Timeline for Are there any other examples where "weak" and "strong" are confused in mathematics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8 at 22:21 | history | edited | Joe Lamond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 358 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2023 at 6:46 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | Yes, that was what I wanted to refer to — but I added an extra commutative in my comment. | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 1:01 | comment | added | Joe Lamond | @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda: Assuming that all rings are unital, I think that commutativity of addition is a superfluous axiom even for noncommutative rings. It follows by expanding the product $(1+1)(x+y)$ (see Bill Dubuque's answer here). | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 0:51 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | Well, all my rings have an identity element (otherwise they are rngs). | |
| S Mar 18, 2023 at 0:19 | review | First answers | |||
| Mar 18, 2023 at 7:32 | |||||
| S Mar 18, 2023 at 0:19 | history | edited | Joe Lamond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 189 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2023 at 23:57 | comment | added | Joe Lamond | @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda: Did you mean to say that it is superfluous for unital rings? | |
| Mar 17, 2023 at 22:02 | comment | added | Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda | Perhaps more striking is that commutativity of addition is superfluous for commutative rings, but obviously very strong in general. | |
| Mar 17, 2023 at 18:28 | history | undeleted | Joe Lamond | ||
| Mar 17, 2023 at 18:28 | history | deleted | Joe Lamond | via Vote | |
| S Mar 17, 2023 at 18:26 | review | First answers | |||
| Mar 17, 2023 at 19:09 | |||||
| S Mar 17, 2023 at 18:26 | history | answered | Joe Lamond | CC BY-SA 4.0 |