Infinitesimal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Infinitesimals (ε) and infinites (ω) on the hyperreal number line (ε = 1/ω)

In mathematics, infinitesimals are things so small that there is no way to measure them. The insight with exploiting infinitesimals was that entities could still retain certain specific properties, such as angle or slope, even though these entities were quantitatively small. The word infinitesimal comes from a 17th-century Modern Latin coinage infinitesimus, which originally referred to the "infinite-th" item in a sequence. Infinitesimals are a basic ingredient in the procedures of infinitesimal calculus as developed by Leibniz, including the law of continuity and the transcendental law of homogeneity. In common speech, an infinitesimal object is an object that is smaller than any feasible measurement, but not zero in size—or, so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero by any available means. Hence, when used as an adjective, "infinitesimal" means "extremely small". To give it a meaning, it usually must be compared to another infinitesimal object in the same context (as in a derivative). Infinitely many infinitesimals are summed to produce an integral.

The concept of infinitesimals was originally introduced around 1670 by either Nicolaus Mercator or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Archimedes used what eventually came to be known as the method of indivisibles in his work The Method of Mechanical Theorems to find areas of regions and volumes of solids. In his formal published treatises, Archimedes solved the same problem using the method of exhaustion. The 15th century saw the work of Nicholas of Cusa, further developed in the 17th century by Johannes Kepler, in particular calculation of area of a circle by representing the latter as an infinite-sided polygon. Simon Stevin's work on decimal representation of all numbers in the 16th century prepared the ground for the real continuum. Bonaventura Cavalieri's method of indivisibles led to an extension of the results of the classical authors. The method of indivisibles related to geometrical figures as being composed of entities of codimension 1. John Wallis's infinitesimals differed from indivisibles in that he would decompose geometrical figures into infinitely thin building blocks of the same dimension as the figure, preparing the ground for general methods of the integral calculus. He exploited an infinitesimal denoted 1/∞ in area calculations.

The use of infinitesimals by Leibniz relied upon heuristic principles, such as the law of continuity: what succeeds for the finite numbers succeeds also for the infinite numbers and vice versa; and the transcendental law of homogeneity that specifies procedures for replacing expressions involving inassignable quantities, by expressions involving only assignable ones. The 18th century saw routine use of infinitesimals by mathematicians such as Leonhard Euler and Joseph-Louis Lagrange. Augustin-Louis Cauchy exploited infinitesimals both in defining continuity in his Cours d'Analyse, and in defining an early form of a Dirac delta function. As Cantor and Dedekind were developing more abstract versions of Stevin's continuum, Paul du Bois-Reymond wrote a series of papers on infinitesimal-enriched continua based on growth rates of functions. Du Bois-Reymond's work inspired both Émile Borel and Thoralf Skolem. Borel explicitly linked du Bois-Reymond's work to Cauchy's work on rates of growth of infinitesimals. Skolem developed the first non-standard models of arithmetic in 1934. A mathematical implementation of both the law of continuity and infinitesimals was achieved by Abraham Robinson in 1961, who developed non-standard analysis based on earlier work by Edwin Hewitt in 1948 and Jerzy Łoś in 1955. The hyperreals implement an infinitesimal-enriched continuum and the transfer principle implements Leibniz's law of continuity. The standard part function implements Fermat's adequality.

Vladimir Arnold wrote in 1990:

Nowadays, when teaching analysis, it is not very popular to talk about infinitesimal quantities. Consequently present-day students are not fully in command of this language. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to have command of it.

History of the infinitesimal

The notion of infinitely small quantities was discussed by the Eleatic School. The Greek mathematician Archimedes (c.287 BC–c.212 BC), in The Method of Mechanical Theorems, was the first to propose a logically rigorous definition of infinitesimals. His Archimedean property defines a number x as infinite if it satisfies the conditions |x|>1, |x|>1+1, |x|>1+1+1, ..., and infinitesimal if x≠0 and a similar set of conditions holds for x and the reciprocals of the positive integers. A number system is said to be Archimedean if it contains no infinite or infinitesimal members.

The English mathematician John Wallis introduced the expression 1/∞ in his 1655 book Treatise on the Conic Sections. The symbol, which denotes the reciprocal, or inverse, of ∞, is the symbolic representation of the mathematical concept of an infinitesimal. In his Treatise on the Conic Sections Wallis also discusses the concept of a relationship between the symbolic representation of infinitesimal 1/∞ that he introduced and the concept of infinity for which he introduced the symbol ∞. The concept suggests a thought experiment of adding an infinite number of parallelograms of infinitesimal width to form a finite area. This concept was the predecessor to the modern method of integration used in integral calculus. The conceptual origins of the concept of the infinitesimal 1/∞ can be traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea, whose Zeno's dichotomy paradox was the first mathematical concept to consider the relationship between a finite interval and an interval approaching that of an infinitesimal-sized interval.

Infinitesimals were the subject of political and religious controversies in 17th century Europe, including a ban on infinitesimals issued by clerics in Rome in 1632.

Prior to the invention of calculus mathematicians were able to calculate tangent lines using Pierre de Fermat's method of adequality and René Descartes' method of normals. There is debate among scholars as to whether the method was infinitesimal or algebraic in nature. When Newton and Leibniz invented the calculus, they made use of infinitesimals, Newton's fluxions and Leibniz' differential. The use of infinitesimals was attacked as incorrect by Bishop Berkeley in his work The Analyst. Mathematicians, scientists, and engineers continued to use infinitesimals to produce correct results. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the calculus was reformulated by Augustin-Louis Cauchy, Bernard Bolzano, Karl Weierstrass, Cantor, Dedekind, and others using the (ε, δ)-definition of limit and set theory. While the followers of Cantor, Dedekind, and Weierstrass sought to rid analysis of infinitesimals, and their philosophical allies like Bertrand Russell and Rudolf Carnap declared that infinitesimals are pseudoconcepts, Hermann Cohen and his Marburg school of neo-Kantianism sought to develop a working logic of infinitesimals. The mathematical study of systems containing infinitesimals continued through the work of Levi-Civita, Giuseppe Veronese, Paul du Bois-Reymond, and others, throughout the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, as documented by Philip Ehrlich (2006). In the 20th century, it was found that infinitesimals could serve as a basis for calculus and analysis; see hyperreal number.

First-order properties

In extending the real numbers to include infinite and infinitesimal quantities, one typically wishes to be as conservative as possible by not changing any of their elementary properties. This guarantees that as many familiar results as possible are still available. Typically elementary means that there is no quantification over sets, but only over elements. This limitation allows statements of the form "for any number x..." For example, the axiom that states "for any number x, x + 0 = x" would still apply. The same is true for quantification over several numbers, e.g., "for any numbers x and y, xy = yx." However, statements of the form "for any set S of numbers ..." may not carry over. Logic with this limitation on quantification is referred to as first-order logic.

The resulting extended number system cannot agree with the reals on all properties that can be expressed by quantification over sets, because the goal is to construct a non-Archimedean system, and the Archimedean principle can be expressed by quantification over sets. One can conservatively extend any theory including reals, including set theory, to include infinitesimals, just by adding a countably infinite list of axioms that assert that a number is smaller than 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and so on. Similarly, the completeness property cannot be expected to carry over, because the reals are the unique complete ordered field up to isomorphism.

We can distinguish three levels at which a nonarchimedean number system could have first-order properties compatible with those of the reals:

1. An ordered field obeys all the usual axioms of the real number system that can be stated in first-order logic. For example, the commutativity axiom x + y = y + x holds.
   
2. A real closed field has all the first-order properties of the real number system, regardless of whether they are usually taken as axiomatic, for statements involving the basic ordered-field relations +, ×, and ≤. This is a stronger condition than obeying the ordered-field axioms. More specifically, one includes additional first-order properties, such as the existence of a root for every odd-degree polynomial. For example, every number must have a cube root.
   
3. The system could have all the first-order properties of the real number system for statements involving any relations (regardless of whether those relations can be expressed using +, ×, and ≤). For example, there would have to be a sine function that is well defined for infinite inputs; the same is true for every real function.

Systems in category 1, at the weak end of the spectrum, are relatively easy to construct, but do not allow a full treatment of classical analysis using infinitesimals in the spirit of Newton and Leibniz. For example, the transcendental functions are defined in terms of infinite limiting processes, and therefore there is typically no way to define them in first-order logic. Increasing the analytic strength of the system by passing to categories 2 and 3, we find that the flavor of the treatment tends to become less constructive, and it becomes more difficult to say anything concrete about the hierarchical structure of infinities and infinitesimals.

Number systems that include infinitesimals

Formal series

Laurent series

An example from category 1 above is the field of Laurent series with a finite number of negative-power terms. For example, the Laurent series consisting only of the constant term 1 is identified with the real number 1, and the series with only the linear term x is thought of as the simplest infinitesimal, from which the other infinitesimals are constructed. Dictionary ordering is used, which is equivalent to considering higher powers of x as negligible compared to lower powers. David O. Tall refers to this system as the super-reals, not to be confused with the superreal number system of Dales and Woodin. Since a Taylor series evaluated with a Laurent series as its argument is still a Laurent series, the system can be used to do calculus on transcendental functions if they are analytic. These infinitesimals have different first-order properties than the reals because, for example, the basic infinitesimal x does not have a square root.

The Levi-Civita field

The Levi-Civita field is similar to the Laurent series, but is algebraically closed. For example, the basic infinitesimal x has a square root. This field is rich enough to allow a significant amount of analysis to be done, but its elements can still be represented on a computer in the same sense that real numbers can be represented in floating point.

Transseries

The field of transseries is larger than the Levi-Civita field. An example of a transseries is:

${\displaystyle e^{\sqrt {\ln \ln x}}+\ln \ln x+\sum _{j=0}^{\infty }e^{x}x^{-j},}$

where for purposes of ordering x is considered infinite.

Surreal numbers

Conway's surreal numbers fall into category 2. They are a system designed to be as rich as possible in different sizes of numbers, but not necessarily for convenience in doing analysis. Certain transcendental functions can be carried over to the surreals, including logarithms and exponentials, but most, e.g., the sine function, cannot. The existence of any particular surreal number, even one that has a direct counterpart in the reals, is not known a priori, and must be proved.

Hyperreals

The most widespread technique for handling infinitesimals is the hyperreals, developed by Abraham Robinson in the 1960s. They fall into category 3 above, having been designed that way so all of classical analysis can be carried over from the reals. This property of being able to carry over all relations in a natural way is known as the transfer principle, proved by Jerzy Łoś in 1955. For example, the transcendental function sin has a natural counterpart *sin that takes a hyperreal input and gives a hyperreal output, and similarly the set of natural numbers ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} }$ has a natural counterpart ${\displaystyle ^{*}\mathbb {N} }$, which contains both finite and infinite integers. A proposition such as ${\displaystyle \forall n\in \mathbb {N} ,\sin n\pi =0}$ carries over to the hyperreals as ${\displaystyle \forall n\in {}^{*}\mathbb {N} ,{}^{*}\!\!\sin n\pi =0}$ .

Superreals

The superreal number system of Dales and Woodin is a generalization of the hyperreals. It is different from the super-real system defined by David Tall.

Dual numbers

In linear algebra, the dual numbers extend the reals by adjoining one infinitesimal, the new element ε with the property ε² = 0 (that is, ε is nilpotent). Every dual number has the form z = a + bε with a and b being uniquely determined real numbers.

One application of dual numbers is automatic differentiation. This application can be generalized to polynomials in n variables, using the Exterior algebra of an n-dimensional vector space.

Smooth infinitesimal analysis

Synthetic differential geometry or smooth infinitesimal analysis have roots in category theory. This approach departs from the classical logic used in conventional mathematics by denying the general applicability of the law of excluded middle – i.e., not (a ≠ b) does not have to mean a = b. A nilsquare or nilpotent infinitesimal can then be defined. This is a number x where x² = 0 is true, but x = 0 need not be true at the same time. Since the background logic is intuitionistic logic, it is not immediately clear how to classify this system with regard to classes 1, 2, and 3. Intuitionistic analogues of these classes would have to be developed first.

Infinitesimal delta functions

Cauchy used an infinitesimal ${\displaystyle \alpha }$ to write down a unit impulse, infinitely tall and narrow Dirac-type delta function ${\displaystyle \delta _{\alpha }}$ satisfying ${\displaystyle \int F(x)\delta _{\alpha }(x)=F(0)}$ in a number of articles in 1827, see Laugwitz (1989). Cauchy defined an infinitesimal in 1821 (Cours d'Analyse) in terms of a sequence tending to zero. Namely, such a null sequence becomes an infinitesimal in Cauchy's and Lazare Carnot's terminology.

Modern set-theoretic approaches allow one to define infinitesimals via the ultrapower construction, where a null sequence becomes an infinitesimal in the sense of an equivalence class modulo a relation defined in terms of a suitable ultrafilter. The article by Yamashita (2007) contains a bibliography on modern Dirac delta functions in the context of an infinitesimal-enriched continuum provided by the hyperreals.

Logical properties

The method of constructing infinitesimals of the kind used in nonstandard analysis depends on the model and which collection of axioms are used. We consider here systems where infinitesimals can be shown to exist.

In 1936 Maltsev proved the compactness theorem. This theorem is fundamental for the existence of infinitesimals as it proves that it is possible to formalise them. A consequence of this theorem is that if there is a number system in which it is true that for any positive integer n there is a positive number x such that 0 < x < 1/n, then there exists an extension of that number system in which it is true that there exists a positive number x such that for any positive integer n we have 0 < x < 1/n. The possibility to switch "for any" and "there exists" is crucial. The first statement is true in the real numbers as given in ZFC set theory : for any positive integer n it is possible to find a real number between 1/n and zero, but this real number depends on n. Here, one chooses n first, then one finds the corresponding x. In the second expression, the statement says that there is an x (at least one), chosen first, which is between 0 and 1/n for any n. In this case x is infinitesimal. This is not true in the real numbers (R) given by ZFC. Nonetheless, the theorem proves that there is a model (a number system) in which this is true. The question is: what is this model? What are its properties? Is there only one such model?

There are in fact many ways to construct such a one-dimensional linearly ordered set of numbers, but fundamentally, there are two different approaches:

1) Extend the number system so that it contains more numbers than the real numbers.

2) Extend the axioms (or extend the language) so that the distinction between the infinitesimals and non-infinitesimals can be made in the real numbers themselves.

In 1960, Abraham Robinson provided an answer following the first approach. The extended set is called the hyperreals and contains numbers less in absolute value than any positive real number. The method may be considered relatively complex but it does prove that infinitesimals exist in the universe of ZFC set theory. The real numbers are called standard numbers and the new non-real hyperreals are called nonstandard.

In 1977 Edward Nelson provided an answer following the second approach. The extended axioms are IST, which stands either for Internal set theory or for the initials of the three extra axioms: Idealization, Standardization, Transfer. In this system we consider that the language is extended in such a way that we can express facts about infinitesimals. The real numbers are either standard or nonstandard. An infinitesimal is a nonstandard real number that is less, in absolute value, than any positive standard real number.

In 2006 Karel Hrbacek developed an extension of Nelson's approach in which the real numbers are stratified in (infinitely) many levels; i.e., in the coarsest level there are no infinitesimals nor unlimited numbers. Infinitesimals are in a finer level and there are also infinitesimals with respect to this new level and so on.

Infinitesimals in teaching

Calculus textbooks based on infinitesimals include the classic Calculus Made Easy by Silvanus P. Thompson (bearing the motto "What one fool can do another can") and the German text Mathematik fur Mittlere Technische Fachschulen der Maschinenindustrie by R Neuendorff. Pioneering works based on Abraham Robinson's infinitesimals include texts by Stroyan (dating from 1972) and Howard Jerome Keisler (Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach). Students easily relate to the intuitive notion of an infinitesimal difference 1-"0.999...", where "0.999..." differs from its standard meaning as the real number 1, and is reinterpreted as an infinite terminating extended decimal that is strictly less than 1.

Another elementary calculus text that uses the theory of infinitesimals as developed by Robinson is Infinitesimal Calculus by Henle and Kleinberg, originally published in 1979. The authors introduce the language of first order logic, and demonstrate the construction of a first order model of the hyperreal numbers. The text provides an introduction to the basics of integral and differential calculus in one dimension, including sequences and series of functions. In an Appendix, they also treat the extension of their model to the hyperhyperreals, and demonstrate some applications for the extended model.

Functions tending to zero

In a related but somewhat different sense, which evolved from the original definition of "infinitesimal" as an infinitely small quantity, the term has also been used to refer to a function tending to zero. More precisely, Loomis and Sternberg's Advanced Calculus defines the function class of infinitesimals, ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {I}}}$, as a subset of functions ${\displaystyle f:V\to W}$ between normed vector spaces by

${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {I}}(V,W)=\{f:V\to W\ |\ f(0)=0,(\forall \epsilon >0)(\exists \delta >0)\ \backepsilon \ ||\xi ||<\delta \implies ||f(\xi )||<\epsilon \}}$,

as well as two related classes ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {O}},{\mathfrak {o}}}$ (see Big-O notation) by

${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {O}}(V,W)=\{f:V\to W\ |\ f(0)=0,\ (\exists r>0,c>0)\ \backepsilon \ ||\xi ||$,

and

${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {o}}(V,W)=\{f:V\to W\ |\ f(0)=0,\ \lim _{||\xi ||\to 0}||f(\xi )||/||\xi ||=0\}}$.

The set inclusions ${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {o}}(V,W)\subsetneq {\mathfrak {O}}(V,W)\subsetneq {\mathfrak {I}}(V,W)}$generally hold. That the inclusions are proper is demonstrated by the real-valued functions of a real variable ${\displaystyle f:x\mapsto |x|^{1/2}}$, ${\displaystyle g:x\mapsto x}$, and ${\displaystyle h:x\mapsto x^{2}}$:

${\displaystyle f,g,h\in {\mathfrak {I}}(\mathbb {R} ,\mathbb {R} ),\ g,h\in {\mathfrak {O}}(\mathbb {R} ,\mathbb {R} ),\ h\in {\mathfrak {o}}(\mathbb {R} ,\mathbb {R} )}$

but ${\displaystyle f,g\notin {\mathfrak {o}}(\mathbb {R} ,\mathbb {R} )}$ and ${\displaystyle f\notin {\mathfrak {O}}(\mathbb {R} ,\mathbb {R} )}$.

As an application of these definitions, a mapping ${\displaystyle F:V\to W}$ between normed vector spaces is defined to be differentiable at ${\displaystyle \alpha \in V}$ if there is a ${\displaystyle T\in \mathrm {Hom} (V,W)}$ [i.e, a bounded linear map ${\displaystyle V\to W}$] such that

${\displaystyle [F(\alpha +\xi )-F(\alpha )]-T(\xi )\in {\mathfrak {o}}(V,W)}$

in a neighborhood of ${\displaystyle \alpha }$. If such a map exists, it is unique; this map is called the differential and is denoted by ${\displaystyle dF_{\alpha }}$, coinciding with the traditional notation for the classical (though logically flawed) notion of a differential as an infinitely small "piece" of F. This definition represents a generalization of the usual definition of differentiability for vector-valued functions of (open subsets of) Euclidean spaces.

Array of random variables

Let ${\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {F}},\mathbb {P} )}$ be a probability space and let ${\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} }$. An array ${\displaystyle \{X_{n,k}:\Omega \to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq k\leq k_{n}\}}$ of random variables is called infinitesimal if for every ${\displaystyle \epsilon >0}$, we have:

${\displaystyle \max _{1\leq k\leq k_{n}}\mathbb {P} \{\omega \in \Omega \mid \vert X_{n,k}(\omega )\vert \geq \epsilon \}\to 0{\text{ as }}n\to \infty }$

The notion of infinitesimal array is essential in some central limit theorems and it is easily seen by monotonicity of the expectation operator that any array satisfying Lindeberg's condition is infinitesimal, thus playing an important role in Lindeberg's Central Limit Theorem (a generalization of the central limit theorem).

Algebraic geometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Togliatti surface is an algebraic surface of degree five. The picture represents a portion of its real locus.

Algebraic geometry is a branch of mathematics, classically studying zeros of multivariate polynomials. Modern algebraic geometry is based on the use of abstract algebraic techniques, mainly from commutative algebra, for solving geometrical problems about these sets of zeros.

The fundamental objects of study in algebraic geometry are algebraic varieties, which are geometric manifestations of solutions of systems of polynomial equations. Examples of the most studied classes of algebraic varieties are: plane algebraic curves, which include lines, circles, parabolas, ellipses, hyperbolas, cubic curves like elliptic curves, and quartic curves like lemniscates and Cassini ovals. A point of the plane belongs to an algebraic curve if its coordinates satisfy a given polynomial equation. Basic questions involve the study of the points of special interest like the singular points, the inflection points and the points at infinity. More advanced questions involve the topology of the curve and relations between the curves given by different equations.

Algebraic geometry occupies a central place in modern mathematics and has multiple conceptual connections with such diverse fields as complex analysis, topology and number theory. Initially a study of systems of polynomial equations in several variables, the subject of algebraic geometry starts where equation solving leaves off, and it becomes even more important to understand the intrinsic properties of the totality of solutions of a system of equations, than to find a specific solution; this leads into some of the deepest areas in all of mathematics, both conceptually and in terms of technique.

In the 20th century, algebraic geometry split into several subareas.

• The mainstream of algebraic geometry is devoted to the study of the complex points of the algebraic varieties and more generally to the points with coordinates in an algebraically closed field.
• The study of the points of an algebraic variety with coordinates in the field of the rational numbers or in a number field became arithmetic geometry (or more classically Diophantine geometry), a subfield of algebraic number theory.
• The study of the real points of an algebraic variety is the subject of real algebraic geometry.
• A large part of singularity theory is devoted to the singularities of algebraic varieties.
• With the rise of the computers, a computational algebraic geometry area has emerged, which lies at the intersection of algebraic geometry and computer algebra. It consists essentially in developing algorithms and software for studying and finding the properties of explicitly given algebraic varieties.

Much of the development of the mainstream of algebraic geometry in the 20th century occurred within an abstract algebraic framework, with increasing emphasis being placed on "intrinsic" properties of algebraic varieties not dependent on any particular way of embedding the variety in an ambient coordinate space; this parallels developments in topology, differential and complex geometry. One key achievement of this abstract algebraic geometry is Grothendieck's scheme theory which allows one to use sheaf theory to study algebraic varieties in a way which is very similar to its use in the study of differential and analytic manifolds. This is obtained by extending the notion of point: In classical algebraic geometry, a point of an affine variety may be identified, through Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, with a maximal ideal of the coordinate ring, while the points of the corresponding affine scheme are all prime ideals of this ring. This means that a point of such a scheme may be either a usual point or a subvariety. This approach also enables a unification of the language and the tools of classical algebraic geometry, mainly concerned with complex points, and of algebraic number theory. Wiles's proof of the longstanding conjecture called Fermat's last theorem is an example of the power of this approach.

Basic notions

Zeros of simultaneous polynomials

Sphere and slanted circle

In classical algebraic geometry, the main objects of interest are the vanishing sets of collections of polynomials, meaning the set of all points that simultaneously satisfy one or more polynomial equations. For instance, the two-dimensional sphere of radius 1 in three-dimensional Euclidean space R³ could be defined as the set of all points (x,y,z) with

${\displaystyle x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-1=0.\,}$

A "slanted" circle in R³ can be defined as the set of all points (x,y,z) which satisfy the two polynomial equations

${\displaystyle x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-1=0,\,}$

${\displaystyle x+y+z=0.\,}$

Affine varieties

First we start with a field k. In classical algebraic geometry, this field was always the complex numbers C, but many of the same results are true if we assume only that k is algebraically closed. We consider the affine space of dimension n over k, denoted Aⁿ(k) (or more simply Aⁿ, when k is clear from the context). When one fixes a coordinate system, one may identify Aⁿ(k) with kⁿ. The purpose of not working with kⁿ is to emphasize that one "forgets" the vector space structure that kⁿ carries. A function f : Aⁿ → A¹ is said to be polynomial (or regular) if it can be written as a polynomial, that is, if there is a polynomial p in k[x₁,...,x_n] such that f(M) = p(t₁,...,t_n) for every point M with coordinates (t₁,...,t_n) in Aⁿ. The property of a function to be polynomial (or regular) does not depend on the choice of a coordinate system in Aⁿ.

When a coordinate system is chosen, the regular functions on the affine n-space may be identified with the ring of polynomial functions in n variables over k. Therefore, the set of the regular functions on Aⁿ is a ring, which is denoted k[Aⁿ].

We say that a polynomial vanishes at a point if evaluating it at that point gives zero. Let S be a set of polynomials in k[Aⁿ]. The vanishing set of S (or vanishing locus or zero set) is the set V(S) of all points in Aⁿ where every polynomial in S vanishes. Symbolically,

${\displaystyle V(S)=\{(t_{1},\dots ,t_{n})|\forall p\in S,p(t_{1},\dots ,t_{n})=0\}.\,}$

A subset of Aⁿ which is V(S), for some S, is called an algebraic set. The V stands for variety (a specific type of algebraic set to be defined below).

