most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-22T09:17:09Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/10988 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/96584/ternary-lie-structure/96609#96609 Pandamic 2012-05-10T19:43:22Z 2012-05-10T19:43:22Z

<p>You might want to look at the paper "On Lie k-Algebras" by P. Hanlon by M. Wachs (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001870885710389). They consider algebras satisfying the generalized Jacobi identity you specify. I wanted to leave this as a comment but I don't have enough reputation.</p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46794/generalization-of-the-structure-theorem-for-artinian-rings Pandamic 2010-11-21T03:17:28Z 2010-11-21T03:54:30Z

<p>Let $A$ be a commutative ring with identity. If $A$ is a ring with only a finite set of prime ideals $p_1...p_n$ and moreover $\prod_{i=1}^n p_i^{k_i}=0$ for some k_i. Is $A$ then isomorphic to $\prod_{i=1}^nA_{(p_i)}$?</p>

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46794/generalization-of-the-structure-theorem-for-artinian-rings/46796#46796 Pandamic 2010-11-21T12:06:26Z 2010-11-21T12:06:26Z

Oh, I was being stupid. Thank you

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46794/generalization-of-the-structure-theorem-for-artinian-rings Pandamic 2010-11-21T11:34:18Z 2010-11-21T11:34:18Z

Karl: No I did not, then it would be a standard theorem.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46794/generalization-of-the-structure-theorem-for-artinian-rings Pandamic 2010-11-21T11:33:03Z 2010-11-21T11:33:03Z

Hailong: Yes I did, it is almost the same question, only this is a little weaker perhaps.

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46794/generalization-of-the-structure-theorem-for-artinian-rings Pandamic 2010-11-21T11:31:31Z 2010-11-21T11:31:31Z

Mariano: Perhaps I should've added that I thought it was wrong but could'nt find a convincing counterexample :)

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46794/generalization-of-the-structure-theorem-for-artinian-rings/46796#46796 Pandamic 2010-11-21T11:30:36Z 2010-11-21T11:30:36Z

Perhaps I have missed something huge but in this example it seems to me that product will be the ring localized at m, i.e. itself multiplied by the trivial ring, is this not isomorphic to the original ring?