|
|
![[parent]](http://images.planetmath.org:8080/images/uparrow.png) Viewing Message
|
|
|
| ``Re: algebra or ring''
by CWoo on 2004-10-16 14:21:28 |
|
| Sure, the associator can be defined for rings. But it is rather useless, since a ring is, by definition, multiplicatively associative and hence, has a trivial associator. When we're speaking of not-necessarily associative algebras, we are talking about a "generalized" ring (over a field) in which the multiplication is not assumed to be associative.
|
| | [ reply | up | top ] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
