The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Finite Rings
Replies: 28   Last Post: Feb 6, 2013 8:33 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
William Elliot

Posts: 2,637
Registered: 1/8/12
Re: Finite Rings
Posted: Feb 5, 2013 3:53 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Arturo Magidin wrote:
> On Monday, February 4, 2013 10:55:03 AM UTC-6, Arturo Magidin wrote:

> > The only two books I have that do not allow 1=0 are: Zariski and
> > Samuel's "Commutative Algebra", which restricts the use of the term
> > "identity" to rings that are not nullrings; and Lam's "A First Course
> > in Noncommutative rings" and "Lectures on Rings and Modules", which
> > specifies this explicitly in the introduction.

> Added: Note, however, that the zero ring does not qualify as a "ring"
> under Lam's definitions, so it cannot be an example. So the only book I
> have that both allows the 0 ring, and *does not* recognize the 0 ring as
> a ring with identity, is Zariski-Samuel. It also happens to be by far
> the oldest, having been published originally in 1958.

Much ado about nothing.
One man's heresy is another's definition.
Yet the problem still remains problematic.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.