Timeline for Unique factorization in polynomial rings
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2019 at 13:02 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
Removed the deprecated (abstract-algebra) tag - see the tag info: https://mathoverflow.net/tags/abstract-algebra/info (if there are some other suitable tags, choose them instead.)
|
|
| Feb 13, 2010 at 5:47 | answer | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 13, 2010 at 1:47 | comment | added | Victor Miller | I hadn't really thought about this before, but my guesses are: 1) Viete -- since he seemed to be the first to formulate things in a way that we might recognize as algebra. 2) Even though everyone (or it should be everyone) knows about Gauss's lemma which is the key part in the modern proof, if I had to guess I might say Euler. | |
| Feb 13, 2010 at 0:53 | comment | added | Anton Geraschenko | You're not interested in the correct answers, but in the opinions of non-specialists about factual information. What are you trying to accomplish? I can only imagine somebody answering this question if they were looking to be controversial, since you're pre-emptively implying in your question that they are wrong. I would vote to close this as not a real question. | |
| Feb 12, 2010 at 21:52 | comment | added | Alon Amit | Read literally, one cannot even state (let alone prove) #1 without having a notion of a "field" which I imagine would disqualify both Euclid and Guass. The first general definition of a field is by Weber (1891) according to Wikipedia. Earlier notions were things like a subfield of the complex numbers. I'm not sure if the question assumes that the prover knew they were working over general fields, or rather looking for proofs which are essentially independent of the base field (even if they were formulated over a specific field). | |
| Feb 12, 2010 at 21:24 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | The immediately tempting answers are 1. Euclid and 2. Gauss. I expect that 1. is probably too early (while correct in spirit, I don't think the ancient Greeks worked with polynomials) and 2. is probably too late (since the result is a corollary of something called Gauss' Lemma, if the correct answer were Gauss, the question would not be so interesting). I am hoping that I may be closer to correct on average | |
| Feb 12, 2010 at 20:40 | history | asked | Franz Lemmermeyer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |