Talk:Ring theory

message: Sorry for exaggerating in my edit comment -- the patent nonsense was only in Wikipedia for a little over a day before I reverted it. (I misread the date.)  I find it embarrassing, though, that someone who trusts Wikipedia asked me for an explanation of it.—GraemeMcRaetalk 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent nonsense 

message: I don't know much about ring theory, other than that it keeps popping up on wikipedia everywhere... Could someone give some examples of rings and the 2 binary operators?
:The integers Z, the rational numbers Q, the real numbers R the complex numbers C all under their ordinary addition and multiplication. Square matrix rings over any of these previous examples are also rings with matrix addition and multiplication. Try to chase some of the links on the ring theory page to arrive at more specific pages: they are likely to have other concrete examples. Rschwieb (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could use an example 

message: The first two sentences are awful. Repeating the idea that ring theory is the study of rings.  Very informative - not.  Too much premature jargon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.193.180 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Many Math Articles In Wikipedia Suck 

message: Discussion started (and will proceed) at Talk:Ring_(mathematics)#Sorting_out_ring_theory_and_ring_.28mathematics.29 Rschwieb (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorting out [[ring theory]] and [[ring (mathematics)]] 

message: What is the definition (or what are the axioms) of a ring?  Are they clearly stated in this article?  I couldn't find them in a quick review.  If they are there, please excuse me for asking.  However, I think the first section after the intro / lede should say something like, "A ring is a set with two binary operators (typically called "addition" and "multiplication"), satisfying the following: ... ."  I think the article might be easier to read and understand if this kind of definition appeared early in the article.  Someone with a ring theory book handy should be able to provide this with a reference.  Unfortunately, I don't have such handy.  Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a separate article at ring (mathematics). However, there's been discussion on whether ring (mathematics) and ring theory should be merged, see e.g. Talk:Ring (mathematics)/Archive 4#merging ring theory into this article and Talk:Ring (mathematics)/Archive 3#New picture, new text. – Tobias Bergemann (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  need a definition 

message: the word "example" appears no more than three times in this article, yet examples of rings are what makes ring theory important. 西米露喜欢橙子 (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The right place for examples of rings is in Ring (mathematics), an article linked to in the first sentence of this article. This article contains many examples that are not always called "examples", especially when they are sufficiently important to be the subject of a specific section. D.Lazard (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples are needed