Two turning points in invariant theory (Q1286335): Difference between revisions

This note is a slightly edited second colloquium lecture delivered by the author at the Annual Meeting of the American Mathematical Society, Baltimore, January 8, 1998. The lecture starts with history of invariant theory, the mathematicians involved and the areas in mathematics involved. The lecture is about classical invariant theory. The program of classical invariant theory is again being pursued and success may at last be within reach. The author reviews two turning points in the history of invariant theory. The first, the ``new'' one, happened around the turn of the century and its effects are still being felt all over mathematics. The second, the ``old'' one, happened very early in the game and led to a serious misunderstanding that lasts to this day. Invariant theory is the study of orbits of group action. \textit{Hermann Weyl} summarized the program in bis book ``The classical groups, their invariants and representation'' (1939; Zbl 0020.20601) in two assertions. The first states that ``all geometric facts are expressed by the vanishing of invariants,'' and the second states that ``all invariants are invariants of tensors''. The program of invariant theory, from Boole to our day, is precisely the translation of geometric facts into invariant algebraic equations expressed in terms of tensors. The program of translation of geometry into algebra was to be carried out in two steps. The first step consisted in decomposing tensor algebra into irreducible components under changes of coordinates. The second step consisted in devising an efficient notation for the expression of invariants for each irreducible component. The first step was successfully carried out in this century; the second was abandoned sometime in the twenties and only recently has resurfaced. In closing, the author touches upon another reason for the abandonment of the symbolic method in invariant theory. It was the expectation that the expression of invariants by the symbolic method would eventually guide us to single out the ``relevant'' or ``important'' invariants among an infinite variety. The vanishing of this faith was the main reason for the demise of classical invariant theory, and revival of this faith is the reason for its present rebirth.