>Did Evariste Galois, by his definitions, wipe out something [the nice
>quintic formula] that could have existed before he got around to it?
>
>Or did he merely create appropriate tools for documenting what was
>physically real: the nonexistence of the nice quintic formula?
>
>The claim (I am responding to) superficially directly answers the
>second
>question as No, and the first question as Yes. Are these answers
>plausible?
I'm struggling to see how the nonexistence of something could be
physically real.
There's nothing mystical about what I'm saying. Galois spread the
no-quintic-formula meme. It appears impossible to create a quintic
formula given the common axioms of number theory. But without a proof,
people's behavior was different because they were trying to find one.
Now they don't.
Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
Do you know what a "meme" is?
http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>