Timeline for $\operatorname{PSL}(2,\mathbb{F}_p) $ does not embed in $\mathfrak{S}_p$ for $p>11$
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2021 at 16:44 | history | edited | GH from MO | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Aug 22, 2021 at 9:35 | comment | added | abx | Well, I would be more daring. As Palfy explains, the three first slides of his argument are essentially in Galois; what is missing is the fourth one (lack of time probably...). If Galois had a proof (and there is no reason to doubt it), it was certainly very close. | |
| Aug 22, 2021 at 9:17 | comment | added | Wojowu | @abx I don't think anyone claims that this is Galois's reasoning, that one is most likely lost to history. Palfy only says this one "might be close to Galois's own thoughts", in that it only uses ideas which Galois would have had access to. | |
| Aug 22, 2021 at 5:35 | comment | added | abx | Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for — a detailed explanation of Galois reasoning. Amazing he could create this portion of group theory out of nothing. | |
| Aug 22, 2021 at 5:34 | vote | accept | abx | ||
| Aug 21, 2021 at 16:31 | history | answered | Wojowu | CC BY-SA 4.0 |