Talk:Unit ring

conventions

According to our convention, at ring (mathematics), we assume rings have 1.

It would be useful to have some project page where this and a small number of other conventions were noted. This page, however, is slightly awkward given that convention.

Charles Matthews 16:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a conventions page; for at own use at least. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Conventions. The associated talk page would be a good place to hash out arguments regarding said conventions, rather than on misellaneous talk pages scattered throughout the wiki.

Regarding this page: Given the definition on ring (mathematics) (which currently contradicts glossary of ring theory thanks to some anonymous edit — I'll fix this) it would seem more appropriate to have a article on nonunital rings (or rngs as the advocates of rigs like to call them). What to do with this page?

keep it here and explain that we consider rings to have unit unless otherwise specified
merge it with unital (algebra)
redirect it to ring (mathematics)

Any thoughts? -- Fropuff 23:33, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Leave at present. Let's try to collect up the conventions on the WikiProjectMathematics page first. Then perhaps make some subcategory of Category:Mathematical terminology to address non-uniformity of terminology across the literature. Charles Matthews 10:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed somehow late your "I'll fix this" - but why did you "fix" glossary of ring theory w.r.t. ring (mathematics) and not vice-versa? For those from functional analysis, it is natural that a ring (of functions) needs not to have a unit (since all classical test function spaces are rings without unit). Insofar more, as many request an algebra to be a ring (instead of defining it as module with a bilinear map into itself). And the whole of sheaf theory, which is very important in functional analysis, could then not use any more properties from the category of rings to sheaves made of these function spaces. (Very little is written specifically about the category Rng, and 99% of all which is written for rings without specifically mentioning the unit, is valid for Rng's.) — MFH:Talk 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I even remember referring to the "not necessarily unital" ring on the "glossary" page in several places!

Well, according to the conventions page we assume rings to have unit by default. There has been plenty discussion about this, with good arguments on both sides. Discussion can be found at Talk:Ring theory and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Conventions. We would like to centralize discussion on the conventions page, so feel free to bring up your concerns there. -- Fropuff 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave at present?

It's been over 10 months. As it stands, I'm going to Be bold and remove the merge from unit (ring theory), where it does not belong at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I didn't read this, since the merge directs to the other talk page where I also advocate for not merging. — MFH:Talk 03:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against the merge. Two different topics. -- Fropuff 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant article

This article is entirely redundant and should be a redirect either to ring (mathematics) or to unital. A redirect to ring (mathematics)—although entirely appropriate, since rings are defined there to be unital—could potentially confuse readers, so perhaps a merge with unital would be better. The latter should probably be renamed to unital algebra (per standard naming conventions). If no one objects, I'll go ahead and do this. -- Fropuff (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]