for the equation $ x^{5}-6x+3 $
 
footmath said:
What is your opinion about [itex]x^5 + 20x^3 + 20x^2 + 30x + 10 =0[/itex]
Are you accept that the one root of this equation is [itex]\sqrt[5]{2}-\sqrt[5]{2^2}+\sqrt[5]{2^3}-\sqrt[5]{2^4}[/itex] ? if you substitute this answer in the equation you will see very, very close to 0 but NOT 0.
[itex]\sqrt[5]{5.40985+0i}[/itex] is close to 0 for the equation [itex]x^{5}-6x+3[/itex]

I see that the $ signs can be replaced by [ tex ] tags.

WolframAlpha shows that [itex]\sqrt[5]{2}-\sqrt[5]{2^2}+\sqrt[5]{2^3}-\sqrt[5]{2^4}[/itex] is a exact root of [itex]x^5 + 20x^3 + 20x^2 + 30x + 10 = 0\,.[/itex]

See the LINK.
 
What SammyS is saying is that your statement that putting that into the equation gives a number that "is very, very close to 0 but NOT 0" is incorrect. I suspect what you did was use a calculator to find an approximate value for that solution. If so, again, you are confusing approximate computation with exact values.

Notice that, by the quadratic formula, [itex]1+\sqrt{6}[/itex] is a root of [itex]x^2- 2x- 5= 0[/itex] and it is easy to see that this is true by exact computation:
If [itex]x= 1+ \sqrt{6}[/itex] then [itex]x^2= 1+ 2\sqrt{6}+ 6= 7+ 2\sqrt{6}[/itex] so that [itex]x^2- 2x+ 5= 7+ 2\sqrt{6}- 2- 2\sqrt{6}- 5= 0[/itex]

But if we use a calculator to find that [itex]\sqrt{6}= 2.4494897427831780981972840747059[/itex], then x= 3.4494897427831780981972840747059 and [itex]x^2- 2x- 6[/itex] becomes
2.5265767520093026238086822867067e-37 which is "0" to 36 decimal places but NOT 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K