Timeline for Why is a ring called a "ring"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16 at 23:24 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
http -> https (the question was bumped anyway)
|
| Dec 27, 2012 at 10:39 | comment | added | user9072 | It should however be noted that Hilbert did not call Z/nZ a ring, but strictly only rings of algebraic integers, where admittedly there is too some 'circularity', but at least in his presentation this does not really shine through that much. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 | comment | added | Greg Martin | He's not postulating that this physical cyclicity is the main idea in the definition of a ring. He's postulating that it motivated the choice of the word "ring", at a time when few examples had yet been studied. | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 3:45 | comment | added | François G. Dorais | I personally find this argument hard to believe. If that is the main idea, why is $\mathbb{C}[T]$ a ring too? I don't think this is entirely inaccurate, but I think there is some more to be said about this... | |
| Dec 27, 2012 at 0:42 | history | answered | Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |