Skip to main content
broken link fixed, cf. https://meta.mathoverflow.net/q/5301/70594
Source Link
Glorfindel
  • 2.8k
  • 6
  • 28
  • 38

Hmmm, I seem to have found the answer to this question. In

Regular and semisimple modulesRegular and semisimple modules

by Cheatham and Smith in 1976, they call a module regular if every submodule is pure. Regular is of course an overused word, and maybe other people have called this different things. But the justification makes some sense: if I is a 2-sided ideal of R, then R/I is a regular R-module if and only if R/I is a von Neumann regular ring.

Hmmm, I seem to have found the answer to this question. In

Regular and semisimple modules

by Cheatham and Smith in 1976, they call a module regular if every submodule is pure. Regular is of course an overused word, and maybe other people have called this different things. But the justification makes some sense: if I is a 2-sided ideal of R, then R/I is a regular R-module if and only if R/I is a von Neumann regular ring.

Hmmm, I seem to have found the answer to this question. In

Regular and semisimple modules

by Cheatham and Smith in 1976, they call a module regular if every submodule is pure. Regular is of course an overused word, and maybe other people have called this different things. But the justification makes some sense: if I is a 2-sided ideal of R, then R/I is a regular R-module if and only if R/I is a von Neumann regular ring.

Source Link
Mark Hovey
  • 3.7k
  • 19
  • 28

Hmmm, I seem to have found the answer to this question. In

Regular and semisimple modules

by Cheatham and Smith in 1976, they call a module regular if every submodule is pure. Regular is of course an overused word, and maybe other people have called this different things. But the justification makes some sense: if I is a 2-sided ideal of R, then R/I is a regular R-module if and only if R/I is a von Neumann regular ring.