47
$\begingroup$

What are some good examples of algebraic theorems that have no known algebraic proofs?

A few I know concern classifications of (not necessarily associative) division algebras over $\mathbb{R}$: the theorem due to Hopf that the only commutative ones have dimensions 1 or 2 (like $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$); and the theorem due to Kervaire/Milnor that the only (not necessarily commutative) ones have dimensions 1, 2, 4, or 8 (like $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{C}$, $\mathbb{H}$, or $\mathbb{O}$). At least, the Wikipedia page on suggests there are not known algebraic proofs of these theorems: all known proofs use topology or geometry.

$\endgroup$
19
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ Fundamental theorem of algebra? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 17:48
  • 22
    $\begingroup$ @J.W.Tanner There are algebraic proofs which only use two facts from analysis: Real polynomials of odd degree have a real root, and each complex number has a complex square root. At some point an algebraic proof has to use the definition or easy properties of real or complex numbers. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 17:52
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I don’t believe there are any purely algebraic proofs of Gromov’s theorem that groups of polynomial growth have a nilpotent subgroup of finite index. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 18:36
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ There is an important semigroup operation $+$ defined on the set of ultrafilters on $\mathbb N$. It is an important and nontrivial theorem that there are non-principal ultrafilters $u$ for which $u+u = u$. The statement of this theorem, and all of the relevant definitions, can be expressed without any reference to any topology on the set of ultrafilters. But every proof of the theorem that I know involves topology in a nontrivial way. (I'm putting this as a comment, rather than an answer, because I imagine it might stretch too far what you mean by an "algebraic theorem.") $\endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    Commented Nov 18 at 19:31
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ I'm going to politely disagree with the example in the post: at least for associative division algebras, their classification is essentially the computation that $\operatorname{Br}(\mathbf R) \cong \mathbf Z/2\mathbf Z$, which is easy to prove using Galois cohomology: $H^2(\mathbf R,\mathbf C^\times) \cong \hat H{}^0(\mathbf R,\mathbf C^\times) = \mathbf R^\times/N(\mathbf C^\times)$. I consider this an algebraic proof. That said, I have no idea if Galois cohomology tells you anything about non-associative algebras. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 20:59

10 Answers 10

39
$\begingroup$

Here is my favorite one (though not so elementary).

Theorem (Grothendieck). Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over an algebraically closed field $k$. Then, the etale fundamental group $\pi^{\rm et}_1(X)$ is topologically finitely generated.

Note that $k$ might have characteristic $p$. Nevertheless, all known proofs of this fact eventually reduce to the case of a smooth projective curve over $\mathbb{C}$, and use the comparison theorem with the topological fundamental group.

An algebraic proof of the topological finite generation is not known even for the prime-to-$p$ completion of $\pi_1^{\rm et}(X)$. I think we know how to reduce this possibly easier question to the special case of the single (non-projective) variety $X= \mathbb{P}^1_k \setminus \{0,1,\infty\}$. Still, even in this case we need the complex numbers!

(For $\ell$-adic cohomology, there are general algebraic proofs of finite dimensionality. But not for the fundamental group!)

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Do you maybe mean “topologically finitely generated”? $\endgroup$
    – Aphelli
    Commented Nov 19 at 9:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Aphelli yes. In my defence, I am not the only one using "finitely generated" to mean "topologically finitely generated" in the context of pro-finite groups. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19 at 9:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... which makes sense since you just apply the notion of being finitely generated to the given category of topological groups. Adding adjectives is only required when forgetful functors are, well, forgotten (here from topological groups to groups). Anyway, great example! $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ Is "topologically finitely generated" really an algebraic property? $\endgroup$
    – Zerox
    Commented Nov 29 at 21:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeterMueller That's problematic since finite index subgroups might not be open if the group is not topologically finitely generated. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30 at 9:59
32
$\begingroup$

An example comes from the connection of function fields and Riemann surfaces: Let $K$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $0$, $t$ a variable, and $L/K(t)$ be a finite Galois extension. Then for each place $p_i$ of $K(t)$ which is ramified in $L$ there is a place $P_i$ of $L$ above $p_i$ whose (cyclic) inertia group is generated by $\sigma_i$ such that the following holds:

  • The Galois group of $L/K(t)$ is generated by the $\sigma_i$.
  • $\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_r=1$.