Given a subset U of Aⁿ, can one recover the set of polynomials which generate it? If U is any subset of Aⁿ, define I(U) to be the set of all polynomials whose vanishing set contains U. The I stands for ideal: if two polynomials f and g both vanish on U, then f+g vanishes on U, and if h is any polynomial, then hf vanishes on U, so I(U) is always an ideal of the polynomial ring k[Aⁿ].

Two natural questions to ask are:

• Given a subset U of Aⁿ, when is U = V(I(U))?
• Given a set S of polynomials, when is S = I(V(S))?

The answer to the first question is provided by introducing the Zariski topology, a topology on Aⁿ whose closed sets are the algebraic sets, and which directly reflects the algebraic structure of k[Aⁿ]. Then U = V(I(U)) if and only if U is an algebraic set or equivalently a Zariski-closed set. The answer to the second question is given by Hilbert's Nullstellensatz. In one of its forms, it says that I(V(S)) is the radical of the ideal generated by S. In more abstract language, there is a Galois connection, giving rise to two closure operators; they can be identified, and naturally play a basic role in the theory; the example is elaborated at Galois connection.

For various reasons we may not always want to work with the entire ideal corresponding to an algebraic set U. Hilbert's basis theorem implies that ideals in k[Aⁿ] are always finitely generated.

An algebraic set is called irreducible if it cannot be written as the union of two smaller algebraic sets. Any algebraic set is a finite union of irreducible algebraic sets and this decomposition is unique. Thus its elements are called the irreducible components of the algebraic set. An irreducible algebraic set is also called a variety. It turns out that an algebraic set is a variety if and only if it may be defined as the vanishing set of a prime ideal of the polynomial ring.

Some authors do not make a clear distinction between algebraic sets and varieties and use irreducible variety to make the distinction when needed.

Regular functions

Just as continuous functions are the natural maps on topological spaces and smooth functions are the natural maps on differentiable manifolds, there is a natural class of functions on an algebraic set, called regular functions or polynomial functions. A regular function on an algebraic set V contained in Aⁿ is the restriction to V of a regular function on Aⁿ. For an algebraic set defined on the field of the complex numbers, the regular functions are smooth and even analytic.

It may seem unnaturally restrictive to require that a regular function always extend to the ambient space, but it is very similar to the situation in a normal topological space, where the Tietze extension theorem guarantees that a continuous function on a closed subset always extends to the ambient topological space.

Just as with the regular functions on affine space, the regular functions on V form a ring, which we denote by k[V]. This ring is called the coordinate ring of V.

Since regular functions on V come from regular functions on Aⁿ, there is a relationship between the coordinate rings. Specifically, if a regular function on V is the restriction of two functions f and g in k[Aⁿ], then f − g is a polynomial function which is null on V and thus belongs to I(V). Thus k[V] may be identified with k[Aⁿ]/I(V).

Morphism of affine varieties

Using regular functions from an affine variety to A¹, we can define regular maps from one affine variety to another. First we will define a regular map from a variety into affine space: Let V be a variety contained in Aⁿ. Choose m regular functions on V, and call them f₁, ..., f_m. We define a regular map f from V to A^m by letting f = (f₁, ..., f_m). In other words, each f_i determines one coordinate of the range of f.

If V′ is a variety contained in A^m, we say that f is a regular map from V to V′ if the range of f is contained in V′.

The definition of the regular maps apply also to algebraic sets. The regular maps are also called morphisms, as they make the collection of all affine algebraic sets into a category, where the objects are the affine algebraic sets and the morphisms are the regular maps. The affine varieties is a subcategory of the category of the algebraic sets.

Given a regular map g from V to V′ and a regular function f of k[V′], then f ∘ g ∈ k[V]. The map f → f ∘ g is a ring homomorphism from k[V′] to k[V]. Conversely, every ring homomorphism from k[V′] to k[V] defines a regular map from V to V′. This defines an equivalence of categories between the category of algebraic sets and the opposite category of the finitely generated reduced k-algebras. This equivalence is one of the starting points of scheme theory.

Rational function and birational equivalence

In contrast to the preceding sections, this section concerns only varieties and not algebraic sets. On the other hand, the definitions extend naturally to projective varieties (next section), as an affine variety and its projective completion have the same field of functions.

If V is an affine variety, its coordinate ring is an integral domain and has thus a field of fractions which is denoted k(V) and called the field of the rational functions on V or, shortly, the function field of V. Its elements are the restrictions to V of the rational functions over the affine space containing V. The domain of a rational function f is not V but the complement of the subvariety (a hypersurface) where the denominator of f vanishes.

As with regular maps, one may define a rational map from a variety V to a variety V'. As with the regular maps, the rational maps from V to V' may be identified to the field homomorphisms from k(V') to k(V).

Two affine varieties are birationally equivalent if there are two rational functions between them which are inverse one to the other in the regions where both are defined. Equivalently, they are birationally equivalent if their function fields are isomorphic.

An affine variety is a rational variety if it is birationally equivalent to an affine space. This means that the variety admits a rational parameterization. For example, the circle of equation ${\displaystyle x^{2}+y^{2}-1=0}$ is a rational curve, as it has the parameterization

${\displaystyle x={\frac {2\,t}{1+t^{2}}}}$

${\displaystyle y={\frac {1-t^{2}}{1+t^{2}}}\,,}$

which may also be viewed as a rational map from the line to the circle.

The problem of resolution of singularities is to know if every algebraic variety is birationally equivalent to a variety whose projective completion is nonsingular (see also smooth completion). It was solved in the affirmative in characteristic 0 by Heisuke Hironaka in 1964 and is yet unsolved in finite characteristic.

Projective variety

Parabola (y = x², red) and cubic (y = x³, blue) in projective space

Just as the formulas for the roots of second, third, and fourth degree polynomials suggest extending real numbers to the more algebraically complete setting of the complex numbers, many properties of algebraic varieties suggest extending affine space to a more geometrically complete projective space. Whereas the complex numbers are obtained by adding the number i, a root of the polynomial x² + 1, projective space is obtained by adding in appropriate points "at infinity", points where parallel lines may meet.

To see how this might come about, consider the variety V(y − x²). If we draw it, we get a parabola. As x goes to positive infinity, the slope of the line from the origin to the point (x, x²) also goes to positive infinity. As x goes to negative infinity, the slope of the same line goes to negative infinity.

Compare this to the variety V(y − x³). This is a cubic curve. As x goes to positive infinity, the slope of the line from the origin to the point (x, x³) goes to positive infinity just as before. But unlike before, as x goes to negative infinity, the slope of the same line goes to positive infinity as well; the exact opposite of the parabola. So the behavior "at infinity" of V(y − x³) is different from the behavior "at infinity" of V(y − x²).

The consideration of the projective completion of the two curves, which is their prolongation "at infinity" in the projective plane, allows us to quantify this difference: the point at infinity of the parabola is a regular point, whose tangent is the line at infinity, while the point at infinity of the cubic curve is a cusp. Also, both curves are rational, as they are parameterized by x, and the Riemann-Roch theorem implies that the cubic curve must have a singularity, which must be at infinity, as all its points in the affine space are regular.

Thus many of the properties of algebraic varieties, including birational equivalence and all the topological properties, depend on the behavior "at infinity" and so it is natural to study the varieties in projective space. Furthermore, the introduction of projective techniques made many theorems in algebraic geometry simpler and sharper: For example, Bézout's theorem on the number of intersection points between two varieties can be stated in its sharpest form only in projective space. For these reasons, projective space plays a fundamental role in algebraic geometry.

Nowadays, the projective space Pⁿ of dimension n is usually defined as the set of the lines passing through a point, considered as the origin, in the affine space of dimension n + 1, or equivalently to the set of the vector lines in a vector space of dimension n + 1. When a coordinate system has been chosen in the space of dimension n + 1, all the points of a line have the same set of coordinates, up to the multiplication by an element of k. This defines the homogeneous coordinates of a point of Pⁿ as a sequence of n + 1 elements of the base field k, defined up to the multiplication by a nonzero element of k (the same for the whole sequence).

A polynomial in n + 1 variables vanishes at all points of a line passing through the origin if and only if it is homogeneous. In this case, one says that the polynomial vanishes at the corresponding point of Pⁿ. This allows us to define a projective algebraic set in Pⁿ as the set V(f₁, ..., f_k), where a finite set of homogeneous polynomials {f₁, ..., f_k} vanishes. Like for affine algebraic sets, there is a bijection between the projective algebraic sets and the reduced homogeneous ideals which define them. The projective varieties are the projective algebraic sets whose defining ideal is prime. In other words, a projective variety is a projective algebraic set, whose homogeneous coordinate ring is an integral domain, the projective coordinates ring being defined as the quotient of the graded ring or the polynomials in n + 1 variables by the homogeneous (reduced) ideal defining the variety. Every projective algebraic set may be uniquely decomposed into a finite union of projective varieties.

The only regular functions which may be defined properly on a projective variety are the constant functions. Thus this notion is not used in projective situations. On the other hand, the field of the rational functions or function field is a useful notion, which, similarly to the affine case, is defined as the set of the quotients of two homogeneous elements of the same degree in the homogeneous coordinate ring.

Real algebraic geometry

Real algebraic geometry is the study of the real points of algebraic geometry.

The fact that the field of the real numbers is an ordered field cannot be ignored in such a study. For example, the curve of equation ${\displaystyle x^{2}+y^{2}-a=0}$ is a circle if ${\displaystyle a>0}$, but does not have any real point if ${\displaystyle a<0 annotation="">$. It follows that real algebraic geometry is not only the study of the real algebraic varieties, but has been generalized to the study of the semi-algebraic sets, which are the solutions of systems of polynomial equations and polynomial inequalities. For example, a branch of the hyperbola of equation ${\displaystyle xy-1=0}$ is not an algebraic variety, but is a semi-algebraic set defined by ${\displaystyle xy-1=0}$ and ${\displaystyle x>0}$ or by ${\displaystyle xy-1=0}$ and ${\displaystyle x+y>0}$.

One of the challenging problems of real algebraic geometry is the unsolved Hilbert's sixteenth problem: Decide which respective positions are possible for the ovals of a nonsingular plane curve of degree 8.

Computational algebraic geometry

One may date the origin of computational algebraic geometry to meeting EUROSAM'79 (International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation) held at Marseille, France in June 1979. At this meeting,

• Dennis S. Arnon showed that George E. Collins's Cylindrical algebraic decomposition (CAD) allows the computation of the topology of semi-algebraic sets,
• Bruno Buchberger presented the Gröbner bases and his algorithm to compute them,
• Daniel Lazard presented a new algorithm for solving systems of homogeneous polynomial equations with a computational complexity which is essentially polynomial in the expected number of solutions and thus simply exponential in the number of the unknowns. This algorithm is strongly related with Macaulay's multivariate resultant.

Since then, most results in this area are related to one or several of these items either by using or improving one of these algorithms, or by finding algorithms whose complexity is simply exponential in the number of the variables.

A body of mathematical theory complementary to symbolic methods called numerical algebraic geometry has been developed over the last several decades. The main computational method is homotopy continuation. This supports, for example, a model of floating point computation for solving problems of algebraic geometry.

Gröbner basis

A Gröbner basis is a system of generators of a polynomial ideal whose computation allows the deduction of many properties of the affine algebraic variety defined by the ideal.

Given an ideal I defining an algebraic set V:

• V is empty (over an algebraically closed extension of the basis field), if and only if the Gröbner basis for any monomial ordering is reduced to {1}.
• By means of the Hilbert series one may compute the dimension and the degree of V from any Gröbner basis of I for a monomial ordering refining the total degree.
• If the dimension of V is 0, one may compute the points (finite in number) of V from any Gröbner basis of I (see Systems of polynomial equations).
• A Gröbner basis computation allows one to remove from V all irreducible components which are contained in a given hyper-surface.
• A Gröbner basis computation allows one to compute the Zariski closure of the image of V by the projection on the k first coordinates, and the subset of the image where the projection is not proper.
• More generally Gröbner basis computations allow one to compute the Zariski closure of the image and the critical points of a rational function of V into another affine variety.

Gröbner basis computations do not allow one to compute directly the primary decomposition of I nor the prime ideals defining the irreducible components of V, but most algorithms for this involve Gröbner basis computation. The algorithms which are not based on Gröbner bases use regular chains but may need Gröbner bases in some exceptional situations.

Gröbner bases are deemed to be difficult to compute. In fact they may contain, in the worst case, polynomials whose degree is doubly exponential in the number of variables and a number of polynomials which is also doubly exponential. However, this is only a worst case complexity, and the complexity bound of Lazard's algorithm of 1979 may frequently apply. Faugère F5 algorithm realizes this complexity, as it may be viewed as an improvement of Lazard's 1979 algorithm. It follows that the best implementations allow one to compute almost routinely with algebraic sets of degree more than 100. This means that, presently, the difficulty of computing a Gröbner basis is strongly related to the intrinsic difficulty of the problem.

Cylindrical algebraic decomposition (CAD)

CAD is an algorithm which was introduced in 1973 by G. Collins to implement with an acceptable complexity the Tarski–Seidenberg theorem on quantifier elimination over the real numbers.

This theorem concerns the formulas of the first-order logic whose atomic formulas are polynomial equalities or inequalities between polynomials with real coefficients. These formulas are thus the formulas which may be constructed from the atomic formulas by the logical operators and (∧), or (∨), not (¬), for all (∀) and exists (∃). Tarski's theorem asserts that, from such a formula, one may compute an equivalent formula without quantifier (∀, ∃).

The complexity of CAD is doubly exponential in the number of variables. This means that CAD allows, in theory, to solve every problem of real algebraic geometry which may be expressed by such a formula, that is almost every problem concerning explicitly given varieties and semi-algebraic sets.

While Gröbner basis computation has doubly exponential complexity only in rare cases, CAD has almost always this high complexity. This implies that, unless if most polynomials appearing in the input are linear, it may not solve problems with more than four variables.

Since 1973, most of the research on this subject is devoted either to improve CAD or to find alternative algorithms in special cases of general interest.

As an example of the state of art, there are efficient algorithms to find at least a point in every connected component of a semi-algebraic set, and thus to test if a semi-algebraic set is empty. On the other hand, CAD is yet, in practice, the best algorithm to count the number of connected components.

Asymptotic complexity vs. practical efficiency

The basic general algorithms of computational geometry have a double exponential worst case complexity. More precisely, if d is the maximal degree of the input polynomials and n the number of variables, their complexity is at most ${\displaystyle d^{2^{cn}}}$ for some constant c, and, for some inputs, the complexity is at least ${\displaystyle d^{2^{c'n}}}$ for another constant c′.

During the last 20 years of 20th century, various algorithms have been introduced to solve specific subproblems with a better complexity. Most of these algorithms have a complexity ${\displaystyle d^{O(n^{2})}}$.

Among these algorithms which solve a sub problem of the problems solved by Gröbner bases, one may cite testing if an affine variety is empty and solving nonhomogeneous polynomial systems which have a finite number of solutions. Such algorithms are rarely implemented because, on most entries Faugère's F4 and F5 algorithms have a better practical efficiency and probably a similar or better complexity (probably because the evaluation of the complexity of Gröbner basis algorithms on a particular class of entries is a difficult task which has been done only in a few special cases).

The main algorithms of real algebraic geometry which solve a problem solved by CAD are related to the topology of semi-algebraic sets. One may cite counting the number of connected components, testing if two points are in the same components or computing a Whitney stratification of a real algebraic set. They have a complexity of ${\displaystyle d^{O(n^{2})}}$, but the constant involved by O notation is so high that using them to solve any nontrivial problem effectively solved by CAD, is impossible even if one could use all the existing computing power in the world. Therefore, these algorithms have never been implemented and this is an active research area to search for algorithms with have together a good asymptotic complexity and a good practical efficiency.

Abstract modern viewpoint

The modern approaches to algebraic geometry redefine and effectively extend the range of basic objects in various levels of generality to schemes, formal schemes, ind-schemes, algebraic spaces, algebraic stacks and so on. The need for this arises already from the useful ideas within theory of varieties, e.g. the formal functions of Zariski can be accommodated by introducing nilpotent elements in structure rings; considering spaces of loops and arcs, constructing quotients by group actions and developing formal grounds for natural intersection theory and deformation theory lead to some of the further extensions.

Most remarkably, in late 1950s, algebraic varieties were subsumed into Alexander Grothendieck's concept of a scheme. Their local objects are affine schemes or prime spectra which are locally ringed spaces which form a category which is antiequivalent to the category of commutative unital rings, extending the duality between the category of affine algebraic varieties over a field k, and the category of finitely generated reduced k-algebras. The gluing is along Zariski topology; one can glue within the category of locally ringed spaces, but also, using the Yoneda embedding, within the more abstract category of presheaves of sets over the category of affine schemes. The Zariski topology in the set theoretic sense is then replaced by a Grothendieck topology. Grothendieck introduced Grothendieck topologies having in mind more exotic but geometrically finer and more sensitive examples than the crude Zariski topology, namely the étale topology, and the two flat Grothendieck topologies: fppf and fpqc; nowadays some other examples became prominent including Nisnevich topology. Sheaves can be furthermore generalized to stacks in the sense of Grothendieck, usually with some additional representability conditions leading to Artin stacks and, even finer, Deligne-Mumford stacks, both often called algebraic stacks.

Sometimes other algebraic sites replace the category of affine schemes. For example, Nikolai Durov has introduced commutative algebraic monads as a generalization of local objects in a generalized algebraic geometry. Versions of a tropical geometry, of an absolute geometry over a field of one element and an algebraic analogue of Arakelov's geometry were realized in this setup.

Another formal generalization is possible to universal algebraic geometry in which every variety of algebras has its own algebraic geometry. The term variety of algebras should not be confused with algebraic variety.

The language of schemes, stacks and generalizations has proved to be a valuable way of dealing with geometric concepts and became cornerstones of modern algebraic geometry.

Algebraic stacks can be further generalized and for many practical questions like deformation theory and intersection theory, this is often the most natural approach. One can extend the Grothendieck site of affine schemes to a higher categorical site of derived affine schemes, by replacing the commutative rings with an infinity category of differential graded commutative algebras, or of simplicial commutative rings or a similar category with an appropriate variant of a Grothendieck topology. One can also replace presheaves of sets by presheaves of simplicial sets (or of infinity groupoids). Then, in presence of an appropriate homotopic machinery one can develop a notion of derived stack as such a presheaf on the infinity category of derived affine schemes, which is satisfying certain infinite categorical version of a sheaf axiom (and to be algebraic, inductively a sequence of representability conditions). Quillen model categories, Segal categories and quasicategories are some of the most often used tools to formalize this yielding the derived algebraic geometry, introduced by the school of Carlos Simpson, including Andre Hirschowitz, Bertrand Toën, Gabrielle Vezzosi, Michel Vaquié and others; and developed further by Jacob Lurie, Bertrand Toën, and Gabrielle Vezzosi. Another (noncommutative) version of derived algebraic geometry, using A-infinity categories has been developed from early 1990s by Maxim Kontsevich and followers.

