Talk:Rng (algebra)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unnecessary

Many authors refer to this structure as a "ring" or perhaps "ring without unity/identity". Personally, I have never seen the terminology "rng" outside of two or three articles on Wikipedia, though I see that a few authors use it. This term is already acknowledged in the article on rings, so why not just merge this into that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.132.141 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the name "rng" is inappropriate, but would rather see the article renamed to "pseudo-ring". These structures are not rings, so any name of the form "XXX ring" is logically incorrect. A "XXX ring" is expected to be a special type of ring that has the XXX property, that is, all teh axioms of a ring and a few more. Calling these strcutures "rings without unit" is like calling hippopotamuses "elephants without trunks". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning (see any algebra book before 60s), rings were considered without identity, therefore it would be correct to call them rings. The problem is that many authors consider only rings with identity and they call them rings for short. For me, ring without identity or nonunital ring are good names. Something similar happens when we talk about noncommutative rings because commutative rings are a particular case of them, in this case unital rings are a particular case of nonunital rings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.150.162 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2009

This article must be renamed "pseudo-ring"

The name "rng" is not a real English word; it is merely a cute joke, that only works in writing. This is not Wikipedic at all. The article must be renamed to "pseudo-ring", and all occurrences of "rng" should be fixed accordingly. The "rng" joke deserves only a brief mention (if any at all). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedic" isn't a real English word, either. ;) I agree that the title isn't appropriate, unless someone can show that it is the dominant term in the literature. I'm going to move the page, and if someone objects, we'll find out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this argument. The merit of the name should be based on usage, not where it came from and whether it is a "real" English word. Compare other non-English words, like cokernel, codomain, co-anything else, and even jokey derivations like crepant for not discrepant. As far as I can tell, pseudo-ring is only used in Bourbaki and rng is only used by Jacobson. However, rng is only used as such and pseudo-ring seems to be used in other, different senses, so I think rng is better on the whole. -LaserGhost (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia articles using "pseudo-ring" given the title of this article, but I too feel than "rng" is a better-known term (and less cumbersome), even if Bourbaki uses "pseudo-ring". I believe that "rng" appears in more published articles and books than "pseudo-ring". Maybe it was originally a joke, but if Jacobson and now the rest of the mathematical community use it, then Wikipedia should too. Ebony Jackson (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have looked into this a little more, and now strongly recommend using "rng" as the name for this article. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Rng vs. pseudo-ring for more discussion. Let me know if you object to this renaming. Ebony Jackson (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, no objections, so I'm going to do the move. Ebony Jackson (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)