On Jun 19, 5:48 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A slim disproof exists, for upon coming down to a single term in that > polynomial > a x > we should freely replace this value ax with two polynomials > (a) (x) > and within the the ring context with a third polynomial c > a x = c > by the closure axiom of the product operator which had been declared > on a higher form than A so named 'the polynomial ring A[X]'. If this > is not true then the value under scrutiny is not a ring and so the > usage of the term ring was not only polluted by the formal > interpretation on x, but it was destroyed. The polynomial ring is a > misnomer when interpreted the 'formal' way.
in the class the identity would simply be
(think about how the polynomials are stored as vectors here)
(a) . (0, 1) = (0, a)
do you see a x = c here?
i think if you focus consistently on a form you understand it can make advanced things appear more graspable