Re: Coprimeness - I think I'm confused, but I'm not sure

In article <1112399941.7e8d3ce1662a1f134ccc17925f0ff870@teranews>,
Matt Gutting <matthewdba@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Arturo Magidin wrote:
>> In article <1112399185.4a50c1f2ff12441fbab764b19a105100@teranews>,
>> Matt Gutting <matthewdba@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[.snip.]

>> Dummit and Foote do not assume "ring" means "ring with a unit
>> element"; in fact, they state the isomorphism theorem for rings saying
>> that the kernel K of a ring homomorphism is a subring which, in addition
>> to being a subring, satisfies that for all k in K and all r in R, rk
>> is in K.
>>
>You mean
>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471433349/qid=1112399906/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9022730-4324656?v=glance&s=books
>
>That book, yes?

Ehr... maybe. I have the 2nd Edition, and that one is billed as the
third. I can't guarantee they haven't switched to "rings have a 1",
though...


--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================

Arturo Magidin
magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages