User talk:Richard L. Peterson

From Citizendium
Revision as of 05:28, 31 March 2007 by imported>Sébastien Moulin (0 being a divisor)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[User bio is in User:Your Name]


Welcome

Citizendium Getting Started
Join | Quick Start | About us | Help system | How to start a new article | For Wikipedians
How to Edit
Getting Started Organization Technical Help
Policies Content Policy
Welcome Page


Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitionsadd metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link CZ:Workgroups.You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.


Kind Regards, Robert Tito |  Talk  10:50, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

0 being a divisor

Hi Richard, I modified a little the article divisor and tried to explain my changes in the Talk:divisor page, but unfortunately it didn't work (there seems to be a bug preventing me of creating this talk page). Here is the explanation I intented to put in the talk page.

My textbooks do not require a divisor to be non zero : I usually read that in a -- say commutative -- ring, d is a divisor of a if there is a k such that a=kd, whithout any other requirement. I suppose some authors may exclude the case d=0 to avoid to define the quotient 0/0. I made some changes in the articles in this sense. On the other side, it is true that d=0 is excluded when one wants to define a "divisor of zero" in any ring, and then define an integral domain as a ring without divisors of zero; but anyway, here, "divisor of zero" is a slightly different thing, because it is required this time that k is non zero (else any element of any ring would be a divisor of zero).

Feel free to comment on it and to edit this article again if needed. Best regards, --Sébastien Moulin (talk me) 05:28, 31 March 2007 (CDT)