Talk:Unique factorization domain
|
|
I removed the non-example, because the previous one wasn't a ring, so there is no hope that it could ever be a UFD.
I also reverted the statement about the uniqueness of the expression, since it is simply wrong that the p's are a permutation of the q's: 2*4 = (-2) * (-4).
I also removed the repetion of the fact that in UFD's, irreducible implies prime. AxelBoldt 23:56 Nov 30, 2002 (UTC)
Couple Qs
Why does the prime elements link go to integral domain and not prime number?
Why say prime elements rather than prime numbers? Are prime elements prime numbers? Cyclotronwiki 27 April 01:33 Taipei
- Because this is an algebra page, defining everything in commutative ring terms.
- Please note also that we don't use computer notation * for product, ^ for exponent. You need to write
- 2 × 52
- for that, or use TeX.
- Also, please add comments to the bottom of the page, not the top.
- I am reverting your edits, since they really relate to something different, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.
- Charles Matthews 18:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still feel the redirection of UF to UFD without explaining the simple concept of UF (which the user was expecting when they clicked on/searched for UF) is an error.
Does your algebra page reasoning explain why prime elements is being used instead of prime numbers or why prime elements links to integral domain? Cyclotronwiki 27 April 02:51 Taipei
Fixing an example
I corrected the example <math>K[X,Y]/(Y^2 - X^2 + 1)<math>, which was described as a non-UFD. It is a UFD. With this correction, however, the exposition is awkward. It claims that most factor rings are not UFD's and then gives an example of one which is a UFD. Perhaps someone should write up a nice (and correct) counterexample.
- Gary Kennedy 18:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)