Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with ra.rings-and-algebras
Search options not deleted
user 11640
Non-commutative rings and algebras, non-associative algebras, universal algebra and lattice theory, linear algebra, semigroups. For questions specific to commutative algebra (that is, rings that are assumed both associative and commutative), rather use the tag ac.commutative-algebra.
12
votes
Characterize the category of rings
Yves Diers has the notion of a Zariski category in [Categories of commutative algebras], which apparently suffices to carry out a lot of commutative algebra in an axiomatic fashion. I reproduce the de …
- 15.9k
9
votes
Accepted
Two definitions of modules in monoidal category
I will write $[B, C]$ instead of $\underline{\mathrm{Hom}}(B, C)$. Recall the tensor–hom adjunction:
$$\mathrm{Hom}(A \otimes B, C) \cong \mathrm{Hom}(A, [B, C])$$
Thus there is a canonical bijection …
- 15.9k