Algebraic number theory and rings I | Math History | NJ Wildberger

preview_player
Показать описание
In the 19th century, algebraists started to look at extension fields of the rational numbers as new domains for doing arithmetic. In this way the notion of an abstract ring was born, through the more concrete examples of rings of algebraic integers in number fields.

Key examples include the Gaussian integers, which are complex numbers with integer coefficients, and which are closed under addition, subtraction and multiplication. The properties under division mimic those of the integers, with primes, units and most notably unique factorization.

However for other algebraic number rings, unique factorization proved more illusive, and had to be rescued by Kummer and Dedekind with the introduction of ideal elements, or just ideals.

This interesting area of number theory does have some foundational difficulties, as in most current formulations it rests ultimately on transcendental results re complex numbers, notably the Fundamental theory of algebra. Sadly, this is not as solid as it is usually made out, and so very likely new purely algebraic techniques are needed to recast some of the ideas into a more solid framework.

************************

Here are the Insights into Mathematics Playlists:

Here are the Wild Egg Maths Playlists (some available only to Members!)

************************
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

Maths for the masses, thank you, professor.

carloshortuvia
Автор

I am a big fan of yours. You do  a superb job of teaching mathematics to the  wide world for free. I like particularly your Maths History series; your explanation of Galois  Theory was excellent thanks. Your enthusiasm for the subject seems undiminished . I hope you continue with more topics. I look forward to your new postings.

richardkurcewicz
Автор

Among the most valuable things on the web. ❤

behnamashjari
Автор

Beautiful lecture series !!! I love enthusiasm

luyombojonathan
Автор

A neat little fact - Ramanujan Constant 163
163 and Ramanujan Constant - Numberphile

Hythloday
Автор

@41:58 lol. Redundancy in terminology is the scourge of mathematics. How about the word Normal ? Normal subgroups normal topologies normal velctors normal distributions normal numbers .... It's nut .
Having all kinds of different names for the same thing is just as bad.
Mathematicians should require all maps from set of mathematical terminology to the set of mathematical to be bijective :P

chasr