|
|
![[parent]](http://images.planetmath.org:8080/images/uparrow.png) Viewing Message
|
|
|
| ``Re: Ring definition ( by djao )''
by azdbacks4234 on 2007-06-25 16:11:23 |
|
| The requirement that a ring have a multiplicative identity is not, in general, a standard ring axiom. I suppose the reason that authors explicitly list the requirement that $(R,+)$ be abelian is that it may not be immediately obvious that commutativity of $+$ is implied by the left and right distributive laws. It wasn't to me anyway :)
Keenan |
| | [ reply | up | top ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
