Fields as universal algebras?

Hi,

Are fields an example of a pathological thing in algebra that
doesn't really qualify as a special case of a universal algebra? The
problem is that the unary multiplicative inverse isn't defined on 0.
How is this usually handled? Or do universal algebraists just avoid
fields?

Thanks,
Confused,
Snis Pilbor

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fields as universal algebras?
    ... >doesn't really qualify as a special case of a universal algebra? ... maybe like Michael Barr, speaks up, I will opine that there's no ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Fields as universal algebras?
    ... > doesn't really qualify as a special case of a universal algebra? ... It is perfectly good in universal algebra. ... If it were, then the cartesian ... (since that operation preserves equations). ...
    (sci.math)