[HM] unitary rings

Subject: [HM] unitary rings
From: Paco Guil (fguil@fcu.um.es)
Date: Thu May 18 2000 - 03:26:36 EDT

• Next message: Michael Keyton: "Re: [HM] Mathematics in Literature"
• Previous message: James A Landau: "[HM] Newton, Whiston, and comets (was: Mathematics in Literature)"
• Next in thread: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon: "Re: [HM] unitary rings"
• Reply: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon: "Re: [HM] unitary rings"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear All,

I am studying the origins of (noncommutative) ring theory. It seems that,
at the begining of that theory, the rings were nor assumed to be unitary
(at least, that is the case in Peirce's papers). Nowadays, in (almost) all
books the assumption that 1 belongs to R is included in the definition.
Thus, I would like to want to know who and why decided to make this change.

Thanks in advance

Francisco Guil-Asensio

• Next message: Michael Keyton: "Re: [HM] Mathematics in Literature"
• Previous message: James A Landau: "[HM] Newton, Whiston, and comets (was: Mathematics in Literature)"
• Next in thread: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon: "Re: [HM] unitary rings"
• Reply: Julio Gonzalez Cabillon: "Re: [HM] unitary rings"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 18 2000 - 18:07:37 EDT