Timeline for What is the theory of polynomials?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2011 at 12:03 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
the variety generated by R[x]
|
| Aug 29, 2011 at 11:25 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @Andrew: You are not missing anything, the presentations with constants and with unary functions are term-equivalent, as I already mentioned in the answer. It’s just that with constants it’s easier, and, especially in the noncommutative case, more natural. | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 18:17 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | In reply to your "Actually, I suggested ..." comment above; I can't see a difference in putting the $R$ factor in as the constants versus the unary operations. We get a copy of $R$ in the constants simply by applying each unary operation to $1$, don't we? Maybe I'm missing something. Incidentally, I've seen the terms "near ring" and "composition ring" when including the composition rule; but you really need the plethory/Tall-Wraith structure to deal with composition properly. | |
| Aug 26, 2011 at 16:22 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
need associativity here
|
| Aug 26, 2011 at 15:25 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
noncommutative R-algebras
|
| Aug 26, 2011 at 15:18 | history | answered | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |