Abstract Algebra | Types of rings.
Рет қаралды 14,839
4 жыл бұрынWe define several and give examples of different types of rings which have additional structure.
www.michael-penn.net
www.randolphcollege.edu/mathem...
@harsh25186 4 жыл бұрын
In the last example more term will cancel out inside the brackets involving "a".
@chaosjunks1 4 жыл бұрын
At 3:33, I think you mean "all polynomials with constant coefficient equal to 0" (not those with degree 1 or more). For example, x+1 is a degree 1 polynomial, but is not in x*Z[x].
@MGSchmahl Жыл бұрын
When did, "There exists a multiplicative identity" stop being a part of the definition of a ring? In my '95 undergrad class it was definitely part of the definition, and a "ring without 1" was called a "rng".
@clingyking2774 4 ай бұрын
Ring With Unity?
@MuffinsAPlenty Ай бұрын
The definition you've seen appears to be a more modern definition. Given that you saw that definition of "ring" and also the use of the word "rng" as early as '95, I suspect you were learning from people who were in the cutting edge of research in areas like universal algebra and category theory (or perhaps people like John Carlos Baez, who claims to have coined the term "rng"). Historically, the definition of ring did not require the existence of a multiplicative identity, but many pure algebraists today feel that this is a mistake, and that morally, a ring should have a multiplicative identity. This hasn't universally caught on, however, and _most_ undergraduate textbooks in algebra _still_ use the older definition. The older definition is also quite useful for some mathematicians in analysis, since some constructions in analysis yield rings without identity.
@mohithraju2629 4 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate this video. Thank you
@user-en8wj6vb7z Жыл бұрын
Very good lecture♡ Please make a video for a Differential geometry course.
@user-sm2ku3uq9y 7 ай бұрын
If rings are not supposed to have an identity, then taking any abelian group A one can define a ring structure by setting xy=0 for every x,y in A. Also, every abelian group M is a module over A.
@tomholroyd7519 2 жыл бұрын
Instead of a having an inverse, how about if it is "only" and adjoint relation. Like a residuated lattice.
@avi123 4 жыл бұрын
2:44 functions R -> R are a ring under addition and COMPOSITION (he doesn't mean addition and multiplication)
@filipbaciak4514 4 жыл бұрын
but multiplication in abstract algebra does not refer to "normal" multiplication, like in R or Z.
@maxryder9321 2 жыл бұрын
Is the addition just pointwise addition? If so wouldn’t pointwise multiplication also form a ring?
@MGSchmahl Жыл бұрын
The set of functions R->R is not a ring under addition and composition. In general, the distributive property does not hold.
@shebo96 5 ай бұрын
hello, what do you mean by 3 times 5 =15 =0 inside z15
@benbookworm 5 ай бұрын
Like how with a clock (Z12), 5+8=13mod12=1 Z15 means whole numbers mod 15. Mod (or the modulus operator) refers to the remainder when dividing.
@cqqq2748 Жыл бұрын
❤❤❤
EpsilonDelta
Рет қаралды 610 М.