Timeline for What are the reasons for considering rings without identity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2019 at 3:56 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
Removed the deprecated (abstract-algebra) tag - see the tag info: https://mathoverflow.net/tags/abstract-algebra/info (if there are some other suitable tags, choose them instead.)
|
|
| Jan 26, 2015 at 2:37 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Even though this question is old, I think it makes sense to make this Community Wiki, in accordance with long-standing MO norms. | |
| Jan 26, 2015 at 2:35 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Todd Trimble | ||
| Jan 25, 2015 at 23:10 | answer | added | Sergei Akbarov | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 25, 2015 at 17:51 | answer | added | Gérard Lang | timeline score: 1 | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 8:18 | comment | added | Pietro Majer | Also of interest: mathoverflow.net/questions/34332/… | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 2:21 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Another argument in favor of requiring rings to have identity: www-math.mit.edu/~poonen/papers/ring.pdf | |
| Jul 2, 2011 at 1:33 | vote | accept | teil | ||
| Apr 6, 2011 at 4:31 | answer | added | Bill Dubuque | timeline score: 28 | |
| Feb 17, 2011 at 18:16 | comment | added | Unknown | mathoverflow.net/questions/2748/… and reasons against here: math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/ringtheory/ringdefs.pdf | |
| Feb 17, 2011 at 17:58 | answer | added | Peter Samuelson | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 11, 2011 at 17:15 | answer | added | Greg Marks | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 11, 2011 at 8:26 | comment | added | Mark Grant | Added the ra tag because I had trouble refinding this question. | |
| Feb 11, 2011 at 8:25 | history | edited | Mark Grant |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 26, 2010 at 17:18 | comment | added | KConrad | Lie algebras are not associative, so I don't think they should be considered a major answer to the question. The right answer, which is consistent with the examples illustrated in the answers below, is that there are important rings without identity in analysis. This is a nice example of why mathematicians shouldn't closet themselves into their own little area but have some awareness of what goes on in the rest of math: basic examples you seek might not be in your area but could be mother's milk for other areas. | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 12:42 | answer | added | darij grinberg | timeline score: 24 | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 12:12 | answer | added | Gerald Edgar | timeline score: 29 | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 11:10 | comment | added | Gjergji Zaimi | For the same reason you think ideals are interesting. :) | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 11:05 | answer | added | Martin Brandenburg | timeline score: 73 | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 10:41 | answer | added | Kevin Buzzard | timeline score: 43 | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 10:29 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | I don't think this is a reason. The natural ring associated with a Lie algebra is its universal enveloping algebra, which does have an identity. | |
| Apr 26, 2010 at 10:25 | history | asked | teil | CC BY-SA 2.5 |