As far as I know, the only way to prove this purely algebraic statement is to first reduce it to $K=\mathbb C$, and then reformulate it in terms of a branched covering of compact Riemann surfaces and making use of the fundamental group of a punctured Riemann sphere.

The converse, by the way, holds too, and relies on the same translation.

Added 2024-11-22: David Harbater's beautiful survey article Riemann’s Existence Theorem details the failed attempts to prove either direction algebraically, and also discusses weaker results which were shown algebraically using formal schemes or rigid analytic geometry (like Florian Pop's Half Riemann’s Existence Theorem) over more general fields.

$\endgroup$
33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Since there exist some simply ramified covers of given degree and (even) branch degree by direct computation, it suffices to prove that the parameter space of simply ramified covers by irreducible curves with given (even) branch degree is irreducible (i.e., connected, since this parameter space is smooth). This parameter space is compactified by the moduli space of admissible covers, which is also smooth and proper, and has good reduction away from small primes. Thus, by Deligne's solution of the Weil conjectures, we are reduced to Malle's conjecture for function fields . . . $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19 at 2:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JasonStarr Can you elaborate on the first step of your argument? I don't follow it. How do you deduce this statement from a property of simply ramified covers? $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Nov 19 at 18:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillSawin Every finite, generically etale morphism is a specialization of "simply ramified covers" (by the infinitesimal deformation theory of finite, generically etale morphisms of smooth, projective curves). There are specialization theorems for the etale fundamental group in SGA 1 (if necessary, make a finite base change of your trait so that the ramification divisor is a union of sections over the trait). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19 at 19:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JasonStarr I'm a little lost at what you do next. The issue is that the statement we want has the form "for each ramification point, there exists a point in the fiber over that point" which seems to become a stronger statement when multiple ramification points collide: Before they collide we could make different choices for the different points but after we are forced to make the same choice. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Nov 19 at 19:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillSawin No, as I suggested, make a base change of your trait so that the ramification divisor is a union of sections. Choose a representative of the conjugacy class for each ramification point in the generic fiber for each section. Then, as the sections coalesce, take the composition of the corresponding representatives. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19 at 19:08
19
$\begingroup$

Artin's theorem on positive polynomials, which solves Hilbert's 17th problem in the affirmative, apparently still has no algebraic proof.

Theorem (Artin): If $f \in \mathbb{R}[X_1,\dots,X_n]$ is pointwise nonnegative, then it is a sum of squares in $\mathbb{R}(X_1,\dots,X_n)$.

Artin's proof uses quantifier elimination for real closed fields from model theory, so this arguably qualifies as not purely algebraic. As far as I know this is still the only successful approach to the problem.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What about the paper by Hillar and Nie, An elementary and constructive solution to Hilbert's 17th problem for matrices? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19 at 11:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow: I don't know that paper, but from a quick look it seems that they already assume Artin's theorem for their proof. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 19 at 13:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is this really an algebraic theorem if positivity is involved? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 2:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @AntoineLabelle Over the real numbers, nonnegative is equivalent to being the square of a real number, so "nonnegative" can be defined algebraically. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 3:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Evaluation of any polynomial of degree $n$ is equivalently an element $\text{Hom}_{\mathbf{CRing}}(\mathbb{R}[X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n],\mathbb{R})$, which is in natural bijection with $\text{Hom}_{\mathbf{Set}}(\{X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n\},\mathbb{R})$. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 21 at 1:08
16
$\begingroup$

There should be many examples in algebraic number theory, as it often interacts nontrivially with analytic number theory. For example, I am pretty sure there is no algebraic proof of Bauer's theorem (but would love to be proved wrong):

Theorem (Bauer, 1903) Let $K \to L$ and $K \to M$ be finite Galois extensions of number fields, and assume that a prime $\mathfrak p \subseteq \mathcal O_K$ is totally split in $L$ if and only if it is totally split in $M$. Then $L \cong M$.

