In a few places where I have looked the Euclidean Function of a Euclidean Domain is only being defined for non-zero elements. I am teaching an undergraduate course and I am trying to make things simpler as possible. Is there any good reason why not to define it as $0$ at $0$?
Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
You'll find your answer and much more in the little-known paper [1] which surveys all of the dozen known ways of axiomatizing Euclidean rings (including those of Nagata and Samuel), and explores in-depth all of their logical interrelations. It's a convenient reference to have at hand when you're comparing texts which use (seemingly) different definitions of Euclidean rings / domains. [1] Euclidean Rings. A. G. Agargun, C. R. Fletcher |
|||
|
You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.
|
3
|
I think this is only because you don't care dividing by zero. But you may as well define the value at zero to be 0, and any other value at least 1. See this expository paper by Keith Conrad for interesting remarks on euclidean domains and functions. |
|||
|
|
