The notion of constructibility is not too obscure but mathematically, I find the definitions tedious and not very easy to handle with.
I don't know if Ian Stewart's book Galois Theory edition 4 thinks the same, but it mostly glosses over with the reasoning of whether some $\alpha \in \mathbb{C}$ s constructible or not.
Say for this question
There exists an angle that cannot be trisected. Let's prove this by giving a specific example of such an angle; we look at $\frac{2 \pi}{3}$.
See, then it starts off by saying
Let $\omega=e^{\frac{2 \pi}{3}i}$. Then $\omega$ is constructible since $\omega=\frac{-1+i\sqrt{3}}{2}$.
$\omega$ is constructible since $\omega=\frac{-1+i\sqrt{3}}{2}$? How did he conclude that in a fraction of a second?
Is there an unspoken loose rule? Perhaps it's possible to rigourously, concretely prove that $\omega$ is constructible, but that's not what I am looking for. It seems like these people can see some complex number for a few seconds and say "that's constructible" or "nah that doesn't look constructible"
How can you tell? If it's expressible in fractions? If it's a number along the unit circle? But $\omega$ has an irrational in it, and does that matter? Does it not matter?
I can't get a grip on this "constructible numbers" thing, especially telling whether or not it is! If someone can provide me a general argument in judging/guesstimating the constructibility of a particular complex, that would be great. How do you guys do it?
$\frac{-1+i\sqrt 3}{2}$ is constructible because we only need to adjoin square roots to obtain that number. Specifically, we only need $i$ (the square root of $-1$) and $\sqrt 3$ (the square root of, well, $3$). In fact, the product $i\sqrt 3$ is by itself a square root of the rational ("obviously constructible" would suffice) number $-3$. The rest is just field operations.