thelema418
- 131
- 4
This came up in one of my readings:
"Neither the so-called fundamental theorem [of algebra] itself nor its classical proof by the theory of functions of a complex variable is as highly esteemed as it was a generation ago, and the theorem seems to be on its way out of algebra to make room for something closer to what Kronecker imagined" (Bell, 1934, p. 605).
My schooling taught "the" fundamental theorem of algebra. What is different about Kronecker's treatment? What is Bell disputing when he says it is "so-called"?
Bell, E. T. (1934) The place of rigor in mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 41(10), 599-607.
"Neither the so-called fundamental theorem [of algebra] itself nor its classical proof by the theory of functions of a complex variable is as highly esteemed as it was a generation ago, and the theorem seems to be on its way out of algebra to make room for something closer to what Kronecker imagined" (Bell, 1934, p. 605).
My schooling taught "the" fundamental theorem of algebra. What is different about Kronecker's treatment? What is Bell disputing when he says it is "so-called"?
Bell, E. T. (1934) The place of rigor in mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 41(10), 599-607.