On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:13:50 AM UTC+2, William Elliot wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Arturo Magidin wrote: > > > > Yet the problem still remains problematic. > > > > > No, it does not. Under the standard definitions, the zero ring is not a > > > counterexample because either (i) it does contain an identity; or (ii) > > > it is not considered a ring by those that require 1=/=0. > > > > Rant and rave, depraved unto grave, > > while the trivial becomes dead prey, > > the original problem still rings, > > with no one dinging a ping nor daring a fling.
Er..."rings" doesn't rhyme with "fling" . Try again, please.