Timeline for Minimal generators of an ideal
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2013 at 3:53 | comment | added | bruce | By the references I gave before it would be my opinion that (at least) several (of the main) experts on the area believe the opposite to what you have stated. In any case, the statement (now) seems to be clear. Thanks for your opinion. | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 19:46 | comment | added | Fernando Muro | In my opinion one should specify when ideals are two-sided. | |
| Apr 9, 2013 at 2:54 | comment | added | bruce | I was just using (what I suppose is) the standard convention (e.g. in the book of J. McConnell and J. Robson, or in the one of F. Anderson and K. Fuller): ideal = two-sided ideal. Thanks for the comment. | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 22:41 | comment | added | Will Sawin | Left ideals? Right ideals? Two-sided ideals? | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 21:15 | comment | added | bruce | I meant $\bar{F}.\bar{F}$, $\bar{F}$ denoting the augmentation ideal. I've already edited it. Thanks for pointing it out. | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 21:13 | history | edited | bruce | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2013 at 20:55 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | What do you mean by «to exclude pathologies»? The set $F\cdot F$ is just $F$. | |
| Apr 8, 2013 at 18:50 | history | asked | bruce | CC BY-SA 3.0 |