11
$\begingroup$

My question basically is very simple: when did mathematicians start to do algebraic geometry "outside the complex numbers" ?

In the old days, algebraic geometry was solely done over the field of complex numbers (if I am not mistaken), but at some point authors started considering other fields such as finite fields, one of the great culminating points being the Weil conjectures (and their solutions).

How did algebraic geometry evolve from "classical, over the complex numbers" to "modern, over other fields (and more general structures), and in particular finite fields"?

Did this happen before Weil? Or was he involved in this very evolution?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Okay, here is the specific answer I was thinking of: mathoverflow.net/questions/210644/… $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 24, 2022 at 23:52
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I’m voting to close this question because it seems more appropriate for HSMSE. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Jul 24, 2022 at 23:56
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I recommend reading the last section of the historical sketch by Shafarevich, in his Basic Algebraic Geometry. In particular he references Dedekind and Weber's work from 1882. $\endgroup$
    – roy smith
    Commented Jul 25, 2022 at 0:16
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Algebraic geometry over the field of real numbers was considered by Apollonius of Perga, and over rational numbers by Diophantus of Alexandria. They only did not know that they were doing algebraic geometry. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 25, 2022 at 6:23
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Newton's classifications of real plane cubics is another example of algebraic geometry. This was done long before complex numbers were introduced to algebraic geometry. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 25, 2022 at 6:32

2 Answers 2

29
$\begingroup$

Algebraic geometry began over the field of reals. What Apollonius of Perga did would be certainly qualified today as algebraic geometry: he classified real plane curves of second order and studied their intersections, tangents, etc. in very great detail. Certainly Apollonius had neither real numbers nor the notion of degree, but nevertheless we was able to obtain many non-trivial results.

What Apollonius did over the real field Diophantus did over rationals: he essentially gave a complete study of rational points on curves of degree $2$, and much more. Diophantus' book contains no theorems, only numerical examples. But he really somehow understood some basic facts which nowadays belong to algebraic geometry (rational curves and surfaces, not only in dimension 2 and 3 but in higher dimensions, rational points on elliptic curves do really appear in his work for the first time. He probably even understood to some extent the addition law on a plane non-singular cubic; some of his examples involve it).

The general solution of $x^2+y^2=z^2$ in integers certainly belongs to algebraic geometry over rationals. It was known before Diophantus.

Until the late 19th nobody realized that the work of Apollonius and Diophantus belongs to the same area of mathematics. I think this was clearly understood for the first time in the work of Poincare Sur les proprietes arithmetiques de courbes algebriques (1901).

But one can also say that true algebraic geometry really begins with Decartes who clearly explained the relation between curves in the plane and equations $f(x,y)=0$, thus establishing the notion of algebraic curve and degree. And this was mostly real algebraic geometry. One result of Descartes was his "Rule of Signs" which has been much generalized in real algebraic geometry (fewnomials theory). An outstanding achievement of this real algebraic geometry was Newton's classification of plane real cubics. Bézout's theorem was also proved before the introduction of complex numbers to algebraic geometry.

Complex algebraic geometry begins only in 19th century, first by introduction of complex points to projective geometry.

To Dedekind and Weber belongs the discovery that the theory of algebraic functions is really similar to the theory of algebraic numbers, in the sense that both study finite field extensions, and much of this theory can be exposed in a unified way. They were able to prove many results of Riemann on algebraic curves by purely algebraic methods. From that time people started consciously "doing algebraic geometry over arbitrary field".

References:

I. G. Bashmakova, Diophantus and Diophantine equations, MAA, 1997, MR1483067

I. G. Bashmakova, Arithmetic of algebraic curves from Diophantus to Poincaré, Historia Math. 8 (1981), no. 4, 393–416.

R. Dedekind and H. Weber, Theory of algebraic functions of one variable, AMS 2010. (Several different English translations are available on Internet).

A. Weil, Number Theory. An approach through history. From Hammurapi to Legendre. Birkhauser, 1984.

$\endgroup$
0
12
$\begingroup$

As others have noted, algebraic geometry has always been done over fields other than the complex numbers. However, in the "old days" (early 20th century), there was a flourishing Italian school of algebraic geometry, which largely worked over the complex numbers, and you can ask when that work was extended to other fields. van der Waerden began the work of making it more general, more algebraic, and more rigorous, in the 1930s and Zariski, Weil, and others continued it. In 1940, Weil observed that if certain statements in Italian geometry made sense and were true over finite fields, then the Riemann hypothesis for curves and abelian varieties over finite fields would follow. He spent the rest of the 1940s writing three books in which he developed the foundations of algebraic geometry, especially curves and abelian varieties, over arbitrary fields, and, indeed, the statements he needed did make sense and were true (e.g., the positivity of the Rosati involution). So Weil was a major figure, but not the only one.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Detail: 'Van der Waerden' is Dutch, so with capital 'V' unless preceded by his first name or initial, unlike for German names. Also note that at the start of a sentence even a German(ised) name, like 'von Neumann', would be capitalised.) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 7, 2022 at 7:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .