Joseph H. M.

Wedderburnand the Structure Theory of Algebras

K A R E N H U N G E R PARSHALL

Communicated by H. FREUDENTHAL To my adviser, L N. Herstein

Table of Contents
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Anglo-American Tradition in the Theory of Algebras . . . . . . . . . . The Lie-Theoretic Tradition in the Theory of Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . Cartan's Paper of 1898 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wedderburn's Paper of 1907 "On Hypercomplex Numbers" . . . . . . . . . Wedderburn's Place in the History of the Theory of Algebras . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 226 261 291 309 331 337

1. Introduction
When JOSEPH HENRY MACLAGAN WEDDERBURN (1882--1948) made his first contributions to the field of mathematics in 1903, he was a twenty-one year old student at the University of Edinburgh who had been raised in the applied mathematical tradition of WILLIAM ROWAN HAMILTON (1805-65), JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831--79), and PETER GUTHRIETAIT (1831-1901). 1 At this time the applications of quaternions and of quaternion notation to physics still dominated the research coming from his university's Physical Laboratory. It was little wonder then that during his year long tenure as Nichol Assistant there from 1902 to 1903, WEDDERBURN also became caught up in the quaternion approach to physical problems and published three papers on various technical aspects of the subject. 2 1 Further biographical information on WEDDERBURNmay be found in H. S. TAYLOR, "Joseph Henry Maclagen Wedderburn: 1882-1948," Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society 6 (1948-49): 619-25. A sketch derived largely from this article appears in CHARLESC. GILLISPIE,ed., The Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 16 vols. (New York: Charles S. Scribner's Sons, 1970-80). 2 See JosEt'rt H. M. WEDDERBURN, "On the Applications of Quaternions in the Theory of Differential Equations," Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 40 (July 1903): 709-21; On the General Scalar Function of a Vector," Proceedings of the

224

K . H . PARSHALL

Although he never completely abandoned this early interest in mathematics as applied to physics, WEDDERBURN'S mathematical course changed dramatically after he received his Master's degree in 1903. A gifted student with his sights set on a doctorate and beyond, WEDDERBURN next journeyed to the Continent to pursue his studies, like virtually all serious mathematics students of the day. His travels took him first to the University of Leipzig for the winter semester of 1903-1904 and then to Berlin for the summer term. During this period, FRIEDRICH ENGEL (1861-1941) held the position of associate professor at Leipzig and was engaged in research on continuous transformation groups (today known as LIE groups) and differential geometry while Berlin's immortal GEORG FROBENIUS (1849-1917) was working on group characters and the theory of hypercomplex number systems, a It may have been to study under these men that WEDDERBURN ventured to Leipzig and Berlin, but since neither mathematician was doing the type of research WEDDERBURNhad grown up with at Edinburgh, the following questions arise: how and when did W~DDERBURN'S interests change from applied mathematics in the style of TAIT to some of the most advanced pure mathematics of the period ? Although there seems to be no way of definitively answering these questions, 4 based on the existing evidence, the work of WILLIAM BURNSIDE (1852-1927) may have introduced the young WEDDERBURN to the LIE theory of the day as well as to hypercomplex number systems. 5 Certainly in his group-theoretic papers of the 1890's and early 1900's, BURNSIDE made frequent reference both to the work of SOI~HUS LIE (1842-99) and his school and to the related researches of FROBENIUS.6 Thus, four years

Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (March 1903): 409-12; and "On the Isoclinal Lines of a Differential Equation of the First Order," Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (January 1903): 400-408. a It seems that WEDDERBURNhad at least some contact with ENGEL'Swork on differential geometry while in Leipzig in 1904, but he apparently had little if any personal contact with FROBENIOSlater that year in Berlin. See the Appendix. , As far as I have been able to determine after consulting WEDDERBURN'Swill which is on record in the Surrogate's Office at the Mercer County Courthouse, Mercer County, New Jersey, the Princeton Bank which settled WEDDERmmN'Sestate at the time of his death in 1948, and the law firm of SHEeHERD & WZDDERBURNin Edinburgh, Scotland which represented the beneficiarries of his will, WEDDERBURNleft no papers. s Although no papers seem to survive, WEI~DERBURNdid leave behind three bound volumes of reprints which provide some important clues to WEDDERBURN'Searly mathematical career. I am most grateful to WEDDERBURN'Sstudent, Professor NATHAN JACOBSON of Yale University for lending me these volumes and for several conversations on WEDDERBURNand his work. For a description of the volumes and a complete list of the reprints which WEDDERBURNdeemed interesting enough to save, see the Appendix. 6 See particularly WILLIAMBURNSIDE,"On the Continuous Group That Is Defined by Any Given Group of Finite Order," Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 29 (January 1898): 207-24; and "On the Continuous Group That is Defined by Any Given Group of Finite Order (Second Paper)," Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 29 (June 1898): 546-65. Both of these papers appear in Pamphlets, volume seven. In his paper "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," Archive for History of Exact Sciences 8 (April 1972): 243-87,

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

225

after LIE'S death, the student in 1903 who wished to learn firsthand of these developments might well have sought out LIE'S longtime collaborator ENGEL, in Leipzig, in addition to FROBENIUS in Berlin. Whatever the precise motivation behind his travels, it was probably during this first year abroad that WEDDERBURN delved deeply into the intricacies of the abstract theory of hypercomplex numbers and decided to pursue its study. His first research-level advance on the area came immediately after his German apprenticeship. After leaving Berlin in the summer of 1904, WEDDERBURN briefly returned home to Scotland before continuing his period of foreign study at the newly-formed University of Chicago. There, during the academic year of 19041905, he drew not only from the rich faculty resources of ELIAKIM HASTINGS MOORE (1862-1932), HEINRICH MASCHKE (1853-1908), and LEONARD E. DICKSON (1874-1954) but also from younger enthusiasts associated With the Mathematics Department, SAUL EVSTEEN (1878-19??) and OSWALD VEBLEN (1880-1960). The original research which developed during this one year at Chicago oriented WEDDERBURN'S mathematical career in a direction fi'om which it never veered and served to win him international renown. When WEDDERBURN came to the theory of hypercomplex number systems in 1904, he found a fairly young subject in which three rather distinct approaches coexisted. The first, the Anglo-American tradition, stemmed from Sir WILLIAM ROWAN HAMILTON'S (1805-65) discovery of the quaternions in 1843 and from his initial emphasis on the algebraic properties this new algebra 7 possessed (or did not possess). Subsequent researchers like ARTHUR CAVLE (1821-95), JAMES JOSEVH SYLVESTER(1814-97), and BENJAMIN (1809-80) and C. S. PEIRCE (18391914), although brought to the study of algebras by concerns very different from those of HAMILTON, persisted in viewing their algebras as mathematical objects satisfying certain algebraic properties. Their research then probed the structure which these properties forced on the algebras. In contrast, the LIE-theoretic tradition which developed on the Continent initially embraced hypercomplex number systems only as a means toward a better understanding of transformation groups and not as algebraic entities worthy of independent study. Gradually, this situation changed as mathematicians like THEODOR MOLIEN (1861-1941) and ELIE CARTAN (1869-1951) began studying these objects for their own inherent interest and making significant breakthroughs in their structure theory. Their LiE-theoretic heritage, however, was strongly reflected in their work and dictated, at least to some extent, the types of questions they proposed to solve. By the late 1890's, as a result of the research efforts on both sides of the Atlantic, hypercomplex number systems came to define a distinct area of mathematical investigation. Recognizing it as a well-established area in need of renovation by 1903, GEORGEFROBENIUSreproved THOMASHAWKINS used precisely these papers as evidence in linking BtJRNSIDE'Swork to the LIE-theoretic tradition on the Continent and specifically to FROBENIUS'research on group characters. (See pp. 274-80.) 7 Throughout this paper the terms "algebra", "hypercomplex number system," and "linear associative algebra" will be used interchangeably, However, the modern term, "algebra," assumes an arbitrary base field while the other two terms generally implied either a complex or a real base field.

226

K . H . PARSHALL

many of the theorems of MOLI~N and CARTAN using what he thought were much more natural techniques, namely, techniques inspired by this theory of group determinants.8 Before we can appreciate the beauty of the method WEDDERBURN presented in his paper of 1907 " O n Hypercomplex Numbers, ''9 then, we must examine the three pre-existing approaches, isolate the components of each which WEDDERBURN borrowed, and analyze the new ideas he fused with the old to form his coherent and lasting theory.

2. The Anglo-American Tradition in the Theory of Algebras

On October 16, 1843, the first non-commutative algebra was discovered on Brougham Bridge over the Royal Canal in Dublin, Ireland. There, Sir WILLIAM ROWAN HAMILTON, after nearly fifteen years of thought and effort, had finally discovered the algebra of quaternions. In a letter to his son written twenty-two years later, HAMILTON recalled the excitement of his moment of discovery: But on the 16th day of the same month [October, 1843J-which happened to be a Monday and a Council day of the Royal Irish A c a d e m y - I was walking in to attend and preside, and your mother was walking with me, along the Royal Canal, to which she had perhaps been driven; and although she talked with me now and then, yet an under-current of thought was going on in my mind, which gave at last a result, whereof it is not too much to say that I felt at once the importance. An electric current seemed to dose; and a spark flashed forth, the herald (as I foresaw immediately) of many long years to come of definitely directed thought and work, by myself if spared, and at all events on the part of others, if I should ever be allowed to live long enough distinctly to communicate the discovery. I pulled out on the spot a pocketbook, which still exists, and made an entry there and then. Nor could I resist the impulse-unphilosophical as it may have b e e n - t o cut with a knife on a stone of Brougham Bridge, as we passed it, the fundamental formula with the symbols, i, j, k;
i 2 = j 2 = k2 = i j k = - 1 ,

which contains the solution of the Problem ...lo 8 GEORGE FROBENIUS, "Theorie der hyperkomplexen Gr6Ben," Berliner Sitzungsberichte 30 (April 1903): 504-37; and "Theorie der hyperkomplexen GrbBen II," Berliner Sitzungsberichte 30 (June 1903): 634-45. Also, see Ferdinand Georg Frobenius: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ed. JEAN-PIERRESERRE,3. VOLS.(New York: Springer Verlag, 1968), 3:284-317 and 318-29, respectively (hereafter cited as Frobenius: Ges. Abh.). 9 JOSEPH H. M. WEDDERBURN, *'On Hypercomplex Numbers," Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2a. ser., 6 (November 1907): 77-118. lO WILLIAM ROWAN HAMILTON,The Mathematical Papers of Sir William Rowan Hamilton, ed. H. HALBERSTAM~ R. E. INGRAM, 3 VOLS.(Cambridge: University Press, 1967), 3: xv (hereafter cited as Hamilton: Math Papers).

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

227

This "Problem" of HAMILTON'Swas, of course, the determination of the multiplication table of a four-dimensional algebra over the reals analogous, in some sense, to the complex numbers. The 1820's and 1830's had witnessed a strong surge of mathematical research on complex numbers. These hybrid entities, composed of a real and an imaginary part, had long presented both mathematical and philosophical difficulties, but beginning in 1814 AUGUSTINCAUCHY (1789-1857) labored to establish the theory on a firm mathematical footing. By 1821 he had published his epoch-making book Cours d'Analyse in which he examined in great depth many of the properties of functions of complex numbers. Although CAUCHY'Swork on the subject remained unknown to HAMILTONuntil long after its initial publication, by 1829 HAMILTON had been drawn into the subject by a book entitled A Treatise on the Geometrical Representation o f the Square Roots of Negative Quantities. 11 In this work, JOHN WARREN (1796--1852) independently discoverd, described, and analyzed the geometrical representation of the complex numbers by means of the complex plane. 12 This apparently sparked HAMILTON'S imagination and launched him not only into a study of the complex numbers but also into a search for a system of numbers analogous to the complexes which could be represented in three dimensions. As evidenced by his correspondence, HAMILTON began seriously thinking about complex numbers during the summer of 1829. la At the time, he was a mere twenty-four years old, but he already found himself Astronomer Royal and head of the Dunsink Observatory, positions he had been awarded in 1827 over such stiff competition as Sir GEORGE BIDDEL AIRY (1801-92) who later became the prestigious Astronomer Royal at Greenwich. These duties, together with the research in ray optics which consumed him from his undergraduate days until well into the 1830's, left HAMILTONlittle free time to work on pure mathematics)* Nevertheless, by 1833 he had succeeded in working up a novel and far-reaching interpretation of the complex numbers which he presented in a paper read before the Royal Irish Academy. HAMILTON had found the generally-accepted interpretation of a complex number as the sum Of a real part and an imaginary part most unsatisfying. Logically, the notion of adding a real number to an imaginary one made as much sense as adding an apple and an orange. The two addends simply were not commensurate. In his research, HAMILTONmanaged to circumvent this logical or philosophical difficulty by developing the theory of complex numbers as a theory of ordered pairs, or algebraic couples as he called them. This then necessitated the development of a calculus of couples which HAMILTONset up in the following way. If (a~, a2) represented the complex number al + a2i where i = 1/- 1, then 11 JOHNWARREN,A Treatise on the Geometrical Representation of the Square Roots of Negative Quantities (Cambridge: University Press, 1828). The connection between this book and the early mathematical development of Sir WILLIAMROWANHAMILTON is due to THOMASHANKINSin his superb book, Sir William Rowan Hamilton (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980). 12 HANKINS,p. 262. x3 Ibid., p. 263. 14 See especially, ibid., pp. 59-95, for a lucid description of HAMILTON'Swork on ray optics.

228

K . H . PARSHALL

the standard binary operations expressed in terms of couples became: (b~, b2) + (al, a2) = (b~ + al, b2 + a2), (b~, 62) - (a~, a2) = (bl - a,, b2 - a2), (bl, b2) (al, a2) = (bl, b2) (ai, a2) = (blal - b2a2, b2al + bla2), (ba, b2) _ [bia_2 + b2a2 (al, a2) \ a2 + a2 '

b 2 a l - bla2]
al 2 ~ a 2 1"

For HAMILTON, however, algebraic couples did not merely represent a notational translation of the complex numbers. 15 They were a natural outgrowth of his philosophy of algebra as the science of pure time, and their behavior was essentially dictated by this point of view. 16 Another outgrowth of HAMILTON'S ever-developing philosophical side was his subsequent search not for the four-dimensional algebra analogous to the complex numbers, which he finally found in 1843, but rather for a three-dimensional analogue. F r o m a mathematical point of view, since he had succeeded in representing numbers in the complex plane as algebraic couples, working by analogy he should have been able to represent quantities in three-dimensional space by algebraic triplets. From a philosophical point of view, however, HAMILTON saw an intimate relation between algebraic triplets and a trichotomous logic of metaphysics. As early as 1831, he had immersed himself in the philosophy of his friend and immediate philosophical mentor, SAMUELTAYLOR COLERIDGE(1772-1834). ~7 With almost Pythagorean fervor, COLERIDGE believed in the supremacy of the number three and so aimed to develop a perfectly trichotomous philosophy. HAMILTON and many of his friends and correspondents labored to understand the meaning and significance of COLERIDGE'S views. In HAMILTON'Scase, the search for algebraic triplets became a quest for further trichotomy in the world. After working on this problem on and off beginning in the early 1830's, HAMILTON resumed his search f o r triplets once again in 1843, owing perhaps to the visit of the nineteen year old German mathematical prodigy, GOTTHOLD E!SENSTEIN (1823--52), to the Dunsink Observatory or perhaps to HAMILTON'S contact with the work of MARTIN OHM (1792-1872) on the foundations of mathematics? s Whatever the source of this renewed interest, HAMILTON'Sefforts finally paid off. Although he never found the algebra of triplets, he did construct the quaternions, noncommutative multiplication and all, in October of 1843. This came as quite a surprise to mathematicians who, like AUGUSTUSDE MORGAN (1806-71)~ believed that algebras arbitrarily endowed with various properties had 15 WILLIAM ROWAN HAMILTON, "Theory of Conjugate Functions, or Algebraic Couples; With a Preliminary and Elementary Essay on Algebra as the Science of Pure Time," Hamilton: Math. Papers, 3: 83. 16 For a complete and penetrating discussion of HAMILTON'Sphilosophical views on algebra as the science of pure time, see HANKINS, pp. 247~79. 17 For a very interesting account of the relation between HAMILTONand COLERIDGE, see ibid., pp. 247-67 and 283-90, is Ibid., pp. 291-92.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

229

no real content. The day after the incident on Brougham Bridge, HAMILTON wrote a detailed letter to his friend JOHN GRAVES (1806-70), explaining his new algebra. In his reply GRAVES mused: There is still something in this system [of quaternions] which gravels me. I have not yet any clear view as to the extent to which we are a t liberty arbitrarily to create imaginaries, and to endow them with supernatural properties. You are certainly justified by the event ... [but] what right have you to such luck, getting at your system by such an inventive mode as yonrs9.19 DEMORGAN was also caught unawares by the new discovery. He wrote to HAMILTON: [John] Graves gave me some extracts from y o u r letter now published . . . . He never dropped a hint about imagining imaginaries. On such little things do our thoughts depend. I do believe that, had he said no more than "Hamilton makes his imaginary quantities," I should have got what I wanted. 2 Clearly many of HAMILTON'S contemporaries were not at all prepared for the idea of consciously constructing new algebras. Once this possibility opened up, however, many people seized the opportunity to extend HAMILTON'Sconstruction beyond the fourth dimension. The first person to do this was also the first skeptic, JOHN GRAVES. On December 26, 1843, he wrote to HAMILTONdescribing his construction of an eightdimensional algebra analogous to the quaternions, which he named the octaves. 21 Although GRAVES did not realize this right away, HAMILTON showed that the octaves, or octonions, not only failed to satisfy the commutative law of multiplication but they also failed to be associative. Had GRAVES not left the matter of announcing the discovery of the octaves in HAMILTON'Shands, these numbers might be known as t h e GRAVES numbers instead of as the CAYLEY numbers today, but before HAMILTON got around to doing his duty, ARTHUR CAYLEY published a paper on this eight-dimensional algebra in March of 1845. One of a flurry of papers published in the years after his graduation from Trinity College, Cambridge, CAYLEY'S work on the octonions appeared merely as a postscript to a paper on elliptic functions. Far from a complete treatment of the new algebra, his exposition Consisted of a description of its multiplication table and so indicated its noncommutativity. As h e explained, It is possible to form an analogous theory with seven imaginary roots of ( - 1 ) (? with v = 2 n - 1 roots when v is a prime number). Thus if these be ix, /2, ia, i~, i5, i6, i7, which group together according to the types 123, 145, 624, 653, 725, 734, 176, 19 JOHN GRAVES to HAMILTON, October 31, 1843, quoted ibid., p. 300, GRAVES'S emphasis. 20 AUGUSTUSDEMORGAN to HAMILTON, December 16, 1844, quoted ibid., pp. 300301. DEMORGAN'S emphasis. 21 Ibid., p, 303.

230

K . H . PARSHALL i.e. the type 123 denotes the system of equations

ili2 = i3, i2il = - i a , i2i3 = it, i3i2 = - i l , Jail = i2, ixia = - i 2 ,

de. We have the following expression for the product of two factors:
(Xo + Xait + ... + X7i7)(I"0 + X~il + ... + X7i7)
t t t

XoX;

x~x~

x2xl

...

XTX7

+ [23 + 45 + 76 + (01)] ix + [31 + 46 + 57 + (02)] i2 + [12 + 65 + 47 + (03)] ia + [51 + 62 + 47 + (04)] i4 + [14 + 36 + 72 + (05)1 is + [24 + 53 + 17 + (O6)] i6 + [25 + 34 + 61 + (07)] i7 where (01) = XoX~ + XIXo ...; 12 = X1X2 - X2X1 8 c . . . . 22 Like GRAVES, he did not realize that associativity failed as well. Although not an earth-shattering piece of research as presented, CAYL~Y'S work on the octonions foreshadowed the mathematical association he would have with the study of algebras in general and with the study of matrix algebras in particular. In 1845 after three years as a Fellow of Trinity, CAeLEY decided to leave academics and study for admission to the bar. F r o m 1849 when he was admitted until 1853 when he accepted the new Sadlerian chair of mathematics at Cambridge, CAVLEY pursued a career in law as a conveyancer. Always careful not to take on too much legal work at any one time during this period, CAYLEY also managed to publish no fewer than three hundred papers on a variety of mathematical topics. 23 Perhaps the most amazing aspect of this part of CAVLEY'S life was not his prodigious mathematical output, but his chance meeting of another mathematician-turned-lawyer, J A ~ S JOSEPH SYLVESTER. CAYL~V'S academic career had been very smooth indeed. He graduated Senior Wrangler and first S~ITH'S prizeman in 1842 and voluntarily opted to switch into law. SYLVESTZR'Searly years were much less harmonious. He entered St. Johns 22 ARTaUR CAVLEY,"On Jacobi's Elliptic Functions, in reply to the Rev. B. Bronwin: and on Quaternions," The Collected Mathematical Papers o f Arthur Cayley, ed. ARTHUR CAYLE & A. R. FORSYTn, 14 vols. (Cambridge: University Press, 1889-1898), 1 : 127 (hereafter cited as Math Papers A.C.). There is one typographical error in the computation of the product. The line involving /4 should read [ ~ + 62 + 7-3 + (04)] i4. 2s A. R. FORSVTnE,"Arthur Cayley," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 58 (June 1895): vii, or Math. Papers A.C., 8:xiv.
- r p

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

231

College, Cambridge in 1831, but these student days were interrupted by a prolonged illness which forced him to leave school for two years. To complicate matters further, he was a Jew in an Anglican environment where subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England was required for official functions like degree conferral. Sylvester was in his own subsequent bitter phrase .... one of the first holding "the faith in which the Founder of Christianity was educated" to compete for high honours in the Mathematical Tripos; not only could he not obtain a degree, but he was excluded from the examination for Dr. Smith's mathematical prizes ...24 In order finally to get his B.A. and M.A. degrees, SYLVESTERhad to retreat to Trinity College, Dublin, but by this time he was already twenty-seven years old. Fortunately, the problem of a degree did not prevent him from getting a professorship in natural philosophy at University College, London in 1838, the year after he took the Tripos exam. Unfortunately, he found this position unpleasant and left it and England in the fall of 1841 to become professor of mathematics at the University of Virginia. His acceptance of this post was clouded by controversy from the beginning. Although a Jew and a foreigner, he was accepted with little hesitation on the part of the Board of Visitors [of the University of Virginia]-due no doubt to the excellence of a score or more of letters and testimonials from eminent people across the water. The Richmond newspapers of the day were in violent opposition to this appointment ... and spared no pains to make their feelings widespread. 25 On arriving in Charlottesville, though, SYLVESTERreceived a warm welcome from the university community which at least bode well for his new life in that environment. Yet after scarcely three months another controversy arose, this time between SYLVESTERand one of his students, which resulted in SYLVESTER'Sformal resignation on March 29, 1842. 26 After several years of actuarial work and private tutoring, SYr~VESTERdecided to study for the bar. The CAYLE-SYLVESTERfriendship dated from this second set of student days. A very important period in the lives of both men, it was especially critical in SYLVESTER'Slife. Plagued by false starts, he had apparently become disillusioned with mathematics altogether. As SYLVESTER later acknowledged m a n y times, CAYLEY rekindled the mathematical flame which had been doused by those fruit24- JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,The Collected Mathematical Papers o f James Joseph Sylvester, ed. H. F. BAKER, 4 vols. (Cambridge: University Press, 1904-1912; reprint ed., New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1973), 4: xxii (hereafter cited as Math. Papers J.J.S.) . . . . 25 R. C. YATES, "Sylvester at the University of Virginia," American Mathematical Monthly 44 (April 1937): 194. This article is based on minutes of the faculty meetings held at the time SYLVESTERwas at the University of Virginia. 26 Ibid., p. 199.

232

K . H . PARSHALL

less years in academics. In a paper from 1851, SYLVESTER gratefully proclaimed that CAYLEY was the m a n " ... to w h o m I am indebted for my restoration to the enjoyment of mathematical life . . . . ,,27 Again, in his inaugural lecture as Savilian professor of geometry at Oxford in 1885, SYLVESTERpublicly announced that it had been CAYLEY " . . . who, though younger than myself, is my spiritual prog e n i t o r - who first opened my eyes and purged them of dross that they could see and accept the higher mysteries of our c o m m o n Mathematical faith . . . . ,,2s These higher mysteries involved no doubt the theory of invariants of which CAYLEY and SYLVESTER were the cofounders. HERMANN WEYL (1885-1955), in his important b o o k The Classical Groups, briefly sketched the early history of this " n e w " area. As be saw it: The theory of invariants originated in England about the middle of the nineteenth century as the genuine analytic instrument for describing configurations and their inner geometric relations in projective geometry. The functions a n d algebraic relations expressing them in terms of projective coordinates are to be invariant under all homogeneous linear transformations. Cayley first passed from the consideration of determinants to more general invariants. This procedure accounts for the title of his paper, M6moire sur les Hyperd&erminants (1846), which one may look upon as the b i r t h certificate of invariant theory. In his later nine famous Memoirs on Quantics (1854-1859) he succeeds, a m o n g other things, in obtaining a complete set of invariants for cubic and biquadratic forms. His work was taken up in England by Sylrester and Salmon. 29 Actually CAYLEY'S "M6moire sur les Hyperd&erminants" which appeared in CRELL~'S Journal was a translation into French for the European audience of two papers he had written earlier. 3 Entitled " O n the Theory of Linear Transformations" and " O n Linear Transformations," this research dealt with invariants in determinant f o r m as well as those in more general forms, the so-called hyperdeterminants. 31 As CAYLEY freely recorded, his work on this topic was suggested

27 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,"On the Relation Between the Minor Determinants of Linearly Equivalent Quadratic Functions," Math. Papers J.J.S., 1 : 246. See also ibid., 4: xxiv. 28 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,"On the Method of Reciprocants as Containing an Exhaustive Theory of the Singularities of Curves," ibid., 4: 300. See also ibid., 4: xxiv. 29 HERMANN WEYL, The Classical Groups: Their Invariants and Representations, 2 d ed. with supps., Princeton Mathematical Series, no. 1 (Princeton: University Press, 1946), p. 27. ao ARTHUR CAYLEY, "M6moire sur les Hyperd6terminants (Traduction d'un M& moire anglais ins6r6 clans le 'Cambridge Mathematical Journal' Avec Quelques Additions de l'Auteur)," Crelle 30 (1846): 1-37, or Math. Papers A.C., 1 : 117. a~ ARTHUR CAVLEY, "On the Theory of Linear Transformations," Cambridge Mathematics Journal 4 (Feb. 1845): 193-209, or Math. Papers ,4.C., 1 : 80-94; and "On Linear Transformations," Cambridge and Dublin Mathematics Journal 1 (1846): 104-22, or Math. Papers A.C., 1: 95-112.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

233

" . . . by a very elegant paper on the subject, published in the [Cambridge Mathematical] Journal by Mr. Boole. ''a2 A close analysis of the work of GEORCE BOOLE(1815-64), CAYLEV, SYLVESTER, and the many others in England, Germany, and Italy who actively pursued the study of invariants would take u s too far from the subject at hand, namely, the theory of algebras. Nevertheless, in order to understand how CAYLEY might have been led to his definition and analysis of matrices, we must pause for a moment to examine the impetus behind the theory of invariants. The incentive to develop a theory of invariants came from two seemingly disparate sources, one purely algebraic, the other geometric. Consider the second degree polynomial equations a x 2 + 2 b x + c -- 0. F r o m elementary algebra; we know that this equation has two equal roots provided a special quantity, ac - b 2, called the discriminant, vanishes. Suppose now that we alter our original second degree polynomial by applying the linear fractional (or birational) transformation
Ix+m x - + l ' x + m"

to x, where we set /x+m

Y = l'x + m'"

This gives us another second degree polynomial equation a ' y 2 + 2 b ' y + c" = 0 which has two equal roots again provided a ' c ' - (b') 2 = 0. One question we might ask then is, are a c - b 2 and a'c" - (b') 2 related, and if so, what is the relation between them? It is easy to show by brute force that if neither of these quantities is zero,
a'c" (b') 2 = (ac b 2) ( l m ' -

l'm) 2 ,

where I, m, I', m" are the coefficients in the transformation defined above. Thus, ... a combination of the coefficients in the original equation exists such that when the equation is transformed by any relation of the type indicated and exactly the same combination of the new coefficients is constructed, the two combinations are equal to one another save as to a factor depending solely upon the transforming relations. Such a combination of coefficients is called an invariant. 33 In their research, CAYLEY,SYLVESTER,and their colleagues sought not merely isolated examples but rather complete sets of invariants for homogeneous polynomials of degree greater than or equal to two. This sort of endeavor served to extend the limits of understanding of polynomials and of their algebraic content. As these mathematicians also realized, however, the study of invariants could well be put to use in analyzing certain questions which arose in geometry. Suppose
32 CAYLEY, "On the Theory of Linear Transformations," p. 193, or M a t h . Papers A.C., 1 : 80. 33 FORSYrH, p. XXV, or M a t h . Papers A.C., 8: xxix.

234

K . H . PARSHALL

we take a curve or surface and deform it by a linear fractional transformation. A natural question to ask then is what properties of the curve or surface remain invariant under such a transformation ? F o r example, does the length of a curve remain the same under a given transformation, or does it shrink or stretch ? Since they involve transformations, too, these sorts of geometric questions also lend themselves to analysis by invariant-theoretic means. Thus, the theory of invariants grew in response to the calls of two separate and distinct mathematical voices, but it developed as time went on into a subject worthy of study in its own right. T o d a y it is second nature to think of a linear transformation as a matrix and likewise to think of matrices as representing linear transformations. In CAYLEY'S day, however, this was not the case. F o r him as well as for his contemporaries and predecessors, the process of transforming an equation in the variables x, y, z into one in terms of x', y', z" was denoted by a series of equations

x' = o~x + fly + ~,z, y' = oc'x + fl'y + y'z, z' = ~ " x + fi"y + y " z
for s 0), flq), ~(0 in some field (or possibly the integers), a4 In order to express another transformation which t o o k x', y', z" into x", y " , z" another three equations were required. The computational difficulties arose whenever it became desirable to give equations for x", y", z" in terms not of x', y', z' but of x, y, z. Although elementary, these computations were time consuming and awkward since they involved so many repeated substitutions After dealing with these kinds of computations, though, certain patterns might begin to materialize, and a shortcut for arriving at these patterns might reveal itself. The matrix notation proved to be just such a shortcut, as CAYLEY first presented his new notation in a short paper entitled "Remarques sur la Notation des Fonctions algdbriques" which appeared in CRELLE'S Journal in 1855. As he explained: I use the notation:

:' iii]
It

lt,

~)I ! ,

34 See, for example, CARL FRIEDRICH GAUSS, Disquisitiones Arithmetieae, trans. ARTHUR A. CLARK,S. J. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), p. 294: and ARTHUR CAVLEY, "Remarques sur la Notation des Fonctions alg6briques," Crelle $0 (1855): 282, or Math. Papers A.C., 2: 185. 3s In his paper, "Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 26 (June 1977): 82-112, THOMASHAWKINS sees the development of the matrix notation as a natural outgrowth of one particular invariant-theoretic problem, namely, that of finding all linear transformations of the variables of a quadratic form of non-zero determinant which leave the form invariant.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

235

to denote what I call a matrix: ... This notation seems very convenient for the theory of linear equations; I write for example

(x, y, z, ...)

to denote the system of equations

s e = ~xx + fly + 7 z . . . , ~1 = o / x + fl'y + 7 ' z . . . . = o/'x + fl"y + 7"z ....

We get from this the equation

(x, y , z . . . . ) = o/,

f',
.

,, iiiI
v',

(~,

7, ,-..)

I?

/3", 7 " , ...

which denotes the system of equations which gives x, y, z . . . . ~, r/, ~" . . . . . and we find ourselves led to the notation

in terms of

: ,,, ii!l
of the inverse matrix. The terms of this matrix are fractions, having the determinant formed by the terms of the original matrix as a c o m m o n denominator; the numerators are the minors formed by the terms of this same matrix by suppressing one of the rows and one of the columns, a6 He continued by describing matrix multiplication explicitly and b y showing how his new notation could be used in expressing homogeneous polynomials of arbitrary degree in arbitrarily many variables, a7 It is important to note that in this initial memoir, CAYLEY made no mention of any special properties of matrices

36 CAYLEY, "Remarques sur la Notation des Fonctions algrbriques," pp. 282-83, or Math. Papers A. C., 2: 185-86. 37 For a discussion of CAVLEV'Swork on these polynomials, see HAWKINS,"Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," pp. 87-91.

236

K . H . PARSHALL

such as associativity and noncommutativity. He also did not consider the addition of matrices. As THOMAS HAWKINS pointed out in his paper, "Another L o o k at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," the notation which CAYLEY introduced in 1855 was not completely new. 38 In his Disquisitiones Arithmeticae of 1801, CARL FRmDRICH GAUSS (1777-1855) used a similar notation during the discussion of transformations or " f o r m s " , as he called them. In article 268, he wrote A ternary f o r m f o f determinant D and with unknowns x, x', x " (the first = x etc.) is transformed into a ternary form g of determinant E and unknowns y, y', y " by a substitution such as this

x = ~y + y y + ~y" x" = ody + /3'y" + ~'y'" x " = ~x"y + ~"y' + ~,'y"

where the nine coefficients o~,/3, etc. are all integers. For brevity we will neglect the unknowns and say simply that f is transformed into g by the substitution (s)

~,
(2.1) 0~, ~",

fl,
{~r

7
, 7
t

/~", ~"

and that f implies g or g is contained i n f . Later when he gave numerical examples of these substitutions (S), he used notation such as 13, 4, 0

(2.2)

3, 1,0 0, 0, 1.40

GAUSS, however, did not name arrays such as those in (2.1), and (2.2), and he did not treat them as mathematical entities in the sense that he did not speak of either adding or multiplying them. 41 Thus, CAYLEY was the first mathematician

as Ibid., pp. 83-84. 39 GAUSS, p. 294, and HAWKINS, "Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," pp. 83-84. 4o GAUSS, p. 303. 4t Ibid., p. 306. Here GAuss gave the successive arrays for the transformations applied successively, but he did not consider multiplying the arrays.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

237

to realize that the square arrays themselves actually had algebraic properties. 42 He exploited these properties during the year 1855 in his work on the transformation of quadratic functions. 43 After devoting much of his energy to his famous series of papers on quantics or forms during the two years after 1855, CAYLEY returned to the subject of matrices and of their application to quadratic functions in 1858 in his papers " A Memoir on the Theory of Matrices" and " A Memoir on the Automorphic Linear Transformation of a Bipartite Quadric Function" both of which appeared in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 4~ Unlike his earlier paper on matrices, the first of these papers of 1858 presented a rather complete exposition of the various properties of matrices. CAYLEY summarized his new results in this way: It will be seen that matrices (attending only to those of the same order) comport themselves as single quantities; they may be added, multiplied or compounded together gc. : the law of addition of matrices is precisely similar to that for the addition of ordinary algebraical quantities; as regards their multiplication (or composition), there is the peculiarity that matrices are not in general convertible; it is nevertheless possible to form the powers (positive or negative, integral or fractional) of a matrix, and thence to arrive at the notion of a rational and integral function, or generally of any algebraical function, of a matrix. I obtain the remarkable theorem that any matrix whatever satisfies an algebraical equation of its own order, the coefficient'of the highest power being unity, and those of the other powers functions of the terms of the matrix, the last coefficient being in fact the determinant ...45 Thus, CAYLEY had realized by 1858 that matrices could be treated as algebraical quantities satisfying all of the properties which would later constitute an algebra.
42 HAWKINS,in "Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," pp. 85-87, mentioned GOTTHOLDEISENSTEINand CHARLESHERMITEand their use of a single letter notation to denote linear transformations. EISENSTEIN, in particular, recognized that linear transformations could be added and multiplied and so could be treated as separate algebraic entities. As we pointed out above, however, at this time, the intimate relation between matrices and linear transformations was not appreciated. Thus, the realization that linear transformations could be treated as algebraic entities and the identical realization about matrices were two separate discoveries. EISENSTEINwas not thinking of matrices in the same way CAYLEYwas, and so his pronouncements on linear transformations should not detract from the importance of CAYLEY'S development of matrices. 4a ARTHUR CAYLEY, "Sur la Transformation d'une Fonction quadratique en ellem6me par des Substitutions lin6aires," Crelle 50 (1855): 288-99, or Math. Papers A. C., 2: 192-201. 44 ARTHUR CAYLEY, "A Memoir on the Theory of Matrices," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 148 (Jan. 1858): 17-37, or Math. Papers A. C., 2: 475-96; and "A Memoir on the Automorphic Linear Transformation of a Bipartite Quadric Function," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 148 (Jan. 1858): 39-46, or Math. Papers A. C., 2: 497-505. 4-5 CAYLEY."A Memoir on ~the Theory of Matrices," p. 17, or Math. Papers A. C., 2: 475-76.

238

K . H . PARSHALL

He wrote down the additive and multiplicative identities, the rules for addition, scalar multiplication and matrix multiplication, and he proved associativity and noncommutativity. He also dealt with m a n y algebra-theoretic properties o f matrices, such as the existence of zero divisors, the conditions for commutativity and skew commutativity, and the properties of the transpose. 46 In addition to going through these fundamentals systematically, CAYLEV analyzed deeper results such as the so-called HAM~LTO~-CAYLEY theorem. In CAYLEY'S words, this theorem ... will be best understood by a complete development of a particular case. Imagine a matrix (a, b) and form the determinant

l
M 2-

a - M, b M , c d

the developed expression of this determinant is

( a + d ) M 1 + ( a d - bc) M;

the values of M 2, M 1, M are (a 2 + be, b(a + d))

(a, b) (1, O)

and substituting these values the determinant becomes equal to the matrix zero, viz. we have

c,

d = M

0,

'

... where the matrix of the determinant is

(a, b ) 1 1 0 c,d -M

0),1

...

47

After running through the above verification for a 3 3 matrix M, CAYLEY concluded that it was unnecessary " . . . to undertake the labour of a formal p r o o f of the theorem in the general case of a matrix of any degree. ''4s 46 Ibid., pp. 27-31, or pp. 486-91. 47 Ibid., p. 23, or p. 482. As THOMAS HAWKINS pointed out in "Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," p. 92, CAYLEYhad actually written out this "proof" to SYLVESTERin a letter dated 19 November 1857 which may be found in the SYLVESTER correspondence housed in the library at St. Johns College, Cambridge. 48 CAYLEY, "A Memoir on the Theory of Matrices," p. 24, or Math. Papers A. C., 2: 483.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

239

CAYLEY'S exposition of this theorem illustrated quite well one aspect of his mathematical personality, namely, the tendency to let mere verification of small examples suffice for p r o o f in general. In his various papers on the history of algebra during the nineteenth century, THOMAS HAWkiNS referred to this character trait as "generic reasoning" and noted at the time CAVLEY was working in England, mathematicians like KARL WEIERSTRASS(1815-97) in Germany and CAUCHY in France labored to introduce a much greater degree of rigor into mathematical argument. ~9 They demanded proofs in general for general statements as well as a careful analysis of possible exceptions. CaYLE, however, a product of the Eng, lish school as influenced by the push toward abstraction of PEACOCK, D~MORaAN and others, paid little attention to such detail, s The general p r o o f of the HAMILTON-CAYLEY theorem would have to wait until 1878 when WEmRSTRASS'S famous student, G~ORG FRO~ENIUS, published his seminal paper entitled " U e b e r lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen. ''~1 In that paper, as HAWKINS showed, FRO~EN~US developed the single letter notation for linear transformations to a great extent. 52 However, CAYLEYwas already using the single letter notation in a highly suggestive way for matrices in both of his papers of 1858 on that topic, and especially in the one on matrix applications mentioned above. In this latter paper, we see chains of matrix computations like: ~ ( ~ - 7) -1 ( D + 7) ~ _ 1 ~ _ 1 ( ~ or what is the same thing, ~ ( ~ - 7) -1 ( ~ + 7) ~ _ i ( ~ _ ~,) ( ~ + 7)_1 ~ = ~ ; .. ( ~ + 7) ~_1 ( ~ _ 7) = ( ~ - 7) ~ _ 1 ( ~ + 7),
_ 7) ( ~ + 7) -1 ~ = ~ ,

(1 + ~ - 1 7 ) (1 - ~ - 1 7 ) = (1 - ~ - 1 7 ) ( 1 + ~_1~), which is a mere identity, ...s3 49 See, THOMASHAWK1NS, "The Theory of Matrices in the 19th Century," Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians: Vancouver, 1974, 2 vols. (n.p.: Canadian Mathematical Congress, 1975), 2: 56-70; and "Weierstrass and the Theory of Matrices," Archive for History of Exact Sciences 17 (July 1977): 119-63, in addition to "Another Look at the Theory of Matrices." so For discussions of this British school, see the recent works by HELENAPYCIOR, "Early Criticism of the Symbolical Approach to Algebra," Historia Mathematiea 9 (November 1982): 392-412, and "George Peacock and the British Origins of Symbolical Algebra," Historia Mathematica 8 (February 1981): 23-45, and JOAN L. RICUARDS, "The Art and the Science of British Algebra: A Study in the Perception of Mathematical Truth," Historia Mathematica 7 (August 1980): 343-65. 5~ FERDINAND G~OR~ FROBENIUS, "Ueber lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen," Frobenius: Ges. Abh., 1: 343-405. 52 HAWKINS, "Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," pp. 98-101. 53 CA~_~EY,"A Memoir on the Automorphic Linear Transformation of a Bipartite Quadric Function," p. 43, or Math. Papers A. C., 2: 502.

240

K . H . PARSHALL

(Here /2 and 7 are arbitrary 3 3 matrices.) This kind o f shorthand definitely stripped much of the obscurity from matrix manipulations by highlighting the essential features of the computations. During the course of CAVLEY'Searly work on invariant theory and on matrices, he and SYLVESTERmet and talked mathematics regularly. As we have already mentioned, SYLVESTER attributed his renewed interest in research mathematics to his friendship with CAVLEY. Thus, it comes as no surprise that SYLVESTERalso became deeply interested in the theory of invariants while it was still in its infancy and nourished it greatly with his own ideas. As for the theory of matrices, however, he did not seem to have been attracted right away by it even though CAYLEY had corresponded with him on his new matrix-theoretic results at least as early as 1857. 54 Whatever the reason for this initial lack of interest, by 1882 SYLVESTER had rediscovered matrices and had been devoting a substantial part of his time to their development, but we have gotten a bit ahead of our story. When we left off, SYLVESTERand CAYLEY had just met while studying to become lawyers. This was in 1846. SYLVESTERwas called to the bar in 1850, but like CAYLEY, he persisted doggedly in publishing his mathematical researches, producing seven papers in 1850 and thirteen in 1851. Virtually all of this work dealt in one way or another with the theory of invariants. The life of a lawyer apparently did not appeal to him either, though, because twice in 1854 he applied for and was denied academic positions. Finally, in 1855, the professorship in mathematics, which he had sought the previous year, at the Royal Military Academy in Woolwich became vacant, and SYLVESTERwas elected to the post he would keep until 1870. In volume two of his collected works, 106 and 110 articles attested to the productivity he enjoyed during this time. Moreover, he began to reap the benefits of the recognition his work so greatly deserved. Within a period of three years from 1861 to 1864, he won a Royal Medal, the position of correspondent in mathematics to the French Academy of Sciences, and the presidency of the London Mathematical Society. All looked well until once again his academic career was marred by his premature retirement from Woolwich in 1870 at the age of fiftysix. This came as quite a blow to SYLWSTER, and the subsequent haggling over his rightful pension left him bitter and unsure. 55 Only five mathematical papers came from his prolific pen in the five years between 1870 and 1875, 56 but at long last in 1875 academe came knocking at SYLWSTER'S door and begging for yet another chance.

s, See note 47 above.

55 SYLVESTER, Math. Papers d. J. S.,

4: xxix. 56 In 1870, however, his book The Laws of Verse; or, Principles of Versification

Exemplified in Metrical Translations: Together With an Annotated Reprint of the Inaugural Presidential Address to the Mathematical and Physical Sections of the British Association at Exeter (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1870) was published. In this work, he

set a life-long interest in versification down on paper and included a number of his original poems. These five years of his life seem to have been occupied primarily by this sort of literary pursuit.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

241

In 1875 the Johns Hopkins University was founded at Baltimore. A letter to Sylvester from the celebrated Joseph Henry, of date 25 August 1875, seems to indicate that Sylvester had expressed at least a willingness to share in forming the tone of the young university; the authorities seem to have felt that a Professor of Mathematics and a Professor of Classics could inaugurate the work of a University without expensive buildings or elaborate apparatus. It was finally agreed that Sylvester should go, securing, besides his travelling expenses, an annual stipend of 5000 dollars "paid in gold", s7 By all accounts, SYLVESTER'Seight years at Johns Hopkins were some of the happiest years of his life because for once he was well-received and well-liked by both his colleagues and his students. He expressed his sincere gratitude to the people at his new university in his Commemoration Day address on 22 February, 1877: It is always a satisfaction to meet those from whom we have received marks of regard, and whom we know to be favorably disposed towards us; and I should be heartless, indeed, and more callous than an oyster, who, twin-soul to the mathematician, working in silence and seclusion between the folding-doors of his mansion, elaborates the pearl that may, hereafter, deck an empress's brow, could I be insensible to many proofs of kind and generous feeling which both within and without the walls of this University, have been so wisely and unequivocably accorded to me. I scruple not to say (for it is strictly the truth) that I have experienced from the authorities of the University a degree of delicate consideration and forebearance from all claims that might be supposed to interfere, in any respect, with my comfort or ease of mind, that, as long as I live will endear to me the name of the Johns Hopkins University. 5s SYLVESTERrepaid his new friends for this goodwill continually during his second stay in America with his endearing eccentricity, his unbounded enthusiasm, and his multifarious contributions to mathematics, among them his work on matrix algebras. During the spring semester of 1882, the two friends, CAYLEY and SYLVESTER, were reunited this time in the United States at Johns Hopkins. After much persuasion, SYLVESTERhad succeeded in luring CAYLEY across the Atlantic to give a series of lectures on Abelian and theta functions. Whether as a result of this visit and a chance conversation with his friend, whether as a result of a subconscious recollection of a certain letter from 1857, or whether as a result of his own research, by 1882 SYLVESTERhad turned from a concerted attack on invariant theory to a full-scale assault on the theory of matrices. He detailed his arrival on this new battleground as follows:

S7 SYLVESTER,Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: xxix-xxx. 58 JAMESJOSEPHSYLVESTER,"Address on Commemoration Day at Johns Hopkins University, 22 February, 18775' Math. Papers J. J. S., 3: 73.

242

K . H . PARSHALL

Much as I owe in the way of fruitful suggestion to Cayley's immortal memoir ["On the Theory of Matrices"], the idea of subjecting matrices to the additive process and of their consequent amenability to the laws of functional operation was not taken from it, but occurred to me independently before I had seen the memoir or was acquainted with its contents; ... My memoir on Tchebysheff's method concerning the totality of prime numbers within certain limits [ 1881], was the indirect case of turning my attention to the subject, as (through the systems of difference equations therein employed to contract Tchebysheff's limits) I was led to the discovery of the properties of the latent [characteristic] roots of matrices, and had made considerable progress in developing the theory of matrices considered as quantities, when on writing to Prof. Cayley upon the subject he referred me to the memoir in question: all this only proves how far the discovery of the quantitative nature of matrices is removed from being artificial or factitious, but, on the contrary, was bound to be evolved, in the fullness of time, as a necessary sequel previously acquired cognitions. 59 In the fall of 1881, SYLVESTER'Snew course on multinomial quantities, or what he would later call universal algebra, must have played some role in firing up his interest in the whole subject of matrices. F r o m testimonies of those who knew him, we know that once the spark had been ignited in him there was no stopping him until some other topic caught his fancy. The theory of matrices apparently firmly held his attention in the years 1882 to 1884. One of his students recalled SYLVESTER'S single-minded pursuit of this topic this way: Sylvester's methods! He had none. "Three lectures will be delivered on a New Universal Algebra," he would say; then "the course must be extended to twelve." It did last all the rest of that year. The following year the course was to be "Substitution Theory, by Netto." We all got the text. He lectured about three times, following the text closely, but stopping sharp at the end of the hour. Then he began to think about Matrices again. "I must give one lecture a week on these," he said. He could not confine himself to the hour nor to the one lecture a week. Two weeks passed and Netto was forgotten and never mentioned again. 6 Although not his most important mathematical work, SYLVESTER'Sinvestigations on matrices and matrix algebras figure prominently in our present historical development for two main reasons. Aside from the fact that his research on such topics as the characteristic and minimum polynomials was very useful in analyzing the internal structure of algebras, SYLVESTERpublished many of his new ideas and theorems from 1882 to 1884 in the Comptes rendus, one of the more widely read journals for mathematical research of the day. Thus, his work had the potential for reaching a relatively large audience. Combined with this potential 59 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,"Lectures on the Principles of Universal Algebra," American Journal of Mathematics 6 (1884): 271, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 209. 60 GEORGEE. ANDREWS,Partitions: Yesterday and Today (Wellington, N. Z.: New Zealand Mathematical Society, 1979), p. 3.

Wedderbum and the Structure of Algebras

243

recognition, actual recognition came to his papers when HENRI POINCARI~ (18541912) singled them out in a short but influential note, also in the Comptes rendus, entitled "Sur les hombres complexes. ''rt Through POINCARI~'Snote, SYLVESTER'S work became known to European mathematicians who worked in the same area but who looked at the subject from a different point of view. This heightened awareness of the research being done on the other side of the Atlantic marked the first step toward a unification of the various approaches to the theory of algebras. We shall return to this paper by POINCARI~ shortly, but for the moment we must look at SYLVESTER'Sactual work on matrix algebra. As SYLVESTERsaid in the passage cited above, his interest in matrix questions was aroused by his research on TCHEBYCHEFF'Sinequality on prime numbers. In a paper of 1852 entitled "Sur les nombres premiers" which appeared in the Journal de Mathdmatiques, the Russian mathematician PAFNUTI TCHEBYCHEFF (1821-94) produced upper and lower bounds on the number of primes less than a given number x. If ~(x) equaled the number of primes less than x, he showed that ~(x) A1 < ~ < A2 x/log x where 0.922 ~ A1 ~ 1 and 1 ~ A 2 ~ 1.105. 62 SYLVESTER improved these bounds slightly in his work published in 1881. 6a In the course of his calculations, however, he came across a certain type of system of linear equations which interested him and which prompted him to publish a brief and admittedly elementary paper outlining the method of solution of such systems. In simple examples, SYLVESTERfound that these solutions reduced to finding the roots of the characteristic, or as he called it, the latent equation of a 2 2 matrix. He immediately realized that an old problem which had been proposed and solved by CHARLES BABBAGE(1792-1871) in his textbook Calculus o f Functions, also fell much more easily using the characteristic equation. As SYLVESTER phrased it, "the problem is to find
a x + ~x d p x ~ ~

~x+ b

so that ~%, say

aix + oci flix + b i '

62 HENRIPOINCAR~, "Sur les hombres complexes," Comptes rendus 99 (Nov. 1884): 740-42. THOMASHAWKINSfirst pointed out the role of this paper in his article, "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," pp. 249-50. 6z MORRIS KLINE, Mathematical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 830. 63 JAMESJOSEPHSYLVESTER,"On Tchebycheff's Theory of the Totality of the Prime Numbers Comprised With Given Limits," American Journal o f Mathematics 4 (1881): 230-47, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 3: 530-45,

244

K . H . PARSHALL

shall equal x for a given value of i. ' ' 6 . This was actually a watered down version of a much more interesting question, namely, " . . . extracting the mth root of any unit-matrix (that is, a matrix in which each element in the principal diagonal is unity, and the rest zero), which constitutes the ultimate generalization of BABBAGE'S problem and is soluble by the same method ...,65 SYLVESTERforewarned his readers that a complete solution of this more difficult problem would " . . . probably appear in a memoir on matrices, in the forthcoming number [1882] of the [American] Journal. ''66 N o such work appeared in the volume for 1882 of the American Journal, but SYLVESTER submitted a paper to the Comptes rendus of that year which indicated that he was still thinking about such questions. Entitled "Sur les Puissances et les Racines de Substitutions lin6aires, ''67 this paper dealt primarily with roots of the characteristic equation and with their relationship to roots of the ith power of this same equation for rational values of i. SYLVESTER quickly tossed off the following two facts: (1) The lambdaic roots [later latent roots for SYLVESTERand our characteristic roots] of the inverse of a determinant are the inverses of the lambdaic roots of the determinant itself. (2) I f i is an arbitrary positive integer, the i th powers of the lambdaic roots of a determinant of substitution [characteristic equation] are the same as the lambdaic roots of the i th power of the determinant. 6s Putting these two facts together, SYLVESTERwas then able to strengthen fact (2) by stating it for arbitrary rational numbers i. This then allowed him to prove an even more general version of the question he had threatened to resolve at the end of the paper of 1881. In the case where all the characteristic roots were distinct, SYLVESTERshowed how " t o extract the #th root, or more generally to find the i th power of a given substitution, for i an arbitrary rational number. ''69 His solution consisted in a formula which allowed him to compute explicitly each entry in the matrix of the i th power of the substitution. Although a brute force calculation rather than a neat matrix algebra solution, it reflected SYLVESTER'S growing interest in the characteristic equation and in its properties, a topic which obviously lent itself quite well to a matrix-theoretic approach. By 1883, in fact, SYLVESTERhad succeeded in translating his result of 1882 into matrix language. 7 64 JAMESJOSEPHSYLVESTER,"Note on the Theory of Simultaneous Linear Differential or Difference Equations with Constant Coefficients," American Journal of Mathematics 4 (1881): 324, or Math. Papers d. J. S., 3: 554. 65 Ibid., p. 56, or p. 563. 66 Ibid. 67 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,"SUE les Puissances et les Racines de Substitutions lin6aires," Comptes rendus 94 (Jan. 1882): 55-59, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 3: 562-64. 68 Ibid., p. 56, or p. 563. 69 Ibid. 70 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,"On the Equation to the Secular Inequalities in the Planetary Theory," Philosophical Magazine 16 (Mar. 1883): 267-69.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

245

Even before this, however, his mind had turned to matrices. In the Comptes rendus, again in 1882, he published on unitary matrices, that is, on matrices all of whose off-diagonal entries are zero. 71 Once again he addressed the issue of finding the form of a matrix M whose i th power was a unitary matrix. The amount of new mathematical substance in this note was slight, but SYLVESTERended it with a tantalizing allusion to bigger things to come: ... I have already established a general functional theory of matrices, and ... I no longer consider these [matrices] as schemata of elements, but as communities, or, if you will as complex quantities. This theory is not even limited to the case of simple matrices. The general laws of Analysis apply to the complex quantities where each term of the complex of order m is itself a complex of order m', and each element of these new complexes yet a complex of order m", etc. in such a way that we have complexes of successive ranks which we can extend indefinitely. 72 For the first time in his published work, then, SYLVESTERportrayed matrices not merely as notational devices or "schemata" but as complex quantities subject themselves to the usual laws of algebra. In other words, matrix algebra was possible. Its "full" development by SYLWSTER'S pen, however, would have to wait until 1884. In the interim, SYLVESTERproduced more than twenty papers on various special topics regarding matrices and matrix algebra. The vast majority of this work appeared in either the Johns Hopkins University Circulars or in the Comptes rendus, and needless to say, the articles which came out in the latter enjoyed the wider audience. Cagily, though, SYLVESTER managed to include most of the results from the Circulars articles in the papers destined for the European audience. In this way, he enhanced the pages of his home institution's publication while ensuring his own reputation abroad. Aside from work on properties of matrices with special forms, SYLVESTER'S research during these two years centered around his discovery of a four-dimensional algebra analogous to HAMILTON'S quaternions and his attempts to generalize it to higher dimensions. As we saw during our discussion of HAMILTON'S work, the quaternions provided an example of a (real) algebra with basis 1, i, j, k satisfying the relations (2.3) (2.4)
ij= -fi= k, jk= -kj= i, ki= -ik=j,

i2 = j 2 = k 2 = _ 1 .

Put in another way, the equations in (2.3) may be expressed as uv + vu = 0 for u 4= v in (i, j, k). With his interest in matrices growing, SYLVESTEkwondered whether it was possible to define a system of matrices which satisfied the rela71 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,"Sur les Racines des Matrices unitaires," Comptes rendas 94 (Feb. 1882): 396-99, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 3: 365-67. v2 Ibid., pp. 398-99, or p. 567.

246

K . H . PARSHALL

tions given by (2.3) and (2.4). I n a clever but elementary way, he derived the standard matrix representation o f the quaternions as follows. Let u and 13 be two nonsingular 7s 2 2 matrices with complex entries, and consider the matrix z + y13 + x u where x, y, and z are variables and where the z in the sum is interpreted as zI, for I the 2 2 identity matrix. The determ i n a n t m a y be written as (2.5)
z 2 + 2bxz + 2cyz + dx 2 + 2exy + fy2

where, as direct c o m p u t a t i o n shows, 2b = tr u, 2c = tr v, d = det u, 2e = tr(u adj v), and f = d e t v . As SYLVESTER points out, ... the necessary and sufficient conditions for the equations are the following, namely, b=0, c=0, e=0.
uv + vu = 0

I f to these conditions we superadd d = 1, f = 1, and write uv = w, then

u2 = --1, v2 = --1, w 2 ~ W~l --1,
=

uv --UW
=

= 13;

--UV

w,

13w =

--w13 =

u,

and 1, u, v, w f o r m a quaternion systemfl 4 Notice that by imposing all of these conditions on the coefficients o f (2.5), this determinant becomes simply det(z+yv+xu)=z
2 + y2 + x Z ,

and it is easy to see that this is satisfied provided u where 0 = } / - 1 .

-1

and

v l: :1

" H e n c e the matrices

construed as complex quantities are a linear transformation o f the ordinary quaternion system 1, i, j, k . . . . ,,7s N o w suppose we w a n t to generalize this to a system o f 3 3 matrices satisfying the relations analogous to (2.3) and (2.4) above. Mimicking the above construction, we take two nonsingular 76 3 3 matrices u and v, and we consider 73 SYLVESTERnever explicitly requires u and v to be nonsingular, that is, of nonzero determinant, but he uses this fact throughout. 74. JAMES JOSE][~-~SYLVESTER, " A Word on Nonions," Johns Hopkins University Circulars 1 (August 1882): 241, or Math, Papers J. J. S., 3: 647. 75 Ibid., p. 241, or pp. 647-50. 76 Again, SYLWSTER specifically makes no assumptions on non-singularity, but he uses this condition on both u and v.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

247

det(z+yv+xu). In order to insure that the conditions u 3 = v3 = 1 and vu = 9uv where 9 is a primitive cube root of unity are met, 7~ we find that we must have (2.6) The matrices
0 and /3 ~-2 0

det(z+yv

+ xu) = z 3 + y3 + x 3.

U =

92

yield (2.6). This shows that "... there will be a system of Nonions (precisely analogous to the known system of quaternions) represented by the nine matrices
1
U V

(2.7)

u2
~/2V

uv

vz
UV2

...-7s

U2 U2

The paper in which SYLVESTERfirst presented his matrix version of the quaternions as well as his new nine-dimensional algebra, the nonions, appeared in the Johns Hopkins University Circulars in August of 1882 and then again in a slightly expanded form in the Comptes rendus of 1883. The second paper, entitled "Sur les Quantit6s formant un Groupe de Nonions analogues aux Quaternions de Hamilton, ''79 reflected a heightened awareness on SYLVESTEg'S part of the exact properties and meaning of the nonions. He realized, for example, that the nine matrices in (2.7) actually formed a basis for the algebra of 3 3 matrices over R. In other words, every 3 3 matrix could be written in terms of the nonion basis as
a + bu + ~ u 2 --~ e v 21- 7 v 2 -~ d u 2 v -~- ~ u v 2 -~ e u v + eu2v 2 .so

Furthermore, as in his examination of the quaternions, he carefully studied the determinant of z + y v + xu and figured out precisely those conditions on the

77 Actually these two conditions are necessary but not sufficient for (2.6) to hold. It must also be the case that (uv)3 = 1 which follows from the non-singularity of u and v. SYLVESTERrealized this in a later paper. See JAMESJOSEI"HSYLVESXER,"On Quaternions, Nonions, Sedenions, etc.," Johns Hopkins University Circulars 2 (Dec. 1883): 7, or Math. Papers J. 3. S., 4: 124. 78 SYLVESTER, "A Word on Nonions," p. 242, or Math. Papers 3-. J. S., 3: 649. 79 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER,"Sur les Quantit6s formant un Groupe de Nonions analogues aux Quaternions de Hamilton," Comptes rendus 97 (Dec. 1883): 1336~0, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 118-21. so 1bid., p. 1337, or p. 119.

248 coefficients which forced (2.8)

K . H . PARSHALL

det (z + yv + xu) = x a + 3Bx2y + 3Cx2z + 3 D x y 2 +

6 E x y z + 3Fxz 2 + Gy 3 + 3Hy2z + 3Kyz 2 + L z 3

to collapse to x 3 + ya + z a. He found that ... the seven conditions below must be satisfied;

B=O,

C = 0,

D =0,

E = O,

F=O,

H=

O,

K= 0

so that the function in x, y, z becomes a sum of three cubes, but these seven conditions, which we might call parametric conditions, although necessary, are not sufficient; we must add an eighth condition to them ...81 Without going into any further detail concerning SYLVESTER'Sconditions and computations, suffice it to say that, like any good invariant theorist, he was exceedingly interested in the various identities and relations which held between the different quantities involved in equations like (2.8). He also expended much energy on the implications raised by identities resulting from matrix polynomials like
(ran) 3 - 3B(mn) 2 + 3D(rnn) - E = 0

and
(nm) 3 - 3B'(nm) 2 + 3D'(nm) - E ' = O,

polynomials which arose from the application of the HAMILToN-CAYLEYtheorem to the characteristic equations det ( I X - mn) = 0 and det ( 1 X - nm) = O, respectively. 8z Exploiting such identities and their corollaries to their fullest, SYLVESTER analyzed questions like, under what conditions do two matrices rn and n commute, that is, when does m n = nm? This particular question proved so thorny for SYLWSTER, in fact, that he referred to it at one point as a " . . . very important and almost fundamental law (seemingly so simple and yet so hard to prove) ...-83 As TaOMAS HAWKINS explained in detail in his "Another L o o k at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," however, SVLVESTER'S repeated attempts to solve this problem completely, provided him with a certain amount of insight into the difficulties of matrix computations as he approached them. s4 After realizing that his first assault on the prob82 Ibid., p. 1339, or p. 121. 82 See SYLVESTER,"On Quatemions, Nonions, Sedenions, etc.," p. 7, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 124. 83 JAMESJOSEVrISYLVESTER, "On the Three Laws of Motion in the World of Universal Algebra," Johns Hopkins University Circulars 3 (Jan. 1884): 34, or Math. Papers J. aT. S., 4: 149. WILLIAtaKINGDONCLIFFORD(1845--79) also examined the same problem in "A Fragment on Matrices," Mathematical Papers o f William Kingdon Clifford, ed. ROBERT TUCKER with an intro, by H. J. STEV~EN SMITH (London: Macmillan & Co. 1882; reprint ed., Bronx: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1968), pp. 337-54 (hereafter cited as Math. Papers W. K. C.).
84 HAWKINS,

"Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," pp. 103-108.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

249

lem s5 depended heavily on the distinctness of the characteristic roots associated to the matrices m and n, SYLVESTERdefined the concept of privileged or derogatory matrices, that is, matrices whose characteristic polynomial did not equal their minimal polynomial, and tried once more to answer this question, s6 (Thus, the characteristic roots associated to a derogatory matrix were not all distinct.) Once more he had to admit that exceptions still existed to his solution. This rather perplexing failure to attain a complete solution caused SYLVESTERto muse that "the field of the theory of multiple quantity is so new and unexploited that without the greatest precautions, one is always in danger of coming up against some unexpected cause of uncertainty or even error. ''sT As we shall see in Section 3 below, some of SYLVESTER'Scontemporaries in Germany managed to circumvent many of these difficulties by viewing the entire theory of algebras from the point of view of linear substitutions or forms rather than from the perspective of matrix theory. Regardless of the shortcomings and pitfalls of SYLVESTER'Sapproach, however, he did make considerable progress in understanding matrix algebra more thoroughly during the course of his two-year-long, concerted effort. His researches in the area culminated on the pages of the AmericaI Journal in 1884 with what was to have been a systematic and complete exposition of the whole subject as he conceived it. Intended as the first in a series, his paper "Lectures on the Principles of Universal Algebra" just scratched the surface of such an undertaking. 88 It began by defining all of the operations on matrices and by enumerating all of the pertinent elementary properties of these operations, such as the associativity of multiplication. F r o m there he moved on to the weightier matters of latent (or characteristic) equations and their roots, conditions on spanning or nonspanning sets of matrices for a matrix algebra of a given dimension (or involutions, to use SYLVESTER'S term), and the summatory (or matrix unit) representations of matrices, s9 among other topics. Throughout his work on matrices, SYLVESTER, like CAYLEY, stayed with the small examples of the 2 2 and the 3 3 matrices, and his "Lectures" proved to be no exception to this rule. However, in the closing paragraph of the first (and, as it turned out, only) installment of the series, SYLVESTER alluded to the possibility and, in fact, the desirability of extending the theory to arbitrary dimensions. He urged his readers to free themselves of the shackles of three-dimensional space and to explore the new possibilities which lay on the horizon. In his words, 85 This appeared in SYLVESTER, "On the Three Laws of Motion in the World of Universal Algebra," p. 34. or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 149.
86 JAMES JOSEPH SYLVESTER, "Sur les Quantit6s formant un Groupe de Nonions

analogues aux Quaternions de Hamilton," Comptes rendus 98 (Feb. 1884): 471-75, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 157-59. 8 7 Ibid., p. 475, or p. 159. 88 SYLVESTER, "Lectures on the Principles of Universal Algebra," pp. 270-86, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 208-24. 89 SYLVESTERmentions CHARLESlAUNDERSPEIRCE in the context of this "summatory form." As we shall see below, C. S. PEIRCE developed the notion of matrix units as an outgrowth of his work on logic.

250

K . H . PARSHALL ... it may not be out of place to make the remark that, as it surely would not be logical to seek for the origin of the conception included in the symbol 1/~-1) in geometrical considerations, however important its applications to geometrical exegesis, so now that an independent algebraical foundation has been discovered for the introduction and use of the symbols employed in Hamilton's theory, it would (it seems to me) be exceedingly illogical and contrary to good method to build the pure theory of the same conceptions; the more so, as it will hereafter be shown that quantities of every order admit of being represented in the mode strictly analogous to that in which quantity of the second order is represented by quaternions, namely, if the order is 09, by t~2-ions, or as I shall in future say, by Ions, of which the geometrical interpretation, although there is little doubt that it exists, is not yet discovered, and it must, it is certain, draw upon the resources of inconceivable space before it can be effected. 9

Another mathematician and contemporary of SYLVESTER'S shared the belief that geometrical interpretation and physical application were not prerequisites for the development of algebras of arbitrarily large dimension, but he actually did much more than SYLVESTERto realize this greater generalization. BENJAMIN PEIRCE (1808-80), who has perhaps justly been called the "founding father of American mathematics, ''91 approached the study of the algebras from a point of view completely different from that of SYLVESTER,and consequently he arrived at very different types of results. In his ground-breaking opus, "Linear Associative Algebra," PEIRCE defined many of the key concepts of the theory of algebras and used these to determine systematically the multiplication tables of all algebras of dimensions one through six over the complex numbers. 92 When HAMILTON discovered his quaternions in 1843, PEIRCE was primarily an astronomer and a writer of mathematical textbooks. Although interested in mathematics, his research efforts were directed skyward. By the end of the 1840's, however, perhaps as a result of HAMILTON'S series of papers on his algebra in the Philosophical Magazine and in the Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal during the years 1844 and 1850, PEIRCE had been bitten by the quaternion bug. So swift was his flight to the subject that in 1848, the year in which HAMILTON gave his first lectures on the subject, PEIRCE included quaternions in his own lectures at Harvard 93 and began ardently espousing them to a generation of

90 SYLVESTER, "Lectures on the Principles of Universal Algebra," p. 286, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 224. 91 HELENA M. PYCIOR, "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra,'" Isis 70 (Dec. 1979): 551. For similar views, see RAYMOND C. ARCHIBALD,"Benjamin Peirce," American Mathematical Monthly 32 (Jan. 1925): 8, and GEORGED. BIRKHOFF, "Fifty Years of American Mathematics," in Semicentennial Addresses of the American Mathematical Society, 2 vols., ed. RAYMOND C. ARCHIBALD (New York: American Mathematical Society, 1938), 2:271-73 (hereafter cited as Addresses.). 92 He did not determine all algebras of dimension six over C. Also, he explicitly exhibited the one-dimensional algebra. 9a PYCIOR, "Benjamin Perice's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," pp. 541-42.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

251

mathematics students there. 94 PEIRCE'S "Linear Associative Algebra" grew out of his own personal devotion to HAMILTON'S ideas and to his example. Originally lithographed at PEIRCE'S personal expense in 1870, this work was eventually published in 1881 in the American Journal of Mathematics with editorial commentary by one of PEIRCE'S mathematical sons, CHARLES S. PEIRCE (18391914). Due to the fact that the elder PEIRCE had only one hundred copies made initially, his ideas on linear associative algebra remained essentially unknown until the edition of 1881 came out, except to those privileged friends who had received one of the few copies. Even with the second edition, few continental mathematicians became aware of PEIRCE'S contribution until almost a decade after his death. 9s PEIRCE had tried to avoid this state of neglect at least as far as the G e r m a n mathematical community was concerned by sending copy fifty-three to his friend and former colleague, GEORGE BANCROFT (1800-91), the American ambassador to Germany in 1870. In the cover letter to BANCROFT, PEIRCE expressed his wish that the paper should reach a wider public. He wrote: I have the honor of sending you a copy of my last work. Humble though it be, it is that upon which my future reputation must chiefly rest . . . . I also send you a copy for the Academy of B e r l i n - w h i c h I hope that you will do me the honor to present. I f it would be referred to a committee of geometers for report, I should be greatly gratified. I enclose [for] you an account of some of its claims and an indication of future researches upon the same subject. 96 Unfortunately, either BANCROFT did not follow through in this respect or the Berlin Academy simply never acted on it. The work enjoyed a somewhat better reception in England. In his retirement address in 1872, which was subsequently published in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, outgoing president, WILLIAM SPOTTISWOODE (1825-83), spoke highly of PEIRCE'S work and summarized most of his main results. 97 Then again in 1883, already thirteen years after it was written and two years after it had appeared in the American Journal, CAYLEY referred to " . . . the valuable memoir by the late BENJAMIN PEIRCE,Linear Associative Algebra ...,,98 94 [H. A. NEWTON], "Benjamin Peirce," Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, n.s., 8 (May 1881): 451, and ARCHIBALD,"Benjamin Peirce," pp. 4-8. 9s In 1889, GEORGSCHEFFERSmentioned PEIRCE'Swork on algebra in the first footnote of his paper "Ueber die Berechnung von Zahlensystemen," Leipziger Berichte 41 (Dec. 1889): 400-57. Also in 1893, THEODORMOLIENmentioned PmRCE in the same spirit in the introduction to his work, "Ueber Systeme hrherer complexer Zahlen," Mathematische AnnaIen 41 (1893): 83-156. 96 JEKUTHIELGINSBURG,"A Hitherto Unpublished Letter by Benjamin Peirce," Scripta Mathematica 2 (May 1934): 280. 97 WILLIAMSPOTTISWOODE, "Remarks on Some Recent Generalizations of Algebra," Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 4 (1873): 147-64. See also, PYCIOR, "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," pp. 547-49. 98 ARTHUR CAYLEY,"Presidential Address to the British Association: September 1883," Math. Papers A. C., 11: 457.

252

K.H. PARSHALL

in his presidential address before the British Association, and he fleetingly considered the ideas which PEmCE had developed. Perhaps one reason for the lack of acceptance of PEmc~'s work was the seemingly common misconception shared by many mathematicians that his paper dealt more with philosophy than with mathematics. 99 On a cursory reading of the opening pages of the work, however, this opinion is perhaps understandable. PEmCE began by giving his now often-quoted definition of mathematics as "... the science which draws necessary conclusions. ''1 He elaborated on this rather terse statement by explaining that This definition of mathematics is wider than that which is ordinarily given, and by which its range is limited to quantitative research. The ordinary definition, like those of other sciences, is objective; whereas this is subjective. Recent investigations, of which quaternions is the most noteworthy instance, make it manifest that the old definition is too restricted. The sphere of mathematics is here extended, in accordance with the derivation of its name, to all demonstrative research, so as to include all knowledge capable of dogmatic teaching ... Mathematics, under this definition, belongs to every inquiry, moral as well as physical. 11 By extending the realm of mathematics far beyond the domain of quantity and as far as the moral sphere, PEmCE took a decidedly bold step away from the standard, restrictive interpretation of mathematics as the science of quantity, and thereby gave his pronouncements a distinctly philosophical flavor. He continued his preliminary musings with an explanation of the proper interpretation of algebra. He informed his readers that In every form of material manifestation, there is a corresponding form of human thought, so that the human mind is as wide in its range of thought as the physical universe in which it thinks. The two are wonderfully matched. But where there is a great diversity of physical appearance, there is often a close resemblance in the process of deduction. It is important, therefore, to separate the intellectual work from the external form. Symbols must be adopted, and mathematics treated by such symbols is called algebra. Algebra, then, is formal mathematics? 2 Once again, the language PEIRCE used seemed more philosophical than mathematical. However, he did clearly express the mathematical idea, which he shared with PEACOCK before him, that algebraic symbols had to be free of preimposed 99 See, for example, CAYLEY,"Presidential Address," Math. Papers A. C., 11: 457, and [Nzwa'ON], pp. 451-52. loo BENJAMINPEIRCE, "Linear Associative Algebra With Notes and Addenda, by C. S. Peirce, Son of the Author," American Journal of Mathematics 4 (1881): 97. lol 1bid. The emphasis is mine. lo2 Ibid. PEIRCE'S emphasis.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

253

interpretations. As we shall see in a moment, though, PEmCE did not uphold PEACOCK'S principle of equivalent forms. In fact, he broke with it even more cleanly than HAMILTON had done in his development of quaternions, for P~IRCE did not even require the division operation to hold in his algebra? a Before beginning his actual mathematical discussion, P~mc~ paused one last time to establish the tripartite framework on which algebra should be constructed. " T h e symbols of an algebra, with the laws of combinations," he explained, "constitute its language; the methods of using the symbols in the drawing of inferences is its art; and their interpretation is its scientific application. ''14 As PEIRCE envisioned his research, "Linear Associative Algebra" was to be just the first book of three on the subject, each corresponding to one of these three divisions. Only this first b o o k on the language of algebra was ever undertaken. Since "Linear Associative Algebra" dealt with language, it naturally divided up into discussions of the alphabet, the vocabulary, and the grammar. F o r PEIRCE, "the alphabet of an algebra consists of its letters; the vocabulary defines its signs and the elementary combinations of its letters; and the grammar gives the rules of composition by which the letters and signs are united into a complete and consistent system. ''15 In this set-up, the alphabet was simply the set of basis elements with each basis vector constituting a letter. Thus, since PEmCE'S study concentrated on algebras of dimensions one through six over C, he was only interested in alphabets of at most six letters. He apologized to his readers for this sort of classification by dimension. H e realized that "this artifical division of algebras is cold and uninstructive like the artificial Linnean system of botany. But it is useful in a preliminary investigation of algebras, until sufficient variety is obtained to afford the material for a natural classification. ''~6 PEIRCE'S classification was not as "cold and uninstructive" as he thought, however, for in laying down the preliminary concepts, his vocabulary, in specifying the axioms of operation, his grammar, and then in isolating the internal structure of the algebra based on this, PEmCB hit upon many of the most fundamental notions associated to the theory. For example, the algebras PEIRCE considered could contain nonzero elements a which satisfied the equation ab = 0 or ba = 0 for some nonzero b in the algebra. In other words, they could contain zero divisors, or nilfactors as he called them. 17 He also found other seemingly strange things in his algebras, elements which when raised to some power vanished, the nilpotents, and elements which when raised to the square or any higher power gave the element back again, the idempotents. 1o8 loa For a more complete analysis of the relation between the work of PEIRCE,and his British predecessors and contemporaries, see PYcloR, "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," especially, pp. 538--49. lo4 B. PEmCE, "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 97 PEIRCE'S emphasis. los Ibid. p. 99. PEmCE'S emphasis. lo6 Ibid. lo7 Ibid. p. 104. los Ibid. This use of the complex numbers as the base field marked quite a conceptual breakthrough especially in comparison with HAMmTOr~'S work on quaternions. For HAMILTON, the quaternions formed an algebra over the real numbers 1%, and nilpotent

254

K . H . PARSHALL

All of these elements, regardless of their individual characteristics, however, were subject to the same rules of grammar. Multiplication enjoyed the associative law but not necessarily the commutative one, and addition and multiplication were linked by the left and right distributive laws. Also, scalars or coefficients, in PEmCE'S terms, behaved appropriately with respect to letters or basis elements. Assuming these rules of grammar, PmRCE made this definition: " A n algebra in which every expression is reducible to the f o r m of an algebraic sum of terms, each of which consists of a single letter with a quantitative coefficient, is called a linear algebra. Such are all the algebras of the present investigation. ''19 With an alphabet, a vocabulary, and a g r a m m a r all at his disposal, PEmCE was finally in a position to begin "writing" in his new language of algebra. His literary abilities became manifest almost immediately. Operating under the assumption that the nilpotent and idempotent elements which he had defined were not in any way strange or aberrant, PEmCE proved his proposition forty, namely, "in every linear associative algebra, there is at least one idempotent or one nilpotent expression. ''1 l o His p r o o f proceeded as follows. Let A denote any element in a finite-dimensional algebra. Since the algebra is finite-dimensional, all of the powers of A cannot be linearly independent. Thus, for some n, we must have ~ aiA i = O,
i=l

with at least one ai =[= O. "All the terms of this equation that involve the square and higher powers of A may be combined and expressed as BA, so that B itself is an algebraic sum of powers of A, and the equation may be written (2.9) BA + alA = (B + al) A = 0. "111

F r o m (2.9), we deduce the relations

(B + al) A i = 0

elements and zero divisors never entered into his immediate sphere of research. He did entertain the possibility of constructing a quaternion algebra over the complex numbers C, the biquaternions he called them, but this never particularly interested him. Much later, WILLIAMKINGDONCLIFFORDrecognized that there were geometrical and physical advantages to viewing the quaternions as a complex algebra. He explored these possibilities in his paper "Preliminary Sketch of Biquaternions," Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 4 (1873): 381-95, or Math. Papers IV. K. C., pp. 181-200. This paper also testified to the fact that CLIFFORDwas familiar with BENJAMINPEIRCE'Sversion of the "Linear Associative Algebra" of 1870 (perhaps owing to SPOTTISWOODE'Saddress), for in a footnote he concurred with PEmCE'S initial assumption on the base field. He stated: "Hamilton's biquaternion is a quaternion with complex coefficients, but it is convenient (as Prof. Peirce remarks) to suppose from the beginning that all scalars may be complex" (Math. Papers /41.K. C., p. 188). io9 B. PEmCE, "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 109. 11o Ibid. HELENA PYCIOR also gives a detailed discussion of this argument in her paper, "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," p. 546. It requires repeating here because of the heavy use WEDDERBtlRN made of arguments in this same spirit in his paper "On Hypercomplex Numbers." 111 B. P~IRCE. "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 109.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras and (2.10) This last equation yields
B 2 = -atB or

255

(B + at) B = O.

(
B
at

al

provided at 4 = 0. Hence

is an idempotent in the algebra in this case.

I f at --- 0, (2.10) gives B 2 = 0, and B is a nilpotent element. This completes the proof. On the basis of this result PEIRCE was able to give a very elegant but elementary characterization of all algebras containing an idempotent in proposition fortyone. He explained that When there is an idempotent expression in a linear associative algebra, it can be assumed as one of the independent units, and can be expressed by one of the letters of the alphabet; and it may be called the basis. The remaining units can be so selected as to be separable into four distinct groups. With reference to the basis, the units of the first group are idemfactors; those of the second group are idemfaciend and nilfacient; those of the third group are idemfacient and nilfaciend; and those of the fourth group are nilfactors. 1t a The statement of this theorem is practically unintelligible to the modern reader at first glance because of the unique mathematical nomenclature which PEIRCE took such pains to devise. As evidenced by the cases of HAMILTONand SYLVESTER, though, providing the optimal name to mathematical objects obsessed several nineteenth century mathematicians. At any rate, to see what PEIRCE really meant by proposition forty-one, we have to clarify a few terms. First of all, an idemfactor is an element b in an algebra satisfying the conditions ab = b or ba = b for some a in the algebra. The element b is idemfaciend and nilfacient provided
ab=b

and

ba=

0,

respectively, for some a. Finally, b is a nilfactor when

ba = 0

or

ab = 0 ,

for some nonzero a. lt3 Thus, PEIRCE'S proposition forty-one amounts to a decomposition of a given algebra relative to an idempotent it contains.
122 Ibid. 113 Ibid., p. 104.