History

Before the 16th century

Some of the roots of algebraic geometry date back to the work of the Hellenistic Greeks from the 5th century BC. The Delian problem, for instance, was to construct a length x so that the cube of side x contained the same volume as the rectangular box a²b for given sides a and b. Menaechmus (circa 350 BC) considered the problem geometrically by intersecting the pair of plane conics ay = x² and xy = ab. The later work, in the 3rd century BC, of Archimedes and Apollonius studied more systematically problems on conic sections, and also involved the use of coordinates. The Arab mathematicians were able to solve by purely algebraic means certain cubic equations, and then to interpret the results geometrically. This was done, for instance, by Ibn al-Haytham in the 10th century AD. Subsequently, Persian mathematician Omar Khayyám (born 1048 A.D.) discovered a method for solving cubic equations by intersecting a parabola with a circle and seems to have been the first to conceive a general theory of cubic equations. A few years after Omar Khayyám, Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi's "Treatise on equations" has been described as inaugurating the beginning of algebraic geometry.

Renaissance

Such techniques of applying geometrical constructions to algebraic problems were also adopted by a number of Renaissance mathematicians such as Gerolamo Cardano and Niccolò Fontana "Tartaglia" on their studies of the cubic equation. The geometrical approach to construction problems, rather than the algebraic one, was favored by most 16th and 17th century mathematicians, notably Blaise Pascal who argued against the use of algebraic and analytical methods in geometry. The French mathematicians Franciscus Vieta and later René Descartes and Pierre de Fermat revolutionized the conventional way of thinking about construction problems through the introduction of coordinate geometry. They were interested primarily in the properties of algebraic curves, such as those defined by Diophantine equations (in the case of Fermat), and the algebraic reformulation of the classical Greek works on conics and cubics (in the case of Descartes).

During the same period, Blaise Pascal and Gérard Desargues approached geometry from a different perspective, developing the synthetic notions of projective geometry. Pascal and Desargues also studied curves, but from the purely geometrical point of view: the analog of the Greek ruler and compass construction. Ultimately, the analytic geometry of Descartes and Fermat won out, for it supplied the 18th century mathematicians with concrete quantitative tools needed to study physical problems using the new calculus of Newton and Leibniz. However, by the end of the 18th century, most of the algebraic character of coordinate geometry was subsumed by the calculus of infinitesimals of Lagrange and Euler.

19th and early 20th century

It took the simultaneous 19th century developments of non-Euclidean geometry and Abelian integrals in order to bring the old algebraic ideas back into the geometrical fold. The first of these new developments was seized up by Edmond Laguerre and Arthur Cayley, who attempted to ascertain the generalized metric properties of projective space. Cayley introduced the idea of homogeneous polynomial forms, and more specifically quadratic forms, on projective space. Subsequently, Felix Klein studied projective geometry (along with other types of geometry) from the viewpoint that the geometry on a space is encoded in a certain class of transformations on the space. By the end of the 19th century, projective geometers were studying more general kinds of transformations on figures in projective space. Rather than the projective linear transformations which were normally regarded as giving the fundamental Kleinian geometry on projective space, they concerned themselves also with the higher degree birational transformations. This weaker notion of congruence would later lead members of the 20th century Italian school of algebraic geometry to classify algebraic surfaces up to birational isomorphism.

The second early 19th century development, that of Abelian integrals, would lead Bernhard Riemann to the development of Riemann surfaces.

In the same period began the algebraization of the algebraic geometry through commutative algebra. The prominent results in this direction are Hilbert's basis theorem and Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, which are the basis of the connexion between algebraic geometry and commutative algebra, and Macaulay's multivariate resultant, which is the basis of elimination theory. Probably because of the size of the computation which is implied by multivariate resultants, elimination theory was forgotten during the middle of the 20th century until it was renewed by singularity theory and computational algebraic geometry.

20th century

B. L. van der Waerden, Oscar Zariski and André Weil developed a foundation for algebraic geometry based on contemporary commutative algebra, including valuation theory and the theory of ideals. One of the goals was to give a rigorous framework for proving the results of Italian school of algebraic geometry. In particular, this school used systematically the notion of generic point without any precise definition, which was first given by these authors during the 1930s.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Jean-Pierre Serre and Alexander Grothendieck recast the foundations making use of sheaf theory. Later, from about 1960, and largely led by Grothendieck, the idea of schemes was worked out, in conjunction with a very refined apparatus of homological techniques. After a decade of rapid development the field stabilized in the 1970s, and new applications were made, both to number theory and to more classical geometric questions on algebraic varieties, singularities and moduli.

An important class of varieties, not easily understood directly from their defining equations, are the abelian varieties, which are the projective varieties whose points form an abelian group. The prototypical examples are the elliptic curves, which have a rich theory. They were instrumental in the proof of Fermat's last theorem and are also used in elliptic-curve cryptography.

In parallel with the abstract trend of the algebraic geometry, which is concerned with general statements about varieties, methods for effective computation with concretely-given varieties have also been developed, which lead to the new area of computational algebraic geometry. One of the founding methods of this area is the theory of Gröbner bases, introduced by Bruno Buchberger in 1965. Another founding method, more specially devoted to real algebraic geometry, is the cylindrical algebraic decomposition, introduced by George E. Collins in 1973.

Analytic geometry

An analytic variety is defined locally as the set of common solutions of several equations involving analytic functions. It is analogous to the included concept of real or complex algebraic variety. Any complex manifold is an analytic variety. Since analytic varieties may have singular points, not all analytic varieties are manifolds.

Modern analytic geometry is essentially equivalent to real and complex algebraic geometry, as has been shown by Jean-Pierre Serre in his paper GAGA, the name of which is French for Algebraic geometry and analytic geometry. Nevertheless, the two fields remain distinct, as the methods of proof are quite different and algebraic geometry includes also geometry in finite characteristic.

Applications

Algebraic geometry now finds applications in statistics, control theory, robotics, error-correcting codes, phylogenetics and geometric modelling. There are also connections to string theory, game theory, graph matchings, solitons and integer programming.