Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- From: William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:19:16 -0700
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Bill Dubuque wrote:
William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Definitions upon this detail vary.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Kobu wrote:
"e idempotent is part of a ring which has rationals as subringHuh? What are you saying? What ever it is, it's much confused.
=> 1+e is a unit"
How is an element a part of a ring? My translation is:
If e is an idempotent in a ring which has a subring isomorphic to Q,
then 1 + e is a unit. That is false.
Let R = Q x Z_6. Let e = (1,3); ee = e; 1 = (1,1)
1 + e = (2,4). Is 1 + e a unit? No,
No, Q isn't a subring of R. Subrings must have same 1 = (1,1).
Does a ring have to have a unit or not?
Does a subring have to include the multiplicative identity of the ring?
To be clear, one needs to be explict:
ring, ring with unit, subring, subring with unit,
subring with ring's multiplicative identity.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- From: Bill Dubuque
- Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- References:
- e idempotent, e+1 unit
- From: Kobu
- Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- From: William Elliot
- Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- From: Bill Dubuque
- e idempotent, e+1 unit
- Prev by Date: Re: Approaching the infinite binary tree
- Next by Date: Re: How do I quit this group?
- Previous by thread: Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- Next by thread: Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|