Questions:
- Does there exist a proof of the Abel-Ruffini theorem without using Galois theory?
- Does there exist a proof that there exists a polynomial $P$ with $\deg P = 5$ such that the roots are not expressible in radicals? Can this be proven without Abel-Ruffini?
- Does there exist a polynomial $P$ with $\deg P = 6$ such that the minima and maxima are not expressible in radicals? Can this be proven without Abel-Ruffini?
I originally had the following proof for the third question:
The minima and maxima of a 6th degree polynomial are the roots of its derivative, which is a fifth degree polynomial. There exists a 5th degree polynomial such that the roots are not expressible in radicals, otherwise the roots of every 5th degree polynomial would be expressible in radicals, contradicting the more general form of the Abel-Ruffini theorem proven by Galois. Therefore there exists a 6th degree polynomial whose minima and maxima are not expressible in radicals.
However, I realized only until later, that it also can be done vice versa. However, the question brought up the several other questions which I listed on top of the question. Therefore I have clarified those questions up in the answer below.
Best Answer
Let me try to explain my understanding of what Abel and Ruffini did. I am thinking of using this as my opening lecture next time I teach Galois theory, so this is useful for me. Disclaimer: I am a mathematician, not a historian.
Here is a theorem which I can prove in the space on this page.
Proof: The group $S_5$ clearly acts on $L$ by permuting the $x_i$. Let $\sigma$ and $\tau$ be the permutations $(123)$ and $(345)$, and let $F$ be the field of functions in $L$ fixed by $\sigma$ and $\tau$. Clearly, $K \subset F$. We claim that you cannot escape $F$ by the operations $+$, $-$, $\times$, $\div$, $\sqrt[n]{}$. For the first four operations, this is obvious.
Suppose that $b \in L$ and $b^n=a \in F$. Then $\sigma(b)^n=\sigma(b^n) = \sigma(a) = a=b^n$. So $(\sigma(b)/b)^n=1$ and $\sigma(b) = \zeta b$ for some $n$-th root of unity $\zeta$. Similarly, $\tau(b) = \omega b$ for some $n$-th root of unity $\omega$.
Now, $\sigma^3=\mathrm{Id}$ so $b=\sigma^3(b)=\zeta^3 b$. Similarly, we deduce that $\omega^3=1$. Also, $(\sigma \tau)^5=\mathrm{Id}$, so $\zeta^5 \omega^5=1$, and $(\sigma^2 \tau)^5 = \mathrm{Id}$ so $\zeta^{10} \omega^5=1$. Combining all of these equations, $(\zeta^3)^2 (\zeta^5 \omega^5) (\zeta^{10} \omega^5)^{-1} = \zeta =1$ and, similarly, $\omega=1$. So $\sigma(b) = \tau(b) = b$, and $b$ is in $F$ after all.
Since $x_1 \not \in F$, we have proved the theorem $\square$.
Note that the quadratic, cubic and biquadratic formulas do stay within $L$.
For example, the cubic formula is (Double check before using!) $$x_1 = \frac{1}{3} \left( \sqrt[3]{\frac{S+\sqrt{S^2+4 T^3}}{2}} + \sqrt[3]{\frac{S-\sqrt{S^2+4 T^3}}{2}} + e_1 \right)$$ $$S = 2 e_1^3-9 e_1 e_2+27 e_3, \quad T= 3e_2-e_1^2.$$ The functions $S$ and $T$ are formed by field operations and I believe you will find that $\sqrt{S^2+4T^3} = (x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)$ and $$\sqrt[3]{\frac{S+\sqrt{S^2+4T^3}}{2}} = x_1 + \frac{-1+\sqrt{3} i}{2} x_2 + \frac{-1-\sqrt{3}i}{2} x_3$$ So we have stayed within $L$ while working our way up to $x_1$.
I explain how to think about this computation in modern terms here. In brief, the group generated by $\sigma$ and $\tau$ is $A_5$, and the above computations verify that $A_5^{ab}$ is trivial.
As I understand it, both Abel and Ruffini gave correct proofs of the theorem in the box. These proofs were basically the same as the above, but longer because words like "field", "group" and "action" hadn't been invented yet. Both of them aimed to go further, and show that there was no universal formula for $x_1$ in terms of $e_1$, $e_2$, ..., $e_5$, $+$, $-$, $\times$, $\div$ and $\sqrt[n]{}$, whether or not we are required to stay in $L$. This was very confusing, as it wasn't clear what sort of algebraic object the formulas would live in once we left $L$.
As I understand it, the current consensus is that Ruffini's attempt failed, but Abel succeeded by proving the result now called the Theorem of Natural Irrationalities.
From a modern Galois theory perspective, there is no problem. Suppose we have some chain of fields $K \subset F \subset L \subset M$, and $K=K_0 \subset K_1 \subset K_2 \subset \cdots \subset K_r = M$, where each $K_{i+1}/K_i$ is a radical extension. Without loss of generality, we may assume $M/K$ is Galois, with Galois group $G$. Then the chain of radical extensions shows $G$ is solvable. But the chain $K \subset F \subset L \subset M$ shows that $A_5 = \mathrm{Gal}(L/F)=\mathrm{Gal}(M/F)/\mathrm{Gal}(M/L)$ occurs as a composition factor for $G$, so $A_5$ must also be solvable. This contradicts that our computation that $A_5^{ab}$ is trivial.
What Galois contributed was the ability to work with arbitrary field extensions, not just polynomials/functions with various symmetry, and therefore be able to speak cleanly about the field $L$ and its symmetries. He also was the first to create tools that would let us prove a particular quintic over $\mathbb{Q}$ was not solvable by radicals.