From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3186
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: WHY ARE WE CONCERNED? I
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:03:57 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019142 7613 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:32:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:32:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: categories@mta.ca
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Mar 30 18:52:10 2006 -0400
Return-path:
Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca
Delivery-date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:52:10 -0400
Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1FP5wD-0006P9-Im
for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:48:21 -0400
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 132
Original-Lines: 37
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3186
Archived-At:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Vaughan Pratt wrote:
> a few decades ago an elementary exposition of the Fundamental
> Theorem of Algebra would not be expected to include an elementary proof
> since the extant proofs were either lengthy arguments or nonelementary
> appeals to the minimum modulus principle, properties of holomorphic
> functions such as Liouville's theorem, or other results the reader would
> be unlikely to be on top of. The dominant belief was that the only
> short proofs were nonelementary ones.
>
> But for an audience aware only that z^i for any nonnegative integer i
> maps circles at the origin to i-fold circles of radius r^i at the
> origin, an entirely elementary notion, an expositor today would be
> morally obligated to include a full proof since there is hardly anything
> left to explain. The polynomial a_d z^d + ... + a_0 maps little circles
> to the neighborhood of a_0 and big circles to a loop tending to a very
> big d-fold circle of radius a_d r^d, whence the smoothly growing image,
> under the polynomial, of a smoothly growing circle is obliged to cross
> the origin at some stage. Still a topological argument, but now an
> entirely elementary one.
>
> Except, that is, for the theorem that a loop wound d times around the
> hole in the punctured plane cannot be continuously retracted to a point,
> which was tacitly smuggled in there. But that statement is less
> intimidating than anything based on holomorphic functions.
>
> This slick proof seems only to have emerged in the past couple of
> decades.
Has it? It seems to me no more than (an explicity homotopy-theoretic
formulation of) the (implicitly homotopy-theoretic) proof via
Rouch\'e's Theorem, which I was taught as an undergraduate (and which
I've taught to undergraduates on many occasions since then).
Peter Johnstone