256

K . H . PARSHALL

After refining his four groups a bit by means of three further propositions, PEmCE finally concluded that every element in an algebra containing an idempotent i could be written as a sum of elements, one from each of the following sets:
(b ib=b

and and and and

bi = b}, bi = 0}, ib = 0}, bi = 0}.

{bib=b {b i b = b

and

{b ib=O

Later, in his paper "On Hypercomplex Numbers," JOSEPH H. M. WEDDERBURN used precisely this same decomposition in obtaining his main result on so-called simple algebras, although he expressed it more succinctly in the form familiar to modern readers, namely, as
A = B @ elB1 B2et @ elAea

whereA denoted the algebra with idempotent e~ and where B1 = {x E A [ xex = 0}, B2={xEAlelx=O}, and B--- BI/"xB2.114 Of course, this decomposition worked only in algebras with at least one idempotent. As PEmCE proved in proposition fifty-seven, "in a group or an algebra which has no idempotent expression, all the expressions are nilpotent. ''~15 Using the fact that all of the nonzero powers of a nilpotent element were linearly independent, proposition fifty-nine became clear, namely, in a nilpotent algebra "any expression may be selected as the basis; but one is preferable which has the greatest number of powers which do not vanish. ''1~6 We have now seen those propositions which, according to PEIRCE, "... give the key to all the research. ''a17 With these facts about both nilpotent and nonnilpotent algebras at hand, PEmCE was able to dissect over 150 algebras of dimensions one through six. As he saw it, his success in this endeavor depended upon his mathematical open-mindedness. He cautioned that However incapable of interpretation the nilfactorial and nilpotent expressions may appear, they are obviously an essential element of the calculus of linear algebras. Unwillingness to accept them has retarded the progress of discovery and the investigation of quantitative algebras. But the idempotent basis seems to be equally essential to actual interpretation? ~8
114. WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 91. WEDDERBURN actually attributed this decomposition to PEIRCE and cited "Linear Associative Algebra." x15 B. PEIRCE, "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 113. 126 Ibid. p. 115. lt7 GINSBURG,p. 282; also quoted in PYCIOR, "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," p. 546. x~s PEmCE, "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 118; also quoted in PYC1OR, "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," p. 546.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

257

The bizarreness of the concepts upon which he relied in carrying out his massive classification and the lack of physical interpretations for them simply did not phase PEIRCE. As HELENA PYCIOR and others pointed out, 119 PEIRCE'S total willingness to accept the products of his thought stemmed from his personal belief that "the mind of man and that of Nature's G o d must work in the same channels. ''12 With this as a basic tenet, it followed that any product of man's mind was in some way an expression of one of G o d ' s emotions. Perhaps man had not yet reached a sufficiently advanced stage of development to realize the exact correspondence between a given idea and the appropriate aspect of nature, but the time would surely come when the correlation would become clear. In a series of public lectures on the relation between science and religion from February to March, 1879 and published posthumously by his son, JAMES MILLS PEIRCE (1834-1906), in 1881 under the title Ideality in the Physical Sciences, BENJAMIN PEIRCE poetically expressed his belief in the worth of human creativity in these words: Wild are the flights of unchained fancy, extravagant and even monstrous as are the conceptions of unbridled imagination, we have reason to believe that there is no human thought, capable of physical manifestation and consistent with the stability of the material world, which cannot be found incarnated in Nature. 12 Thus, in his "Linear Associative Algebra" he contentedly created new algebras without giving a thought to their eventual use 122 because he truly believed that in due time their utility would become self-evident. To PEIRCE, " . . . mathematics was not the handmaid of philosophy. It was not a humanly devised instrument of investigation, it was Philosophy itself, the divine revealer of T R U T H . ' ' 2 3 Whereas one of PEIRCE'S son, JAMES, made certain that his father's philosophy of science became known through the publication of ldeality in the Physical Sciences, as we have already noted, his most famous son, CHARLES, insured that the mathematics of "Linear Associative Algebra" finally received a fair chance
119 PYCIOR, "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," pp. 549-51, and SVEN R. PETERSON, "Benjamin Peirce: Mathematician and Philosopher," Journal of the History of Ideas 16 (Jan. 1955): 89-112, especially pp. 97-112. 12o ARCHIBALD,"Benjamin Peirce," p. 6. 122 BENJAMINPEIRCE, ldeality in the Physical Sciences (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1881), p. 28, as quoted in PETERSON, pp. 106-107. 122 In "Linear Associative Algebra," PEmCE did make mention at one point of some possible physical applications of his theory of algebras. In discussing his notions of pure and mixed algebras (that is, algebras, without and with subalgebras), he pointed out that "were an algebra employed for the simultaneous discussion of distinct classes of phenomena, such as those of sound and light, and were the peculiar units of each class to have their appropriate letters, but were there no recognized dependence of the phenomena upon each other, so that the phenomena of each class might have been submitted to independent research, the one algebra would actually be a mixture of two algebras, one appropriate to sound, the other to light." (p. 100) 123 ARCHIBALD, "Benjamin Peirce," p. 5.

258

K . H . PARSHALL

for recognition. With the blessing and encouragement of the editor of the American Journal, SYLVESTER,CHARLES PEmCE produced the edition of 1881, of his father's work and supplemented it with careful notes and addenda. In the course of his editorial work, he also espoused and promoted his own mathematical ideas dealing with what he called the logic of relatives; In 1870, the same year in which BENJAMINPEIRCE finished his "Linear Associative Algebra," CHARLES developed what he called a logic of relatives, and he realized that his so-called dual relatives applied very nicely to his father's work. As he explained: While my father was making his investigations of multiple algebra I was, in my own humble way, studying the logic of relatives a n d an algebraic notation for it; and in the ninth volume of the Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences appeared my first paper upon the subject. In this memoir I was led, from logical considerations that are patent to those who read it, to endeavor to put the general expression of any linear associative algebra into a certain form ...,,~24 Briefly, PEmCE realized that his dual relatives when interpreted in the setting of linear algebra were nothing more than what we would call matrix units. Let us see how this worked. Let oq, ~2, o3, ... denote mutually disjoint sets of individuals and let the following array denote relations between these sets:
Of 1 : 0 1 ~2 : 01 O~t : O~2 O~2 i 0 2
0~ 3 - 0 2

O~1 "0 3 ~2 7 ~3
0(- 3 : 0(- 3

.., -'.

0 3 : 0(, 1

The pairs (c~i: aj) are the dual relatives, and we may define their logical multiplication by (~i: o~j) (a s : 0~) = (0~/: 0Ok) and (~i: c~j) (c~ k : ~xl) = 0 for j ~ k. A simple example sheds light o n the precise meaning of all of this. Suppose we consider all 0 f the people in a school. This set splits up into two disjoint subsets, namely, teachers and students. Let ~1 denote the teachers and 02 the students; the dual relatives may be interpreted in this way: (oq : oq) = colleague (0~2 : cq) = student (~1 : ~2) = teacher (~z : c~2) = classmate.

Thus, we may similarly translate the logical multiplication of these relatives. For instance,
(~'2 : ~'1)

(~ :~0

= (~2 :

~1)

12,* C. S. PEIRCE, "A Communication from Mr. Peirce," Johns Hopkins University Circulars 2 (1883): 86-88, as quoted in THOMASHAWI~INS, "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," p. 246.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras means "the students of a person are that person's students," whereas (~1 : ~2) (c,~ : 0q) = 0

259

says "there are no teachers of a person's colleagues. ''a2s In the linear associative algebra setting, PEtRCE called the (~i : ~j)'s the "vids" of the algebra. Obviously, then ... the expression q~ = a11(~1 : ~1) + a~2(oq : ~2) + ala(oq : ~a) = etc. + a21(0~2 : ~1) + a22(0~2 : ~2) + a23(0~2 : 0~3) + etc. + aal(o~3 : oq) + a3z(~a : ~2) + aaa(~a : ~a) + etc. + etc., linear in these vids, considered as an operator for any quantity
= Xl0~ 1 "t- X20 2 "t- X 3 ~ 3 "l-

etc.,

is identical with the matrix

all
a12 a13

etc. etc..126 etc.

= a21 a31

a22 a32

a23 a33

Thus, the vids formed what we would call a basis of matrix units for the n n matrix algebra. In a paper which appeared in the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Science in 1875, BENJAMIN PEmCE lauded his son's research and put it in the proper context with respect to his own work. He announced that Mr. [C.S.] Peirce has shown by a simple logical argument that the quadrate [matrix algebra] is the legitimate form of a complete linear algebra, and that all the forms of the algebras given by me must be imperfect quadrates, a n d has confirmed this conclusion by actual investigation and reduction. His investigations do not however dispense with the analysis, by which t h e independent forms [basis elements] have been deduced in my treatise, but they seem to throw much light upon their probable use. 127 Thus, long before the American Journal edition of "Linear Associative Algebra," CHARLES had translated and reinterpreted his father's algebras in relative form, In his editing of 1881, he systematically included these translations as footnotes to each of the algebras derived in the text. 125 Compare HAWKINS, "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," p. 246. 126 HENRYTABER, "On the Theory of Matrices," American Journal of Mathematics 11 (1889): 349. 127 BENJAMIN PEIRCE, "On the Uses and Transformations of Linear Algebra," Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Science, n.s., 2 (May 1875): 397.

260

K . H . PARSHALL

For example, the two-dimensional algebra BENJAMIN PEIRCE gave by means of the multiplication table

JlSll
CHARLES PEIRCE expressed "... in the form i = A : A + B : B, j = A : B." 128 (Here A corresponded to ~1 and B corresponded to :~2 above.) In terms of matrices, CHARLES' characterization of BENJAMIN'S two-dimensional algebra simply became i= [10 01] and j--[~ 10]

where i and j were the two basis vectors. As a result of this work, in 1889 in a "Sketch of the History of the Development of the Theory of Matrices," HENRY TABER (1860--1936), a member of the mathematics faculty at Clark University, named C. S. PEIRCE the next great contributor to the subject after CAVLEY. As TABER saw it: Charles Peirce has made t h e g r e a t discovery that the whole theory of linear associative algebras is included in the theory of matrices. He has shown that every linear associative algebra has a relative form, i.e. its units may be expressed linearly in terms of the rids (denoted in his notation by (.4 : A), (A : B), etc.) of a linear transformation; and consequently, that any expression in the algebra can be represented by a matrix. Whence the theory of all possible linear associative algebras is only the theory of all possible sets of matrices constituting a group in Benjamin Peirce's sense, i.e. which are such that the product of any two members of the set can be expressed linearly in terms of itself and the other members of the set alone. 129 In addition to these achievements, PEIRCE also proved that the only division algebras over the reals were the reals, the complexes, and the quaternions, a result which, as we shall see, was proved independently by GEORG FROBENIUS and
t~LIE CARTAN. 13 0

All of the praise and all of the recognition given to the two PEIRCES by some members of the mathematical community like SPOTTISWOODE,CAYLEY,and TABER, failed t o secure them reputations proportionate to their research. As we saw in the case of BENJAMIN PEIRCE'S work, it initially reached only a very small audience, and in 1881 when it truly appeared in published form, the paper still 128 B. PEIRCE, "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 120. 129 TABER,.p. 353. 13o See GEORG FROBENIUS,"Ueber lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen," pp. 343-405; and t~LIE CARTAN, "Les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," Annales de la FacuIt~ Scientifique de Toulouse 12B (1898): B1-B99, or ELIE CARTAN, Oeuvres Completes, 3 vols. in 6 pts. (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1952-55), 1, pt. 2:7-105 (hereafter cited as Oeuvres E . C . ) .......

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

261

failed to excite much interest. As for CHARLES'mathematical research, it came out in fairly obscure places like the Memoirs and the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Johns Hopkins University Circulars, hardly the optimal places to insure the maximal readership. Since the work of father and son on linear associative algebra was so intimately connected, the accomplishments of both men sank into oblivion together. Because of this lack of recognition and because of his own mathematical interest in the work especially of BENJAMIN PEIRCE, HERBERT HAWKES (18721943) T M published a paper in the volume of 1902 of the American Journal entitled "Estimate of Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'" in which he tried to set the record straight by detailing the objectives and success of PEIRCE'Slengthy paper.1 a2 HAWKES'S article also claimed priority and correctness for PEIRCE'Sclassification of algebras of dimensions one through six which first appeared much more than a decade before the work of the Germans, EDUARD STUDY (1862--1909) and GEORGE SCHEEEERS (1866--1945), on similar classification problems. As HAWKES explained, STUDY and SCHEEEERS approached the problem of classifying all algebras of small dimension over the complex numbers from a different angle than PEIRCE. Since they did not use exactly the same definitions, some of their results seemed to conflict with PEIRCE'Swork. Actually, as HAWKES showed, the differences were merely ones of mathematical language and not of mathematical substance? a3 With our treatment of the PEIRCEScomplete, we must now turn to examine this other approach to the study of linear associative algebras which reigned on the Continent and which developed parallel to the Anglo-American tradition.

3. The Lie-Theoretic Tradition in the Theory of Algebras ~34

In our discussion of SYLVESTER,we saw that during the period from 1882 to 1884, SYLVESTERpublished quite a few articles in the Comptes rendus of the French Academy of Sciences dealing with his most recent work on algebras analogous 13t HERBERTHAWKESwas an assistant professor of mathematics at Yale when he wrote this article in 1902. He received his A. B. in 1896 and his Ph. D. in 1900, both from Yale, and then spent the virtually obligatory year abroad at GSttingen from 1901 to 1902. He remained at Yale until 1910 when he became full professor at Columbia, a position he held for the remainder of his academic career. 132 HERBERTHAWKES,"Estimate of Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra'," American Journal of Mathematics 24 (1902): 87-95. ~a3 Ibid., pp. 92-93. la4 Much of the material presented in this section has already been discussed in great detail by THOMAS HAWK1NSin "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory." The emphasis in this section, however, is on the LiE-theoretic research on hypercomplex number systems as it affected the work of CARTANin 1898 and of WEDDERBURNin 1907. In the above-mentioned paper, HAWKINStreated this LIE-theoretic work in order to gain further insight into the origins of group representation theory. Because the two points of view differ significantly, the story bears retelling here.

262

K . H . PARSHALL

to the quaternions. As I mentioned in passing, the influential French mathematician, HENRI POINCARI~, picked up on SYLVESTER'S papers and wrote a little three page note himself, also in the Comptes rendus, calling the attention of his European colleagues to this research, la5 More importantly, though, POINCARI~ recognized the connection between SYLVESTER'S findings and the large body of mathematics which was growing on the Continent around the work of the Norwegian mathematician, SO~HUS LIE (1842-99). In his note, "Sur les nombres complexes," POINCAR~ focussed immediately on this link. As he put it: The remarkable works of M. Sylvester on matrices have recently attracted attention once again to the [hyper] complex numbers analogous to Hamilton's quaternions. The problem of [hyper] complex numbers reduces easily to the following: To find all continuous groups of linear substitutions in n variables whose coefficients are linear functions of n arbitrary parameters, la6 What POINCARI~realized, then, was the fact that every element x in a hypercomplex number system defined a linear transformation or substitution, namely, left translation by x. Viewing the hypercomplex number system as a collection of left translations, he wanted to determine all possible continuous groups of such transformations. In modern terms, he was interested in finding all subgroups of the LIE group GLn((3).137 Thus, POINCARI~recognized that (1) the algebras analogous to the quaternions which SYLVESTERwas studying were algebras of matrices, (2) each element in these algebras defined a linear transformation, and (3) the theory of continuous transformation groups developed by LIE could be applied to these linear transformations. This last connection generated quite a bit of mathematical activity on hypercomplex numbers from the end of the 1880's through the 1890's. The main researchers in this were the Germans, EDUARD STUDY1as and GEORGE SCHEFFERS, 1as The Czechoslovakian mathematician, EDUARDWEYR (1852--1903), also answered SYLVESTER'S Comptes rendus papers immediately with short notes of his own on the algebra of quaternions and on matrices. His papers were merely little computational extensions of SYLVESTER'Sresults, but he did recognize, as had C. S. PEIRCE, the correspondence between hypercomplex number system and matrices. See EDUARD WEYR, "Sur la th6orie des quaternions," Comptes rendus 98 (April 1884): 906-907; "Sur la thdorie des quaternions," ibid., pp. 1320-23; "Sur la th6orie des matrices," ibid., 100 (March 1885): 787-89; and "R6partition des matrices en esp~ces et formation de toutes les esp6ces," ibid., pp. 966-69. 136 POINCAR~, p. 740, also quoted in HAWKINS, "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," p. 249. 137 Cf. HAWKINS,"Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," p. 249. 138 EDUARD STUDY wrote three important papers on the connection between hypercomplex number systems and transformation groups in the years 1889 and 1890. As he noted in his article, "Complexe Zahlen und Transformationsgruppen," Leipziger Berichte 41 (May 1889): 117-228, he had realized this relationship in the fall of 1886 in-

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

263

and the Latvian, THEODOR MOLIEN. Since LIE'S work inspired and motivated each of these men, however, we need to gain some insight into the problems he tackled before proceeding with an analysis of their work. SOPHUS LIE was born in 1842 in Nordfjordeide, Norway, far from the mainstream of European culture. The son of a Lutheran minister, the young LIE had a traditional Latin elementary education before advancing to Christiania University in 1859. During his six years at the university, he studied primarily mathematics and the sciences, but none of his studies really sparked his curiosity. Even the course he took in 1862 from LUDWIG SYLOW (1832-1918) on the theory of substitutions failed to excite him. 139 In 1865 then, when he took the teachers' examinations in mathematics and the natural sciences, he was still terribly undecided as to what career to pursue. After a couple of years of giving private instruction and of dabbling in astronomy and mechanics, LIE finally found his true vocation. In 1868, he discovered the geometrical writings of JULIUS PLqDCKER(1801-68) and JEAN PONCELET (1788-1867), and an entire world of mathematics unfolded before his eyes. Their ideas on projective geometry and on the translations of points and especially lines into new coordinate systems proved extremely suggestive to L~E. With his geometric intuition thus awakened for the first time, LIE'S mind jumped from projective geometry to ideas for a new and general theory of transformations, the study of which would command his thoughts for the rest of his life. 14 After winning a scholarship for study abroad in 1869, LIE spent the academic year 1869-70 studying and working first in Berlin and then in Paris. During this time, he sat in on seminars given by KARL WEIERSTRASS (1815-97) and ERNST KUMMER (1810-93) at Berlin, and he met and talked with GASTON DARBOUX (1842--1917) and CAMILLEJORDAN (1838--1922) in Paris. TM More important than any of these associations, however, was the strong friendship which grew between LIE and FELIX KLEIN (1849--1925), who was then a post-doctoral student in the process of furthering his education at the major European centers of mathematics. These two young men were undoubtedly drawn together by their common passion dependently of POINCAR~'S note in the Comptes rendus and had begun exploring this new mathematical domain. Later authors, such as SCHEFFERS, MOLIEN, CARTAN, and FROBENIUS quoted STUDY as one of the first researchers in the area, but essentially no one shared his idiosyncratic approach to the subject. As the mathematician, DIETER HAPPEL, has recently pointed out in his article "Klassifikationstheorie endlich-dimensionaler Algebren in der Zeit von 1880 bis 1920," L'Enseignement mathdmatique, 2nd set., 26 (Jan.-June 1980): 91-102, the reason for this lack of acceptance was STUDY'Spoint of view. His methods and techniques belonged to what would now be called algebraic geometry and are only today being appreciated. Thus , we shall not deal with STtJDY'S work here, but we refer the interested reader to HAPPEL'Sarticle for a discussion in modern mathematical language of some of STtJDY'Skey results. See also, HAWKINS,"Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," p. 250. 139 FRIEDRICHENGEL, "Sophus Lie," Leipziger Berichte 51 (Nov. 1899): xiv. 14o Ibid., pp. xiv-xv. 141 Ibid., pp. xvi and xix.

264

K.H. PARSttALL

for geometry and by the common source of their inspiration, the work of PLUCKER. KLEIN, in fact, had been PLOCKER'Slaboratory assistant at Bonn ~42 and in his dissertation had continued the geometrical research PLUCKERhad been working on at the time of his sudden death in 1868. This meant that KLEINand LI~ spoke exactly the same mathematical language and communicated on exactly the same mathematical wavelength. It comes as no surprise then that when they met, each took interest in the other's work, and they began exchanging mathematical ideas. When they met in Berlin, LIE was already in hot pursuit of an integration theory for partial differential equations. In other words, given a partial differential equation, LIE sought a general method for determining all functions which satisfied the equation. His basic idea, though vastly more complicated to implement, was the same in spirit as that used in the integration theory of functions of a single variable. As any student of calculus knows, the process of computing the indefinite integral Of a function may be greatly simplified, and in fact rendered possible, by changing the form of the integrand through a transformation of the variable. LIE'S idea for handling partial differential equations, then, relied upon the same sort of technique. By introducing collections of transformations which preserved the solutions of the equations, he could get the original partial differential equation into a nice and manageable form which he could then solve. As LIE himself later explained in the foreword to the first volume of his monumental treatise Theorie der Transformationsgruppen: I noticed that most of the ordinary differential equations whose integration is done by the old integration theory, remain invariant through certain collections of transformations which could be easily given, and that those methods of integration go through by using this property [invariance] of the differential equations in question . . . . it was clear from the beginning that the transformations in question produce a group in each single case. 14a He went on to explain that In the years 1872 and 1873, I concerned myself with first degree partial differential equations. In so doing, I noticed that the integration theory of these equations originating from [the work of] Lagrange, Pfaff, Cauchy and Jacobi may be considered as a theory of transformations. The task of integrating one of those equations is the same as the task of finding all infinitesimal contact transformations which leave the equations in question invariant. 144 What LIE did was first to reduce the problem of integrating partial differential equations to the problem of analyzing the associated transformation groups (PoINCAR~,'Sfinite continuous groups or LIE groups in modern terminology). As 14-2 DSB, s.v. "Klein, Christian Felix," by WERNERBURAU~; BRUNOSCHOENBERG. 3 vols. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1888-93), 1 : iv-v. 144 Ibid., p. v.
143 SOPHUS LIE t~; FRIEDRICH ENGEL, Theorie der Transformationsgruppen,

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

265

KLEIN had pointed out to him in 1870, this kind of a reduction paralleled the techniques used in what we would call GALOIS theory. 145 LIE reduced the problem even further by showing that it was enough to study the infinitesimal transformation groups, or LIE algebras, associated to the LIE groups. By the mid-1870's LIE essentially had all of these interrelations worked out, but the results did not appear in polished form until over a decade later. ~46 In 1870, after his first year abroad, LIE returned to Norway and to Christiania University. He earned his Ph.D. in 1872 and assumed the chair of mathematics which had been created especially for him at his alma mater. He made mathematical pilgrimages to Europe during the next fourteen years, once to G6ttingen in 1872 when he met the mathematician, ADOLPH MAYER (1839-1908), who would become one of his closest friends and once to Switzerland and Paris in 1882, but basically LIE spent these years in mathematical isolation developing his new theories and going unnoticed on the Continent. This state of affairs was naturally very disheartening to LIE, and in January, 1884 he wrote sadly to MAYER: I f I only knew how I could bring mathematicians to the point of being interested in transformation groups and in the treatment of differential equations based upon them. I am so certain, so absolutely certain, that these theories will be acknowledged as fundamental one day in the future. I f I wish to procure such an opinion soon, it is ... because I could produce ten times more. 147 In response to his friend's despairing letter, MAYER, in conjunction with KLEIN, made it possible for FRIEDRICIt ENGEL, a recent Ph.D. from Leipzig, to go to Christiania (now Oslo) and to study transformation groups under LIE. As ENGEL later told it: "The purpose of my trip was on the one hand to learn those theories under Lie's own guidance and on the other hand to exert gentle pressure on Lie so that he would finally undertake a coherent representation of one of his greatest theories, [a project] I was to give him a hand with. ''148 The result of this visit was the treatise in three volumes Theorie der Transformationsgruppen which finally appeared in print over the span of years 1888 to 1893. In 1886, LIE moved his family from Oslo to Leipzig where he succeeded KLEIN as professor of mathematics. LIE'S wish had finally come true. At last he found himself part of the sort of active and stimulating mathematical environment he had always longed for. At last his work had the hope of gaining the recognition it deserved. As a result of LIE'S presence on the Continent, his many publications 145 ENGEL, p. xviii. a46 Ibid., p. xlv. For an understandable treatment of LIE'S theory as it applied to partial differential equations, see ABRAHAM COHEN, An Introduction to the Lie Theory o f One-Parameter Groups with Applications to the Solution of Differential Equations (New York: G. E. Stechert & Co., 1931). In a recent paper, THOMASHAWKINShas discussed LIE'S work from an historical point of view as it related to the researches of WILHELM KILLING. See THOMASHAWKINS,"Wilhelm Killing and the Structures of Lie Algebras," Archive for History of Exact Sciences 23 (July 1982): 127-92. 14.7 ENGEL, p. xlix. 14s Ibid., p. 1.

266

K . H . PARSHALL

in German journals, and his success in stimulating other mathematicians to work on problems related to his research, LIE saw this hope become a reality. One of the people most responsible for this awakening of LIE'S theory was his first student at Leipzig, GEORG SCHEFFERS. A student of mathematics and physics at the University of Leipzig from 1884 to 1888, SCHEFFERS decided to do his dissertation on mathematics due to LIE'S strong influence. In order to further his own cause, LIE suggested topics, both for SCHEFFERS'dissertation of 1890 and for his Habilitationsschrift of the following year, 149 which served as further advertisement for LIE'S own ideas on geometry and on transformation groups. Even before these two works appeared, though, LIE had the twenty-three year old SCrlEFFERS working on problems in the theory of hypercomplex number systems from the transformation group point of view. This pre-dissertation research resulted in two papers which came out in the Leipziger Berichte of 1889.150 The first of these efforts, "Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen," reflected the firmness of SCHEFFERS' grasp of LIE'S theory as well as his familiarity with the current literature on hypercomplex number systems. Before 1889 at least two widely-read papers had appeared which bore exactly the same title SCnEFFERS later took for his work. TM The first was a letter dated June 19-27, 1883 from WEIE~STRASSto his student, HERMANN AMA~DUS SCHWARZ (1843--1921) which was published in 1884 in the G6ttingen Nachrichten. 1s2 Not a particularly deep work in itself, this paper nevertheless attracted a certain amount of attention to and lent credibility to the study of hypercomplex number systems. For one thing, it was a letter written by WEIERSTRASS,who by 1884 was one of the grand old men of German mathematics. Other mathemati-

149 SCHEFFERS' dissertation was "Bestimmung einer Klasse von Beriihrungstransformationsgruppen," Acta Mathematica 14 (1891): 117-78, and his Habilitationsschrift was "ZuriJckftihrung komplexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," Mathematische Annalen 39 (1891): 294-340. 15o GEORG SCHEFFERS, "Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen," Leipziger Berichte 41 (May 1889): 290-307, and "Ueber die Berechnung yon Zahlensystemen," Leipziger Berichte 41 (Dec. 1889): 400-57. 151 FRIEDRICF[SCHUR (1856--1932), who was primarily a geometer interested in differential geometry from the point of view of LIE'S theory of transformation groups, also wrote a paper with this same title which appeared in Mathematische Annalen 33 (1889): 49-60. His paper ended with a remark to the effect that a set of structure constants for a hypercomplex number system could be obtained from any given transformation group, but this was not at all his main concern. With the exception of the last half a page, this work involved determining the explicit forms LIE's transformations would have to assume if they were to satisfy the associative and distributive laws and then also the commutative laws. Thus, regardless of its title, his paper was on the LIE theory of transformation groups and not on hypercomplex number systems. 152 KARL WEIERSTRASS,"Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen," Mathematische Werke, 7 vols. (Berlin: Mayer & Mtiller; Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 189471927; reprint ed., Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagbuchhandlung; New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1967). 2: 311-39.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

267

cians, and especially up-and-coming people in the field, took note of what he had to say. Furthermore, the mathematical part of the letter began by quoting these words from the ultimate authority, KARL FRIEORICH GAUSS: The author [GAUSS] has reserved for himself [the task] of working out more completely the subject, which in the present treatise is actually only occasionally touched upon. There then, too, the [following] question will find its answer: why can the relations between things which present a multiplicity of more than two dimensions not furnish still other kinds of quantities permissible in the general arithmetic? s3 In other words, GAUSS specifically earmarked for himself the extension of his work on complex numbers, the two-dimensional system (over the reals) with basis elements 1 and i, to hypercomplex numbers, or n-dimensional algebras. The fact that he never really got around to working on this gave other mathematicians the opportunity to tackle a problem which bad struck GAUSS'S fancy. As WEIERSTRASS admitted, he himself had begun looking at questions concerning higher dimensional quantities during the winter semester of the academic year 1861-62. 254 He realized that he could define the usual operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division for elements ~el + ~2ez + ... + ~nen in an n-dimensional algebra A over R with basis el, e2. . . . , e, in such a way that the following relations held:
a+b=b+a, (a + b) + c = (a + c) + b,
a

ab=ba, (ab) c = (ac) b, --fb=a

O-b)+

b=a,

for a, b, and c in A. lss Thus, he defined addition by

a+ b = ~_u (~xi + fli) e~
i

for a = ~ oiei and b = ~] fliei, and multiplication of the basis elements by

i i

eiej =
k

where eij~ E R. With a and b as above, the general rule for multiplication in A then became
a6 = ,,j (o,i j) eiej

= Z
i,j

" 56

a53 154 155 is6

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. 311. p. 312. See his note marked * p. 312. pp. 312-13.

268

K . H . PARSHALL

The important feature to have noticed about WEIERSTRASS' algebras was their commutativity. As WEIERSTRASS mentioned, this as well as the associativity imposed certain conditions on the structure constants, the eok'S, but he did not explicitly write these down. In the second paper entitled " Z u r Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebitdeten complexen Gr6ssen," which followed as an immediate response to WEIERSTRASS' paper, RICHARD DEDEKIND (1831-1916) did stress the conditions on the structure constants by stating that the basis elements er and es commuted provided
~trs = ~tsr,

and they satisfied (eres) et = (e~et) e~ if and only if

2 ejtieirs = ~ ejsieirl. 157

Furthermore, DEDEKIND did not confine himself to remarks about algebras over R ; he generalized matters to the consideration of algebras over C. The emphasis of WEIERSTRASS and DEDEKIND on commutative algebras betrayed their inherent interest in arithmetic questions. F o r WEIERSTRASS the problem at hand involved looking at polynomials with coefficients in the algebra. He realized that in general such polynomials could have infinitely many roots, and he determined that such an equation " . . . could have infinitely many roots only in the case where all its coefficients resulted from multiplication by one and the same zero divisor .... ,,~s8 in other words, only when all the coefficients were multiples of a fixed zero divisor. In DEDEKIND'S case, he had already written the supplements to PETER LEJEUNE-DIRICHLET'S (1805-59) Vorlesungen iiber Zahlentheorie where he studied finite-dimensional field extensions of the rational numbers (algebraic number fields) by exploiting the fact that they could be viewed as algebras over Q.~59 Thus, the algebras he dealt with were all commutative. Late in 1884, when WEIERSTRASS' letter appeared in the Nachrichten with its emphasis on the zero divisors in the commutative algebras over R, DEDEKIND was prompted to write a more general paper showing that commutative algebras over C really were not so different f r o m C itself and that the similarities rather than the differences (e.g. the existence of zero divisors) should be emphasized. DEDEKIND explained ... that really new algebras are not gotten in this way [considering commutative algebras over C]; in fact, each system from n basis elements el, e2 . . . . . e, can always be interpreted as a system of n ordinary complex numbers or even 157 RICHARD DEDEKIND, "Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten komplexen Gr/3ssen," G6ttingen Nachrichten (1885): 142; or Gesammelte mathematische Werke, ed. ROBERT FRICKE, EMMY NOETHER t~; OYSTEIN ORE, 3 vols. (Braunschweig: F. VIEWEGand Son, 1930-32; reprint ed., Bronx, N. Y. : Chelsea Publishing Company, 1969), 2: 2. (Hereafter cited Ges. Werke: R.D.) 158 WEIERSTRASS, Mathematische Werke, 2: 315.
159 PETER G. LEJEUNE-DIRICHLET, Vorlesungen iiber Zahlentheorie, ed. RICHARD DEDEKIND, 4 th ed. (Braunschweig: F. Vieweg & Son, 1893; reprint ed., New York:

Chelsea Publishing Company, 1968).

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

269

more as a collective representative of n such systems ... I contented myself with this result because I believed to have found in it the meaning and the full confirmation of the known remark of Gauss. 16 He recognized, without having a firm notion of direct sums, that commutative (semisimple) algebras of dimension n over C simply looked like C@C@...@C
' n ii~es '

and so were quite similar to C. Thus, whereas WEIERSTRASS interpreted GAUSS'S remark as a call to search for diversity, DEDEKIND viewed it as an affirmation of similarity. 161 The young GEORG SCHEFFERS saw the matter in an altogether different light. In his paper "Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten komplexen Gr6ssen," he outlined the study of hypercomplex number systems by splitting it into two main divisions, the arithmetic study and the group-theoretic study. For him, The works of Weierstrass, Dedekind, and others on hypercomplex number systems whose multiplication satisfies the three laws of commutativity, associativity, and distributivity, concern themselves finally with the arithmetic side of the problem in which it is a question of essentially the same interpretation of the known passage in Gauss's Works ... The group-theoretic side of the problem, on the other hand, has recently been treated by Schur in the Mathematische Annalen. F r o m the group-theoretic standpoint, the system which Weierstrass and Dedekind permitted are only special ones and are by no means the most interesting, t62 To SCHEFFERS' way of thinking, the noncommutative hypercomplex number systems were the most pertinent because of their relation to the continuous transformation groups from LIE'S theory. In fact, as LIE himself pointed out in an editorial footnote to SCHEFFERS' paper (based on POINCARt~'S note in the Comptes rendus), LIE had emphasized the research possibilities associated with the exploration of this connection in the seminar he gave at Leipzig and had urged SCnEFFERS to pursue a classification by dimension of the hypercomplex systems associated to the transformation groups. 163 For this reason, SCHEFFERSemphatically stated that in his work ... multiplication should be subjected only to the distributive and associative laws. Actually, the commutative law plays no fundamental role like the other two [laws]. The associative law establishes the intimate relationship with
16o DEDEKIND, pp. 141-41, or Ges. Werke: R. D., 2: 1-2. 161 THOMASHAWKINS made this point in "The Origins of the Theory of Group Characters," Archive for History o f Exact Sciences 7 (Mar. 1971): 158. 16z SCrtEFVERS,"Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten komplexen Gr6ssen," pp. 290-91. SCHEFFERS ~ emphasis. 263 Ibid., p. 290. See his note 1.

270

K . H . PARsttALL group theory; the distributive [law] establishes the important connection between addition and multiplication. Thus, the c o m m u t a t i v i t y o f the p r o d u c t
is not assumed. 164

Here, SCHEFFERS dearly broke with the number-theoretic tradition defined by the work of WEIERSTRASSand DEDEKiND and launched off into relatively uncharted waters. In his first paper of 1889, SCI-IEFEERS began, as had his number-theoretic predecessors, by setting down the rules for addition, subtraction, and multiplication formally and by giving the determinant conditions under which division was possible. Then he moved into a discussion of the link between number systems and transformation groups. As he explained: Each product structure may be interpreted as a transformation. I f we multiply, namely,
x = X xie i

by

y = X yze~

... then a number

x" = S x~es

results for which

x'~ = Z
i

~', xiYzNsix
):

(s = 1, 2 . . . . , n),

and these n equations represent a linear, homogeneous transformation of xt . . . . , x, into xl . . . . . xn. In this way, the Yx, -.., Y, play the role of mere parameters. I f we put
r t

X"

Xy,

X 't

X'Z

together, then it results in

x" = (xy)z = x(yz),

i.e., the successive application of transformations with parameters y, . . . . . y, and za, ..., z, is equivalent to the direct application of the transformation with parameters (yz) i . . . . . (yz),. ~6s In the LIE-theoretic setup, every parameter group then had a group of infinitesimal transformations associated to it in the following way. Let the identity of the n-dimensional hypercomplex number system be denoted by
e = e l e l + . . . -Y enen,

where el, ..., en form a basis of A and el . . . . . en are complex numbers. Take Yl . . . . . Yn infinitely close to el, ..., en, respectively. In other words,
16 Ibid., p. 291. SCHEFFERS' emphasis. 16s Ibid., p. 294.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

271

We set then y~ = ez + o~x~t [where ~t is a differential and 0~ e C] and we find, since xe = x:

x'~ = x~ + Ox~ = x~ + ~_~ y~ x,e~z~ ~ ~t,
i z

so it follows that

The group then is endowed with the n linearly independent infinitesimal transformations
X x f = ~as ~a, ~s,zx,-~x ~

~f

(x = 1, 2 . . . . , n)

[where f is an analytic function in the variables xl . . . . . xn] ... The group operation is given by
( X ' X x ) = Z (~siz - ~]sxi) x s f ,166 8

In the case n = 3, SCHEFFERS used the properties of this infinitesimal transformation group to compute the multiplication tables for all 3-dimensional hypercomplex number systems, but we shall not go into the details of his computations here since he himself abandoned these more geometrical methods later for more direct techniques. In his second paper of 1889, "Ueber die Berechnung yon Zahlensystemen," SCHEFFERS exhibited an even more extensive familiarity with the literature on hypercomplex number systems by citing not only WEIERSTRASS and DEDEKIND but also STUDY,POINCARI3,the PEIRCES,SYLVESTER, and CAYLEY.167 In addition to this widening of perspective, SCHEFFERSalso introduced for the first time his division of number systems into two types which he called conic section systems and non-conic section systems [Kegelschnittsysteme and Nichtkegelschnittsysteme]. He used this bifurcation of the number systems to determine completely all five-dimensional algebras over C, thereby extending his own classification of the three-dimensional algebras and STUDY'S determination of those of dimension four. 16s These two classes of algebras reappeared in the key role in his Habilitationsschrift of 1891 entitled "Zurfickfiihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," but by this time they had taken on a new significance and a deeper meaning. As SCHEFFERS himself admitted: In two earlier papers, I already concerned myself with the theory of complex number systems. Since then I have succeeded in discovering and proving a number of interesting theorems about these systems. Therefore it seemed ~66 Ibid., p. 295. 167 SCI-IEFFERS,"Ueber die Berechnung von Zahlensystemen," pp. 400-401. 16s See EDVARD STUDY, "Ober Systeme yon eomplexen Zahlen," G6ttingen Nachrichten (1889): 237-68.

272

K . H . PARSHALL appropriate to me to state my previous researches in this direction in this [new] context. The present paper is then a reworking, completion, and in many places a correction of my earlier writings? 69

Indeed, many new tools and definitions had found their way into SCHEFFERS' work by 1891. For the first time, he picked up on the notion of the minimum polynomial of a hypercomplex number system which had already been developed in the work of SYLVESTERand FROBENIUS. a 7o SCHEFFERSrecognized the importance of the factorization of this polynomial, and he explored the meaning of the factors relative to the structure of the algebra. In particular, he studied the relationship between the algebras in each of his two great classes (which he now called quaternion and nonquaternion systems) and the form of their associated minimum polynomial. Using this and his new concept of reducibility, SCHEFFERSwas able to continue his classification of small dimensional algebras. He obtained partial results for algebras of dimensions up to and including eight. With this overview, we now take just a moment to look at SCHEFFERS' work in a bit more detail. The main innovation which SCHEFFERS injected into his papers "Ueber die Berechnung yon Zahlensystemen" and "Zurtickftihrung complexer Zahlensystemen auf typische F o r m e n " was the categorization of hypercomplex number systems into quaternion and nonquaternion systems. Very simply, a quaternion system for SCHEFFERS was one which contained a copy of the quaternions as a subalgebra. A nonquaternion system was an algebra which did not contain such a copy. To the modern way of thinking, then, a nonquaternion system looked like C@C@...@C@N, where N denoted the radical of the algebra, whereas a quaternion algebra decomposed as M.,(C) M.~(C) . . . M.j(C) N, where Mni(C) denoted the ni ni matrices over C and at least one n i was greater than one. SCHEFFERSof course did not think of the algebras in his two categories in this succinct way, but such a representation aids the modern reader in better understanding his work. Even though he may not have viewed his quaternion algebras, for example, as direct sums of full matrix algebras and a radical, SCHEFF~RS did clearly have the notion of the direct sum. He defined a number system to be ... reducible, if its basis elements may be chosen and arranged in two collections ex, e2, ... and el, e2, ... so that each product of a basis element e and a basis element e, that is, each e~% and eke~, is zero, and furthermore each
169 SCHEFFERS, "Zurtickftihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," p. 294. lvo See SYLVESTER,"Sur les Quantit6s formant un Groupe de Nonions analogues aux Quaternions de Hamilton," pp. 1336-40, or Math. Papers J. J. S., 4: 118-21, and FROBENIUS, "~ber lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen," pp. 343-405.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

273

product of two e's is expressed by the e's alone, each product of the e's by the e's alone. Then the whole system decomposes into two smaller ones (el, e2, ...) and (el, e2 . . . . ), the products between which are zero. 17~ After defining this key idea, he naturally proceeded to prove theorems which told him when systems were or were not reducible. 172 F o r example, he stated and proved the following PEmcE-like result Type: A system S with identity e is reducible if and only if there is another number el in the system besides e which commutes with all numbers x in the system (xel = e~x) and whose square e2 = e~. I f there is such a number, then el and e - e~ are the identities of the two systems into which S can be decomposed, x73 He also stated his defining criterion for the nonquaternion systems in virtually the same way we did above, namely, "if a number system is reducible, then it is a nonquaternion system if and only if none of its component systems is a quaternion. ''174 Using his facts about reducibility, SCHEFFERS carried out a careful decomposition first of the nonquaternion systems and then of the quaternion ones by explicitly determining basis elements and their laws of multiplication, iv5 Again, he developed his methods only far enough to allow him to handle the smalldimensional algebras. As we shall see in the next section, however, ]~LIE CARTAN adopted this same sort of battle plan and extended it to obtain the general determinations for algebras of arbitrary dimensions. Because SCHEFFERS'work is similar in spirit, if not in detail or extent, to CARTAN'S we let the discussion of the latter's work in Section 4 suffice for an analysis in depth of the former's computational techniques. One contemporary mathematician whose approach to hypercomplex numbers did differ significantly from that of SCHEFFERS, and later CARTAN, was
THEODOR MOLIEN. 176

171 SCHEFFERS, "Zurfickftihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," p. 317. 172 He corrected some of these results in a later paper dating from 1893. See GEORG SCHEFFERS, "Ueber die Reducibilit~it complexer Zahlensysteme," Mathematische Annalen 41 (1893): 602-604. 173 SCHEFFERS, "Zurfickfiihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," p. 319. 174- 1bid., p. 323. 27s For more on SCHEFFERSand his work, see HAWKINS, "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," pp. 251-53 and pp. 263-64. 176 The historical significance of MOIEN'S work has been painstakingly detailed by THOMAS HAWKINS in "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory; see especially, pp. 256-65. After rediscovering the work of this neglected mathematician, HAWKINS showed that MOLIEN'Sideas sparked quite a bit of interest, most notably playing a key role in the development of group representation theory. Furthermore, as HAWKINSshowed in his later paper, "New Light on Fro-

274

K . H . PARSHALL

MOLIEN, like SCHEFFERS, came to the study of these systems from the LIE theory of the day, but unlike SCHEFFERS, he apparently had no direct contact with LIE. Unfortunately, because the details of MOLIEN'S life are so sketchy, we have no real way of knowing how MOLIEN became interested in this subject. We do know that MOLIEN, a Latvian by birth, studied at the University of Yurev in Estonia until 1883. Then, probably due to the high level of activity centered around FELIX KLEIN, he traveled to the University of Leipzig where he stayed from 1884 to 1885 to further his mathematical training. His period of foreign study ended in 1885 when he was called back to Dorpat to assume the position of Dozent at the university. For the next seven years, his teaching duties must have occupied most of his time, but he obviously managed to read and to work on mathematics. In 1892 he presented his dissertation "Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen" and earned the doctoral degree. 177 The introduction to this lengthy work attested to the fact that MOLIEN had familiarized himself with virtually all of the current literature on hypercomplex numbers in preparing his thesis. He spoke of the work of DEDEKIND and WEIERSTRASS on commutative algebras, CAYLEY'S paper " O n the Theory of Matrices," the connection made by POINCARI~between hypercomplex number systems and LIE algebras, the classification papers of SCHEFFERS, STUDY and BENJAMIN PEIRCE dealing with algebras of small dimension, and SYLVESTER'Sseries of articles in 1884 in the Comptes rendus to name only a few. He also acknowledged the debt which his own research on hypercomplex number systems owed to many of the concepts and techniques introduced by LIE and KILLING in their work on LIE algebras. With all of this known work at his disposal, he was able to isolate a major unsolved problem in the area for his research, namely, the classification of all hypercomplex number systems over the complex numbers. Borrowing and adapting the theories of what we would call symmetric bilinear forms, the characteristic equation, and the minimum polynomial from LIE theory, MOLIEN succeeded in finding at least a partial solution to this problem. His arguments in places were unclear and incomplete, and his style was often a bit obscure, but MOLIEN did make great progress toward the solution of perhaps the central problem in an area of mathematics which was quite active at the time. Why then was his paper essentially ignored when it appeared in print in 1893 in the influential Mathematische Annalen ? Was it because he depended heavily on ideas drawn from the work of KILLING which was not highly regarded by LIE ? Was it because he was unknown and working at a university at the outer reaches of European civilization? A definitive answer to this question eludes us, but there is absolutely no doubt that MOLIEN'S work was ignored. In his paper of 1897 entitled "Ueber die Darstellung der endlichen Gruppen durch lineare Substitutionen," for example, FROBENIUS briefly mentioned this "excellent [ausgebenius' Creation of the Theory of Group Characters," Archive for History of Exact Sciences 12 (August 1974): 217-43, FROBENIUSbecame interested in MOLXEN'Sresults by 1903 and used them to demonstrate the utility of his group determinant techniques in the theory of hypercomplex number systems. Although WEDDERBtJRNalso knew of MOL1EN'Swork, as we shall show in section five, he drew his primary inspiration from CARTAN and BENJAMINPEIRCE rather than from MOLIEN. ~vv THEODORMOHEN, "Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen," pp. 83-156.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

275

zeichnet]" work of MOLIEN, but he confessed at the same time that "Study had only recently brought it to my attention. ''17s Furthermore, ]~Lm CARTAN who, as we shall see in the next section, proved many of the same theorems MOLmN presented in his thesis, made no mention at all of MOLIEN or of his work in either the Comptes rendus announcements of his results in 1897 or in the following massive treatment of hypercomplex number systems which appeared in 1898.179 Because MOLIEN'S work was unknown, then, CARTAN ended up duplicating many of his results, although his approach differed significantly from MOLIEY'S. Whatever the reasons for the initial lack of recognition of MOLIEN'S paper, by 1903 FROBENItJS had brought his work to light and had patched up the holes in many of his arguments? 8 In fact, in 1907 in the monograph Synopsis o f Linear Associative Algebra, JAMES BYRNIE SHAW saw MOLIEN as one of the principal developers of the entire theory. He wrote: The first [line of development of linear associative algebra] is by use of the continuous group. It was Poincar6 who first announced this isomorphism. The method was followed by Scheffers, who classified algebras as quaternionic and non-quaternionic ... He worked out complete lists of all algebras to order five inclusive. His successor was MOLIEN ...181 His thesis "Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen" secured him this prominent position in the order of succession. MOLIEN organizes this paper into four sections . . . . Each section will begin with a paragraph which outlines the previously known theorems. It seemed that this procedure would most aptly preserve the uniformity of the research. A presentation of definitions (which are kept in the traditional form) and the important properties of number systems constitutes the beginning of the first sections? s2 F r o m the point of view of the modern reader, this initial treatment of definitions provides a very great insight into the way in which MOLIEN actually thinks about hypercomplex number systems. For MOLmN,

178 GEORGFROBENIUS,'q]ber die DarsteUung der endlichen Gruppen durch lineare Substitutionen," Frobenius: Ges. Abh., 3: 92. 179 ]~LIE CARTAN, "Sur les syst~mes de nombres complexes," Comptes rendus 124 (May 1897): 1217: "Sur les syst~mes r&ls de nombres complexes," ibid., p. 1296; "Les groupes bilingaires et les syst~mes de nombres complexes," pp. B1-B99. See also Oeuvres E. C., vol. 1, pt. 2: 1-105. 18o GEORG FROBENIUS, "Theorie der hyperkomplexen Gr6ssen," Frobenius: Ges. Abh. 3: 284-329. See especially the introduction, pp. 284-86 for a summary of the problems in MOLIEN'Spaper. 1st JAMES BYRNm SHAW, Synopsis of Linear Associative Algebra: A Report on its Natural Development and Results Reached up to the Present Time (Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1907), p. 6. 182 MOLIEN, p. 86.

276

K . H . PARSHALL el . . . . , e, are the basis elements [Grundzahlen] from which a number system is derived; thus each number x of the system is written in the following way:
x = x~e~ + . . . + x~e~.

The quantities xl . . . . . x, are c o m m o n [rational], real or complex numbers; they are called the parameters of the number x. The totality of numbers et . . . . . e, are designated as the basis [Basis] of the number system? 83 After explicitly exhibiting the rules for addition and subtraction of two elements in the number system, he shows that " a change of basis [Vedinderung der Basis] of a number system is therefore equivalent to a linear transformation of the parameters of each number belonging to the number system. ''18. As for multiplication of two elements in the number system, if we set
X t -= X U

then x~ . . . . . x~ are given by the equations (3.1)

x; = Z
k,l

a~tx~ut

(i, k , l = 1 . . . . , n ) ,

and we may call these equations the product equations of the number system. The associative law of multiplication may be expressed as (3.2) y~ a ~ , ~ , = ~] a~s4,~
8 8

(i, k, l = i, ..., n)

to which the coefficients of the equations (3.1) are subject. 185 In other words, equation (3.1) gives the form of the coefficients or parameters x~ of the product x' = x ~ e l + . . . + x ~ e , of two arbitrary elements x and u in the algebra where the a~l's are what we would call the structure constants of the algebra, and equation (3.2) expresses the associativity of the algebra in terms of the behavior of these same structure constants. These definitions clearly indicate the slant which MOLTENhas on hypercomplex number systems. For him the essence of the algebra lies in the parameters of the elements and in the relations they satisfy. His interpretation is not basis-free. Initially, he chooses a basis but only in order to determine the parameters xj of an arbitrary element x. Once he has these parameters, the basis never comes under consideration again. I f a base change should become necessary, as we have just seen, the parameters and their associated relations must undergo a linear transformation, but still the basis does not play a role.. To this way of thinking, "the task of specifying all number systems may be formulated as follows: specify all systems of equations (3.1) whose coefficients satisfy relations (3.2)..." 186 Toward his end, MOHEN next introduces the notion of an accompanying [begleitende] system.
183 Ibid., p. 88. is4 Ibid., p. 89. 18s Ibid., pp. 89-90. 186 Ibid., p. 92.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

277

Let H denote the n-dimensional hypercomplex number system discussed above. By definition H satisfies equation (3.1). Suppose in addition, H has the property that (3.3)
xi =
k,l=l
'

aklxku t

for 1 <---i ~ r --< n (r fixed), that is, suppose the basis of H can be ordered in such a way that the first r coefficients or parameters of every product depend only on the first r basis vectors. (Notice that no condition is imposed on the remaining n - r coefficients.) I f H also satisfies (3.3), H has an accompanying system H , of dimension r with defining product equations as in (3.3). 187 In other words, H , is an algebra whose structure constants satisfy the equations aikl = 0 for 1 ~< i --< r, unless k and l also range between 1 and r. 188 This definition illustrates MOLIEN'S "parametric" point of view quite well, but what does all of this mean in modern terms ? Consider the span I of the basis er+l . . . . en. It is easy to show that I is a two-sided ideal of H where H has the property expressed in (3.3). As algebras, then, H / I and H~ are isomorphic, and there exists a one-to-one correspondence between two-sided ideals in H and accompanying systems of H. Notice t h a t / / 1 is a subspace, but not a subalgebra of H ; it inherits its algebra structure from H/I. In terms of diagrams, H , is an accompanying system of H provided that there exists a two-sided ideal I which makes the following diagram of vector spaces commute:
H ~
=- 11/[

(3.4)

Ill
where n is the standard projection map, i is the inclusion map, and ~ is actually an algebra isomorphism. It is critical to recognize at this point that although MOLIEN'S idea of an accompanying system is equivalent to our concept of a two-sided ideal (or invariant subalgebra in the words of CARTAN and WEDDERBURN), MOLIEN neither defines nor uses the concept in the modern spirit. *s9 Because MOLmN thinks in 187 In MOLIEN'S terminology, the accompanying system and the given system "belong [begleiten]" to each other. ,88 MOLIEN, pp. 92-93. ,s9 CARTANdefines an invariant subsystem in "Les groupes bilin6aires et les syst~mes de nombres complexes," p. B57, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 63. WEDDERBURN defines the same term in "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 81. It is interesting to note that WEDDERBURN cites MOLIEN'Spaper (although with no specific page reference) for this definition. In his expository article entitled "Nombres complexes, expos6, d'apr~s l'article allemand de E. Study," CARTAN also cites MOLIEN as a reference when he defines a simple system. (See Encyclopddie des Sciences mathdmatiques pures et appliqudes, 7 tomes in 28 vols. [Paris: Gauthier-Villars; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904], vol. 1: 427, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 205.) Each of these authors recognizes the equivalence of his own ideas and those of MOLIEN, but in citing him as they do, they tacitly imply that the ideas are identical.

278

K . H . PARSHALL

terms of equations like (3.3) instead of in terms of factoring out two-sided ideals, the vast majority of his arguments strike the modern reader as terribly overburdened. The temptation to translate his ideas instantly into more familar language, however, must be avoided at all costs. This sort of activity has the effect of putting modern words into the mouth of a late nineteenth century writer and gives nineteenth century ideas twentieth century forms. Since historically speaking, the form is often half the battle in mathematics, we must always take care not to attribute more to any given writer than is actually deserved? 9 With this word of caution, we must now see how MOLIEN develops his idea of an accompanying system and how he uses it to glean information about a given algebra H. He begins by noting in passing several properties of accompanying systems. F o r example, " a number system, which belongs to an accompanying system of a given number system, also belongs to the given number system. ''~9~ This illustrates once more the semantic difficulty of MOLIEN'S work for the modern reader, but put in familiar terms this just says that "to accompany" is a transitive property. If, however, a number system has no accompanying systems other than itself, MOHEN calls it primitive [urspriinglich]? 92 This latter type of system plays a key role in the subsequent analysis. Using them, MOLIEN manages to decompose H in the following way: The basis of every number system can be so chosen that the rl product equations are the product equations of an accompanying primitive system, the next r2 of a second primitive accompanying system, and so on, until product equations for each of the primitive accompanying systems of the given system are found. 193 The equivalent modern formulation of this theorem would read "every semisimple algebra may be written as the direct sum of simple algebras," but obviously MOLIEN'S conception of it lacks the uncomplicated adaptability of the modern version. He has no concrete and well-defined notion of the radical, so he has no 19o HAWKINS falls into this trap several times in "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory." See, for example, Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 on pp. 260-61. HAWKINS has translated MOLmN'S theorems into a modern notation which he did not have. HAWKINS then says: "Molien did not phrase Theorem 3.2 as we have, but it will be clear that it was this characterization of complete matrix algebras that guided his analysis of primitive systems." (p. 260) In using this wording, HAWKINS implies that MOLIEN has a much clearer (by modern standards) vision of the picture than his paper would indicate. Another example of this phenomenon relating to the work of MOLIEN may be found on pp. 262-63 where HAWKINS tacitly attributes the use of the notation of linear transformations and the modern terminology and notation of representations to MOLIEN.
191 MOLIEN, p. 93.

192 1bid. In terms of diagram (3.4) above, MOLIEN'Sdefinition of a primitive system is equivalent but not identical to the notion of a maximal two-sided ideal, that is, HI is primitive in H if and only if 1 is a maximal two-sided ideal of H. 293 MOLI~N, p. 96. HAWKINSdiscusses MOLIEN'Streatment of this theorem in detail in "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," pp. 257-58.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

279

well-defined concept of semisimplicity. He does not even have an explicit idea of a direct sum. Again, even though the theorem MOUEN has is equivalent to the modern theorem, it is not the same and must not be thought of as identical to it. Regardless of his terminology and definitions or lack thereof, however, MOLIeN realizes that the key to the problem lies in isolating the primitive systems. He succeeds in this task by developing the theory of what he calls forms with polarity property. Let g be a linear form on H defined by
g(x) = g l x l + ... + gnXn.

Using the definition of multiplication in H as given in (3.1), MOLXEN uses g to define a bilinear form on H which he also denotes by g, namely,
g(xu)-= 2 gia~tXkttl i,k,l = 1

If, in addition, this latter g satisfies the symmetry property expressed by

S gi(4ta~k) = O,

MOI.IBN dubs it a form with polarity property. (Note that by definition forms with polarity property are associative, that is, g ( x . uv) = g ( x u " v) for all x, u, v in H.) 194 F r o m this definition, it is clear that MOLIEN'S form with polarity property is merely the modern-day symmetric bilinear form. MOLIZN begins his development of these forms by immediately remarking that every number system has at least one nontrivial form with polarity property associated to it, namely,
i,k,l= 1 asiaklXkUl,

or what we would call the trace form of the algebra H ? 9s If, however, we are interested in arbitrary forms with polarity property the question arises: how are such forms related to accompanying systems? MOLIEN provides the answer to this in Theorem 7. I f the subdeterminants of order n - r - 1 of the discriminant of a given form with polarity property, which is derived from the given number system, all vanish, and if the subdeterminants of order n - r do not vanish, then the form with polarity property produces [erzeugt] an accompanying system with r basis elements. 196
194 MOLIEN, pp. 96-98. MOLIEN actually uses the words "Lineare Form" and "bilineare Form" in his work. With HAWKINS,I have translated his "Form mit Polareigenschaft" as "form with polarity property." ~95 Ibid., p. 97. This trace form is simply the KILLING form in the theory of LIE algebras translated into the hypercomplex number setting. It definitely serves to situate MOLIEN in the LiE-theoretic tradition. 196 Ibid., p. 99.

280

K . H . PARSHALL

In more familiar matrix language, which MOLIEN also appreciates, this result says that if the matrix of a symmetric bilinear form g on H has rank r, then g determines the product equations which define an r-dimensional accompanying system of H. 197 Using this theorem, MOLIEN finally shows that "a number system which is produced by this form, is primitive. ''19s The converse of this also holds, namely, "only one form with polarity property is derived from a primitive system. ' ' a 9 9 With this introduction to forms out of the way, MOLIEN explains that "the research of the previous paragraphs shows that the task of finding all primitive accompanying systems of a given number system can be reduced to giving the associated forms with polarity property of these systems. ''2 Hence, he reduces a question about hypercomplex number systems to one of finding symmetric bilinear forms, a type of reduction clearly in the LIE-theoretic tradition. His method of attack centers around an analysis of the vector space (although he does not use this term) of forms with polarity property on H and of the accompanying systems associated to various combinations of the basis vectors of this space. He ends up by describing a method for determining all primitive accompanying systems of H, but the details of the construction need not concern us here. 21 With an eye toward the subsequent work of CARTAN and WEDDZRBURN, we must now turn to a discussion of MOLIZN'S determination of the internal structure of the primitive system. As a prelude, though, we pause to examine the tools he calls into use for this purpose. Basically his strategy hinges on exploiting the very nice properties of three equations associated to any algebra: the characteristic equation, the minimum equations, and what he calls the KILLING equation. As we have already seen, the first two of these had already been introduced into the literature long before MOLIEY wrote his thesis, the first by POINCAR~ and SYLVESTER, the second by SYLVZSa'ERand FROBENIt:S. As evidenced by the introduction to his paper, MOLIEN knew of the pertinent works by these authors, but he endeavored to give a more complete exposition and development of at least those concepts which he needed in his own study. He begins, logically, with the definition of the characteristic equation. If co is a common number [that is, rational, real or complex], the equation
fOX ~--- X~/

or, what is the same thing, the equation

fOxi = ~
k,l

a~tXkUt

(i, k, l = 1. . . . . n)

197 Notice that the two-sided ideal I associated to this r-dimensional accompanying system is just the radical of the symmetric bilinear form g, that is, I = {x E H [ g(xu) = O, all u ~_H}.
198 M O L I E N , p . 9 9 .

199 Ibid. 200 Ibid., p. 100. 2o~ Ibid., pp. 100-103. From the modern point of view, MOLIEN'Sconstruction here is tantamount to finding all maximal two-sided ideals of H.

Wedderbum and the Structure of Algebras is solvable, provided m is a root of the equation
]~aa~lUl-c}ikoo[=O (i,k,l= 1. . . . .

281

n). 22

[ l

This last equation is just the characteristic equation with respect to right translation by u (where u is thought of as a generic element, see below) which we may also express as (3.5)
of -fl(ut . . . . , bin) (Dn--1
"Jff . . .

~z f , , ( u l . . . . .

Un)

O.

(Similarly, he defines the characteristic equation for left translation by u.) This done, he immediately proves what we call the HAMmXoN-CAYLEY theorem, namely, u satisfies its own characteristic polynomial (3.5). 2o3 A rather lengthy list of properties of (3.5) follows. For example, he points out that the coefficients of the generic characteristic equation, that is, det ( L x - col) = 0 where X = z ~ e l + . . . + X~en and where the X~'s are variables, are rational, homogeneous functions in X1, ..., Xn, a concept which, as we shall see in Section 5, WEDDrRBURN uses and develops in proving his so-called principal theorem. He also notes that the coefficient of o9 in (3.5) is a linear form which generates a form with polarity property, specifically, the trace form. 24 F r o m properties of the characteristic equation, he moves on to a discussion of its divisors where he shows that the coefficients of the divisors satisfy exactly the same properties as the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial itself? s In particular, he treats the most useful and important of the divisors, the minimum polynomial (Ranggleichung] which he defines as follows: Both of the relations
u n -f~u "-1 + ... -4-f~u = 0
gn u -~ 0

and
u n -- g l u n - 1 + . . . ~

which are derived from the characteristic equations, cannot be independent of each other. There must be, among the positive powers of u, a certain smallest one which is representable as a linear combination of all inferior positive powers of u including u where the coefficients are rational functions of 202 Ibid., p. 106. 203 Ibid., pp. 106-107. In his historical article, "Nombres complexes," CARTAN points out that this theorem had also been proved by LAGUERRE (1867), FROBENIUS (1878), WEYR (1884), and TABER (1890 and 1891), among others, before MOLIEN gave his proof in 1893. (See p. 415 n. 166 and p. 418 n. 171, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 193, 196.) As THOMASHAWKINSpoints out in his paper, "Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices," LAGUERRE'S"proof" was actually only a conceptual verification of the result like the one given by CAYLEY. (See note 7 on p. 94.) 2o4 MOLIEN, pp. 107--109. 20s Ibid., pp. 109-12.

282

K . H . PARSHALL us, ..., un. This is the m th power of u and the relation which relates it to the inferior powers of u is
um hlu m-1 + . . . hm u = O.

If in this relation we substitute the powers of u by the corresponding powers of co, we get the algebraic equation (3.6)
~om hl~ '~-1 + ... hm = 0

which we call the minimum equation [Ranggleichung] of the number system. 2o6 Since this polynomial actually divides each of the characteristic polynomials, all of the properties of divisors apply to it, too. In particular, the coefficient of the ~0-term is a linear form which defines a form with polarity property. After all of this exposition, MOLIEN introduces the KILLING equation (not to be confused with the KILLING form) which apparently originates, at least in the context of hypercomplex number systems, in his thesis. Based on the obvious analogy of the bracket operation [x, y] = x y - y x from the theory of LIE algebras, MOLIEN defines this equation in terms of the solutions of (3.7) ~x =
xu ux

where u is a generic element in the algebra. He states that 0 satisfies (3.7) provided it satisfies (3.8)
I X (a~t a~k) ut O,~ I = 0 (i, k , l = 1 . . . . , n).27

(This is just the characteristic equation of the linear transformation R, - L,.) As MOLIEN immediately shows, equation (3.8) enjoys the property that its roots are simply the differences of the roots of the characteristic equation. By naming the last equation in KILLING'S honor, MOLIEN clearly avows his indebtedness to KILLING and even more firmly situates his own work in the LIEtheoretic tradition. In fact, the introduction to his paper also hints at a rather close adherence to K1LLING'S w o r k . MOLIEN writes As far as terminology goes, I deviate from Killing's usage in several places. I have named the equation which he called the 'characteristic equation,' the 'Killing equation,' and I have used the name 'characteristic equation' for two other equations. Moreover, the name 'rank equation' should not call to mind Killing's rank concept because, in my sense [of the word], the rank of a number system is identical to the number of linearly independent powers of an element [in it]. 2s This definitely suggests a conscious translation of ideas and methods from the study of LIE algebras into the corresponding ideas and methods in the theory of 206 2o7 2os
Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

pp. 112-13. p. 114. p. 87.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

283

hypercomplex number systems. We are now ready to see just how well this strategy worked for MOLIEN in his analysis of the accompanying systems and especially in his study of primitive systems. His approach turns on relating the three polynomial equations discussed above to one another and to the accompanying systems of the algebra. For example, he proves first off that the characteristic and minimum polynomials of accompanying systems divide the characteristic and minimum polynomials, respectively, of the original algebra. He then moves to facts about primitive systems in particular, such as "theorem 22. Both of the characteristic equations of a primitive number system are powers of one and the same irreducible equation ''29 and "theorem 24. The minimum equation of a primitive system is irreducible. ''21 This line of reasoning culminates in the observation that the irreducible factors of the characteristic polynomial of an algebra are precisely the minimum polynomials of its accompanying primitive systems. Translating these facts into modern language using the diagram (3.4), we see that virtually all of these theorems are standard features of later treatises on the theory of algebras. 211 MOLIEN seems to have been the first person to view them in a systematic way in the context of hypercomplex number systems. The above deal only with the characteristic and minimum equations, however. MOLIZN gleans even more important information from his KILLING equation. As he explains in the opening paragraph of his section entitled "The Killing Equation of a Primitive System": "In order to get a complete understanding of the properties of primitive systems, one must also take into consideration their Killing equations. ''212 MOLIEN sets out to do this promptly in theorem 26, namely, the KILLING equation of a primitive system is a power of the root-difference equation of the minimum equation of the system. In modern notation (although judging by his proof MOLIEN obviously did not think of it in such succinct terms), this just means if H is a primitive system with KILLING equation ku(~o) = 0 for sufficiently general u in H, then (3.9) k,(~o) = ~
i,j=l

[co - (~oi - coj)]~ = 0

where the o~k's are the roots of the minimum equation (3.6) of H. MOLIEN'S proof of this fact, just like the majority of his other proofs, depends on a careful analysis of structure constants. Had he thought of it in terms of (3.9), the obvious method of proof would have been an analysis of the divisibility properties of the polynomial ku(co). 209 Ibid., p. 118. 21o Ibid., p. 119. 211 See, for example, LEONARD EUGENE DICKSON,Algebras and Their Arithmetics, The University of Chicago Science Series (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), pp. 109-17; and A. ADRIAN ALBERT, Structure of Algebras, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 24 (Providence, R.I. : American Mathematical Society, 1939), pp. 16-17. 212 MOLIEN, p. 120.

284

K . H . PARSHALL

Before finally proving the main theorem of this section, namely, the dimension of a primitive system is the square of the degree of its minimum polynomial, MOLIEN refers back to a theorem which he proved in passing just after introducing the KILLING equation: Theorem 19. Suppose a number system is produced by a form with polarity property, then its Killing equation has as many vanishing roots as there are linearly independent numbers which commute with an arbitrarily chosen [sufficiently general] number [say u] of the system. 2~3 In modern terms, this says that the multiplicity of the 0-eigenvector of the KILLING equation equals the dimension of the centralizer of u in H, for u sufficiently general. As FROBENItJS points out in his paper, "Llber die Primfactoren der Gruppendeterminante II," this theorem actually holds only for primitive systems, 214 but fortunately MOLIEN uses it only in the primitive case anyway. By theorem 26 and in particular by equation (3.9), we see that the degree of ku(co) for a primitive system H is ms. Theorem 19 then implies that the dimension of the centralizer of u in H, Z(u), equals the degree of k,(co). Thus,
m s = dim Z ( u ) .

In theorem 27, however, MOLIEN shows that dim Z ( u ) = m, and he concludes that "the Killing equation of a primitive number system is the root-difference equation of the minimum equation. ''215 In other words, for H primitive, we really have

/c.(o)) = 1~I (~o - (o~i- ~oj)],

i,j=l

or s = 1 in (3.9). As a corollary, the dimension of a primitive system is the square of the degree of the minimal polynomial, as desired. 2~6 For someone like MOLIEN who is well-attuned to the matrix notation and to the many known properties of matrices, 217 this last fact proves highly suggestive. Knowing that primitive systems have dimension m 2, one may conjecture that all primitive systems are in fact full matrix algebras. MOLIEN proceeds to demon213 Ibid., p. 115. THOMASHAWKINSin "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," pp. 260-61 first gave the development found in this and the following paragraph. 214-GEORGE FROBENIUS,"Uber die Primfactoren der Gruppendeterminante II," Frobenius: Ges. Abh., 3: 275-83. See especially, pp. 281-83. This Theorem 19 is an early version of what is now known as the Double Centralizer Theorem. See, for example, I. N. HERSTEIN,Noncommutative Rings, Carus Mathematical Monographs, no. 15 (n.p. : Mathematical Association of America, 1968), p. 104. 215 MOLIEN, p. 123. 216 Ibid.

217 To see that MOLIENis well-acquainted with matrices, see Part IV of his paper, pp. 148-56 where he translates his previous results about hypercomplex number systems into analogous facts about full matrix algebras.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

285

strate the truth of this very conjecture by constructing product equations for a primitive system. (He calls this the normal form of the system.) These turn out to be precisely the product equations of a full matrix algebra with a basis of standard matrix units. 218 With this crucial fact about the structure of primitive algebras exhibited, MOLIEN shifts first to a detailed discussion of the transformation group associated to hypercomplex number systems and then to a translation of these results into the language of matrices, z19 His primary goal in these final two parts involves finding a normal form for an arbitrary number system H and then expressing his findings in terms of matrices. We need not go into the painstaking details of this here, especially since CARTAN'S construction of the so-called class II algebras from those of class I which we treat very carefully in the next section is the same in spirit, although not in substance, as MOLIEN'S. Furthermore, MOLIEN'S work in these last two sections may most properly be viewed as an early contribution to the representation theory of groups, an aspect of the study of hypercomplex number systems which plays little or no role in WEDDERBURN'S subsequent work. Thus, although important, MOLIEN'S research on transformation groups does not figure in the immediate prehistory of WEDDERBURN'S contributions. 22 After publishing "Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen" in 1893, MOLIEN remained silent until 1897 when he brought out three articles, on what we would call group representation theory, which amounted to a close study of the group algebra. These papers marked essentially the end of his career as a creative research mathematician probably owing to his remoteness from the centers of mathematical activity. As we have already mentioned, FROBENIUS did not learn of MOLIEN'S thesis until 1897, but he immediately took an interest in this obviously gifted mathematician. On February 24, 1898, FROBENIUS wrote to DEDEKIND :

You will have noticed that a young mathematician, Theodor Molien in Dorpat, has considered the group determinant independently of me. In volume 41 of the Mathematische Annalen he published a very beautiful, but difficult work "Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen," in which he has investigated non-commutative multiplication [in other words, the Killing equation] and obtained important general results o f which properties of the group determinant are special cases. Since he was entirely unknown to me, I have made some inquiries regarding his personal circumstances. Details are still lacking. This much I have already learned: that he is still a Privatdozent in Dorpat; that his position there is uncertain and he has not advanced as far as he would have deserved in view of his undoubtedly strong mathe21s We need not go into more detail here, since HAWKINShas a succinct and clear account of MOLIEN'S construction in "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," pp. 262-64. 219 See ibid. 220 For a discussion of MOLIEN'Swork on representation theory, see ibid., pp. 262-65 and 270-80, and "New Light on Frobenius' Creation of the Theory of Group Characters," pp. 237-42.

286

K . H . PARSHALL matical talent. I would very much like to interest you in this talented man; here and there you are virtually privy councillor; if an opportunity presents itself, please think of Herr Molien, and if you have time look at his work. 22t

This certainly was a strong endorsement from one influential mathematician to another, but apparently it came to nothing. MOLIEN accepted a professorship in 1900 in Tomsk, Siberia and was never heard from by the mathematical community again. 222 As FROBENIUS said in his letter to DEDEKINt~, MOLIEN'S paper of 1893 aroused his interest when he finally saw it because of MOLmN'S general results on determinants and, in particular, because of his findings on characteristic and minimum polynomials. M a n y of these facts and theorems applied to one special case which particularly interested FROBENIUS, namely, the case of the group determinant. Only two years earlier in a letter dated March 25, 1896, DEDEKIND had introduced FROBENIUSto this new mathematical object for the first time and had started him off on a concerted research effort exploring its properties. As DEDEKIND explained his concept: To every group G of order n, I construct a form of degree n, H , in n variables which I call the determinant of G, I f 1, 2, ..., n denote the elements of G written in any order, then I associate to each element r of the group G a variable Xr, and I construct the determinant
Xll', X12" , X21'~ X22", ., . . .,

Xnl'[

H =

Xn2"l, Xnn" [

Xln',

X2n',

...,

where r ' signifies the inverse element of r in G. 223 We may also consider the group determinant as arising naturally in the following set-up. Let G be a finite group of order n, and let C[G] denote the complex group algebra of G, namely,

where G = {g~. . . . . gn}. Define the generic element z as

z = xtga + . . . + x n g n,

where the x i ' s are variables, one corresponding to each g i , and look at the left regular representation L~ of z on C[G]. To write down a matrix representation of L z , we must simply figure out how Lz acts on the basis elements gi of C[G]. 22~ As quoted in HAWKINS,"New Light on Frobenius' Creation of the Theory of Group Characters," pp. 240-41. 222 Ibid., p. 241. 2z3 DDEKIND to FROBENIUS, March 25, 1896 in Ges. W e r k e : R . D . , 2: 420.

Wedderbum and the Structure of Algebras Obviously,

287

Lz(gj) = xigigj,
i=1

but for each i, there exists a unique k such that gigj = gg. Let xkj, denote the variable corresponding to g k g f 1. Now gi = g k g f 1, so

Lz(gj) = ~ x~j,gk.
i=1

In other words, the matrix of Lz looks like

Xl 1', X21', X12', ,

Xln'] X2n'[

X22',

LXnl',

Xn2" ,

...,

Xnn' J

and the group determinant is det (Lz). F r o m this modern description, the motivation behind the study of the group determinant becomes clear. Since the group determinant is, after all, just a type of characteristic polynomial of the algebra C[G], 224 we should be able to glean quite a bit of information about the algebra by looking at the factors of this particular polynomial. Since the structure of the algebra C[G] is so intimately related to the structure of the underlying finite group G, this should then give us much information about G itself. 225 This idea of translating group-theoretic questions into problems of an algebra-theoretic nature, solving them in the setting of algebras and translating back to groups again, serves to motivate the entire study of the representation theory of finite groups. FROBENIUS was one of the very first mathematicians to recognize and exploit this sort of technique, but DEDEKIND had to work rather hard over a period of several letters to persuade him of the fertility of such endeavors. 226 Once FROBENIUS started looking at these problems seriously, though, he found them thoroughly captivating Although his correspondence with DEDEKIND showed that his results did not always come forth immediately, by the end of 1896, FROBENIUS had developed methods to determine the irreducible factors of the group determinant and in the process had created the theory of group characters, za7 224 We say "a type of characteristic polynomial" here because although the usual definition is det(Lz -- ~oI) for some variable o) where I is the appropriate identity matrix, SCrIEFFERS' characteristic polynomial was det(Lz). See "Zurtickftihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," p. 301. zes DEDEKINDwas especially interested in the relation between factors of the group determinant and the group G. He conjectured that the number of linear factors of the group determinant equaled the order of G divided by the order of its commutator subgroup G'. See HAWKINS, "New Light of Frobenius' Creation of the Theory of Group Characters," p. 224. 226 Ibid., pp. 220-24. 227 THOMASHAWKINShas treated the historical development of the theory of group characters quite extensively in his papers "The Origins of the Theory of Group Characters" and "New Light on Frobenius' Creation of the Theory of Group Characters." We shall not recount his findings here.

288

K . H . PARSHALL

The continued study of this new area monopolized FROBENIUS' time for at least the next ten years, and his endeavors marked the beginning of the representation theory of finite groups. The close connection between the group determinant, group characters, and the group algebra naturally led FROBENIUSto examine questions involving general hypercomplex number systems. His interest in this subject had already been aroused as early as 1877 as his paper of the following year, "Ueber lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen," proved. In this important work, FROBENIUS consciously sought to fill in the gaps left by his predecessors and to make their arguments completely general and rigorous. 22s As we saw in our discussion of CAYLEY, he very contentedly allowed proofs in small special cases to suffice for p r o o f in general, but FROBENIUS, true to the ideals of mathematical rigor propounded by his mentor, WEIERSTRASS,realized that this was totally unacceptable. He began his paper by setting up the language of bilinear forms. Let A = ~
i,j = 1

aoxiy:

and B = ~
i,j = 1

bijxiy~ denote two bilinear forms in the

variables x~ . . . . . xn; y~ . . . . . yn where a O, bi: are elements in (3 for 1 ~ i , j ~ n. gA gB Now consider the partial derivatives ~ and ~-lXl" We get

(3.10)

-- = aitxt ~Yt i=1

and

- = ~XI

j=l

boy :.

Thus, if we define, as FROBENIOS did, P=

A 0B

and substitute in the values for the partial derivatives from (3.10), we have

i,j = 1

another bilinear form. 229 As FROBENIUS realized, these bilinear forms were in one-to-one correspondence with matrices, that is, the bilinear form A defined the matrix [ao], and the multiplication of forms P defined the matrix multiplication of [ai:] and [b~j]. F r o m this we immediately see that all of the facts and theorems FROBENIUS proved in his paper of 1878 about bilinear forms applied equally well to matrices. In effect, then, FROBENIUS, developed a symbolic calculus of matrices in working out his calculus of bilinear forms. In so doing, he demonstrated the sheer calculational and conceptual ease of the single letter notation at which CAYLEY before him had only hinted. Just as FROBENIUS saw the equivalence of bilinear forms and matrices, in the final section of his paper, he underscored the connection between matrices and hypercomplex number systems. He explained that

228 FROBENIUS,"Ueber lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen," p. 343. 229 Ibid., p. 344.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

289

F r o m the algorithm of the composition forms, i.e. of systems of n 2 quantities which are ordered in n rows and n columns, one can derive innumerably many other algorithms. Several independent forms E, Et, ..., Em make up a form-system if the products of every two of them may be expressed as linear combinations of the forms of the system. Then if A = X a z E z and B = X b z E x, A B may be written in the form X cxEz. Especially remarkable are such systems of real forms for which the determinant of X azEz cannot vanish for real values of a, at . . . . . am without all these coefficients being identically zero. In this case, the form X azEz is called a number complex or also a complex number, E, Et, ..., Em are called the basis elements and the determinant of the form is called the norm of the complex number. 23 These form-systems FROBENIUSdefined, then, were nothing more than subalgebras of a full matrix algebra over the real numbers, and the nonvanishing condition on the determinant insured that they were in fact real division algebras. With this as his set-up, he asked and answered the obvious question: what are all of the real division algebras? As C. S. PEIRCE would show independently in 1881, FROBENIUS proved that there were only three such algebras: the reals, the complexes, and the quaternions. T M With all of this fundamental work on bilinear forms, matrices, and algebras behind him, there is little wonder that his thoughts eventually returned to hypercomplex number systems after his intense study of the group determinant during the mid-1890's. The fruits of this renewed interest entitled "Theorie der hyperkomplexen Gr6ssen" appeared in two installments in the 1903 Berliner Sitzungsberichte. 232 As we have just seen, by 1903 FROBENIUShad thoroughly developed the theory of group characters, and he had completely dissected the group determinanL Also, as the letter he wrote to DEDEKIND on February 24, 1898 showed, he had read and absorbed MOLIEN'S paper on hypercomplex number systems. As I pointed out in our discussion of this work, MOHEN'S arguments Were often unclear or i n correct, but his basic idea of analyzing algebras by means of their characteristic and minimum polynomials was sound as well as appealing. Similarly, by 1903 FROBENIUS had pored over CARTAN'S mammoth paper of 1898, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes." In the course of this research, CARTAN independently proved many of MOHEN'S results, but he ultimately succeeded in gaining a much deeper understanding of the internal structure of hypercomplex number systems. After looking at both of these papers and comparing the methods of their authors to his own techniques involving group determinants, FROBEN~USdecided that his was the superior approach. He described the situation in these words in his first installment: 230 Ibid., p. 401. FROBENIUS' emphasis. 232 Ibid., pp. 402-405. As we saw in Section 2 above, CARTANalso proved this fact. See note 130. 232 GEORG FROBENIUS,"Theorie der hyperkomplexen Gr6Ssen," pp. 284-329. He considered questions about hypercomplex number systems even before 1903 in his paper "Uber vertauschbare Matrizen," Frobenius: Ges. Abh., 2: 705-18, but his paper of 1903 represented his major statement on the subject.

290

K . H . PARSHALL
.,. [MoLIEN'S] pioneering, fertile work, which he accomplished with unceasing perseverance and piercing acuteness in spite of rather imperfect tools, represents one of the most important advances in the branch of algebra which we call group theory. For the reasons cited [holes in arguments, etc.], I consider it appropriate to take up once more the research with the means I have developed ,.. LIE's methods will not be used at all in this purely algebraic work. On the other hand, my presentation has many points of contact with Dedekind's work " Z u r Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen"...233

As for CARTAN'S article, FROBENIUS recounted that Just after the completion of this research I became aware of the treatise of Mr. Cartan, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de complexes," ... in which he derives Molien's results without, it seems, his work. The path chosen by Mr. Cartan has not the slightest in with Molien's methods or with the ones used here. T M excellent nombres knowing common

In the first installment of his paper, then, FROBENIUS concentrated on recasting MOLIEN'S proofs in the language of group determinants and their prime factors, and in the second, he worked on CARTAN'S.T M This provided him with an excellent opportunity to apply his theory of group determinants and to show off its effectiveness. The details of FROBENIUS' methods need not concern us here, for he was essentially the only mathematician to use them in the setting of hypercomplex systems. 236 By 1907, the young Scotsman, JOSEPH HENRY MACLAGAN WEDDERBURN, had revolutionized the area of hypercomplex numbers by vastly simplifying and generalizing the theory to algebras over arbitrary fields, not just over the reals or the complexes. Borrowing ideas from the work of his predecessors, and especially from BENJAMIN PEIRCE and I~LIE CARTAN, and combining these with his own new ideas, WEDDERBURN closed one chapter in the history of algebras and opened another. In order to understand how truly different WEDDERBURN'S approach was, however, we now examine the contributions CARTAN made to the theory of algebras in his mammouth paper of 1898 "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes."

233 FROBENIUS, "Theorie der hyperkomplexen Gr6ssen," pp. 284-85.

za, Ibid., p. 285.

235 In the second installment, he reworked the WEDDERBURN principal theorem which CARTAN proved for hypercomplex number systems over (3 and R. At this time, he introduced the term radical to describe the non-semisimple part of an algebra. 236 It is important to note that FROBENILrS'terminology in this paper is a bit confusing. He refered to hypercomplex number systems as groups. Thus, what he called the group determinant in the context of algebras was det(Lz), where z was the generic element in exact analogy to the group determinant in the context of group algebras.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

291

4. Cartan's Paper of 1898

In 1891, the twenty-two year old CARTAN graduated from the prestigious Ecole Normale Superieure. After a year of military service, he resumed his fulltime mathematical activities with a concerted attack on the problem of correcting and extending the results of the G e r m a n mathematician, WILHELM KILLING (1847-1923). 237 Introduced to this problem by a friend and fellow student, ARTHUR TRESSE, who had studied with LIE in Leipzig, CARTAN initiated himself into this new area by reviewing the current literature. The fruit of these efforts was a classification of the simple complex LIE algebras which he presented as his thesis in 1894. 2as In 1885, LIE had published two papers, one in a Norwegian journal and one in the Mathematische Annalen, where he outlined his results on simple LIE algebras over the complex field. 239 As was his custom, the paper which appeared in his homeland was rough around the edges and highly intuitive in form whereas the paper which came out in the Annalen was much more polished and systematic. 24 Nevertheless, even in the more rigorous version, LIE only gave the classification in terms of the four main types, namely, An, Bn, C,, and D, in today's terms. He did not concern himself at all with a complete classification, that is, with a search for all possible exceptional simple LIE algebras. As his friend and coauthor, FRIEDRICH ENGEL, explained in an article in memoriam, the idea of working on the complete classification simply did not interest LIE because it would have involved research of a purely algebraic, and not of an analytic nature. T M This interest in the analytical over the algebraic comes as no real surprise in light of the fact that LIE'S main interest lay in the study of differential equations. As we saw in the previous section, he sought to develop a theory which would deal with differential equations of order n in much the same way that the work of I~VARISTE 237 TI-~OMAS HAWKINShas masterfully treated the complicated interrelations between the work of KILLIN~ and CARTAN on the classification of complex simple Lie algebras in his paper "Wilhelm Killing and the Structure of Lie Algebras." 2as ]~LIECARTAN, Premikre ThOse: Sur la Structure des Groupes de Transformations finis et eontinus (Paris: Nony, 1894), or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 1: 137-287. It is important to note, as far as terminology goes, that the early LIE theorists considered LIE groups locally only. Thus, in modern terms, they were studying not LIE groups but rather LIE algebras, for the most part. In what follows, we shall speak not of LIE groups but of LIE algebras when referring to their work. 239 SOPHUS LIE, "Untersuchungen tiber Transformationsgruppen~ II," in Sophus Lie: Gesammelte Abhandlungen auf Grund einer Bewilligung aus dem norwegischen Forschungsfonds yon 1919 und mit Unterstiitzung der Videnskapakademie zu Oslo und der Akademie der Wissensehaften zu Leipzig, ed. FRIEDRICHENGEL, 6 VOLS.and 4 supps. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner; Oslo: H. Aschehough & Co., 1922-37), 5, pp. 507-52; and "Allgemeine Untersuchungen tiber Differentialgleichungen, die eine kontinuierliche, endliche Gruppe gestatten," ibid., 6, pp. 139-223, respectively. 240 SOPHUS LIE, Sophus Lie's 1880 Transformation Group Paper, ed. ROBERT HERMANNand trans. MICHAELACKERMAN,Lie Groups: History, Frontiers and Applications, vol. 1 (Brookline, Mass.: Math. Sci. Press, 1975), p.v. 241 FR1EDRICH ENGEL, "Wilhelm Killing," Jahresberiehte der Deutsehen-Mathematiker-Vereinigung 39 (1930): 147. See also, HAWKINS, "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," p. 255.

292

K.H. PARSHALL

GALOIS (1811-32) and subsequent mathematicians had dealt with polynomial equations of degree n. WILHELMKILLINGhad no such bias, however. A high caliber mathematician who found himself locked into a high school teaching position by the German system of education, KILLINGtackled the problem of completely classifying the simple LI~ algebras over the complex numbers and solved it in 1889 in the second in a series of four ground-breaking papers entitled "Zusammensetzung der stetigen endlichen Transformationsgruppen.''242 He discovered that, in addition to the four main types enumerated by LIE, there were also five exceptional ones, known as E6, ET, Es, F4, and G 2 today. (Actually he found six, but two of his algebras were isomorphic.) His proofs, however, were often mere sketches and contained many gaps both large and small. CARTAN'S project, then, consisted of fusing together this work of LIE and KILLING and producing a rigorously established and unified whole. As CARTAN explained in the introduction to his thesis: The goal of this work is to present, and to complete in certain places, the research of Mr. Killing, by introducing into it all of the desired rigor. I have already announced, in two notes presented to the Academy of Sciences, that I had rediscovered the fundamental results stated by Mr. Killing, and in a third published in the Leipziger Berichte, I sketched how to make Mr. Killing's research on simple groups rigorous, a43 During the two years immediately following the presentation of this thesis, CARTAN continued to explore the realm of LIE algebras proper. In 1897, however, he branched off into a related, but slightly different area, the theory of hypercomplex number systems. By 1897, the connection between matrices and algebras had already been firmly established and was well-known on the Continent. As we have seen, in 1881 CHARLES S. PEIRCE clearly spelled out the relation between associative algebras and matrices by showing how to describe an algebra in matrix form. Although his work remained unknown in Europe for some years after its publication in the American Journal of Mathematics, J. J. SYLVESTERpublished numerous notes in the Comptes rendus on matrices during the years 1882 through 1884 which were acknowledged by the Europeans. In particular, we saw that he wrote three installments entitled "Sur les quantit6s formant un groupe de nonions analogues aux quaternions de Hamilton" in which he stressed and exploited the matrix representation of the algebra of quaternions. These papers caught the eye of POINCAR~ who immediately dashed off his own note to the Comptes rendus outlining the connection not only between hypercomplex numbers and matrices but also the connection between hypercomplex numbers and LIE groups. Realizing that every element x of a hypercomplex number system defined a linear 242 WILHELM KILLING,"Zusammensetzung der stetigen endlichen Transformationsgruppen: Zweiter Teil," Mathematische Annalen 33 (1889): 1-48. 243 CARTAN,Premikre Thkse: Sur la Structure des Groupes de Transformations finis et eontinus, p. 9, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 1 : 139. Citations for the three notes mentioned by CARTANare also given. I shall not reproduce them here.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

293

substitution, Lx, POINCARI~ posed the following problem: determine all continuous groups of these substitutions, that is, determine all subgroups of the LIE group GL,(C). As we saw in the previous section, GEOR6 SCHEFFERSundertook to solve POINCAR~'S problem at Lm's suggestion and published his findings during the years 1889-93. It was primarily upon SCHZFFERS' work which CARTAN based his article "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les systSmes de nombres complexes., As its title suggests, this paper deals with the interrelations between hypercomplex number systems and bilinear groups or, in other words, POINCAR~'Sproblem of hypercomplex numbers. T M CARTAN begins by explicitly working out the correspondence between algebras and bilinear groups and ends by carefully showing how facts about the structure of algebras can be translated into facts about the structure of bilinear groups. This emphasis on bilinear groups clearly sets the paper in the LIE-theoretic tradition, but it is merely a secondary emphasis. The main thrust of the paper comes in the middle where CARTAN redevelops the theory of hypercomplex number systems over the complex field and over the reals. His innovativeness here lies in his method, for he proves theorems about hypercomplex numbers by closely studying the internal structure of the algebra. He does not rely on methods and theorems extrinsic to the subject. In his words: The goal of this memoir ... is to study systems of [hyper]complex numbers especially from the point of view of their composition and to apply this to bilinear groups. This study, which occupies paragraphs IV-VII of this memoir, forms a whole in itself; it does not call forth any notion from the theory of groups and stays exclusively in the realm of the theory of [hyper]complex numbers.245 Thus, whereas the results and methods of SCHEFFERS(and also of MOLIEN, although CARTAN did not know of his work at the time he wrote this paper) on hypercomplex number systems depend heavily on the local LIE group structure, CARTAN shows that the theory of algebras can stand on its own merits as a subject worthy of study, that it does not have to be viewed only in the reflected light of LIE groups. We must now see just how CARTAN accomplished this goal. In Section IV, CARTAN sets up the key definitions and ideas which he uses in his subsequent analysis. For CARTAN, a hypercomplex number system 2J consists of elements x = x l e l + x2e2 + -b xrer
. . .

where the e~'s are symbols (or basis vectors in today's terminology) and the x;'s are scalars in the complex or in the real field. These elements add and multiply in the usual ways, and multiplication is assumed to be associative. CARTAN also requires that the algebra Z' have an identity element e. 246 After remarking that 244 In modern terms, CARTAN'S bilinear groups were also just LIE subgroups of
GL,(C).

245 CARTAN "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les systSmes de nombres complexes," p. B1, or O e u v r e s E . C . , 1, pt. 2: 7. 246 Ibid., pp. B15-B16, or pp. 21-22. Although CARTAN gives no reference, this development is exactly the same as that in GEoac SCHErFERS, "Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen," pp. 291-94; and "Zurtickftihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," pp. 295-96.

294

K. ]-I. PARSHALL

a change of basis does not change the algebra, he develops the fundamental idea upon which his approach depends, namely, the notion of the characteristic equation of a hypercomplex number system. Let x = ~ x i e i be an element in 27. CARTAN wants to find all
i=I

y = ~ y~e~
i=I

in Z' which satisfy the equation (4.1)

x y = 09y

for 09 in the underlying field. He notes that (4.1) is satisfied provided o~ satisfies
SXiO~il 1 -- CO ~Xi~i21 ... "'" ... SXiOCir ! SXi~ir2 . .. 27.XiOCir r -- co [ I= 0

(4.2)

27Xi0i12 SXii22 -- 09 . . . . . . . . . ~XiOCilr ~XiOCi2r

where the ~ijk'S are the structure constants of the number system as determined by the relation x y = 27 ~ i j k x i y j e k . In other words, he is looking for the eigenvectors y of L~, where L~ denotes left translation by x, and he accomplishes this by solving the equation det (Lx - c o I ) = 0 for 09, where I is the identity transformation. Viewing x as a generic element, that is, thinking of xl, x2, . . . , Xr as variables, the polynomial equation (4.2) defines CARTAN'S characteristic equation. Similarly, he defines a second characteristic equation which we would denote by det (R~ - co/) = 0. 247 N o w suppose the characteristic equation has at most h distinct roots and let a be an d e m e n t in S such that det (L~ - coI) = 0 has h distinct roots, 091, co2,
", coh"

Then there exists an d e m e n t c~1 such that

a0 i =

COiO~i ;

then, if the root col is multiple, there exists an element c~ such that

a~'l = co~'l + 212-1;

then an d e m e n t ~j' such that a ~ ' = o l c ~ ' + 221cq + ~.22c~'1, and so on. Finally, to the root 09t of multiplicity rnl, there corresponds a , m1--1 system of ml linearly independent elements al, al . . . . . al such that the
247 CARTAN, "Stlr les groupes bilin6aires et les syst~mes de nombres complexes," pp. B16-B17, or O e u v r e s E . C . , 1 pt. 2: 22-23. In his work cited in the previous note, SCHEFFERS considers not det(L x -- coI) but rather det L x which he denotes Ax. He also makes a parallel statement about V: = det Rx. SCHEFFERS is looking at det(L x -- o~I) and det(R x -- toI) by 1891. See "Zuriickffihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," p. 303. Note that CARTAN,SCHEFFERS,and the others do not use the notation det(Lx -- ~oI)and det(R x -- ~oI) but rather notation as in equation (4.2) above, and they never speak of eigenvectors, eigenvalues, L x or R x.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

295

product of a and each a~ is equal to the product of a~ and 0) plus a linear combination of the preceeding [i.e., a~i-1), a(li-2), ..., a~, al]. One may proceed in this same way for the roots ~02. . . . . 0)h. . . . 248 In other words, based on the assumption that we have an element a in Z" whose characteristic equation has the maximal number of distinct roots h, we get the following matrix representation of La

OJ I

:'~
0)1

(4.3)

0)2 :'." ] " 0 0)2

0) h e,:

"oJ

which gives us a direct sum decomposition of Z into distinct subalgebras, A1 fi3 A2 .,. Ah, one corresponding to each of the blocks in the matrix (4.3). 249 Furthermore, "... the product of an element belonging to the root 0)1 with an arbitrary element of the system still belongs to the root 0)~. . . . ,,2so or each of these direct summands is a right ideal. Given this structure o f - r we may write the identity e of Z as e = e~ + e2 + ... + eh where ei is a left identity for A~ and esA ~ = 0, for i 4: j. These e[s are called partial identities, and they are, in modern terminology, pairwise orthogonal idempotents. TM By exploiting these partial identities, CARTAN then microscopically dissects the hypercomplex number system and reassembles it in what proves to be a very astute way. In order to give some feeling for the way in which CARTAN thinks about hypercomplex number systems, we shall now examine this method of decomposition very carefully. Consider A~. As we have just shown, el is a left identity for A1, but what happens when we multiply A~ on the right by e~ ? Other24-8 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," pp. B17-B18, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 23-34. 249 CARTANdoes not use the matrix notation in this paper at all. He does write determinants as in equation (4.2) above. 250 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst~mes de nombres complexes," p. B18, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 24. CARTANnever uses the term "ideal." 251 Ibid. CARTANcalls these e[s "modules partiels" after SCHEFFERS'term "Modul" for the identity element of an algebra. See SCHEFFERS,"Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen," p. 294. Neither CARTAN nor SCHEFFERS uses the term "pairwise orthogonal idempotent."

296

K . H . PARSHALL

wise put, how does R,~ act on A~ ? Since one and zero are the eigenvalues of R,~, we can choose a basis, keeping the old notation, such that
a i e l = al, a~P)ei = O,

a e, = al,

a~P-1)el = a~p-l), a~nl-1)el = O.

Now look at the subspace of A~ spanned by a~"). . . . . a ~ 1-~). H o w does R,, act on such a subspace ? Again, the eigenvalues of R~ are one and zero, so we can choose a basis satisfying
a~P)e2 = a~,), a~q)e2 --- O,

alq-1)e2 = a~q-l),

a~ml-1)e2 = 0,

Continuing in this way, we get a complete decomposition of A~ relative to our set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents, e~, . . . , eh. Repeating this process, we may similarly decompose A2 . . . . . Ah. 252 In summary, then, ... we can choose, with el . . . . . eh, rh linearly independent elements of the system, ~h, r/2 . . . . , ~Trh, such that for each ~7, there exist indices o and fl ~ h in such a way that we have

all products ei~, riej being zero for i 4= 0~ and j 4= ft. The pair of indices (o, fl) constitute what Mr. Scheffers has called the type [caract6re] of the element. We may add the important remark that, whenever one has h elements el, ..., eh satisfying e~ = % eiej = 0, the preceding reduction is possible. 25a Thus, almost thirty years after BENJAMINPEIRCE first circulated his paper "Linear Associative Algebra" and almost twenty years after it appeared in print in the A m e r i c a n Journal o f M a t h e m a t i c s , CARTAN independently discovers the PEmCE decomposition of an algebra with respect to a set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents. As we shall soon see, WEDDERBURN also relies on the PEmCE decomposition in his paper of 1907, although he develops a much more elegant method of p r o o f to use in conjunction with it. 252 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," p. B19, or Oeuvres E.C., l, pt. 2: 25. 253 Ibid., There seems to be a misprint here in CARTAN'S text. The symbol "rh" should read "r-h". The example of the algebra of upper triangular matrices with basis el~, e~2, and e22 provides two ds, namely, ela and e22, and one 7/, namely e~2. Unless there is a misprint, r would have to equal -~, a rather unlikely situation. I have translated CARTAN'Sword "caract6re" by "type" to avoid any confusion with the group character.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

297

As for CARTAN, after reorganizing his hypercomplex number system according to this basis of e~'s and ~Tj's, he continues his analysis by rather painstakingly proving a series of facts and lemmas which shed further light on the internal workings of the algebra. He remarks that "the product of a [hyper]complex number of type (0~, fl) and a [hyper]complex number of type (7, 8) is zero if fl 4 = 7 and is a [hyper]complex number of type (~, 8) if /3 = 7, ''2s4 just as the PEmCE decomposition requires. Then he considers the subspace of all elements of type (~,/3) whose dimension over the base field he denotes by m~. Concentrating on the set of numbers of type (1, 1), he observes that they form a subalgebra Z'~ of X which has a very special form. First, it lives inside At and has the property that e~ is both its left and right identity. Second, its characteristic equation, that is, the characteristic equation of L~, where x is the generic element, has only one root whose multiplicity is necessarily equal to the dimension of Z'~. I f it were not, the analysis outlined in the above paragraphs would yield two partial identities, e~ and e'l', in Z'1. Thus, the characteristic equation of the element
a;e i + a~'e;' + azea + ... + aheh

where the a's are distinct would have h + 1 distinct roots,

a;

....

contradicting the maximality assumption on h. zSs This rather simple observation now motivates one of the most important definitions in the entire paper. Consider the set of elements of Xt whose associated characteristic polynomials have a nonzero root. Because the characteristic polynomial of X~ has only one root, this set together with the zero element form a one-dimensional subspace of X~ over 13 with basis e I. This implies that the subspace of Z'~ consisting of all elements whose characteristic polynomials have only the zero root has dimension m~t - 1 over C. N o w define a pseudo-null element of a hypercomplex number system to be an element whose characteristic polynomial has only the zero root. The (rnt~ - 1)-dimensional subspace of X~, then, is pseudo-null, that is, it has a basis of rn~ - 1 pseudo-null elements all linear combinations of which are pseudo-null. 256 This key definition betrays the source of CARTAN'S ideas. As we have already noted, CARTAN redid much of WILHELM KILLINa'S work on LIE algebras in his thesis by providing proofs where they were lacking and by correcting proofs
224 Ibid., p. B20, or p. 26. 2 5 2 Ibid., pp. B20-B21, pp. 26-27. 2 5 6 Ibid., p. B21, or p. 27. Notice that Y~ is, what we would call today, a local algebra, since its mr1 -- 1-dimensional subspace actually forms an ideal. Also, CARTAN'S definition of a pseudo-null dement is equivalent to the modern notion of a nilpotent element, although he did not think of it in our present-day terms. To see this, consider an algebra with identity of dimension m over e, and take a pseudo-null dement ~ in the algebra. By the HAMILTON-CAYLEYtheorem, L~ satisfies its own characteristic polynomial, that is, (L~)m = 0. This is equivalent to L~,~ = 0, and since the algebra has an identity, this forces ~x 'n = 0, the modern notion of a nilpotent element. As we saw in Section 2, BENJAMINPEIRCE had already given this modern definition in his "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 104.

298

K . H . PARSHALL

where they were faulty. KILLING had arrived at very many of his results by a shrewd analysis of the characteristic equation of the LIE algebra L, or in modern notation, by studying the equation (4.4) det (ad x - co/) = 0

where ad x: ~0~ La is defined by y ~ Ix, y]. In particular, KILLING analyzed the internal structure of the LIE algebra by means of the so-called rank zero subalgebra which consisted of elements whose characteristic equation (4.4) had only the zero root. 2~7 CARTAN took these same ideas, altered them to conform to the hypercomplex number system set-up, and then developed them in this context. Thus, equation (4.4) from LIE algebras became det (Lx - od) = 0 for hypercomplex number systems, and the rank zero LIE subalgebra became the pseudo-null subalgebra. In the report he gave in support of CARTAN'S application to the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Paris, POINCAR heralded this sort of reasoning by analogy as one of the most fruitful approaches possible to mathematical research. He wrote: One could say that mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things . . . . This similarity of name, in effect, evidences a similarity of fact, a sort of parallelism which could have escaped notice. One has then only to trace, so to speak, the new theory upon the former, already known theory. Still, they must agree: one must give the same name to different things, but under the condition that the things be different in matter, but not in form. 2s8 POINCARt~ seemed to be outlining exactly that philosophy which guided CARTAN in his paper of 1898. After this fundamental definition. CARTAN explores various ways of altering a pseudo-null element so that the resulting element will still be pseudo-null. For example, he proves that i f ~ is a pseudo-null element in Z'I, it is also pseudo-null in Z'; he shows that the product of a pseudo-null element of type (1,1) and an arbitrary element of type (1,1) is pseudo-null; and he states that all elements in Z' of type (~, fl) where ~ ~: fl are pseudo-null. 2s9 With all of these preliminaries out of the way, CARTANsets to work on his classification of hypercomplex number systems. 257 WILHELMKILLING, "Die Zusammensetzung der stetigen endlichen Transformationsgruppen," Mathematische Annalen 31 (1887): 285-90. CARTAN himself makes this connection between his work and KILLING'Sin "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," p. B84, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 90. 2s8 HENRI POINCAR~,"Rapport sur les travaux de M. Cartan fait ~ la Facult6 des Sciences de l'Universit6 de Paris," Acta Mathematica 38 (1921): 137. 259 CARTAN, "SLlr les groupes bilin6aries et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," pp. B21-B24, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 27-30. CARTAN'Sproofs of these facts and others indicate that he did not know the HAMILTON-CAYLEYtheorem which appeared in the

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

299

In Section V of the paper, he begins by promptly splitting the set of hypercomplex number systems into two classes. " T h e first class is formed of systems whose characteristic equation decomposes into linear factors. The second [class is formed] of systems for which the characteristic equation admits one or more irreducible factors of degree greater than one. ''26 In these definitions, CARTAN again has in mind the characteristic equation of the generic element x = ~] xiei
i=l

where Z is the hypercomplex number system of dimension r over the field C. A class one system, then, is one whose characteristic polynomial looks like det (Lx - cod =
(--0) + O~ilX i d- 012X 2 -I- . . . -~ O~IrXr) ... ( - - 0 ) "~ OCrlX1 "~- Or2X2 -}- . . . -I- OCrrXr)

where the ccij's belong to C and where each factor is linear in each of the r + 1 variables, o~, xl, ..., Xr. The factors of the characteristic equation of a class two system, though, are not necessarily linear in each of the r + 1 variables. CARTAN'S plan of attack centers on the class one systems. After analyzing them, he explains that "we will find, moreover, a simple procedure for deducing all systems of the second class from those of the first. ''261 Thus, his study of hypercomplex number systems over the complex field falls into two parts. In Section V he decomposes the class one algebras, and in Section VI, after characterizing the class two systems, he shows how to deduce them from algebras of the first class. Consider a class one hypercomplex number system Z' of dimension r over C, and assume that the characteristic equation of Z has at most h distinct roots. Since all of the results in Section IV hold for arbitrary number systems, in particular, we can choose a basis for Z consisting of h partial identities, et, e2, . . . , eh and k = r - h pseudo-null elements 71, 72 . . . . . 7k each of some well-defined type (o~, fl). Since Z is a first class algebra, it is easy to see that for u and v in Z, the roots of the characteristic equation of u + v are the sums of the roots of the characteristic equations of u and v. Thus, by definition of pseudo-null, the sum of two pseudo-null elements in Z' is pseudo-null, as is every clement of the form
Yl~I + Y2~2 d- . . . -]-Yk~k,

paper of 1858 by CAYLEYand which was actually proven as early as 1867 by LAGUERRE. This theorem states: Let T be a linear transformation on a finite-dimensional vector space V. If f denotes the characteristic polynomial of T, that is, if f(co) = d e t ( T - col), then f ( T ) = 0. In other words, a linear transformation satisfies its own characteristic polynomial. Many of CARTAN'Sproofs would have gone through much more easily had he realized this fact in 1898. By 1908, when he wrote his historical article, he did know the theorem. See CARTAN, "Nombres complexes, exposd, d'apr~s l'article altemand de E. Study," p. 418, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 196. 260 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilindaires et les syst~mes de hombres complexes," p. B24, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 30. 261 Ibid. From a modern point of view, the classification of class one and class two systems holds much more interest than this process of getting a class two algebra from an algebra of class one, but CARTANfelt that this latter accomplishment was the more significant.

300

K. H, PARSHALL

where the yi's are in C. This shows that the set a of pseudo-null elements is d o s e d under addition. Since "the product of a pseudo-null element and an arbitrary element of the system as well as the product of an arbitrary element and a pseudonull element are pseudo-null, ''262 o" is in fact a two-sided ideal. With the ideal structure of a established, "the partial identities el, e2 . . . . . eh of Z' are now going to play a secondary role, and everything comes back to studying the system o'.''263 Thus, since the pseudo-null ideal a represents the only stumbling block to a complete understanding of the class one algebra, its structure must now be determined. CARTAN solves this problem only after expending a great deal of energy. Ultimately, he reaches the conclusion that "one can choose the basis elements ~/1, z/a. . . . . ~/k of a in such a way that the product ~Ti~/idepends only on z/i+1. . . . , Z/k if i is greater than or equal to j, and on ~i+I, -.., z/k i f j is greater than or equal to i.,,264 To obtain this result, CARTAN argues by induction on the dimension of the pseudo-null ideal. First, he explicitly handles the one- and two-dimensional cases, and then he launches into a rather arduous, five page p r o o f o f the k-dimensional case, which need not concern us here. The spirit of the argument, however, reveals quite a bit. As we have already pointed out, CARTAN came to the study of hypercomplex number systems from LIE algebras. He brought with him a deep understanding of the definitions and techniques which had yielded such an abundance of LIEtheoretic results. As POINCARt~ explained, CARTAN'S strategy hinges on applying these methods, in a suitably altered form, to hypercomplex number systems. In the case of his definition of pseudo-null, this dependence on analogy proves to be somewhat of a hindrance, for his arguments are often much more complicated than they need be. WEDDERBURN'Swork of 1907 in " O n Hypercomplex N u m b e r s " drives home this point. There, WEDDERBuRN, just like BENJAMIN PEIRCE before him, defines the concept of a nilpotent element. F o r them, an element x in an algebra is nilpotent if there exists a positive integer m such that x m = 0. CARTAN'S definition of pseudo-null, although equivalent to the notion of nilpotent, has the built-in disadvantage that all discussions pertaining to it must be in terms of the existence of zero or nonzero roots of characteristic polynomials. Thus, although the notion of pseudo-null applies to an element (or algebra), the proofs must depend upon a somewhat external construction, the characteristic equation. The concept of a nilpotent element (or algebra), on the other hand, merely demands p r o o f that a certain element (or algebra) be zero. Nothing external is required. Consider the following p r o o f of CARTAN'S characterization of the pseudo-null part of a class one algebra. In " O n Hypercomplex Numbers," WEDDERBURN proves in five lines that a non-nilpotent ideal contains a nonzero element e such that e 2 = e. Then he notes that "the converse of this theorem is that an [ideal], every one of whose elements is nilpotent is itself nilpotent. This shows that the
262 263 264-

Ibid., p. B25, or p. 31. Ibid., p. B27, or p. 33. 1bid., p. B33, or p. 39. It is interesting to note that this theorem is the analogue

in the hypercomplex number system of EN~EL'S theorem in the theory of LIE algebras. CARTAN does not mention ENOEL in this context, but he cites other authors only very infrequently in the paper anyway. When he does, it is only by name, with no reference to specific titles.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

301

definition of a nilpotent [ideal] ... is identical with one given by CARTAN and others. ''265 When this is known, a WEDDERBURNeSque p r o o f of CARTAN'S theorem would read, let m be the smallest positive integer such that a m = 0. Then
a ~a ~ ~ ... =~-~ 2 (0) = a m.

We can choose a basis for a by first choosing one for trm-~, then extending it to one for trm-2, and so on. Renumbering makes the basis elements satisfy CARTAN'S condition. This very p r o o f presents quite a contrast to CARTAN'S seven page induction argument. 266 This illustrates an often-recurring phenomenon in mathematics. We have here two mathematicians viewing the same things from two different vantage points. The source of light blazes between CARTAN and the objects he perceives. Almost blinded, he can make out shapes but cannot see clearly. WEDDERBURN steps around. With the light shining from behind, he discerns with perfect clarity. Regardless of his methods, however, CARTAN does succeed in completely determining the structure of the class one algebras. He summarizes his findings in this way: Given a system of [hyper]complex numbers of dimension r whose characteristic equation decomposes into linear factors, one can always choose r = h + k basis elements of the system e~, e2, ..., eh,~h,~72, ...,~lg in such a way that the following conditions are satisfied: 1 The square of one of the basis elements el, e2 . . . . . eh is equal to this same basis element [e2 = e], the product of two different e's being zero; 20 To each basis element ~/, there corresponds a pair of indices ~, fl less than or equal to h, which make up the type of this basis element, and such that two products e~r/, ~Te~are equal to ~7, all the other products e~7, ~/ej being zero; 3 0 The product of two basis elements 7, the first of which has type (o, fi) and the second of which has type (y, tS), is zero if fi is different from y, and is a linear combination of basis elements of type (a, 8) if fl is equal to y. 4 0 The product of two basis elements ~i, ~Tj of indices i and j is a linear combination of basis elements ~ the indices of which are greater than both i and j.267 His next task amounts to showing that the description actually characterizes algebras of class one. To accomplish this, he takes an algebra enjoying these
265 WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," pp. 90-91. In modern terms, in the finite-dimensional case, a nil algebra is nilpotent, where a nil algebra is one all of whose elements are nilpotent. 266 I call this proof "WEDDERBURNeSque" for he does not actually prove this fact in his paper. It is, however, definitely in his style. Compare, for example, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," pp. 90-91. 267 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de hombres complexes," pp. B34-35, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 39-40. Notice that class one algebras are simply those algebras Z" which have the property that Z/or =~ e @ ... @ e (b copies of e), where 2: has dimension r over e, ~ has dimension k, and r = h + k.

302

K . H . PARSHALL

properties and deduces that its characteristic equation does indeed have linear factors. Just for the sake of balance, he also shows that the second characteristic equation of S, namely, det (R~ - ~oI) = 0, where x is the generic element, decomposes into linear factors, and that the two characteristic equations are the same up to multiplicity. 26s With the problem of the class one algebras finished, he begins work on those of the second class. In Section VI, CARTAN first resets the stage to make ready for the entrance of the class two algebras. Throughout the discussion which follows, let Z' be a second class algebra of dimension r over C. Its characteristic equation, then, has at least one irreducible factor of degree greater than one. As in Section IV, we have h partial identities e~, e2, . . . , eh 269 and k = r - h pseudo-null basis elements rh . . . . . ~/k. It is important to note that since Z' is class two, linear combinations of pseudo-null elements in Z' are no longer necessarily pseudo-null. The first of CARTAN'S four characterizations of the class two algebras plays precisely on this fact. Consider the basis of ei's and ~b's described above, but reorder the basis elements in the following way:

(4.5)
e2,

el, ~ 1 , ~ 2 , " ' ' ,

type (1,1)
~, .,~.1 .... ,

~ a , ~]~+1 . . . . .

~]fl, ~]fl+l . . . . .

type (2,1)... type (h,l)

~ , ~/~+1. . . .

~ , ~ + 1 -..,

ea, . . . .

type (1,2)

type(2,2) ... type (h,2) ...

Define
ni = 1 + nil + n2i + . . . + nhl ,

where n~ denotes the number of pseudo-null basis elements of type (g, fl), and relabel the basis in (4.5) as

where ~1 = el, ~2 = ~h . . . . . n~+1 = e2, (n~+2 = ~r, ..., ~'n,+~ = e3, ... With respect to this new ordered basis, the characteristic equation of the generic element z = z ~ ' t + z2~2 + ... + zr~r has a very nice form, namely,

I
A -- det (L~ - ~oI) = det
= A1A 2 ...Ah,

[ n2 X/'/2

268 Ibid., pp. B35-B36, or pp. 4-42. 269 CARTANhas changed his notation from ei to e i for the partial identities.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

303

where Ai denotes the determinant of the ni ni block. Alternatively, we can factor A into the product of its irreducible factors Pi so that d = P ~ pq2.., p]l where qi is the multiplicity of the factor P~. Concentrating solely on A 1, we may write
t p t

A1 = p~ipg2.., p?l,
where 1 =< qi <= qi.270 The strategy behind CARTAN'S first characterization of the class two algebras depends on the closest possible scrutiny of A. As outlined above, he considers A first, then narrowing his perspective to A 1, he finally focusses on P1. By analyzing the degree of homogeneity of these polynomials with respect to particular variables and by suitably specializing the generic element z, CARTAN concludes that 27 contains a nonpseudo-null element u of the form (e12 + e23 + ... + e~) + (ec~+l,c~+2 + .., + ea,~+l) + . . . + (~b+1,~+1 + ... + ~7~,~), where the e0's and the ~/u'S are elements of type ( i , j ) and (l, l), respectively, and are linear combinations of the pseudo-null basis elements ~h, ~2 . . . . . ~ . Thus, the element u in X is the sum of pseudo-nulls but is not itself pseudo-null, " a necessary and sufficient condition for the system S to be of the second kind. ''271 Using this characterization, CARTAN refines his description of the class two algebras even further. Given this element u in X, there exists a nonzero scalar ;t in C and a nonzero element v in X such that
t/V = ~.V
p

since u is not pseudo-null. Without loss of generality, we may replace u by ~ - u to get (4.6)
uv = v.

I f we out v in terms of the basis elements and use the special nature of the multiplication of pseudo-null elements as determined in Section IV, equation (4.6) shows us we may take u = el2 + e23 + and
v = S (v~j + v2j + . . . + v~j)
..-

-]- e~l

where one or more (but not all) of the terms vii of type (i, j ) may be zero. Substituting these expressions into (4.6) and equating coefficients yields the series
270 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," pp. B38-B40, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 44-46. The ordered basis amounts to viewing Z' as Lea Q 27e2 Q ... Q 2;eh, a direct sum of (minimal) left ideals where n i = dim Xei. 271. 1bid., pp. B42-B43, or pp. 48-49.

304 o f equations

K . H . PARSHALL

el2V2j

l)lj ~ v2j ~

e23u3j ~

(4.7)
CcdVlj ~ vo~ j.

Choosing j such that none of these vo's is zero and substituting repeatedly into (4.7) we have (elze23 ... e~l) vii = vlj , (e23e24 ... el2) u2j
: V2j ,

(e~le12 ... e~_m,~) v~j = vc,j, where each of the terms in parentheses is o f type (i, i) for 1 ~ i _< ~ and is not pseudo-null. 272 After showing that the numbers n~, are equal regardless of the choice of 2 and /z for 1 ~ 2, /z ~ ~,273 CARTAN applies the definition o f pseudo-nullity over and over again to construct ... o~ 2 elements ei: ( i , j -- 1, 2 , . . . , ~) o f type (i,j) satisfying the multiplicative law (4.8)
elje:l
= ell

(i,~L l = 1, 2 . . . . . o0.

Furthermore, the products of e;: by the set o f numbers of type (j, 2), where ;t is arbitrary, gives all elements o f type (i, 2); similarly, the products o f the set o f elements o f type (2, i) by eij gives all elements o f type (,~,j).274 I n short, for o~ = 2, CARTAN has f o u n d that every second class algebra contains a quaternion system, or, in m o d e r n terminology, a copy o f the 2 2 matrices over C. 275 F r o m this, two more characterizations o f class two algebras immediately follow. I f el~, e12, e2~ and e22 denote the standard basis elements o f the quaternion system, M2(C), then we have (e12 + e21)(el2 + e21) = ell + e22,
I b i d , , pp. B43-B44, or pp. 49-50. 273 This "nz~" is the same as WEDDERBURN'S"dimension of ezAe~" where A is the algebra and ez and e~ are pairwise orthogonM idempotents. As we shall soon see, these subspaces, which result from the PEIRCE decomposition, play the key role in WEDDERBURN'S analysis of non-nilpotent or, as he says, potent algebras 274 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," pp. B46-B47, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 52-53. 275 The quaternions as defined by HAMILTON, namely, a q- bi + cj + dk for a, b, c, d in 1%are not isomorphic to the 2 2 matrices over C. However, CLIFFORD'Sbiquaternions, a + bi + cj + dk for a, b, c, d in C are isomorphic to them. CARTAN, like SC~mFrERS, thinks of the quaternions in this latter sense, hence the term quaternion system.
272

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras which says that e~2 + eat is not pseudo-null, as well as
e12e21 =
ell = e I .

305

Now it follows that " a necessary and sufficient condition for a system to be of the second class is that there exist an element which is the sum of two elements of types (0~, fl) and (fl, ~), respectively, and which is not pseudo-null, or that there exist two elements of type (%/3) and (fl, ~) whose product is the partial identity
e~. ~'276

The characterization from which these latter two versions followed, namely, the existence of a quaternion system in every algebra of the second class, served to link CARTAN'S dichotomy of hypercomplex number system with that of SCHEFFERS. In his paper of 1891 entitled "Zufiickfiihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," SCHEFFZRSextended his earlier work by splitting the theory of algebras into the study of what he termed "quaternion" and "non-quaternion" systems, paralleling LIE'S division of LiE algebras into integrable and non-integrable ones. 277 In light of this previous research, the burden of proof lay with CARTAN to show that his characterization of algebras into classes was either the same as or totally different from SCR~FF~RS'. The argument sketched in the three preceding paragraphs showed that the classifications were, in fact, equivalent. CARTAN justly noted, however, that whereas SCrtEFFERS dealt case-by-case with systems of dimension strictly less than nine, his own method handled all complex and hypercomplex number systems regardless of dimension. Although both useful and descriptive, the four characterizations discussed above do not provide a complete determination of the structure of algebras of the second class. In order to succeed in this, CARTAN launches off once again into a constructive and very detailed elementwise analysis of the class two algebra S. Taking the series of integers 1, 2 , .... h corresponding to the partial identities of the algebra, we can split up this series ... into a certain number of other series such as (1, 2. . . . ,p), (p + 1, ..., q) . . . . , each of which enjoys the following properties. We can pass from one arbitrary index in one of these series to another arbitrary index /3 of the same series through a certain number of indices of the same series, say ),, 6, ..., 2, in such a way that there exists a non-pseudo-null element of the form ~ + ~]r~, a non-pseudo-null element of the form ~7~ + ~ . . . . . a non-pseudo-null element of the form ~ + ~];., where we denote by ~ij an element of type (i, j). Furthermore, if 2, # are two arbitrary indices belonging to two different series, there exists no non-pseudo-null element of the form ~/~, + ~/,~.27s In modern terms, this amounts to defining an equivalence relation on the set of indices {1, 2 . . . . , h}. Consider the equivalence class (I, 2 , . . . , p } , after suitable
276 C A R T A N , i'Sur les groupes bilindaires et les syst~mes de nombres complexes," p. B47, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 53. 277 SCHEI~FERS ' "Zurfickftihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," pp. 293-94. 27s CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," p. B48 or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 54.

306

K . H . PARSHALL

renumbering. It generates p non-pseudo-null elements,

/712 + ~]21, T]23 + ~'/a2, - . . , / ' ] p - l , p +
~]p,p-1

Since each of these non-pseudo-null elements is the sum of two pseudo-nulls, we may repeat the argument indicated above for the element u on each of the elements ~/g,~+~+ ~h+m. This process yields the remaining basis elements of the p2-dimensional subalgebra corresponding to the equivalence class {1, 2 . . . . . p}. Notice that this subalgebra is isomorphic to a p p matrix subalgebra. The elements ~/,,t+l and ~+a,~ correspond to the off-diagonal entries, and the sums ~i,i+l + ~/i+1,i identify with those on the diagonal. 279 Suppose now that we consider the set of elements of type (i, 2) obtained by multiplying e0 by the set of elements of type (j, 2) for arbitrary 2 and for 1 =< i, j ___< p as well as the set of elements of type (2,j) obtained by multiplying the set of elements of type (2, i) by e0. In other words, suppose we look at the subspaces ezSej and e,.Z'exof S, where 1 ~ i , j <~ p and 2 is arbitrary. In CARTAN'Snotation, these subspaces have dimension naj and n~a, respectively, but as we have already seen, n~t~= n~n regardless of the choice of indices. Thus, ifex~, % ~/, ... is a basis of the space of elements of type (1, 1), we may define the following basis of ei Sej for 1 ~ i,j<=p:
l]iy =

eilrtely,
r

~0 = eelrl ely, (4.9) eiy = eilelleli. Using this, if 2 > p and eaz, ~h~. . . . form a basis for e~ Se~, we get a basis for ez Sea by setting
~]i~ :
p

eil~l~,
r

~i:. = eid?v., (4.10)

ei = eile I

where the ,11~ ~(i),o _ p. Similarly, we can o are defined as in (4.9) and where 1 _ < i< construct a basis for e~.Sei. Notice that these basis elements multiply according to equation (4.8) where the products eoela = 0, for j @ k, are implied) s In terms of matrices, these two subspaces e~Sex and e~ 'ei of L" are isomorphic to spaces of p (r - p ) and (r - p ) p matrices, respectively. Pictorially, then, the construction in the two preceding paragraphs represents subspaces of Z' isomorphic to the shaded matrix subspaces below. Repeating this construction process for the remaining blocks down the diagonal, we get a basis for the entire subspace of r x r matrices which corresponds to a basis for the entire algebra S. 279 Ibid. 2so Ibid., p. B49, or p. 55.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

307

x ....
~(r-p) 1)

In determining the structure of the class two algebra 27 in this way, however, we have actually used more information than needed. To deduce the multiplication table of the system 27, we have only to "consider then the system formed by basis elements belonging to types (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 1), (2,/z), where 2 a n d / z are greater than p.,,281 To see this, take two elements ,1~1~(e) and ~7~ ) of type (1, 1). Let
~% ~(r). 11~111 -'~oarffll, ,r / (,r) ( o~ ) ~

from this we deduce

(.o) or (r)

~,oceoreil~]l 1 ell

ij Iljl

~'c~Oartlil ,

l<i,.],l<p

and this formula still applies in the case where one of the elements ~7}] ), ~/~]) is the partial identity eal. 282 This gives us the multiplication table of ei Set for 1 < i, I < p, from that of et 27el. Similarly, all we require to obtain the multiplication tables of ei Z'e~ and ea 27ei, where 1 < i < p, are bases of el 27e~ and ez Xel, respectively. Finally, by going through the above construction for each of the other equivalence classes (p + 1, .... q}, (q + 1. . . . , s}. . . . . . we conclude that "it suffices to consider the system of [hyper]complex numbers formed from the elements of types (1, 1), (1,p + 1), (1, q + 1), ..., (p + 1, 1), ..., and that from the law of multiplication of this system we may deduce that of the whole system. ''283 To put this another way, we can determine the multiplication of the entire algebra Z' by applying the procedure outlined above to the subalgebra 27' which may be described
as

el Xel el Xev+l G

ex 27eq 1 @ . . . .

0 ep+l Xel ~ ep+i Xep+l q) ep+l Xeq+l @ ....

281 Ibid. 282 Ibid. 283 Ibid., p. B50, or p. 56.

308

K. I-L PARSHALL

This algebra 27" belongs to the first class because there exist no non-pseudo-nullelements of the form ~ij + ~j~ where i and j are elements of the set {1, p + 1, q + 1, ...}. With this we have finally shown that "we can deduce an arbitrary system 27 of the second class from a system Z ' of the first class. ''2s4 As I have already pointed out, CARTAN felt that this fact represented one of the major accomplishments of his paper. F r o m WEDDERBURN'S point of view, though, the four notions which CARTAN introduced in order to render his results more succinct proved to be of much greater consequence. They were the definitions of a direct sum of two subalgebras, a two-sided ideal (or invariant subsystem, as he called it), a simple system, and a semi-simple system. In CAV.TAN'S words We say that a system N of [hyper]complex numbers decomposes into two systems Z1 and Z'2, if every element of 271 and every element of 272 as well as the sum of an arbitrary element of N1 and an arbitrary element of Z'2 belong to X; if, moreover, conversely, every element of Z' is the sum of an element of Z1 and an element of 272, in one and only one way; finally, if the product of an arbitrary element of Z'I and an arbitrary element of 272 is zero. It is understood that this definition assumes that Z'~ and 272 have no element in common. We say that a system Z' admits an invariant subsystem a, if every element of a belongs to Z and if the product, on the right or on the left, of an arbitrary element of a and an arbitrary element of N belongs to a . . . . A system 27 which admits no invariant subsystem is said to be simple. A system which decomposes into two or more simple systems is said to be semisimple. 2s 5 With these new concepts at his disposal, CARTAN was able to summarize his findings concerning class two algebras over the complex field in a way which must have been suggestive to WEDDERBURN. In fact, CARTAN stated the so-called WEDDERBURN structure theorem for simple complex algebras. He declared: All simple systems of [hyper]complex numbers are of the same kind; they are formed b y p z basis elements eli, where i a n d j take on all values 1, 2 . . . . . p and the law of multiplication of these basis elements is given by the formulas eijejt = ei~, eije~l = 0 (j 4= 2). The number p is an arbitrary integer greater than or equal to 1. These systems are called p2-ions. 2s* 284 Ibid.
285 Ibid., p. B57, or p. 63. As was mentioned in Section 3 above, the definition of "simple" also appeared in THEODORMOLIEN'S,Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen," p. 93. Here he used the word "ursprtinglich" to signify his concept of "simple." CARTAN, however, was apparently unaware of MOLIEN'S research when he wrote his paper. 28a CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," p. B58, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 64.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

309

His entire study of the theory of hypercomplex numbers over C culminated in what is now known as the WEDDERBURN principal theorem: "Every system of [hyper]complex numbers is formed by a simple or semisimple subsystem X1, and an invariant pseudo-null subsystem a. Furthermore, the nature of the semisimple subsystem is perfectly determined. ''287 WEDDERBVRN proved each of these theorems in great generality in his paper of 1907.

5. Wedderburn's Paper of 1907 " O n Hypercomplex Numbers" The year 1907 saw the appearance not only of WEDDERBURN'S work, "On Hypercomplex Numbers", but also JAMES BYRNIE SHAW'S Synopsis of Linear Associative Algebra. Published under the auspices of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, this book was a compendium of all the definitions and theorems which comprised the theory of algebras at the time and was intended to serve as a research reference manual for those mathematicians working in the area. As S~AW explained in his introduction: This memoir is genetic in its intent, in that it aims to set forth the present state of the mathematical discipline indicated by its title: not in a comparative study of different known algebras, nor in the exhaustive study of any particular, algebra, but in tracing the general laws of the whole subject ... There is a necessity ... for a presentation of the subject which sets forth the results already at hand, in a genetic order. From such a presentation may come suggestions for the future. 2ss Unfortunately, the obviously great amount of energy which SHAW expended in preparing this book came both too early and too late: too early in the sense that the book appeared just months before WEDDERBURN'S paper completely revolutionized the area, and too late because WEDDERBURN'S theorems and methods successfully sealed a huge vault filled with what had been some of the potential research problems of tomorrow. The future simply was not as distant as SHAW had perhaps imagined. Moreover, the methods he implicitly advocated to his readers proved misleading in light of WEDDERBURN'S virtually concurrent discoveries. For SHAW,the characteristic equation was the key to the general theory of linear associative algebras. He explained that The characteristic equation of the algebra and its derived equations are of this character [that is, they are fundamental invariant forms of the algebra], since they are true for all numbers irrespective of the units which define the 287 Ibid., pp. B58-B59, or pp. 64-65. When CARTAN used the words "is formed by" here, he meant "is the direct sum as subsystems of." HAWKINSdealt with CARTAN'S paper of 1898 rather cursorily and with an eye only to its applicability to group representation theory in "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," pp. 265-68. 2 8 8 SHAW, p. 5.

310

K . H . PARSFIALL algebra; or, in other words, these relations are identically the same for all

equivalent algebras. The present memoir undertakes to add to the development

of this view of the subject. 289 Thus, SHAW placed himself directly in the tradition of CARTAN and tacitly persuaded his readers that they should follow suit. He devoted roughly one third of his book solely to the characteristic equation, listing theorems about this equation as it applied both to an element and to the whole algebra. Similarly, his discussions of particular types of algebras in the middle third of the synopsis often revolved about this same concept. As we have seen, however, this became severely limited as soon as the base field was no longer assumed to be algebraically closed of characteristic zero. or at least real. This represented a major disadvantage in any attempt to establish a general theory. WEDDERBURN'S work of 1907 demonstrated that a vast portion of the theory could be developed without the slightest intervention of the characteristic equation. He proved that SHAW saw only a blurred vision of the approach which would insure future progress in the theory of algebras. ERIC TEMa'LE BELL (1883-1960), that ever colorful mathematical expositor, underscored the irony of this situation when he wrote: In that year [1907] J. B. Shaw's monumental Synopsis of Linear Associative Algebra all but immortalized the subject like a perfectly preserved green beetle in a beautiful tear of fossilized golden amber. Had this exhaustive synopsis been the last word on linear associative algebra, it would have made a noble epitaph. Instead of submitting to premature mummification and honorific burial, however, the subject insisted on getting itself reborn, or its soul transmigrated immediately in Wedderburn's paper "On Hypercomplex Numbers"
,,. 290

We must now see how WEDDERBURN achieved this transmigration of the soul of the theory of algebras. As I mentioned in the introductory section, WEDDERBURN began his mathematical career not as an algebraist but as a quaternionist under the influence of PETER GurrmIE TAIT and his disciples at the University of Edinburgh. In fact, as early as 1903, the year he took the Master of Arts degree with First Class Honors in Mathematics, four papers by WEDDERBURN had already appeared in the literature. 291 Most of his work dealt with the application of quaternions to physics and stemmed more than likely from his tenure as Nichol Assistant in the University's Physical Laboratory during the academic year 1902-1903. Although the laboratory's founder and inspiration, PETER GUTHRIE TAIa', had just died the year before WEDDERBURNtook the position, the influence of his approach to physics was still strongly felt at Edinburgh. His assistant (since 1892) and disciple, WILLIAMPEDDm (1861-19??), continued to run the Physical Laboratory 289 Ibid., p. 7. SHAW'S emphasis. ~9o E. T. BELL,"Fifty Years of Algebra in America," Addresses, 2 : 1 - 3 4 on p. 30. 291 See note 2 above. His fourth paper was "Note on the Linear Matrix Equation," Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 22 (1903-1904): 49-53.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

311

and stayed on as Assistant after TAIT'S death until 1907. Whether through direct or indirect association with TAIT, then, WEDDERBURN learned of quaternions and their applications to physics and became actively interested in contributing to
this field. 292

As evidenced by the reprints which WEDDERBURN collected during these early years, however, he apparently also learned of the very different type of research being done by WILLIAM BURNSIDE on group representation theory. Since no one in mathematics at Edinburgh at the time WEDDERBURN was a student there had an interest in the type of work BURNSIDE did, we must conjecture that WEDDERBURN learned of it on his own and consequently decided to pursue mathematical research with a more Continental flavor. This would explain his subsequent pilgrimage to Leipzig and Berlin and the thrust of his research during his year at the University of Chicago in 1904-1905. When he arrived in Chicago, WEDDERBURNprobably suffered the usual cultural shock which anyone traveling from continent to continent would have experienced. He must have adjusted quite rapidly, though, for by December 29, 1904, he had already presented a paper with SAUL EPSTEEN(1878--19 ?.9)293 to the Chicago Section of the American Mathematical Society. Entitled " O n the Structure of Hypercomplex N u m b e r Systems," their paper succeeded in proving the JORDAN-HOLDER theorem, a result from the theory of finite groups, in the corresponding setting for hypercomplex number systems. 294 In their introduction, they noted that the continuous group theory analogue of this theorem had already been proved by ERNEST VESSIOT (1865-1952) and ENGEL, thereby providing a further link between WEDDERBURN and the G e r m a n tradition in LIE theory. EVSTEEN, however, had 292 The following remark appears in MICHAELJ. CROWE,A History o f Vector Analysis: The Evolution o f the Idea o f a Vectorial System (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967), p. 120: "Similarly one would expect that TAIT in his mathematical physics courses at Edinburgh would have used quaternions wherever possible. This he did not do. One of TAIT'S students wrote in a biographical sketch of TAIT: "Tait, as far as I know, never lectured on the subject [quaternions] at the University of Edinburgh." Thus, although it may be inaccurate to assert that WEDDERBURNlearned of these matters directly from TAIT, during WEDDERBURN'Suniversity days, quaternions and their physical applications represented a topic of prime importance and an area of active research at Edinburgh due to TAIT'S influence. 29a At the time of WEDDERBURN'Svisit, EPSTEEN was an associate (not to be confused with the permanent position of associate professor) in the Mathematics Department. He had gotten his Ph.D. in Zurich in 1901 under HEINRICHF. K. L. BURKHARD (1861--1914) and had already published several papers on hypercomplex numbers systems. 294. SAUL EPSTEEN JOSEPH H. M. WEDDERBURN, "On the Structure of Hypercomplex Number Systems," Transactions o f the American Mathematical Society 6 (April 1905): 172-78. In modern terminology, the JORDAN-HOLDERtheorem may be stated as follows: Let G be a group. A finite descending chain of subgroups G = Go ( GI C ... C G k = 1 is called a proper normal series for G if G i is a proper normal subgroup of Gi_ 1, for each 1 --< i ---<k. The quotient groups Gi_I/G i are called the factors of the series. A proper n0rmal series is a composition series if all of the factors are simple. Theorem (JORDAN-HrLDER): Any two composition series of a group G are equivalent, that is, they have the same length k and their factors are the same up to isomorphism.

312

K . H . PARSHALL

apparently been well-aware of the current research in this area before WEDDERBURN had even gone to Germany. As early as June 1903, he had submitted a paper to the Transactions o f the American Mathematical Society in which he very dearly indicated the sources of his inspiration. 29s As he pointed out, SOVHUSLIE and GEORG SCHEFFERS had stressed the intimate connection between hypercomplex number systems and LIE groups in their book Continuierliche Gruppen which had appeared in 1893. 296 Furthermore, SCHEFFERS had remarked point blank in a paper which EPSTEEN cited that "the notion of the finite continuous transformation group embraces that of the [hypercomplex] number system, and a series of important consequences regarding [hypercomplex] number systems follows from the many general theorems of [LIE] group theory. ''297 EPSTEEN'S prior research as well as his work in 1904 with WEDDERBtJRN seemed to be motivated by SCHEFFERS' statement. In their one combined effort, the authors began by defining a complex E; of order m in an algebra E of order n. They borrowed this notion and terminology from FRO~ENIUS,who, on the basis of RICHARD DEDEKIND'Swork, had defined its meaning in the context of groups in a paper dating from 1895. In addition to this, FROBENIUS also defined the multiplication of two complexes and stated the properties which this operation enjoyed. 298 EPSTEEN and WEDDERBURNmimicked this development for algebras by first defining both addition and multiplication for their objects. They then introduced the concept of an invariant sub-system, or what we would call a two-sided ideal today, and presented THEODOR MOLIEN'S concept of an "accompanying system" : If E = E~ + E2 where Et is spanned by el, e 2. . . . . em and E 2 is spanned by era+j, era+2. . . . . e,,, ... we may write, in well known notation, E = E1 (mod E2) , E = E 2 (mod El); similarly, if x -- ix + 2x, where x belongs to E, ix to El, 2x to E2, w e 295 SAUL EPSTEEN, "Semireducible Hypercomplex Number Systems," Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 4 (Oct. 1904): 437-44. Furthermore, EVSTEEN'S thesis, Untersuchungen iiber Iineare D~ff'erentialgleichungen 4. Ordmmg und die zugeh6rigen Gruppen (Ztirich: A. Diggelmann, 1901), was already firmly in the LIE-theoretic tradition. 296 SOPHIJS LIE & GEORG SCHEFFERS, Vorlesungen fiber continuierliche Gruppen mit geometrischen trod anderen Anwendungen (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1893). The connection between LIE groups and hypercomplex number systems is as follows: Let A denote the algebra and let A* denote its group of units. The group A* is a Lm group. In the case of the n n matrices, that is, in the case of a hypercomplex number system, the group of units, and hence the associated LIE group, is just GLn, the general linear group. 297 GEORG SCHEFFERS, "Zuriickfiihrang complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," p. 294. THOMASHAWKINSmade this point based on another statement quoted from SCHEFFERsin"Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory," p. 249. 298 GEORGFROBENIUS,"~ber endliche Gruppen," Frobenius: Ges. Abh., 2: 632-63. In the introductory section, FROBE~IUSdefined a complex of a group to be simply a set of elements in the group. Hardly an interesting concept in its own right, FROBENIUS used it to define the cosets of a subgroup G of a group H. He then used these cosets or complexes to prove various Sylow-type theorems. For EPSTEEN& WEDDERBURN,a complex of a hypercomplex number system was, in modern terms, a subspace of dimension m of an algebra viewed as a vector space of dimension n over some field, where m _--<n.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

313

may write x = ~x (mod E2) or x = 2x (mod Ea). Regarding as equal any two numbers of E which are equal, modulo E2, we get when E2 is an invariant subsystem, a hypercomplex number system K which is said to accompany E and to be complementary to the invariant subsystem E2 with respect to E. 299 Using these preliminary definitions and a couple of preparatory theorems, they were able to state and prove the following JORDAN-H6LDER theorem for hypercomplex number systems: Let E, El, E2 . . . . be a normal series of subalgebras of E (i.e., Er is a maximal invariant subalgebra of Er_l, Eo = E) and le'~ K1, K2, ... be a series of complementary algebras, such that K, accompanies E~_I and is complementary to Er. Under these assumptions the series/1, K2, ... is, apart from the order, independent of the series E, E~, E2 . . . . In other words, if E, El, E z , . . . is any other normal series, the complementary series of algebras K;, K, ... which it defines is the same as the series K~,/2 . . . . . apart from the sequence.a oo The main theorem of this paper was not as important, however, as the ideas developed in order to prove it, for WEDDERBURN came back to the notion of a complex in his paper of 1907. There he presented a systematic and complete exposition of the calculus of complexes which he then used to develop the fundamental concept of the invariant subcomplex, or two-sided ideal. As we shall soon see, these objects played the key role in the proofs of his main theorems later in the paper. The joint paper with EPSTEEN also testified to the fact that, by the winter of 1904, WEDD~RBURN was aware of the work of MOLIEN, FROBENIUS, and I~LIE CARTAN on hypercomplex number systems. The achievements of these three mathematicians, and especially those of CARTAN, served as the framework on which WEDOERBLrRNbuilt his new approach to the theory of algebras. Even this new approach, the so-called rational method, was first signaled in WEDDERBURN'S work in the joint paper with EVSTEEN.In their introduction they announced that "the methods used throughout are rational and hence the results apply to the hypercomplex number systems in which the coefficients are restricted to be marks [scalars] of a given field, finite or infinite. ''31 It was precisely the success of the rational approach he presented in his work of 1907 that won W~DOERBLrRN such wide acclaim within the mathematical community, for, whereas MOLIEN, ~FROBENIUS, and CARTAN had proved their theorems using techniques which demanded that the field underlying the algebra be algebraically closed of characteristic zero (or at least that it be the real numbers), WEDDERBURN'Smethod placed no such restrictions on the field. By the time WEDDERBURN left Chicago to return to Scotland, then, much of the groundwork for his paper of 1907 had already

299 EPSTEEN WEDDERBURN,p. 174. If E2 is a two-sided ideal of E, K ~ E/E2, to put this in modern terms. aoo Ibid., p. 176. aol Ibid., p. 172.

314

K . H . PARSHALL

been done. 32 In fact, as he explained in his introductory remarks to this work, "the greater part of Sections 1, 2, 4-6 was read in the Mathematical Seminar of the University of Chicago early in 1905, and owe much to Professor Moore's helpful criticism. ''aa Back at Edinburgh, he assumed his new duties as Lecturer in Mathematics, a position which had been secured for him by his former professor and the Dean of the Faculty, GEORGE CHRYSTAL(1851-1911). In a formal letter to the Senatus of the University dated 7 July 1906, CHRYSTAL wrote: The Faculty recommend that Mr. Joseph H. Maclagan Wedderburn, who has recently been pursuing higher mathematical studies and research abroad, as a Carnegie scholar, be appointed a Lecturer in Mathematical Honours subjects.
. . .

Mr. Wedderburn's Course should be restricted to a maximum of two Lectures per week, and a maximum of 25 Lectures during the Whole Winter Session. Beyond the delivery of his Lectures and the settling and examining of a few questions relating to them in the papers for the Degree with Honours, Mr. Wedderburn will have no duties as a Tutor, and will not act as an Assistant to any Professor. He will be an entirely independent Lecturer, under the control of the Board of Studies, Senatus, and University Court. The Faculty make this recommendation on account of the promising original work which Mr. Wedderburn has done in Mathematics, and of his study and experience in Germany and America. The strict limitation of his teaching duties will prevent their interference with his research work; while his work as a Lecturer, in contact with the best Students will afford him stimulus and aid in clarifying his ideas. On the other hand, the small number of good students who may be expected to attend his Courses will profit greatly by intercourse

302 After the EPSTEEN-WEDDERBURNpaper, WEDDERBURNde voted most of his energies to the finite division algebra question, that is, to the problem of classifying all finite division algebras. See KAREN HUNGER PARSHALL,"In Pursuit of the Finite Division Algebra and Beyond: Joseph H. M. Wedderburn, Leonard E. Dickson, and Oswald Veblen," Archives internationales d'Histoire des Sciences, 33 (Dec. 1983): 274-99. After returning to Scotland, however, he wrote two short papers reproving and extending a theorem given by SCHEFFERS,namely, "ATheorem on Hypercomplex Numbers, "Proceedingsof the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (Jan. 1906): 48-50; and "Note on Hypercomplex Numbers," Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 25 (1906-1907): 2-4. In the first of these papers, WEDDERBURNstressed that "in addition to being much shorter than Scheffers' proof, which occupies about ten pages, this proof has the advantage of being rational." (p. 48.) 303 WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 78. For an idea of the mathematical give-and-take which went on during these seminars (actually the Mathematics Club meetings), see KAREN HUNGER PARSHALL,"E. H. MOORE and the Founding of a Mathematical Community in America: 1892-1902," Annals of Science, to appear.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

315

with a young Teacher who is doing original work himself, and who has recently been in contact with some of the best workers in his subject in other countries.a4 Thus, WEDDERBURN should have had the maximum amount of time to pursue his own research toward his D.Sc. with the minimum amount of time devoted to teaching. Unfortunately, due to problems with staffing, this ideal situation lasted for only one semester. In another letter to the Senatus, CHRYSTAL was forced to ask that WEDDERBURN be given another course and that he be made assistant to the chair of mathematics, a5 With the burden of teaching, tutoring, testing, and generally meeting with students, as assistant WEDDERBURN had the additional duty of teaching the mandatory summer session course which lasted a minimum of ten weeks and met for at least fifty periods, a6 He obviously had his hands quite full with all of these obligations, but he managed nonetheless to find the time to complete his thesis and what was perhaps his best piece of mathematical research, his paper "On Hypercomplex Numbers." WEDDERBURN opened his thesis by explicitly stating the relation, as he saw it, between his own work and that of CARTAN. As he put it: The main object of this thesis is the discussion of the classification of linear associative algebras, or 'algebras' as I have called them in this paper. The most important work on this subject is 'Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst~mes de nombres complexes' by E. Cartan. In this memoir Cartan gives the classification of algebras which are rational either in the field of real numbers or in the field of all complex numbers; and no more complete classification has been obtained by any subsequent writer. In this paper I give a fresh discussion, the methods used having the advantage of being rational, and therefore equally applicable to all fields. 37 Thus, he viewed his contribution to the theory of algebras as a direct extension and generalization of the work of CARTAN. ~[n the rewritten version of his thesis, which appeared in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, however, WEDDERBURNwas less explicit as to the source of his inspiration. He wrote: ao4 Edinburgh University, Department of Special Collections, Minutes of Senatus, vol. 13 (handwritten and dated 31 Jan. 1903 to 13 Jan. 1906). See pp. 382-84. ao5 Ibid., vol. 14 (handwritten and dated 3 Feb. 1906 to 10 Oct. 1908). See pp. 203204. a06 A. LOGANTURNER,ed., History of the University of Edinburgh 1883-1933 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1933), p. 175. ao7 JOSEPH H. MACLAGAN WEDDERBURN,"The Theory of Linear Associative Algebras" (D.Sc. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1908), p. i. WEDDERBURN'Sthesis represented only part of the evidence of original research which he presented for his degree. Also fastened into the bound copy of his work are his paper with EPSTEEN, "On the Structure of Hypercomplex Number Systems," his articles, "On a Theorem in Hypercomplex Numbers" and "A Theorem on Finite Algebras," and his joint work with OSWALD VEBLEN, "Non-Desarguesian and Non-Pascalian Geometries." Interestingly enough, he did not include any of his published work on quaternions.

316

K . H . PARSHALL The object of this paper is in the first place to set the theory of hypercomplex numbers on a rational basis. The methods usually employed in treating the parts of the subject here taken up are, as a rule, dependent on the theory o f the characteristic equation, and are for this reason often valid only for a particular field or class of fields. Such, for instance, are the methods used by Cartan in his fundamental and far-reaching memoir, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes [de nombres] complexes." It is true that the methods used are often capable of generalization to any field; but I do not think this is by any means always the case. as

Two paragraphs later, though, he admitted that Most of the results contained in the present paper have already been given, chiefly by Cartan and Frobenius, for algebras whose coefficients lie in the field of rational numbers; and it is probable that many of the methods used by these authors are capable of direct generalization to any field. It is hoped, however, that the methods of the present paper are, in themselves and apart from the novelty of the results, sufficiently interesting to justify its publication. ao9 Thus, WEDDERBURN most dearly and very meticulously acknowledged that althoug h the theorems he presented were not completely new, the method of proving them was. His rational method allowed him to do, in one fell swoop, what CARTAN had had to treat case-by-case. The techniques CARTAN used to deal with algebras over the complex numbers did not automatically yield like results for algebras over the reals. WEDDERBURN'S innovation, then, perhaps lay more in his method than in his results, a fact which he himself fully recognized but which has been effectively ignored by succeeding generations. His basic idea was simple: study the structure of the algebra by analyzing its invariant subalgebras, or as we would say today, its ideals. The concept was not new. We have already seen it in the work of MOLIEN (in a different and much more awkward form), FROBENIUS, and CARTAN, and we have seen them apply it to the theory of algebras. What made WEDDERBURN'S application different then? In his paper, "Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen," MOLIEN defined his equivalent but very different notion of a "begleitende System" or an "accompanying system" in order to understand and explain the factorization of his characteristic polynomial. FROBEN1US,in "Theorie der hypercomplexen Gr6ssen," used these subalgebras in so far as they related to the prime factors of his group determinant. CARTAN, in the paper we have just examined, presented the concept only at the very end in order to state his findings more succinctly. In short, each of these mathematicians employed either the invariant subalgebra or its equivalent merely as the handmaiden of a technique to which they were greatly attached. 308 WEDDERBURN,"On Hypercomplex Numbers," pp. 78-79. ao9 Ibid., p. 78. My emphasis. WEDDERBURN said that CARTAN and FROBENIUS studied algebras over the field of rational numbers. This is not true. They both looked at algebras over the complex numbers and over the reals.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

317

WEDDERBURN, however, realized that the invariant subalgebra formed the base upon which the whole theory of algebras lay, that their structure theory could be completely determined without the polynomial superstructure his predecessors had built and reinforced. Having no allegiance to any one particular architectural style a priori, WEDDERBURN was able to uncover the true foundation of the subject and rebuild from there. He laid his first brick when he defined the notion of a complex. Let A be an algebra of dimension n over a given field F. "The complex A = x~, x2, ..., xa, is defined as the set of all quantities linearly dependent on x~, x2, ..., x,. The greatest number of linearly independent elements which can be simultaneously chosen, is called the order of the complex. ' ' a l In modern terms, the complex A is an a-dimensional subspace of the algebra A viewed as a vector space over F. A complex A is actually an algebra provided the additional condition A 2 _QA is met, which simply means that A is also closed under multiplication. With these definitions out of the way, we may now essentially forget about complexes and define an invariant subalgebra B of the algebra A as a subalgebra which has the property that A B (= B and B A (= B. " I f B is contained in no other sub[algebra] of A which has the property, it is said to be maximal . . . . An algebra which has no invariant sub[algebra] is said to be simple. ''31~ Many theorems and facts can now be proven about these objects, but perhaps the most useful with respect to the techniques WEDDERBURN develops later in the paper are those dealing with difference algebras, or our quotient algebras.

I f B is an invariant sub-algebra of an algebra A, a new algebra can be derived from A by regarding as identical those elements of A which differ only by an clement of B . . . . The algebra defined in this way is called the difference algebra of A and B, and, on the analogy of the symbolism used for the quotient group in the theory of finite groups, it is conveniently denoted by (A - B). (A - B) is said to accompany A and to be complementary to B. alz Again, we have an example of translating a concept which has proven fruitful in one area of mathematics into an analogous concept in a different branch. WEDDERBURN, in this case however, does not make the translation himself, rather he adapts the new definition in the context of algebras from MOLI~N and FgoBENI~JS and pushes it in new directions. For example, he proves the following two theorems: T h e o r e m . - I f B~ and B 2 are invariant sub-algebras of an algebra A, and B~ _ D _B2, (A - B2) has an invariant sub-algebra which is simply isomorphic with (B1 - B2) and conversely . . . . C o r o l l a r y . - A n immediate consequence of this theorem is that (A - B) is simple, if B is a maximal invariant sub-algebra.
310 WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 79. WEDDERBURN'Semphasis.

311 Ibid., p. 81. 312 Ibid., pp. 81-82. WEDDERBURN'Semphasis.

318

K . H . PARSHALL Theorem. - I f B, and B2 are two different maximal invariant sub-algebras of an algebra A, then D = B~ ~%//2 is a maximal invariant subalgebra of both B~ and B2. Further (A - B~) and (A - / / 2 ) are simply isomorphic with (B2 - D ) and (B1 - D) respectively. 313

To the modern reader, of course, these theorems seem extremely elementary, but when WEDDERBURN was writing in 1907, the ideas they encompassed were relatively new. Furthermore, in WEDDERBURN'S set-up these notions enjoyed an independent status whereas before they had always been subjugated to polynomial concerns. WEDDERBURN takes care of one more definition before finally getting to the heart of the problem. " I f an algebra A is expressible as the sum of two algebras A1 and A2, which are such that A 1 A 2 = 0 = A 2 A 1 , A is said to be reducible, and to be the direct sum of A1 and A2. ''al* We have seen CARTAN define this in virtually the same way in his paper of 1898, but as WEDDERBURN points out, SCHEFFERS uses it as early as 1891 in his work entitled "Zuriickftihrung complexer Zahlen auf typische Formen. ''3~s Before moving on, I note one theorem of some importance which portends the deeper and more explicit results to come: " A n algebra A can be uniquely expressed as the direct sum of irreducible algebras which have each a modulus [identity element], and an algebra which has no modulus.,,3~ 6 With all of these expository preliminaries out of the way, WEDDERo BURN begins his presentation of nilpotent algebras in section four of his paper. Let A be an algebra of finite-dimension over a field F. " I f for some integer o, A ~ = 0, A is said to be nilpotent. Nilpotent algebras are of great importance in the discussion of the structure of algebras. ''a~7 I have already noted in our discussion of CARTAN'S work that his definition of pseudo-nullity for elements and algebras was equivalent to but much bulkier that WEDDERBURN'S notion of nilpotence. We saw that CARTAN was often forced to argue long and hard in order to prove a result which WEDDERBURN could toss Off as little more than a triviality. WEDOERBURN himself realized the superiority of his definition and called attention to this fact midway through the section on nilpotent algebras. He remarked:

ala 1bid., pp. 82-83. This Theorem five already appeared as Theorem II in EPSTEIN & WEDDERBURN, p. 175. WEDDERBURN'Sidea of simple isomorphism must be clarified. If A is an algebra and B is a maximal two-sided ideal of A, then we may write A = B O C where B t% C = 0, and A / B ~_ C as vector spaces. We can make C an algebra by defining a product on it. Take x, y in C. Since x, y are in A, we have x y = (xy)B+ (xy)c where (xY)B denotes the B-component of the product x y and (xy) c denotes its C-component. We may now take the product * on C to be x * y = ( x Y ) o Thinking of C in this way, makes A / B and C simply isomorphic as algebras. al, WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 84. WEDDERBURN'Semphasis. a15 SCHEFrERS, "Zurtickffihrung complexer Zahlen auf typische Formen," p. 317. z16 WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 86. Obviously, WEDDERBURN does not require that his subalgebras have identities, in contrast to modern-day convention. a17 1bid., p. 87.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

319

If o is the index of a nilpotent algebra, we have A ~-1 @ 0. A ~ = 0; and hence the product of any element of A and any element of A ~-1 is zero. This is a simple proof of a theorem by Cartan to the effect that there is at least one element in a nilpotent algebra whose product with any other element is zero. It must be noticed, however, the above definition of a nilpotent algebra is not verbally identical with Cartan's. The identity of the two definitions will be shown in the next section. 3~s WEDDERBURN'S assessment of CARTAN'S proof of this theorem bordered on understatement. What he proved in one sentence in passing had taken CARTAN a full three pages to demonstrate, a19 Because WEDDERBURN was willing to treat the nilpotent algebra as an entity in itself rather than examining and isolating individual elements in it, he discovered the correct way to view the situation. Mathematics often advances in just this way. The ideas are there ready to be tapped, but they are expressed in the wrong language and approached from the wrong angle. Mathematicians produce new theorems within this point of view, but at a certain point their methods can be pushed no further. WEDDERBURN'S predecessors worked contentedly with algebras over the complex numbers and over the reals, but WEDDERBURN wanted more general results. Once he realized how to change the language, how to alter the basic definitions, he succeeded. WEDDERBURN asked a slightly different question and in so doing made a highly significant conceptual breakthrough. Consider his technique in proving "Theorem 1 3 . - If N is a maximal nilpotent invariant sub-algebra of an algebra A, all other nilpotent invariant sub-algebras of A are contained in N. ''320 Let N~ be an arbitrary nilpotent invariant subalgebra. Clearly, N + N1 is also an invariant subalgebra. We claim, moreover, that N + N~ is nilpotent. To see this, define N2 = N/~ Nx. Then ...(N+N~) 22N 2+N2 since NN1 C=N2 and N1N C=N2. Similarly, + N 2,

(N + N~): ~ N ~ + N~ + N2, 31s Ibid., p. 88. 319 CARTAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes," pp. B29-B31, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 35-37. FROBENIUSalso made special note of this "involved [umst/indlich]" proof given by CARTAN.He realized, as did WEDDERBURN, that CARTAN'S definition of pseudo-null hindered him in proving this. See FROBENIUS, "Theorie der Hypercomplexen Gr6ssen," pp. 323-24. 320 WEDDERBURN, "Oil Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 89. Since A is finite-dimensional by assumption, this maximal nilpotent ideal is what we would call the "radical" of the algebra. WEDDERBURN'Sstudent, NATHANJACOBSON, later determined the proper definition of the radical for arbitrary rings and algebras, marking a significant and substantial extension of his advisor's work. See NATHANJACOBSON, "The Radical and Semi-simplicity for Arbitrary Rings," American Journal of Mathematics 67 (1945): 300-20.

320

K . H . PARSHALL whence, if o~ is greater than the indices of N and N~, ( N + N1) ~ 5 N 2 . But N : is nilpotent and therefore also N + N~. Hence, since N is maximal, we must have N~ C=N,32

as desired. The effortlessness and efficiency of this argument is perfectly selfevident. As a corollary, WH~DERBUgN also notes that "(A - N) has no nilpotent sub-algebra. This theorem is very important, its importance lying in the fact that ... it enables us to confine our attention to algebras which have no nilpotent invariant sub-algebras. Such algebras are called semi-simple. ''322 In this one statement, W E D D ~ ; ~ N isolates his most fundamental and ground-breaking technique. As he sees it, the best way to uncover the structure of an arbitrary finite-dimensional associative algebra is to factor out the maximal nilpotent ideal or the aberrant part of the algebra, and concentrate on the well-behaved or semisimple part. His work in section five of the paper admirably proves that his intuition was on the mark. He begins by defining a potent algebra to be on one which is not nilpotent. Consider; for example, a simple potent algebra A satisfying the condition A 2 = A, and suppose that A x l ~ A for every xl in A, A x l x 2 <4- A x l for every x2 in Axe, and so on. Since A is finite dimensional, this process must terminate. "After r - 1 steps, we must find either
Ax~x2
... Xr_lX r = 0

for every xr E A x l x l ... xr-1, or

A x l x 2 ... xr_ixr = Ax~x~ ... xr-1

for s o m e x r E A x 1 x 2 . . . X r _ l . ' ' a 2 3 Letting B = A x t x 2 ... xr_aA, we see in the first case that B is an invariant subalgebra of A, which cannot happen since A is simple. As for case two, setting A a = Ax~x2 ... x~_ 1, we find that there exists an element x in A such that A ~ x = A ~. F r o m this we quickly deduce that A contains an idempotent element y, that is, a nonzero element y such that y 2 = y. This proves the fact that every simple algebra contains at least one idempotent. Based on this, we now have the following theorems: Theorem 1 4 . - E v e r y potent algebra contains an idempotent element . . . . Theorem 1 5 . - I f an algebra A possesses only one idempotent element e, every element which does not possess an inverse with respect to e, is nilpotent.
. . .

An obvious corollary to this theorem is that if an algebra A contains only one idempotent element e and no nilpotent element, then every element possesses an inverse with respect to e. Further, e is the modulus [identity] of A. a24 a21 WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 89.
322 Ibid. a2a Ibid., p. 90. a24 Ibid., p. 90-91.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

321

WEDDERBURN calls this latter type of algebra a "primitive algebra," or as we would say, a "division algebra." For him, an idempotent e is "primitive" provided it is the only idempotent contained in eAe. 325 As in BENJAMIN PEIRCE'S work, these idempotent elements played a critical role in WEDDERBURN'S analysis and decomposition of algebras. As we have seen, PEIRCE discovered in 1870 that if an algebra A contained an idempotent element e, A could be decomposed in a particularly nice way with respect to e. In his own very idiosyncratic language, he stated that When there is an idempotent expression in a linear associative algebra, it can be assumed as one of the independent units, and can be represented by one of the letters of the alphabet; and it may be called the basis. The remaining units can be so selected as to be separable into four distinct groups. With reference to the basis, the elements of the first group are idemfactors; those of the second group are idemfaciend and nilfacient; those of the third group are idemfacient and nilfaciend; and those of the fourth group are nilfactors. 3~6 In other words, for an idempotent e~ in an algebra A, (5.1) A = elAe 1 elba @ Bzel B,

where B1 = { x E A I x e ~ = 0 } , B z = { x E A [ e l x = O } , and B = B t A B a , as we saw in section t w o . 327 N o w suppose B is not nilpotent in equation (5.1). By theorem 14 quoted above, B contains an idempotent e', and we can decompose B relative to e' to get

B = e'Be' e'B~ B~e' C.

I f C is not nilpotent, we may decompose it relative to the idempotent element it contains, and so forth. Since A is finite-dimensional, this argument shows that we may as well assume to begin with that e~ is an idempotent of A with the property that the ideal B in the PEIRCE decomposition (5.1) is nilpotent. I f this idempotent is not primitive, there exist idempotents e2 and e3 in e~Ae~ such that e~ = ez + e3 and e2e3 = 0 = e3e2, and

325 This definition of a primitive idempotent is equivalent to the modern definition, namely, an idempotent e is primitive if it is not the sum of two orthogonal idempotents u and v. This modern definition may be found in A. AORIAN ALBERT, Structure of Algebras, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 24 (New York: American Mathematical Society, 1939), pp. 26-27, where he also proves the equivalence of the two definitions. 326 BENJAMINPEIRCE, "Linear Associative Algebra," p. 109. 327 WEDDERmJRN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 92.

322

K . H . PARSHALL
. . . exAe~ can be broken up in the same manner as A, and so, by repeated application of this process, A can be expressed in the form A = B eB1 q) B2e e A e

= B Z e],B, @ B: Zep @ ZepAeq,

where B e = O, B1 = B @ eB1, B2 = B B2e, e = Xep, epeq = 0 ( p :A(=q), and ep (p = 1, 2 . . . . , r) are primitive idempotents of A . . . . e is called a principal idempotent of A. 32s It is not hard to show that since the ep's are primitive idempotents, epAep is a primitive (division) algebra. WEDD~RBURN nOW has the machinery he needs to classify all potent algebras, since his analysis depends very heavily on the subalgebras epAeq, denoted Apq for simplicity. WEDDERBURN begins section six by very humbly describing his objectives and achievements: "This section is chiefly concerned with the classification of semisimple algebras. The result is, however, incomplete in so far as the classification is given in terms of primitive [division] algebras which have themselves not yet been classified. ''329 Incomplete though it may be in the matter of classifying all division algebras (a problem which still has not been solved), WEDDERBURN achieves a completeness far beyond that of MOLIEN or CARTAN or FROBENIUS or any other contemporary who ever thought of this question. Relying on different methods, MOLIEN and FROBENIUS proved WEDDERBURN'S results when the underlying field was the complex numbers, aa CARTAN, as we have seen, also proved them for complex algebras. However, one aspect of CARTAN'S work in "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes" remains to be examined, his treatment of algebras over the reals. CARTAN'S main idea in Section VII of his paper was to tackle real algebras by extending the base field R .to its algebraic closure C. He explained: It is quite clear that by studying a real system Z' with r independent basis elements el, e2, ..., er, if in the equation (1) [ x l e l + x2e2 + ... + xre~] we let the x's take on arbitrary real or imaginary values, we get a new system X ' which we may call extended [prolong6] from the real system Z'. Naturally to this extended system, we may apply all of the results of the preceding paragraphs. That being the case, in order to find all real systems, we have only to consider all systems obtained in the previous paragraphs and see if they can be viewed as extended systems of real numbers. T M 328 Ibid. WEDDERBURNuses the notation instead of @, but I have used @ to avoid confusion. Also, WEDDERBURNrefers to the sets epAeq as subalgebras, even though to be subalgebras the multiplication must be trivial (p 4~ q). 329 Ibid., p. 95. 330 MGLIEN, pp. 83-156, and FROBENIUS, "Theorie der Hypercomplexen Gr6Ben," pp. 284-329. 33~ CARVAN, "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst~mes de nombres complexes," p. B61, or Oeuvres E.C., 1, pt. 2: 67.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

323

Using this method of passing up to algebras over C, proving a theorem there, and translating it back to a statement about algebras over R, CARTAN proved the WEDDERBURNstructure theorems as well as the WEDDERBURNprincipal theorem for real algebras. 332 It was precisely from this reliance on the properties of algebras over the complex field to prove facts about algebras over the reals which WEDDERBURN sought to liberate the subject. He succeeded in his self-appointed task of using only rational methods in the theory of algebras by using his adaptation of PEIRCE'S decomposition relative to an idempotent. WEDDERBURN begins by looking at the Apq'S, First, he shows "Theorem 1 9 . If A is simple, Apq q= 0 for an p and q; and if semisimple, but not simple, then Apq = 0 entails A q p = 0, ''333 then he proves "Theorem 2 0 . - I f A is simple, then ApqAqr ~ A p t , and the order of Apq is the same for all values o f p and q.,,334 (Recall that CARTAN also shows this last theorem although his notation is not as well-developed: In discussing his work, we actually used WEDDERBVR~q'Snotation, namely, e~ ~eu or Z'~a for brevity's sake.) With these two theorems as lemmas, WEDDERBURN now finds "if A is simple, it is possible to find a set of n z elements epq ( p , q = 1,2 . . . . . n) such that epqeqr= epr and epqer~=O (q=~r); and e = Z' err is the modulus [identity] of A. ''a35 He calls such an algebra A a simple or quadrate matric algebra of dimension n z. (This is CARTAN'S n2-ions.) Let x~s denote an arbitrary element in A~s and let er denote the identity element e** in Art for 1 ~ r, s ~ n where n is the number of primitive idempotents. As an immediate corollary of Theorem 20, we have "for any Xpq :+--0, there is an Xqp such that XpqXqp = ep.''a36 Squaring XqpXpq, we find that it is an idempotent in Aqq. By the PEIRCE decomposition of A, however, % is primitive in Aqq so xqpXpq must actually equal %. Changing notation to Xpq = epq and Xqp = eqp, we have a basis ep, epq, eqp, eq of a 4-dimensional subalgebra having the desired properties. Now suppose there are rn z elements epq for 1 ~ p, q ~ m satisfying the necessary multiplicative relations, and let elm+ 1 be any element in A l , m + 1. Again by the corollary to Theorem 20, there exists an element era:,1 in Am+l: such that el,,,+lem+1,1 = e~. Define
ep,m+ 1 = eplel,rn+l , era+l, p ~ em+1,1elp

for 1 ~ p ~ m + 1. These elements together with the other m 2 elements form a basis of an (m + 1)a-dimensional subalgebra where
epqeq,m+ 1 = epqeqlel,m+ 1 = eplel,m+ 1 = ep,m+ 1

and
ep,m+lem+l, r = eplel,m+lem+l,lelr = eplelelr = epr ,

as desired. This completes the proof, aa7

a32 Ibid., p p . B 6 1 - B 8 2 , o r p p . 6 7 - 8 8 . 333 WEDDERBURN, "Oil Hypercomplex

Numbers," p. 96.

aa4 Ibid. aa5 Ibid., p. 97. aa6 Ibid.

337

Ibid.,

pp. 97-98.

324

K . H . PARSHALL We may refine the result even more. In accordance with the corollary of Theorem 20, we have

App = Aplelp = AplAHelp.

This gives a 1,1-correspondence between the elements of the algebra App and A~a, which is obviously preserved under the operations of addition and multiplication-i.e., the two algebras are simply isomorphic. More generally, (5.2) Apq = eaiAlxelq,

which establishes a 1,1-relation between the elements of App and A ~ . aa8 In light of (5.2), for every element Zmn in Amn, there exists a unique element z~ in A ~ such that Zmn = ZmlZlaZln. F o r xpq and ypq in Apq, then, Xpq + ypq is in Apq, and for Xpq in Apq and Yrs in Ar~ 0, (5.3) if

q=4=r
if q = r.

xmYr~ = [ eplxllellyllels = epl(xlly11) el~ E A~,,

This result can be expressed as follows. I f C is an algebra simply isomorphic with A ~ [a division algebra since e~ is primitive], and D is a simple matric algebra of order n z; and if every element of C is commutative with every element of D; then A = CD. In general, if C and D are any algebras such that every element of one is commutative with every element of the other, and if the order of the complex A = CD is the product of the orders of C and D, then A is an algebra which is called the direct [tensor] product of C and D. The final result can therefore be stated as follows: Theorem 2 2 . - Any simple algebra can be expressed as the direct [tensor] product of a primitive [division] algebra and a simple matric algebra. Since semi-simple algebras can be reduced to the direct sum of several simple algebras, Theorem 22 amounts to a determination of the form of all semi-simple algebras, a39 Notice the striking similarity between WEDDERBURN'S approach and that of CARTA~ in "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst~mes de hombres complexes." aas Ibid., p. 98. 339 1bid., p. 99. This theorem is known today as the WEDDERBURN-ARTINTheorem after WEDDERBURNand EMILARTINwho in 1927 extended the theory to rings satisfying the descending chain condition on right ideals. See EMILARTIN, "Zur Theorie der hypercomplexen Zahlen," Hamburger Abhandlungen 5 (1927): 251-60. ScnrrrERS already uses the notion of (tensor) product in 1891 in his paper "Zurtickftihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen," a fact which motivated WEDDERBURN'S paper of 1906 entitled "On a Theorem in Hypercomplex Numbers." There, WEDD~RBURN gives a much shorter and rational proof of a theorem of SCnEFFERS' which WEDDERBURN states as follows: "If A is an algebra containing the quaternion algebra B as a subalgebra, and if A and B have the same modulus [identity], A can be expressed in the form BC = A = CB, where C is a subalgebra of A every element of which is commutative with every dement of B (p. 48)."

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

325

Comparing CARTAN'S equations (4.9) above with WEDDERBURN'S relations (5.3), we see that the two men have the same overview o f the problem. They both single out the same means toward the end. The difference lies in the fact that WEDDERBURN has a much more global perspective. He does not worry with choosing a basis for the Ape'S as CARTAN does. He does not limit his indices p and q to one specifc part of the total algebra and proceed from there case-by-case. WEDDERBURN'S method allows him to treat all of the subalgebras Apa with one grand sweep, and his end results apply unequivocably to finite-dimensional algebras over any base field. Juxtaposing his proofs and final theorems with CARTAN'S we are struck by the consummate ease and beauty of the technique, and we have no doubt whose proofs reflect the true essence of the algebra. WEDDERBURN certainly has no reason to worry in his introduction to "On Hypercomplex Numbers . . . . ... that the methods of the present paper are, in themselves and apart from the novelty of the results, sufficiently interesting to justify its publication. ''a4 WEDDERBURN tidies up his section on the classification of potent algebras by proving the converse of Theorem 22 in addition to "Theorem 2 4 . - I f N is a maximal nilpotent invariant sub-algebra of an algebra A which possesses a modulus [identity], and if (A - N) is simple, then A can be expressed as the direct [tensor] product of a simple matric algebra and an algebra which contains only one idernpotent. ''a41 This last result leads him to the most involved portion of his work, namely, the proof of the principal theorem. We have seen that CARTAN proves this result in addition to providing the complete classification of algebras whose underlying field is either C or R. WEDDERBURN acknowledges CARTAN'S achievements but explains that The result for an arbitrary field seems much more difficult to obtain, the difficulties centering round the proof of the theorem that an algebra with only one idempotent element can be expressed as the sum of a primitive [division] and a nilpotent algebra; a theorem which is obvious in the above two special cases [i.e., algebras over C and ~]. The proof given in the next section is rather long, but much additional information is obtained, a42 This next section entitled "The Identical Equation" represents quite a marked departure from WEDDERBURN'S set course. As we have seen so far, WEDDERBURN sought to develop the theory of algebras from a rational point of view; that is, he wanted to eliminate all need for extending the base field up to the algebraic closure or to some other bigger field, a practice CARTAN had relied upon so heavily. Why then did he prove the principal theorem and the various lemmas required for its proof using extension techniques? As WEDDERBURN explained in the statement quoted above, the principal theorem was a much more difficult result when no assumptions were made on the base field. Given his loyalty to rational methods, he probably tried very hard to prove this theorem in accordance with his philosophy. When it did not yield, however, he resorted to any means by
34-0 WEDDERBLIRN, "On

Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 78.

3,,1 Ibid., p. 100. 3,,2 Ibid., p. 101.

326

K . H . PARSHALL

which he could attain his end. In the case of the principal theorem, this meant using field extensions. Results should not be sacrificed for the sake of some mathematical dogma, and WEDDERBURN did not allow this to happen. His attempts with non-rational methods did not prove quite so successful, however. He began section seven by defining a more general version of CARTAN'S characteristic equation (4.2) above. Let x be an arbitrary element in the finite-dimensional algebra A over some field F. Since the subalgebra generated by x is also finite-dimensional, we have the equation (5.4)
x ~ + a l x ~-1 + . . . a n - i x + an = 0

for some integer n where the ai's are scalars in F. (Notice that CARTAN'S characteristic equation is also of this form, but WEDDERBURN has no need to mention determinants.) Let x~ . . . . . xa be a basis of A over F, and define the generic element X = ~ ~rxr where the ~r's are variables. Considering the r th power X r
r--1

of X, we see that
Xr 2
s=l

~.(0~

where the ~ ) ' s are rational functions in the ~i's, that is, ~(~)is in F ( ~ , ~2. . . . , ~). By finite-dimensionality, again, X must satisfy an equation of the form (5.4). In other words, X satisfies an equation the coefficients of which are rational functions in the field F ( ~ , ~2, ..., ~:).a43 WEDDERBURN calls the equation of lowest degree which X satisfies the identical or characteristic equation of the algebra A, and he calls the equation of lowest degree which any particular element x in A satisfies its reduced equation. (We denote the first of these equations by f(co) and call it t h e generic minimal polynomial. The second equation is called the minimal polynomial of the element x.) Then he claims that "for particular values of the ~'s, x may satisfy an equation of lower degree; but there is evidently at least one x which satisfies no equations of lower degree, ''34~ a fact which a4a Actually, the coefficients are merely polynomials in F[#a, ~:2, ..., #a] as a routine GAuss's lemma argument shows. 344 W E D D E R B U R N , "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 101. In what follows X will always denote the generic element, and x will denote the generic dement specialized at a particular dement of A, namely, x = Xc~x i. WEDDERBURNcredits the terminology "reduced" equation to FROBENIUS. See FROBENIUS, "Ober lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen," p. 362. It is important to notice at this point that WEDDERBURN'S claim here is false in general. The following counterexample is due to KEVIN McCRIMMON. For any prime integer p, consider the algebra
A ~ kex 0 ke2 Q
. . .

ke n

where k = GF[p e] and the ei's are orthogonal idempotents. The generic minimal polynomial of A has degree n. However, any dement a = Xaie i satisfies the polynomial tO p e - - 09. Hence, the minimal polynomial of a has degree less than or equal to p~. By choosing n > pC, we have an algebra A which contains no element x whose minimal polynomial equals the generic minimal polynomial of the algebra evaluated at x.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

327

obviously holds in general if the underlying field is infinite but which requires proof if the field is finite. WEDDERBURN provides no justification for this and yet uses it whenever the need arises, thereby puncturing several of his arguments. In particular, his proof of the first theorem in this section suffers. He states "Theorem 25. - I f A is an algebra which is semi-simple in a given field, and if F' is another field containing F, then A is also semi-simple in F', ''a45 or in modern notation, if A is semi-simple over F then A ~ F ' is also semisimple. T o prove this, he must first establish some notation and a couple of facts. Let A be an algebra as above with generic minimal polynomial f(co). If N is the maximal nilpotent invariant subalgebra of A, the algebra (A - N) has a generic minimal polynomial g(co) which has the following properties: 1) g(x)E N for all x in A, 2) if ~ is the index of N, that is, the smallest integer such that N ~ = 0, g(xf' -- 0 for all x in A, and 3) f(co) divides g(og)% Notice too that if A is a division algebra, f(og) is irreducible. "An immediate consequence of this is that, if the given field is so extended that every equation is soluble, the only primitive [division] algebra in the extended field is the algebra of one unit, e = e 2 . ' ' 3 4 6 In other words, the only division algebra over an algebraically closed field is the field itself. The proof of theorem 25 now goes like this. "Since a semi-simple algebra is the direct sum of a number of simple algebras and a simple algebra can be expressed as the direct [tensor] product of a matric and a primitive [division] algebra, it is sufficient to consider the latter type of algebra. ''a47 In other words, by the structure theorems proved in the previous section

A = (Mpi(Ki) Ki Di),
where Ki is the center of the division algebra Dz, so

A F F' = 0 (Mpi(K~) ~':iDi F r ' ) .

In order to prove that A r F' is semisimple, then, we need only show that Di F F' is. Hence, we may immediately reduce to the case where A is a division algebra over F. Let dim F A = m and, as above, let f(o~) be the generic minimal polynomial of A. Now If A has a nilpotent invariant subalgebra N in the extended field, the identical equation of (A - N) is also f(o 0 = 0, since the latter has no multiple roots. Hence, if z is any element of N and x any element of A, x and x + z have the same identical [generic minimal] equation, since they are equal modulo N . a 4 s To see this, note that A and A F F' have the same generic minimal polynomial f(m). By the argument made above, if g(~o) denotes the generic minimal polynomial
34.5 WEDDERBURN,

"On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 102.

346 Ibid. a47 Ibid. 348 Ibid.

328

K . H . PARSHALL

of (A F F ' -- N OF F ' ) where N ~ = 0, then f(o~) divides g(co) ~. Since A is a division algebra, f(co) is irreducible, and f(e~) divides g(co) since f(o 0 is assumed to have no multiple roots. (Notice that at this point, WEDDERBURN tacitly assumes that his underlying field is not arbitrary but rather of characteristic zero or at least perfect. Over an imperfect fieldf(co) may have multiple roots.) An argument on the degrees of f and g shows that f(~o) actually equals g(~o). N o w let 0 =~ ~ eixi
i=l

be an arbitrary element in N where

eiEF'

and

a ~ dimF N ~ m -- dimF 'A F F'. Fix a rational element 349 xs in A NF F ' where 1 _< s --< a and define z' = x~z - zx~. Then
z" = x~z zx~ = x ~ ( S cix~) (2c~xt) x~ = Sc~(x~xg t

xix~) -- Z c~xi

where we define x~ = x~xi - x~x~ and x~ = 0. There are at most a - 1 nont t zero summands in this sum. Similarly, for 1 ~< t _< a define z" = x~z' -k z xt. Then
Z

""

S c (i
tp

XtXi

. . - -. .X i X t

Sc

iXi

"

where x~ = x t x - x g x t are nonzero.

it

and xt = 0 .

In this sum, at most a - 2

summands

This process may be continued till each of the terms x~p) under the summation sign after the p-th operation is commutative with z (p~, i.e., z (p+l~ = 0. z (p), being commutative with each of x~p) (r = 1, 2, . . . , a), is also commutative with every element of the algebra generated by them. Let this algebra he denoted by B ...35 and let h(~o) denote its generic minimal polynomial. (The subalgebra/~ of A defined by B = B F F ' is a division algebra.) "There is then a rational element x [i.e., x is actually in/~] whose identical equation, with regard to B, is also its reduced equation, and a non-zero element z of B, which is an element of N, such that x z = zx. ''a51 In other words, B contains a nilpotent element z in its center, so we may assume z z = 0. F r o m above, we have h ( x + z) = 0 since h(x) = 0. Since z x = x z , we may apply the formal TAYLOR series expansion to h ( x + z ) to get
o = h ( x + z) h(z) + zh'(x)

since z 2 = 0 , since h(x) = so i f ( x ) ~= 0 of h. Since x inverse. This as desired.

and
0 = zh'(x)

0. N o w the degree of h'(a0 is strictly less than the degree of h(o0, since x satisfies no polynomial of degree smaller than the degree is actually in/~, i f ( x ) is in B, a division algebra, and h'(x) has an forces z = 0 which implies N = 0 or A F F ' is semisimple,

349 An element x in an algebra A@FF"is rational provided it is actually in A. 35o WEDDERBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 103.
as~ Ibid.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

329

This theorem and its proof reveal quite a bit about the state of the art of field theory in 1907. For one thing, WEDDER~URN states the theorem for arbitrary fields and then tacitly assumes halfway through the proof that the field has charactersitic zero (or at least is perfect). More importantly, the theorem is actually false in general. Consider the algebra A = IFp(x) over the field F = IFp(XO where IFp denotes the finite field with p elements and IFp(x) denotes the quotient field of the polynomial ring IFp[x]. Since A is in fact a field, it is semisimple over F. I f w e t a k e F ' = A, A FA i s n o t semisimple, since A f A is commutative and contains a nilpotent element (1 N x) - (x 1). WEDDERBURN'S theorem fails here because IFp(X p) is not a perfect field, and his argument fails because the generic minimal polynomial of a division algebra over an imperfect field may have multiple roots. The concepts of perfect and imperfect fields, however, do not appear in the literature until 1910 when ERNST STEINITZ (1871-1928) defined and developed them in a very important paper entitled "Algebraische Theorie der K6rper" which appeared in CRELLE'S Journal. aS~ Judging by the statement of WEDDERBURN'S theorem, we may assume that he had no inkling of the existence of such fields in 1907 and so had no idea of the pathology possible in field theory. 353 Keeping this problem in mind, we continue with our discussion of WEDDERBURN'S section on the identical equation. Before proving his version of the principal theorem, WEDDERBURN gives two very technical and special lemmas concerning the behavior of the tensor product, specifically Theorem 2 6 . - I f an algebra is rational in a field F and F' is any field containing G; and if B is the algebra composed of all elements of A which are, in F', commutative with every element of a sub-complex C of A; then, if a rational basis can be chosen for C every element of which possesses an inverse, B is also rational. 3s4 and Theorem 2 7 . - I f F' is a field, containing the given field F, in which every equation is soluble, and if a primitive [division] algebra A is expressed in F' as the direct sum of r simple algebras A~, A2 . . . . , At, these algebras are simply isomorphic with each other and, in F', A can be expressed as the direct [tensor] product of a commutative algebra, which is rational in F and an algebra isomorphic with Aa, A2 . . . . . At. ass 3s2 ERNSTSTEINITZ,"Algebraische Theorie der Ktirper," Crelle 116 (1910): 1-132, and ERNST STEINITZ, Algebraische Theorie der KOrper, ed. REINHOLDBAER HELMUT HASSE (New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1950). 353 The same may be said of WEDDERBURNin 1905 when he wrote "A Theorem on Finite Algebras." There he gave three proofs of his theorem that every finite division algebra was a field. His first proof, however, contained a field-theoretic gap Similar to the one described above. For a complete discussion of this, see PARSHALL, "In Pursuit of the Finite Division Algebra Theorem and Beyond: Joseph H . M . Wedderburn, Leonard E. Dickson, and Oswald Veblen." 354- WEDDERBURN, ~On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 103. a55 Ibid., p. 104.

330

K . H . PARSHALL

Translated into current mathematical language. Theorem 26 simply says that centralizers behave nicely with respect to taking tensor products. Let C be a subspace of the algebra A over F, and let C F F ' be a subspace of the algebra A F F ' over F'. I f Zs(T) denotes the centralizer of T in S, Theorem 26 states that

ZAr~'(C @F F') = ZA(C) F F'.

Using this result, he then proves Theorem 27 which shows that semisimplicity is preserved under extension of the base field. Let A be a division algebra over F, let F ' be the algebraic closure of F, and let K be the center of A. Then

A ~ F' __~ Mn(F" ~ K) -~ M,,(F') @... @ M,,(F')

r t~mes

In the case of each of these theorems, WEDDERBURN employs what would today be called GALOIS descent arguments, that is, to prove a fact about an algebra over a certain field, he introduces tensors so as to form an algebra over a larger and, it may be hoped, more amenable field, proves the result in that setting, and descends to get the desired result for the algebra over the smaller field. His p r o o f of the principal theorem, Theorem 28, also fits this mould. He gives the theorem only in the special case where the algebra modulo its maximal nilpotent ideal is a division algebra; " T h e o r e m 2 8 . - I f A is an algebra in which every element, which has no inverse, is nilpotent, it can be expressed in the form A = B N, where B is a primitive [division] algebra and N is the maximal invariant sub-algebra. ''a56 His p r o o f breaks up into two cases, (A - ]7) a commutative division algebra or a field and (A - N) a noncommutative division algebra, but we need not go into the laborious details here. It is important to note, however, that in the first case, WEDDERBURN once again assumes that there exists an element x in the field (A - N) whose minimal polynomial equals the generic minimal polynomial of the algebra evaluated at x, and applies this to algebras over finite fields. Thus, this p r o o f contains the same gap as the one we see in the proofs of both Theorem 26 above and the finite division algebra theorem. Also, just like Theorem 26, this principal theorem is false as stated, the counter-example coming again from the realm of imperfect fields, a57 Finally, in the summary

356 Ibid., p. 105, Again, WEDDERBURNdoes not use the notation for direct sums but rather + . The modern statement of the theorem reads: Let A be an algebra with radical N such that A/N is separable. Then A = B N where B is a semisimple subalgebra of A isomorphic to A/N. Perhaps the first place this appeared in the literature in this general form is in MAX DEURING, Algebren, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und Ihrer Grenzgebiete, vol. 1 (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1935; reprint ed. New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1948), pp. 23-24. (See also ALBERT,pp. 47-48.) The notion of separability is also due to STEINITZin "Algebraische Theorie der Krrper." DlCKSON seems to have been the first person to name the theorem the "principal theorem." See LEONARD EUGENE DICKSON, Algebras and their Arithmetics, The University of Chicago Science Series (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), pp. 118-27. as7 The following counterexample is due to BRIAN PARS~ALL. Let k be a field of characteristic two, and let F = k(u) where u is an indeterminate. Define K = Fly]

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

331

he gives of his results, he states that " a n y algebra can be expressed as the sum of a nilpotent algebra and a semi-simple algebra. The latter algebra is not unique, but any two determinations of it are simply isomorphic (Theorems 24 and 28),"3 s s even though he does not explicitly show how to get the result in general. WEDD~RBUI~ finishes up his paper with three short sections, one on nonassociative algebras, one on semi-invariant subalgebras or one-sided ideals, and one on tensor products, but he presents no really new results there. The first five sections of his paper pave the way for his resounding success in the sixth where he proves the structure theorems for finite-dimensional algebras over arbitrary fields using rational methods. In section seven, the work reaches its culmination in the proof of the principal theorem, which he demonstrates using non-rational techniques. Although his presentation here lacks the clarity and ease of the earlier sections, WEDDERBURNnevertheless takes great strides toward ultimate generalization of the result to algebras over arbitrary fields. With this discussion of WZDDERBtJRN'S "On Hypercomplex Numbers," we have seen the theory of algebras burst into full bloom. MOLIEN, as we saw in section three, studied hypercomplex number systems from the point of view of LIE algebras and depended on this superstructure to some extent in proving his theorems. FROBEMUS worked on hypercomplex number systems in 1903 and before in order to give applications of his theory of the group determinant. Only CARXAN in his "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes" sought to develop the theory of algebras in and for itself in a general way. Yet all of these mathematicians concerned themselves with algebras over either the real or complex numbers, and in most cases their proofs were dependent in some way on the properties of these fields. WEDDERBOgN saw beyond his predecessors to arbitrary finite-dimensional algebras over arbitrary fields and revolutionized the theory of algebras with his elegantly simple theory of ideals, his penetrating extension of the PEIRCE decomposition, and his overall strategy of factoring out the radical and concentrating on the semisimple part of the algebra. Indeed, his rational methods struck at the heart of the theory of algebras, and their influence is felt even to this day.

6. Wedderburn's Place in the History of the Theory of Algebras

When JOSEPH HENRY MACLAGAN WEDDERBURN came to the theory of algebras in 1904, he found a fairly young subject compared to fields like number theory or geometry, but one which had occupied some of the greatest mathematical minds of the preceding two generations. Thus, although short, the history of his

where v = uy. Let A be the algebra defined by ((x, y) I x, y E K) where addition is component-wise and multiplication is given by
(x, y) (x', y') = (xy" + x"y -I- bb" u, yy').

(Here y = a -5 by and y" = a' + b'v for a, a', b, b' in F.) The radical R of A is then {(x, O) [ x E K}. The algebra A contains no algebra isomorphic to A I R ~ K, and so the principal theorem fails. 3ss WEDDnRBURN, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," p. 109. The emphasis is mine.

332

K.H. PARSHALL

new-found area involved many distinguished men who had made many seminal contributions. By 1907 with the publication of his epoch-making paper, "On Hypercomplex Numbers," however, WEODERBURN had insured that his own name would figure just as prominently in this list of renowned contributors and that his own work would change the entire direction of the subject. To see how he effected this change we now review the history of algebras up to and including the publication of WEODERBURN'Spaper of 1907 and indicate the shift in perspective which his research evoked. The present story began on October 16, 1843 when Sir WILLIAMROWAN HAMILTON discovered the quaternions, a four-dimensional algebra over the real numbers. As we have seen, HAMILTONthought of the new algebra as a collection of ordered four-tuples (a, b, c, d), where a, b, c, and d were real numbers, which could be added and multiplied as follows:
(a,b,c,d) + (a',b', c ' , d 3 = (a + a ' , b + b ' , c + c ' , d + d'),

(a, b, c, d) (a', b', c', d') = (aa' - bb' - cc' - d d ' , ab ' + ba' + cd' - dc ' , ac' - bd' + ca" + d b ' , ad" + bc" - cd' + da').

In terms not of four-tuples but of elements a + bi + cj + dk, where 1, i, j, and k were basis elements, multiplication followed from the fundamental relations defined by HAMILTON, namely,
i2 =j~ = k s =ijk= -1.

From the point of view of the history of algebras, this multiplication proved quite remarkable. As HAMILTONrealized, it did not satisfy the commutative law, that is, (a, b, c, d) (a', b', c', d') :4= (a', b', c', d') (a, b, c, d). The failure of his new algebra to satisfy this law went against the generallyaccepted philosophy of mathematics of mathematicians like GEORGE PEACOCK and AUGUSTUSDEMORGANwhich required mathematics to have real world implications. For them, an algebra like HAMILTON'S, defined arbitrarily by a set of axioms, could be of no inherent interest. With the discovery of the quaternions, however, new doors were opened to greater mathematical creativity. Almost immediately HAMILTON'Sfriend and correspondent, JOHN GRAVES, generalized his result to eight dimensions. Although GRAVES did not see this right away, HAMILTON showed that these so-called octaves failed to satisfy not only the commutative law but also the associative law. Thus, another standard property was tossed aside. ARTHUR CAYLEYdiscovered this eight-dimensional algebra independently in 1845 and actually published his findings before GRAVES'paper made its way into print. Although not an impressive piece of research as presented, CAYLEY'Swork on the octonions, as he called them, foreshadowed the long mathematical association he was to have with the study of algebras in general and with the study of

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

333

the matrix algebras in particular. Like his friend, JAMESJOSEVH SYLVESTER,CAYLEY'S primary research interest involved the theory of invariants which he and SYLVESTER invented, but both men naturally found their way from invarianttheoretic problems to matrices. In CAYLEY'Scase, the connection revealed itself during the years 1855 to 1858 when he defined a matrix and its multiplication and then later when he recognized that the matrices actually formed an algebra. As for SYLVESTER,he began looking at matrices and matrix algebras much later, in the years 1881 to 1884. Although at one time SYLVESTERprobably knew of the work CAYLEYhad done on the subject in the mid-1850's, he believed he had independently discovered the algebra properties of matrices. Certainly he went on to do work which, in scope, was far beyond that of CAYLEY. The Americans, BENJAMINPEIRCE and his son CHARLESS. PEIRCE, also produced major results on algebras. In 1870, the elder PEIRCEfinished his very lengthy work entitled "Linear Associative Algebra" in which he systematically determined all algebras of dimensions one through six over the complex numbers. A different sort of work from that of HAMILTON, CAYLEY, and SYLVESTER,PEIRCE'S paper introduced ideas such as nilpotence and idempotence which allowed him to prove much more general theorems about algebras. C. S. PEIRCE, as a result of his research in logic, noticed that his father's algebras could all be expressed in matrix form, and thereby recognized the close interconnection between matrices and algebras. Another approach to the theory of linear associative algebra developed on the Continent parallel to the Anglo-American tradition just described. The French mathematician, HENRI POINCARt~, on reading SYLVESTER'S series of notes on algebras analogous to the quaternions published in the Comptes rendus from 1882 to 1884, recognized the connection between SYLVESTER'Sfindings and the large body of mathematics which was growing in Europe around the work of the Norwegian mathematician, SOVHUSLIE. As C. S. PEIRCEsaw the link between matrices and algebras (or hypercomplex number systems as they were also called), POINCARI~ called attention to the relation between matrix algebras and continuous groups of linear substitutions, namely, subgroups of GLn(C). The short note in the Comptes rendus in which POINCAR~pointed this out, "Sur les hombres complexes," sparked quite a bit of interest especially in Germany on this connection. The work of GEORG SCHEFFERS, EDUARD STUDY, and FRIEDRICH SCHUR reflected the approach to hypercomplex numbers which POINCARt~had in mind. Similarly, the Latvian mathematician, THEODOR MOLIEN came to the study of hypercomplex numbers from the LIE theory of the day, but whereas the work of the men mentioned above dealt primarily with classifications of algebras of small dimensions (using techniques different from BENJAMINPEIRCE'S but duplicating some of his results), MOLIENsought and obtained general structure theorems which applied to n-dimensional algebras over (3. In a paper of 1893 entitled" Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen," he defined the concepts of primitivity (analogous to our notion of simplicity) as well as the idea of an accompanying system (equivalent but not identical to our two-sided ideal). By exploiting properties of the characteristic equation of the algebra, he proved that all primitive algebras over C were matrix algebras. Later in 1898, ELIECARTANproved even more general and far-reaching results.

334

K.H. PARSHALL

The final pre-WEDDERBURN contributor to the theory of algebras was GEORG FROBENIUS. Drawn to the subject neither from matrix theory nor from LIE theory, FROBENIUS' prime motivation was his interest in group determinants and later in group algebras. In 1903, he reproved many of the theorems of MOLIEN and CARTAN by interpreting such entities as the prime factors of the group determinant in the setting of matrix algebras. With the work of all of these men on which to build, WEDDERBURNentered the domain of the theory of algebras. As an undergraduate at the University of Edinburgh during the last years of the reign of that arch-quaternionist and HAMILTONsupporter, PETERGUTHRIETAIT, WEDDERBURNstarted out mathematically on a pablum of quaternions. By the beginning of the academic year 1904-1905, with a year of study in Germany behind him and a Carnegie fellowship in hand, WEDDERBURN was ready to pursue the theory of hypercomplex number systems at the young but firmly established mathematics department of the University of Chicago. There he entered into the extremely active and lively environment defined by the work and energy of men like E. H. MOORE, OSKAR BOLZA, HEINRICH MASCHKE, and L. E. DICKSON. New results came forth immediately for WEDDERBURN in this atmosphere, for at the end of December in 1904, he and SAUL EPSTEEN presented their proof of a JORDAN-HrLDER theorem for hypercomplex number systems. Also, judging from the entries for January in the logbook of the Mathematics Club, WEDI)ERBURN and DICKSONwere in healthy competition for the solution of the finite division algebra conjecture. WEDDERBURNwon the race, for on March 31, 1905, he announced perhaps his most famous theorem, namely, that all finite division algebras were fields. In all he gave three proofs of the theorem, the first of which was rational, the other two of which hinged on a special result from number theory. Of these three proofs, the first contained a gap, but it reflected the methods WEDDERBURN would use later to prove the so-called WEDDERBURN principal theorem in his renowned paper of 1907, "On Hypercomplex Numbers." After this flurry of activity, WEDDERBURNreturned to Scotland and the University of Edinburgh to assume his teaching duties and to write a thesis which would attest to his abilities as a creative mathematician. The product of his efforts appeared in the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society in November of 1907 and earned him his doctorate in 1908. Entitled "On Hypercomplex Numbers," this work drew upon the work of his mathematical predecessors in the history of the theory of algebras, but beautifully presented methods and techniques which applied not only to n-dimensional algebras over R and (3 but also to algebras over arbitrary fields. As WEDDERBURN acknowledged in his introductory remarks, much of his inspiration had come from the paper of 1898 of I~LIE CARTAN entitled "Sur les groupes bilinraires et les systrmes de nombres complexes," and many of his theorems were already to be found in CARTAN'S paper stated for algebras over the field of complex numbers. Like so many other mathematicians working on such topics in Europe in the 1890's, CARTAN'S interest in hypercomplex number systems stemmed from his interest in LIE algebras. In his thesis of 1894, CARTANpatched up WILHELM KILLINGS' classification of the simple LIE algebras over C by completing many

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

335

of his arguments and by making others rigorous. During the years immediately following the presentation of his thesis, CARTAN continued to investigate the realm of LIE algebras, but in 1897 he branched off into the related but slightly different area of hypercomplex numbers. The result was the paper of 1898 mentioned above. In this work, CARTAN explored the relation between continuous groups of linear substitutions, or bilinear groups as he called them, and algebras in the spirit of POINCARffSnote, but the main thrust of the paper came in the middle where CARTAN redeveloped the theory of hypercomplex number systems over C andR from the start. Independently of MOLIEN, CARTANdefined the notions of invariant subalgebras (precisely what we call two-sided ideals), simple and semisimple algebras, and the direct sum of two algebras, and he used the characteristic equation to determine the internal structure of the algebra. Essentially, CARTAN decomposed the algebra by means of pairwise orthogonal idempotents and, independently of the work of BENJAMINPEIRCE,proceeded to describe explicitly the nilpotent, or in his words, the pseudo-null part of the algebra. He ultimately proved MOLIEN'S main theorem, namely, that all simple hypercomplex number systems were matrix algebras, its corollary which stated that every semisimple algebra was a direct sum of matrix algebras, and what is now known as the WEDDERBURN principal theorem which asserted that every algebra was the direct sum of a simple or semisimple subalgebra and a nilpotent subalgebra. (It must be remembered that CARTAN worked first with algebras over 13 and then used his results there to obtain analogous theorems for algebras over R.) WEDDERBORN learned the lessons CARTAN had to teach very well, but he realized that the invariant subalgebra formed the base upon which the whole theory of algebras lay and that their structure could be completely determined without the polynomial superstructure his predecessors had built and reinforced. His paper "On Hypercomplex Numbers" testified to his success in dealing with algebras more intrinsically. After developing a calculus of subalgebras and two-sided ideals, WEDDZR~URN exploited the key concept of nilpotence, which BENJAMIN PEIRCE before him had defined, to prove theorems such as, all nilpotent two-sided ideals in an algebra A are contained in a maximal nilpotent ideal N, and its corollary, A/N is semisimple. His techniques for examining hypercomplex number systems depended upon first factoring out the maximal nilpotent ideal, the aberrant part of the algebra, and then concentrating on the well-behaved semisimple part. With this as his focal point, WEDDERBURNwas able to use another of PEIRCE'S fundamental concepts, the notion of an idempotent element, to describe a general PEIRCE decomposition of an algebra relative to a set of primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents. The culmination of his method was the following theorem: any simple algebra can be expressed as the tensor product of a full matrix algebra and a division algebra. This then gave the general description of any semisimple algebra. With this theorem proven, WEDDERBURNmoved on to the most involved and technical part of his paper, the section in which he proved a version of the principal theorem using the properties of the generic characteristic and the generic minimum polynomials. He showed that if A is an algebra over a field F with maximal nilpotent ideal N such that A has the additional property that A/N is

336

K.H. PARSHALL

a division algebra, then A may be written as B q) N where B is a division algebra and a subalgebra of A. As in his first proof of the finite division algebra theorem, though, his proof of this special case of the principal theorem contained a gap, and in fact it contained precisely the same gap. In both places, WEDDERBURNmade an assertion for algebras over arbitrary fields which failed if the underlying field was finite, namely, he claimed that there was an element x in the algebra whose minimal polynomial equaled the generic minimal polynomial of the algebra evaluated at x. Furthermore, because field theory was not well understood at the time WEDDERBURNwas writing, his statement of the principal theorem and of one of the lemmas used in its proof were incorrect. As stated, his theorem held for algebras over any field, but in fact for it to hold in general the field had to be at least perfect. 359 Today, as a result of the work of ERNST STEINITZand others, we are able to give WEDDERBURN'S results in the proper context. 36 These problems at the end of his paper must in no way overshadow WEDDERBURN'S accomplishments in the rest of the paper of 1907, however. His structure theory of simple algebras definitely ranks as one of the most beautiful contributions to the theory up to his time. Moreover, his vision of the subject, his intuition into where the problems lay and how to approach them, strikingly surpassed the vision and intuition of all of his predecessors. Whereas MOLIrN struggled with his accompanying system (which were not ideals but algebras factored out by ideals) and labored under the burden of his parametric equations, WEDDERBURN developed the theory of invariant subalgebras (ideals) in a way that struck at the very heart of the algebra structure. Whereas CARTAN microscopically dissected his algebras and found himself entangled in the extremely complicated structure of the radical, WEDDERBURN saw that the true way to proceed was by factoring out this troublesome maximal nilpotent ideal and studying the remaining semisimple part. Drawing from the work of BENJAMIN PEIRCE, WEDDERBURN found that by isolating the primitive pairwise orthogonal idempotents in a simple algebra, he could construct the matrix units inside the algebra thereby proving that all simple algebras were matrix algebras over a division algebra. MOLIEN, CARTAN, and FROBENIUS had all proved this fact earlier, but each of them relied heavily on some sort of higher determinant form to get his results. For MOLIEN, the key to the argument lay in what he called the KILLINGpolynomial in conjunction with the characteristic and minimal polynomials; for CARTAN, the matter hinged on only these latter two forms; and for FROBENIUS, his group determinant yielded the matrix structure. Since each of these men considered only subalgebras over the complex numbers (or over the reals in the case of CARTAN), the polynomial structure upon which they relied, in other words these various determinants, served them reasonably well. They could factor their

3s9 Today, the hypothesis is that the algebra be separable, but WEDDERBURNdid not have this notion at his disposal. a6o See, for example, ALBERT,Structure of Algebras, pp. 37-48 for the modern development and presentation of WEDDERBURN'Stheory.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

337

polynomials and then relate these factors to the structure of the algebra. However, these sorts of arguments went through nicely only in the presence of an algebraically closed field or at least a field of characteristic zero. WEDDERBURN sought and discovered a method of attack which would not depend so critically on the underlying field structure, that is, a rational method. He was the first mathematician to tackle the problems of algebras over arbitrary fields, and his results and methods determined the course which the subject later followed. With WEDDERBURN'S paper "On Hypercomplex Numbers", the first chapter in the history of the theory of algebras came to a close. His work neatly and brilliantly placed the theory of algebras in the proper, or at least in the modern, perspective. Later researchers in the area such as DICKSON, A. ADRIAN ALBERT (1905-72), RICHARDBRAUER(1901--77), and EMMYNOETHER(1882-1935) to name only a few, turned to questions concerning more specific types of algebras such as cyclic algebras and division algebras over arbitrary and particular fields like the rational numbers. In addition to describing various intrinsic properties, the primary goal of their work was a complete classification of these objects. The research they did, the breakthroughs they made, and the changes of perspective they brought about, however, all go together to form the material for the second chapter in the history of the theory of algebras, a project for the future.

7. Appendix
In his will, JOSEPHH. M. WEDDERBURNleft his personal library to the Mathematics Department of Princeton University, the department in which he taught from 1909 until his early retirement in 1945. When WEDDERBURN died in 1948, the library kept most of the books but decided to discard those which seemed to be of little interest. Professor NATHAN JACOBSON,now of Yale University and one of WEDDERBURN'S few Ph.D. students, managed to rescue three of these books. Entitled Pamphlets and numbered Volumes 7, 8, and 9, they contain reprints dating roughly from 1897 to 1907 which WEDDERBURN sorted (after a fashion) and had bound together into volumes. Volume 7 is of the greatest interest here because it contains not only the papers dealing with quaternions which WEDDERBURNvalued highly enough to preserve in book form but also nine papers by WILLIAMBURNSIDEwhich indicate an early and perhaps concurrent interest in algebra-theoretic questions. Of the twentynine papers involving quaternions in this volume, twenty-one are by TAIT, three are by WILLrAMPEDDIE (1861-19??), the head of the Physical Laboratory while WEDDERBURN was Nichol Assistant, two by CARGILLKNOTT (1856-1922), TAIT'S biographer and Lecturer on Applied Mathematics at Edinburgh, one by a Fellow of Trinity College, and two by WEDDERBURNhimself. The large number of papers written by TAIT would definitely seem to indicate the extent of WEDDERBURN'S interest in his work. (Volume 9 contains three more of TAIT'S papers and one more by PEDDIE.) Three of PEDDIE'S papers, two dating from 1901-1902 (in Volume 7) and one from 1902-1903, show that active research was still being done on quaternions and quaternionic methods in physics while WEDDERBURN

338

K.H. PARSHALL

was at Edinburgh. In fact, his second paper, "On the General Scalar Function of a Vector," was communicated by PEDDIE, which suggests that WEDDERBURN at least discussed the work with him to some extent. The volumes of Pamphlets show likewise that the Professor of Mathematics, GEORGE CHRYSTAL,probably had little influence on WEDDERaU~N even though WEDDERBURN was his teaching assistant from 1907-1909. Primarily an applied mathematician, CHRYSTALbegan his post-Cambridge career as a researcher in the physics laboratory of JAMESCLERKMAXWELL,When CrmYSTAr~won the chair of mathematics at Edinburgh in 1879, he actively continued his physical investigations on electricity and magnetism in TAIT'S laboratory until roughly 1885. One year later, his textbook Algebra: An Elementary Text-Book for the Higher Classes of Secondary Schools andfor Colleges appeared in print. His later mathematical investigation included papers on differential equations, but from 1891 until his death, he devoted his energies primarily to the adminstrative duties of his post as Dean of the Faculty of Arts. In 1911, however, he was awarded a Royal Medal by the Royal Society of London for his experimental and mathematical work on the tidal phenomena in Scottish lakes. WEDDERBURNhad only three of CHRYSTAL'Spapers bound in his volumes of Pamphlets, two on the lake research (in volume 8), in which his brother, ERNESTMACLAGAN-WEDDERBURN,was also involved, and one survey article on non-Euclidean geometry (in volume 9). The papers by BURNSIDE in volume 7, however, seem to suggest that WEDDERBURN'S interest in the theory of hypercomplex number systems grew from independent study of BURNSIDE'S ideas. One of the few British mathematicians of the day to appreciate the work of LIE and research derived from it by many other notable mathematicians of the Continent, BURNSIDE in the papers WEDDERBURN saved looked not only at LIE algebras but also at questions involving group characters. This last topic brought him into direct competition with FROBEN~USwhose work he cited frequently. Since Lm's prot~g6 and coauthor, FRIEDRICH ENGEL, taught at the University of Leipzig and since FROBENIUSlectured at Berlin, WEDDERBURN'S trip to Germany in 1903-1904 may have been prompted by a desire to pursue lines of investigation similar to BURNSIDE'S. Evidence of this trip appears in volume 9 of the Pamphlets. There WEDDERBURNpreserved two papers on which he had written "Berlin 3/5/04." They were FRIEDRICHENGEL'S paper, "Die hrheren Differentialquotienten" of 1902 and GERHARDKOWALEWSKI'Swork, "[)ber Projektive Transformationsgruppe" of 1903. In the years 1903-1904, GEORG FROBENIUS published six papers on hypercomplex numbers and group characters which may be found in volume three of his collected works. (See J.-P. SERRE, ed., Ferdinand Georg Frobenius: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 3 vols. [Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1968], 3: 244-348.) WEDDERBURN did not have any of these papers among his pamphlets. In enumerating the articles WEDDERBURNsaved, I have kept the original order and supplied the pertinent bibliographical data wherever possible. A list of the papers appearing in each of the three volumes follows.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Mgebras

V o l u m e 7

339

TAIT, PETER GUTHRIE. "Formulae Connected with Small Continuous Displacements of the Particles of a Medium". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 4 (April 1862): 617-23. "Note on the Strain Function." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 7 (March 1872): 667-68. - "Note on a Quaternion Transformation." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 5 (April 1863): 115-19. "Note on Linear Partial Differential Equations." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 7 (June 1870): 190-92. - "Mathematical Notes." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 7 (May 1871): 498-506. " O n an Equation in Quaternion Differences." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 12 (February 1884): 561-62. - "Note on Reference Frames." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 12 (July 1884): 743-45. "The Relation Among Four Vectors. Note on Dr. Muir's Paper." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 16 (March 1889): 88-90. "On the Importance of Quaternions in Physics." Philosophical Magazine 5 (January 1890): 84-97. "Note on the Division of Space into Infinitesimal Cubes." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 19 (December 1892): 193-97. "Quaternion Notes." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 15 (June 1888): 379-80. - "Note on the Antecedents of Clerk-Maxwell's Electrodynamical-Wave-Equations." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 20 (April 1894): 213-14. "Systems of Plane Curves Whose Orthogonals Form a Similar System." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 20 (May 1895): 497-98. - " O n the Linear and Vector Function." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 21 (May 1896): 160-66. "On the Directions Which are Not Most Altered by a Homogeneous Strain." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 22 (December 1897): 162-64. - "On the Linear and Vector Function." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 21 (March 1897): 310-12. "Note on the Solution of Equations in Linear and Vector Functions." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 21 (June 1897): 497-505. - "On the Linear and Vector Function." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 22 (May 1899): 547-49. "On the Claim Recently Made for Gauss to the Invention (Not the Discovery) of Quaternions." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 23 (December 1899): 17-23. - . "On the Linear and Vector Functions." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 22 (May 1899): 547-49. -. "Quaternion Notes." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (June 1902): 344-46. PEDDLE,~VILLIAM."Quaternion Binaries: An Extension of Quaternions to Give an EightElement System Applicable to Ordinary Space." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (November 1901): 70. -. "On the Use of Quaternions in the Theory of Screws." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (July 1902): 312-20.
-

340

K . H . PARSHALL

-. "On the Fundamental Principles of Quaternions and Other Vector Analysis." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 9 (1892-93): 85-92. KNOTT, CAR6ILL G. "The Quaternion and Its Depreciators." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 11 (March 1891): 62-80. -. "Recent Innovations in Vector Theory." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 19 (December 1892): 212-37. Cox, HOMERSHAM."On the Application of Quaternions and Grassmann's Ausdehnungslehre to Different Kinds of Uniform Space". Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 4 (February 1882): 194-96. WEDDERBURN, JOSEPH H. M. "Note on the Linear Matrix Equation." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 22 (1903-1904): 49-53. -. "A Theorem in Hypercomplex Numbers." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (January 1906): 48-50. -. "Note on Hypercomplex Numbers." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 25 (1906-1907): 2-4. BURNSIDE,WILLIAM."On the Continuous Group That Is Defined by Any Given Group of Finite Order (Second Paper)." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 29 (June 1898): 546-65. -. "On Group-Characteristics." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 33 (November 1900): 146-62. -. "On the Representation of a Group of Finite Order as a Permutation Group, and on the Composition of Permutation Groups." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 34 (November 1901): 159-68. =. "On the Composition of Group Characteristics." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 34 (March 1901): 41-48. -. "On Groups Which Are Linear and Homogeneous in Both Variables and Parameters." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 35 (November 1902): 206-20. -. "On Finite Groups in Which All the Sylow Subgroups Are Cyclical." Messenger of Mathematics. n.s. 35 (1905): 46-50. -. "On a General Property of Finite Irreducible Groups of Linear Substitutions." Messenger of Mathematics n.s. 35 (1905): 51-55. -. "On an Unsettled Question in the Theory of Discontinuous Groups." Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 33 (January 1902): 230-38. MOORE, ELIAKIM H. "A Doubly-Infinite System of Simple Groups." Math. Papers Chicago, pp. 208-42. BURNSIDE,WILLIAM."On the Continuous Group That Is Defined by Any Given Group of Finite Order." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 29 (January 1898): 207-24. MOORE, ELIAKIM I-I. "Concerning Jordan's Linear Groups." Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 2 (November 1895): 33-43. -. "A Doubly-Infinite System of Simple Groups." Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 3 (October 1893): 73-78. DICKSON, LEONARDE. "On the Subgroups of Order a Power o f p in the Linear Homogeneous and Fractional Groups in the GF[pn].'' Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 5 (May 1904): 385-97.

Volume 8

MACLAGAN-WEDDERBURN,ERNEST. "Seiches Observed in Loch Ness." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 25 (November 1903): 25-26.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

341

CHRYSTAL,GEORGE."Some Results in the Mathematical Theory of Seiches." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 25 (July 1904): 328-37. WHITE, PETER, &; WATSON,WILLIAM."Some Experimental Results in Connection with the Hydrodynamical Theory of Seiches." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (March 1906): 142-56. CHRYSTAL,GEORGE."Seiches in the Lakes of Scotland." Royal Institution of Great Britian
18 (May 1907): 1-20. ENDROS, ANTON. "Die Seeschwankungen (Seiches) des Chiemsees." Bayerische Sitzungsberichte 36 (May 1906): 297-350. -. Seeschwankungen (Seiches) beobachtet am Chiemsee, (Diss.). Traunstein: A. Miller und Sohn, 1903. THOMSON,WILLIAM,Lord KELVIN."Initiation of Deep-Sea Waves of Three Classes: (1) from a Single Displacement, (2) from a Group of Equal and Similar Displacements; (3) by a Periodically Varying Surface-Pressure." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (January 1906): 399-436. MACKAY, JOHN S. "History of a Theorem in Elementary Geometry." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 20 (December 1901): 18-22. -. "Mathematical Correspondence: Robert Simson, Maxwell Stewart, James Stifling." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 21 (December 1902): 2-39.

Complete Index of all the Papers Printed in the Proceedings of the London Mathematics Society, Volumes 1-30. London: Frances Hodgson, 1900. MACFARLANE,ALEXANDER.Bibliography of Quaternions and Allied Systems of Mathematics. Dublin: University Press, 1904.
MUIR, THOMAS. "The Promotion of Research; With Special Reference to the Present State of the Scottish Universities and Secondary Schools." London: Alexander Gardner Paisley, 1884. MACGREGOR, JAMES G. "Research in the Scottish Universities: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered at the University of Edinburgh on 15th October 1901." Edinburgh: James Thin, Publisher to the University, 1901, MUIR, THOMAS. "Library Aids to Mathematical Research." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (December 1905): 51-64.

Volume 9

MOORE, ELIAKIMH. "On the Foundations of Mathematics." Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 9 (May 1903): 402-24. SOMMERVILLE,DUNCANM. Y. "On Certain Projective Configurations in Space of n Dimensions and a Related Problem in Arrangements." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 25 (May 1907): 80-90. WHITEHEAD,ALFREDN. "The Geodesic Geometry of Surfaces in non-Euclidean Space." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 29 (March 1898): 275-325, CHRYSTAL, GEORGE. "Non-Euclidean Geometry." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 10 (June 1880): 638-64. MANNHEIM, A. "Premiers E16ments de la G6om6trie descriptive." Nouvelles Annales de Mathbmatiques. 3d ser., 1 (1882): 385-400.
TWEEDIE, CHARLES. "A Problem of Lewis Carroll's, and the Rational Rotations Of a Diophantine Cubic." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 24 (December 1905): 7-19. GIBSON, GEORGEA. "Proposition: A Substitute for the Fifth Book of Euclid's Elements." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 18 (January 1900): 2-26.

342

K.H. PARSHALL

FINLAYSON,W. "Coaxial Circles and Conics." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical

Society 25 (January 1907): 48-57. ANGLIN, A. H. "On the Equation of a Pair of Tangents of a Conic." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (February 1902): 413-14. PICKEN, D. K. "On Higher Trigonometry." Mathematical Gazette 3 (July 1906): 329-35, 357-65. -. "The Integral Calculus Theorem." Mathematical Gazette 4 (January 1907): 5-7. TAIT, PETER GUTHRIE. "Theorem Relating to the Sum of Selected Binomial Theorem Coefficients." Messenger of Mathematics 13 (1884): 154-55. STUDY, EDUARD. "Geradlinige Polygone extremen Inhalts." Archly der Mathematik und Physik. ser. 3, 11 (1907): 289-95. MOORE, ELIAKIMH. "Concerning the General Equations of the Seventh and Eighth Degrees." Mathematische Annalen 51 (1899): 417-44. STUDY, EDWARD. "Einige elementare Bemerkungen fiber den Process der analytischen Fortsetzung." Mathematische Annalen 63 (November 1906): 239-45. -. "~ber das sogenannte Prinzip der Erhaltung der Anzahl." Archiv der Mathematik und Physik. set. 3, 8 (1905): 271-78. LOEWY,ALFRED."Ober die irreduciblen Factoren eines linearen homogenen Differentialausdrucks." Leipziger Berichte 54 (January 1902): 1-13. His, WILHELM. "An die Royal Society in London als leitende GeselIschaft der internationalen Association der Akademien." Leipziger Berichte 54 (February 1902): 14-16. BROMWlCH, T. J. I'A., & HUDSON, R. W. H. T. "The Discriminant of a Family of Curves or Surfaces." Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 34 (November 1902): 98-116. HUDSON, R. W. H. T. "A Geometrical Theory of Differential Equations of the First and Second Orders." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 33 (December t900): 380-403. WEDDERBURN, JOSEPHH. M. "On the Isoclinal Lines of a Differential Equation of the First Order." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (March 1903): 400-408. ENGEL, FRIEDRICH."Die hBheren Differentialquotienten." Leipziger Berichte 54 (March 1902) : 17-51. KOWALEWSKI, GERr~ARD. "Lrber projektive Transformationsgruppen." Leipziger Berichte 55 (April 1903): 97-105. PEDDIE, WILLIAM."On the Uniqueness of Solution of the Linear Differential Equation of the Second Order." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 21 (December 1902): 73-83. xD] JACKSON, FRANK H. "On the Series y = 1-t-F([c,][fl][7])'[-i~-. + F([cq[/~][7])"
X[21 F([~][fi][7 q-1])[-~T~, v q-... and its Differential Equations." Proceedings of the

Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (June 1903): 439-47. TAIT, PETER GUTHRIE. "Mathematical Notes." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 8 (December 1874): 440-45. -. "Note on the Cartesian Equation to the Wave Surface." Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 3 (August 1859): 269-70. "Program of the American Mathematical Society New Haven Colloquium," September 5-8, 1906. YOUNG, W. H. "On Functions Defined by Monotone Sequences and Their Upper and Lower Bounds." Journal Unknown (1908): 148-54. MAILLET,E. "Additions ~ l'Encyklop/idie der mathem. Wissenschaften, Band I (Th6orie des nombres)." Journal Unknown (Year Unknown): 17-19.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

343

STUDY, EDUARD. "Berichtigungen und Zus~itze zum Artikel: I, 1, A. 4. Theorie der

gemeinen und h6heren komplexen Grossen, der EncyklopO.die." Journal Unknown (Year Unknown): 103-105. LoEwY, A. " Z u I, 1, A. 6. Burkhardt, Endliehe diskrete Gruppen." Journal Unknown (Year Unknown) : 105-106. GIBSON, GEORHE A. "Vorlesungen tiber Geschichte der Mathematik, yon Moritz Cantor., Dritter (Schluss) Band, Dritter Abtheilung, t727-58: A Review: with special references to the Analyst Controversy." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 17 (December 1898): 9-32. MUIR, THOMAS. " A Special Circulant Considered by Catalan." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (July 1903): 547-54. -. "The Theory of Axisymmetric Determinants in the Historical Order of Development up to 1841." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (July 1903): 555-71. - . "The Theory of Alternants in the Historical Development up to 1860." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (July 1903): 357-89. -. "The Theory of Circulants in the Historical Order of Development up to 1860." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (July 1906): 390-98. - . "The Hessians of Certain Invariants of Binary Quantics." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (November 1906): 529-32. -. "The Sum of the r-line Minors of the Square of a Determinant." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (November 1906): 533-39.

Bibliography ALBERT,A. ALBERT. Structure of Algebras. American Mathematical Society Colloquium

Publications, vol. 24. Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society, 1939. ANDREWS, GEORGE E. Partitions: Yesterday and Today. Wellington, N.Z. : New Zealand Mathematical Society, 1979. ARCHIBALD, RAYMOND C., ed. A Semicentennial History of the American Mathematical Society 1888-1938. 2 vols. New York: American Mathematical Society, 1938. -. "Benjamin Peirce." American Mathematical MontMy 32 (January 1925): 1-30. ARTIN, EMIL. " Z u r Theorie der hyperkomplexen Zahlen." Hamburger Abhandlungen 5 (1927): 251-60. BELL, ERIC TEMPLE. "Fifty Years of Algebra in America." In Semicentennial Addresses of the American Mathematical Society, 2, pp. 1-34. Edited by RAYMOND C. ARCHIBALD. New York: American Mathematical Society, 1938. BIRKrtOFF, GEORGE D. "Fifty Years of American Mathematics." In Semieentennial Addressesof the American Mathematical Society, 2, pp. 270-315. Edited by RAYMOND C. ARCHIBALD. New York: American Mathematical Society, 1938. BURNSIDE,WILLIAM. "On the Continuous Group That Is Defined by Any Given Group of Finite Order." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 29 (January 1898): 207-24. -. "On the Continuous Group That Is Defined by Any Given Group of Finite Order (Second Paper)." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 29 (June 1898): 546-65. CARTAN, ELI,. "Nombres complexes, expos6, d'apr~s l'article allemand de E. Study." In Encyelopddie des Sciences mathdmatiques pures et appliquOes, Tome 1, vol. 1, pp. 329-468. 7 Tomes in 28 vols. Paris: Gauthier-Villars; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner,

1904-16.
-. Oeuvres Completes. 3 vols. in 6 pts. Paris: Gauthier-Villars,1952-55.

344

K . H . PARSHALL

-. Premikre Thkse: Sur la Structure des Groupes de Transformations finis et continus. Paris: Nony, 1894. -. "Sur les groupes bilin6aires et les syst6mes de nombres complexes." Annales de la FacultO des Sciences de Toulouse 12B (1898): B1-B99. -. "Sur les syst6mes de nombres complexes." Comptes rendus 124 (May 1897): 1217-20. - . "Sur les syst6mes r~els de nombres complexes." Comptes rendus 124 (June 1897): 1296-97. CAYLEY, ARTHUR. The Collected Mathematical Papers of Arthur Cayley. Edited by ARTHUR CAYLEY A . R . FoRSYTH. 14 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1889-98. -. "On Jacobi's Elliptic Functions, in reply to the Rev. B. Bronwin: and on Quaternions." In The Collected Mathematical Papers of Arthur Cayley, 1, p. 127. Edited by ARTHUR CAYLEY & A. R. FORSYTH. 14 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1889-98. -. " O n Linear Transformations." Cambridge and Dublin Mathematics Journal 1 (1846): 104-22. -. "M6moire sur les Hyperd6terminants (Traduction d'un M6moire anglais ins6r6 dans le 'Cambridge Mathematical Journal' Avec Quelques Additions de l'Auteur." Crelle 30 (1846): 1-37. -. " A Memoir on the Automorphic Linear Transformation of a Bipartite Quadric Function." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 148 (January 1858): 39-46. -. " A Memoir on the Theory of Matrices." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 148 (January 1858): 17-37. -. "Presidential Address to the British Associtation: September 1883." In The Collected Mathematical Papers of Arthur Cayley, 1L pp. 429-59. Edited by ARTHUR CAYLE'z" & A. R. FORSYTH. 14 VOLS. Cambridge: University Press, 1889-98. -. "Remarques sur la Notation des Functions alg6briques." Crelle 50 (1855): 282-85. -. "On the Theory of Linear Transformations." Cambridge Mathematics Journal 4 (February 1845): 193-209. -. "Sur la Transformation d'une Function quadratique en elle-m6me par des Substitutions lin6aires." Crelle 50 (1855): 288-99. CLIFFORD,WILLIAM K. " A Fragment on Matrices." In Mathematical Papers by William Kingdon Clifford, pp. 3 3 7 4 1 . Edited by ROBERT TUCKER with an Introduction by H. J. STEPHEN SMITH. London: Macmillan & Co., 1882; reprint ed., Bronx, N.Y.: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1968. -. Mathematical Papers by William Kingdon Clifford. Edited by ROBERT TUCKER with an Introduction by H. J. STEPHEN SMITH. London: Macmillan & Co., 1882; reprint ed., Bronx, N.Y.: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1968. -. "Preliminary Sketch of Biquaternions." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 4 (1873): 381-95. COHEN, ABRAHAM. An Introduction to the Lie Theory of One-Parameter Groups with Applications to the Solution of Differential Equations. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co., 1931. CROWE, MICHAELJ. A History of Vector Analysis: The Evolution of the Idea of a Vectorial System. Notre Dame: University of Notre D a m e Press, 1968. DEDEKIND, RICHARD. Gesammelte mathematische Werke. Edited by ROBERT FRICKE, EMMY NOETHER, 6: OYSTEIN ORE. 3 vols. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn, 193032; reprint ed., Bronx, N.Y.: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1969. -. " Z u r Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen." G~ittingen Nachrichten (1885): 141-59. DEURING, MAX. Algebren. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und Ihrer Grenzgebiete, vol. I. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1935; reprint ed., New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1948.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

345

DICKSON, LEONARD EUGENE. Algebras and Their Arithmetics. University of Chicago Science Series. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1973, ed S.v. "Klein, Christian Felix," by WERNER
BURAU BRUNO SCHOENBERG.

Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1974, ed. S.v. "Peirce, Charles Saunders," by CAROLYN EISELE. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1976 ed. S.v. "Wedderburn, Joseph Henry Maclagan," by HENRY NATHAN. Edinburgh, Scotland. Edinburgh University. Department of Special Collections. Minutes of Senatus. vol. 13 (Handwritten and Dated 31 Jan. 1903 to 13 Jan. 1906). Edinburgh, Scotland. Edinburgh University. Department of Special Collections. Minutes of Senatus. vol. 14 (Handwritten and Dated 3 Feb. 1906 to 10 Oct. 1908). Encyclopddie des Sciences pures et appliqudes publide sous les auspices des Acaddmies des Sciences de G6ttingue, de Leipzig, de Munich et de Vienne avec la Collaboration de nombreux savants. 7 Tomes in 28 vols. Paris: Gauthier-Villars; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904-16. ENGEL, FRIEDRICH."Sophus Lie." Leipziger Berichte 51 (November 1899): xi-lxi. -. "Wilhelm Killing." dahresberichte der Deutschen-Mathematiker-Vereinigung 39 (1930): 140-58. EPSTEEN, SAUL. "Semireducible Hypercomplex Number Systems." Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 4 (October 1904): 437-44. -. Untersuchungen iiber lineare Differentialgleichungen 4. Ordnung und die zugehOrigen Gruppen. Zurich: A. Diggelmann, 1901. EPSTEEN, SAUL, & WEDDERBURN,JOSEPH H. M. "On the Structure of Hypercomplex Number Systems." Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 6 (March 1905): 172-78. FORSYTH, A. R. "Arthur Cayley." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 58 (June 1895): i-xliii. FROBENIUS, GEORG. "(3ber die Darstellung der endlichen Gruppen durch lineare Substitutionen." In Ferdinand Georg Frobenius: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 3, pp. 89-103. Edited by JEAN-PIERRESERRE. 3 vols. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1968. -. "~ber endliche Gruppen." In Ferdinand Georg Frobenius: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 2, pp. 632-63. Edited by JEAN-PIERRESERRE. 3 vols. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1968. -. Gesammelte Abhandlungen. Edited by JEAN-PIERRESERRE. 3 vols. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1968. -. "Ueber lineare Substitutionen und bilineare Formen." In Ferdinand Georg Frobenius: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1, pp. 343-405. Edited by JEAN-PIERRESERRE. 3 VOLS. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1968. -. "Ober die Primfactoren der Gruppendeterminante II." In Ferdinand Georg Frobenius: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 3, pp. 275-83. Edited by JEAN-PIERRESERRE. 3 vols. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1968. -. "Theorie der hyperkomplexen GrBssen." Berliner Sitzungsberichte 30 (April 1903): 504-37. -. "Theorie der hyperkomplexen Gr/Sssen II." Berliner Sitzungsberichte 30 (June 1903): 634-45. -. "Uber vertauschbare Matrizen." In Ferdinand Georg Frobenius: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 2, pp. 705-18. Edited by JEAN-PIERRESERRE. 3 vols. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1968. GAuss, CARL FRIEDRICH.Disquisitiones Arithmeticae. Translated by ARTHURA. CLARK, S.J. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.

346

K.H. PARSHALL

GINSBURG, JEKUTHIEL. "A Hitherto Unpublished Letter by Benjamin Peirce." Seripta Mathematica 2 (May 1934): 278-82. HAMILTON,WILLIAMROWAN. The Mathematical Papers of Sir William Rowan Hamilton. Edited by H. HALBERSTAM& R. E. INGRAM. 3 VOLS. Cambridge: University Press, 1967. HANKINS, THOMASL. Sir William Rowan Hamilton. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. HAVVEL,DIETER."Klassifikationstheorie endlich-dimensionaler Algebren in der Zeit von 1880 bis 1920." L'Enseignement mathdmatique, 2o set., 26 (January-June 1980): 91-102. HAWKES, HERBERT. "Estimate of Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra.'" American Journal of Mathematics 24 (1902): 87-95. HAWKINS, THOMAS. "Another Look at Cayley and the Theory of Matrices." Archives internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 26 (June 1977): 82-112. -. "Hypercomplex Numbers, Lie Groups, and the Creation of Group Representation Theory." Archive for History of Exact Sciences 8 (April 1972): 243-87. -. "New Light on Frobenius' Creation of the Theory of Group Characters." Archive for History of Exact Sciences 12 (August 1974): 217-43. -. "The Origins of the Theory of Group Characters." Archive for History of Exact Sciences 7 (March 1971): 142-70. -. "The Theory of Matrices in the 19th Century." In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians: Vancouver, 1974, 2, pp. 561-70. n.p. : Canadian Mathematical Congress, 1975. -. "Weierstrass and the Theory of Matrices." Archive for History of Exact Sciences 17 (July 1977): 119-63. -. "Wilhelm Killing and the Structure of Lie Algebras." Archive for History of Exact Sciences 23 (July 1982): 127-92. HERSTEIN, ISRAELN. Noncommutative Rings. Carus Mathematical Monographs, no. 15. n.p. : Mathematical Association of America, 1968. JACOBSON, NATnAN. "The Radical and Semi-simplicity for Arbitrary Rings." American Journal of Mathematics 67 (1945): 300-20. KILLINg, WILHELM. "Die Zusammensetzung der stetigen endlichen Transformationsgruppen." Mathematisehe Annalen 31 (1887): 252-90. -. "Die Zusammensetzung der stetigen endlichen Transformationsgruppen: Zweiter Tell." Mathematische Annalen 33 (1889): 1-48. KLINE, MORRIS. Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. LEJEUNZ-Dmlcr~LET, PETER G. Vorlesungen iiber Zahlentheorie. Edited by RICHARt) DED~rCIND.4th ed. Braunschweig: F. Vieweg und Sohn, 1893; reprint ed., New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1968. LIE, SOPHUS. Gesammelte Abhandlungen auf Grund einer Bewilligung arts dem norwegisehen Forsehungsfonds yon 1919 and mit Unterstiitzung der Videnskapsakademie zu Oslo and der Akademie der Wissensehaften zu Leipzig. Edited by FRIEDRICHENGEL. 6 vols. and 4 supps. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner; Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co., 1922-37. LI~, SovHuS. Sophus Lie's 1880 Transformations Group Paper. Edited by ROBERT HERMANNand Translated by MICHAELACK~RMAN.Lie Groups: History, Frontiers, and Applications, vol. 1. Brookline, Mass. : Math Sci Press, 1975. LIE, SOPHUS & ENGEL,FRIEDRICH.Theorie der Transformationsgruppen. 3 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1888-93.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

347

LIE, SoPHus, & SCHEFFERS, GEORG. Vorlesungen iiber continuierliche Gruppen mit geometrisehen und anderen Anwendungen. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1893. MOLIEN, THEODOR. "Ueber Systeme h6herer complexer Zahlen." Mathematische Annalen 41 (1893): 83-156. [NEWTON, H.A.]. "Benjamin Peirce," Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. n.s., 8 (May 1881): 443-54. PARSHALL, KAREN HUNGER. "E. H. Moore and the Founding of a Mathematical Community in America: 1892-1902." Annals of Science to appear. -. ,'In Pursuit of the Finite Division Algebra Theorem and Beyond: Joseph H. M. Wedderburn, Leonard E. Dickson, and Oswald Veblen." Archives internationales d'HisWire des Sciences, 33 (Dec. 1983): 274-99 PEIRCE, BENJAMIN.Ideality in the Physical Sciences. Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1881. -. "Linear Associative Algebra with Notes and Addenda by C. S. Peirce, Son of the Author." American Journal of Mathematics 4 (1881): 97-229. -. "On the Uses and Transformations of Linear Algebra." Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, n.s., 2 (May 1875): 395-400. PEIRCE, CHARLES S. "A Communication from Mr. C. S. Peirce." Johns Hopkins University Circulars 2 (1883) : 86-88. PETERSON,SVEN R. "Benjamin Peirce: Mathematician and Philosopher." Journal of the History of Ideas 16 (January 1955): 89-112. POINCARr~, HENRI. "Sur les Hombres complexes." Comptes rendus 99 (November 1883): 740-42. -. "Rapport sur les travaux de M. Cartan/t la Facult6 des Sciences h l'Universit6 de Paris." Acts Mathematica 38 (1921): 137-45. PYCIOR, HELENA M. "Early Criticism of the Symbolical Approach to Algebra." HisWria Mathematica 9 (November 1892): 392-412. -. "George Peacock and the British Origins of Symbolical Algebra." HisWria Mathematica 8 (February 1981): 23-45. -. "Benjamin Peirce's 'Linear Associative Algebra.'" Isis 70 (December 1979): 537-51. RICHARDS, JOAN. "The Art and the Science of British Algebra: A Study in the Perception of Mathematical Truth." HisWria Mathematics 7 (August 1980): 345-65. SCHEEEERS,GEORG. "Ueber die Berechnung yon Zahlensystemen." Leipziger Berichte 41 (December 1889): 400-57. -. "Bestimmung einer Klasse yon Beruhrungstransformationsgruppen." Aeta Mathematics 14 (1891): 117-78. -. "Ueber die Reducibilit~it complexer Zahlensystemen." Mathematische Annalen 41 (1893): 601-604. -. "Zur Theorie der anN n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen." Leipziger Berichte 41 (June 1889): 290-307. -. "ZuriJckffihrung complexer Zahlensysteme auf typische Formen." Mathematische Annalen 39 (1891): 294-340. SCHUR,FRIEDRICH. "Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinheiten gebildeten complexen Gr/Sssen." Mathematische Annalen 33 (1889): 49-60. SHAW, JAMES BYRNIE. Synopsis of Linear Associative Algebra: A Report on its Natural Development and Results Reached up to the Present Time. Washington, D.C. : Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1907. SPOTTISWOODE, WILLIAM. "Remarks on Some Recent Generalizations of Algebra." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 4 (1873): 147-64. STEINITZ, ERNST. "Algebraische Theorie der K6rper." Crelle 116 (1910): 1-132. -. Algebraische Theorie der Kgirper. Edited by REINHOLD BikER HELMUT HASSE. New York: Chelsea PuNishing Co., 1950.

348

K . H . PARSHALL

STUDY,EDUARD. "Complexe Zahlen und Transformationsgruppen." Leipziger Berichte 41

(May 1889): 177-228. -. " U b e r Systeme von complexen Zahlen." G~ttingen Nachrichten (1889): 237-68. SYLVESTER,JAMESJOSEPH. "Address on Commemoration D a y at Johns Hopkins University, 22 February 1877." In The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester, 3, pp. 72-87. Edited by H. F. BAKER. 4 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1904-12; reprint ed., New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1973. -. The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester. Edited by H. F. BAKER. 4 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1904-12; reprint ed., New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1973. -. "On the Equation to the Secular Inequalities in the Planetary Theory." Philosophical Magazine 16 (March 1883): 267-69.

-. The Laws of Verse; or, Principles of Versification Exemplified in Metrical Translations: Together with an Annotated Reprint of the Inaugural Presidential Address to the Mathematical and Physical Sections of the British Association at Exeter. London: Longmans,
Green, & Co., 1870. -. "Lectures on the Principles of Universal Algebra." American Journal of Mathematics 6 (1884): 270-86. - . "On the Method of Reciprocants as Containing an Exhaustive Theory of the Singularities of Curves." In The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester, 4, pp. 278-302. Edited by H. F. BAKER. 4 vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1904-12; reprint ed., New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1973. -. " N o t e on the Theory of Simultaneous Linear Differential or Difference Equations with Constant Coefficients." American Journal of Mathematics 4 (1881): 321-26. -. "Sur les Puissances et les Racines de Substitutions lin6aires." Comptes rendus 94 (January 1882): 55-59. - . "Sur les quantit6s formant un groupe de nonions analogues aux quaternions de Hamilton." Comptes rendus 97 (December 1883): 1336-40. - . "Sur les quantit6s formant un groupe de nonions analogues aux quaternions de Hamilton." Comptes rendus 98 (February 1884): 273-76, 471-75. -. " O n Quaternions, Nonions, Sedenions, etc." Johns Hopkins University Circulars 2 (December 1883): 7-9. - . "Sur les Racines des Matrices unitaires." Comptes rendus 94 (February 1882): 396-99. - . " O n the Relation Between the Minor Determinants of Linearly Equivalent Quadratic Functions." In The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester, 1, pp. 241-50. Edited by H. F. BAKER, 4 vols, Cambridge: University Press, 1904-12; reprint ed., New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1973. -. " O n Tchebysheff's Theory of the Totality of the Prime Numbers Comprised with Given Limits." American Journal of Mathematics 4 (1881): 230-47. - . " O n the Three Laws of Motion in the World of Universal Algebra." Johns Hopkins University Circulars 3 (January 1884): 33-34. -. " A W o r d on Nonions." Johns Hopkins University Circulars 1 (August 1882): 241-42. TABER, HENRY. " O n the Theory of Matrices." American Journal of Mathematics 11 (1889) : 337-95. TAYLOR, H . S . "Joseph Henry Maclagen Wedderburn: 1882-1948." Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society 6 (1948-49): 619-25. TURNER, A. LOGAN, ed. History of the University of Edinburgh: 1883-1933. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1933. VEBLEN, OSWALD, t~ WEDDERBURN, JOSEPH H. M. "Non-Desarguesian and Non-Pascalian Geometries." Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 8 (July 1907): 379-88.

Wedderburn and the Structure of Algebras

349

WARREN, JOHN. A Treatise on the Geometrical Representations of the Square Roots of Negative Quantities. Cambridge: University Press, 1828. WEDDERBURN, JOSEPH H. M. "On the Applications of Quaternions in the Theory of Differential Equations." Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 40 (July 1903):
709-21. " O n the General Scalar Function of a Vector." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (March 1903): 409-12. - " O n Hypercomplex Numbers." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2 d ser., 6 (November 1907): 77-118. " O n the Isoclinal Lines of a Differential Equation of the First Order." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 24 (January 1903): 400-408. - " N o t e on Hypercomplex Numbers." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 25 (1906-1907): 2-4. - " N o t e on the Linear Matrix Equation." Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society 22 (1903-1904): 49-53. "Pamphlets," vols. 7, 8 and 9. - . " A Theorem in Hypercomplex Numbers." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 26 (January 1906): 48-50. - . "The Theory of Linear Associative Algebras." D.Sc. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1908. WEIERSTRASS,~(ARL. Mathematische Werke. 7 vols. Berlin: Mayer & MiJller; Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, 1894-1927; reprint ed., Hildeshum: Georg Ohms Verlagsbuchhandlung; New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1967. -. "Zur Theorie der aus n Haupteinbeiten gebildeten complexen Gr6ssen." G6ttingen Nachrichten (1884): 395414. WEYL, HERMANN. Classical Groups: Their Invariants and Representations. 2 d e d . with supps. Princeton Mathematical Series, no. 1. Princeton: University Press, 1946. WEYR, EDUARD. "R6partition des matrices en esp6ces et formation de toutes les esp6ces." Comptes rendus 100 (April 1885): 966-69. -. "Sur la th6orie des matrices." Comptes rendus 100 (March 1885): 787-89. -. "Sur la th6orie des quaternions." Comptes rendus 98 (April 1884): 906-907, 1320-23. YATES, R. C. "Sylvester at the University of Virginia." American Mathematical Monthly 44 (April 1937): 194-201. -

Sweet Briar College Sweet Briar, Virginia

(Received May 2, 1984)