This follows pretty easily from the Chebotarev density theorem (or Kronecker's split version, see Corollary 2.4 of these notes by Keith Conrad).

It's not just the proof of the Chebotarev density theorem that uses analytic number theory, somehow the statement itself is analytic in nature. But its corollaries, such as Bauer's theorem, may be purely algebraic statements. (I would not be surprised if there were other key theorems with these attributes, for instance in geometric group theory.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ What about Minkowski’s bound to calculate the class number? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 2:46
  • $\begingroup$ In “Field Arithmetic” it is quite common to use the Cebotarev Density Theorem to deduce irreducibility theorems that are purely algebraic statements. Some of these can be proved purely algebra-geometrically (I have a paper about this). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 18:51
14
$\begingroup$

The Scott-Wiegold conjecture posits that the free product of three non-trivial cyclic groups can never be normally generated by a single element.

It was eventually proven by Jim Howie, by studying the homotopy theory of the representation variety of $F_3$ in $SU_2$.

Similar uses of homotopy theory to solve purely algebraic problems:

  1. The finite group case of the Kervaire conjecture.

  2. The non-freeness of the module $A^3/\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\y\\z\end{array}\right)$, where $A=\mathbb{Z}[x,y,z]/\langle 1-x^2-y^2-z^2\rangle$, usually proved via the Hairy Ball theorem.

  3. Let $R=\mathbb{Z}[x,y,t]/\langle 1-x^2-y^2\rangle$. Then the elements $$\alpha= x+(1-t^2)a,\\ \beta=yt+(1-t^2)b,$$ can never generate $R$ as an ideal, for any $a,b\in R$. Easily proved by considering the winding numbers (at $t=1$ and $t=-1$) of $(\alpha,\beta)$ about the origin in $\mathbb{R}^2$, as $(x,y)$ goes round the unit circle in $\mathbb{R}^2$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ A conjecture doesn't "ask" something, it rather asserts a strong expectation that something holds true. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Nov 20 at 17:15
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor It turns out that in this case that strong expectation was in the correct direction. I have edited accordingly. $\endgroup$
    – tkf
    Commented Nov 20 at 18:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ number 2 here is one of my favorites, and perhaps is due to Swan. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22 at 4:52
7
$\begingroup$

The fundamental theorem of algebra states that every non-constant single-variable polynomial with coefficients in $\mathbb C$ has at least one complex root; i.e., the field of complex numbers is algebraically closed. Known proofs involve some mathematical analysis, or at least the topological concept of continuity.

$\endgroup$
21
  • 37
    $\begingroup$ One could perhaps quibble that there is no "purely algebraic" definition of $\mathbb{C}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 18:09
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow I wonder if there's actually a robust way to define what a 'purely algebraic' definition is, because obviously $\mathbb{C}$ is the unique algebraically closed field with characteristic $0$ and transcendence degree $2^{\aleph_0}$, which doesn't strictly speaking refer to topology. Maybe in some sense the issue is that algebraic (or at least 'combinatorial') constructions of algebraically closed fields are in some sense highly non-canonical, whereas $\mathbb{C}$ of course has a specific topological construction. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 18:20
  • 28
    $\begingroup$ @JamesEHanson Well if you define $\mathbb{C}$ this way, then you can argue it is an algebraic definition (one can still debate over whether the cardinality requirement is is an algebraic notion of not), but then the fundamental theorem of algebra has a pretty obvious "algebraic" proof... $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 18:25
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Yes, if $\mathbb{C}$ is defined to be an algebraically closed field, then the "theorem" that it's algebraically closed is trivial. In any case, I doubt that there can be a truly satisfying way to robustly define "algebraic definition" or "algebraic theorem" or "algebraic proof." $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 18:30
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @user479223 How do you define $\mathbb{R}$ in a purely algebraic manner? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18 at 18:33
7
$\begingroup$

The proof (by Hecke I believe) that in a number field the ideal class of the different is always the square of a class.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A related MO page: mathoverflow.net/questions/28776/… $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Commented Nov 19 at 20:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's been a long while since I've read that proof, what sort of non-algebraic inputs does it use? $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Nov 20 at 15:12
5
$\begingroup$

Dirichlet's theorem on primes in arithmetic progression: if $a$ and $b$ are any relatively prime positive integers, then there are infinitely many prime numbers of the form $a+nb$ for positive integers $n$.

EDIT, given @SamHopkins comment: Dirichlet's theorem, states, equivalently, that a linear polynomial in the UFD $\mathbb{Z}[X]$ represents infinitely many irreducible elements of the UFD $\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if the polynomial is nonconstant and irreducible over $\mathbb{Z}$. One can also include the generalization of Dirichlet's theorem to number fields. Dirichlet's unit theorem is another example.

$\endgroup$
17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is this really an "algebraic theorem"? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 2:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov I was unaware of any. I suppose this is relevant: mathoverflow.net/questions/16735/… $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 6:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JesseElliott I do not think that it makes sense to think of the Eudoxos reals as being an "algebraic" construction of $\mathbb{R}$. Taking equivalence classes of infinite sequences is about as analytic as it gets. At least, it is not more algebraic than the Cauchy construction, which also uses equivalence classes of infinite sequences. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 7:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JannikPitt Cauchy's construction uses the analytic definitions of Cauchy and limit-zero sequences. The notion of an almost homomorphism of abelian groups is an algebraic one. Abelian groups form an additive category Qab with morphisms as the quasi-homomorphisms. $\mathbb{Z}[[X]]$ is an algebraic object, also, not an analytic one, and the ring of $p$-adic integers can be constructed as $\mathbb{Z}[[X]]/(p-X)$. I'm not sure how that's any different. I think, by your argument, the ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]$ is an algebraic object, but $\mathbb{Z}[[X]]$ is not. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 7:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JesseElliott I would say the fundamental theme of analysis is making approximations exact. In both the Cauchy and the Eudoxos construction we have different approximations to the same ideal real number. The analytic step is in identifying these approximations by a suitable equivalence relation. It is precisely the equivalence relation where the analytic idea of making approximations exact appears. On the other hand, to define a ring of formal power series, one need not quotient by any equivalence relation, because there are not any approximations around. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 20 at 11:58
5
$\begingroup$

Okninski proved that $M$ is a monoid and $K$ is a field of characteristic $0$ such that the monoid algebra $KM$ is von Neumann regular, then $M$ is locally finite using analytic methods. No algebraic proof is known. Recall a ring $R$ is von Neumann regular if $\forall a\in R, \exists b\in R$ such that $aba=a$ and a monoid is locally finite if all its finitely generated submonoids are finite.

The proof is quite short. Let $X$ be a finite subset of $M$. We want the submonoid $\langle X\rangle$ is finite. Let $a=\frac{1}{|X|+1}\sum_{x\in X} x\in \mathbb QM\subseteq KM$. Let $b\in KM$ with $(1-a)b(1-a)=1-a$. The subfield $L$ of $K$ generated by the coefficients of $a,b$ is finitely generated and hence embeds in $\mathbb C$. Thus we may view $1-a,a,b\in \mathbb CM$. Now $\mathbb CM$ embeds in the Banach algebra $\ell_1M$. The element $a$ has $\ell_1$-norm $\|a\|_1<1$. Thus in $\ell_1M$ we have that $1-a$ is a unit with inverse $\sum_{n=0}^\infty a^n$. We deduce that $b=(1-a)^{-1}$. But $b$ has finite support whereas $(1-a)^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a^n$ has support the submonoid generated by $X$. We conclude that $\langle X\rangle$ is finite.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ What properties of the complex numbers are you using here? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26 at 2:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I’m using completeness, that they have uncountable transcendence degree over the rationals and that they are algebraically closed. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26 at 2:24
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinBrandenburg, I guess I'm also using order properties of the real numbers since I need that the coefficients in $a$ are positive to guarantee the support of the geometric sum is the monoid generated by X $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26 at 11:31
4
$\begingroup$

Infinitesimal Thurston Rigidity in Holomorphic Dynamics

This concerns eigenvalues of a natural operator on cohomology.

The statement is Galois invariant. The only known proof is not.

Algebraic proofs of algebraic theorems about algebraically closed fields

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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