Skip to main content
added 4 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Pete L. Clark
  • 65.4k
  • 12
  • 241
  • 381

It seems that the ratio of those authors allowing a field to be a Dedekind domain to those who do not is almost 50 - 50. Why such a bewildering lack of consensus for such an elementary notion?

It seems that the ratio of those authors allowing field to be Dedekind domain to those who do not is almost 50 - 50. Why such a bewildering lack of consensus for such an elementary notion?

It seems that the ratio of those authors allowing a field to be a Dedekind domain to those who do not is almost 50 - 50. Why such a bewildering lack of consensus for such an elementary notion?

edited tags
Link
Tom Goodwillie
  • 55.9k
  • 7
  • 151
  • 240
Source Link
ashpool
  • 2.9k
  • 2
  • 28
  • 41

0 dimensional Dedekind domain?

It seems that the ratio of those authors allowing field to be Dedekind domain to those who do not is almost 50 - 50. Why such a bewildering lack of consensus for such an elementary notion?