Talk:Associative algebra

message: Content of Associative Algebra, now redirected here: Charles Matthews 17:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are some serious errors with this article, especially the parts on coalgebras, Hopf algebras, and Lie algebras. It seems to confuse tensor products with Cartesian products and Lie algebras with their enveloping algebras. Also the product and coproduct in a bialgebra are NOT unrelated, the coproduct is an algebra homomorphism and the product is a coalgebra homomorphism.  Moreover there are already much higher quality articles on these topics. Fiedorow 21:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please supply what corrections you can. Charles Matthews 21:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that this shouldn't be fixed by just editing this article. I think some of the discussion should be moved elsewhere. Perhaps a new article on linear representations of algebras. However that should probably include a discussion of infinite dimensional representations, which I am not qualified to edit. Fiedorow 01:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious Errors

message: Reference section lacks ISBN, format, etc. - and the book isn't in Cornell's library nor in the Library of Congress though I shall look elsewhere. Amazon.com notes a book by Prof? Street entitled 
Quantum Groups: A Path to Current Algebra (Australian Mathematical Society Lecture Series) (Paperback) ()
to be released sometime around December this year (or after?) by Cambridge University Press. Don't know if that will contain the same material. Alternative references (well- maybe not after all for instance Richard S. Pierce's "Associative Algebras", Springer-Verlag, , 1982 for the copy I have that's in front of me ... but unlike the one listed, this one should be available in a library. (Don't know how many do, WorldCat/RLIN check where possible is worth doing from our site for  certain kinds of references, I think!) Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross Street 

message: As of Dec. 30 2009, there are some inconsistencies in this article.  The main definition defines an associative but not necessarily unital algebra over a commutative ring R.  But the constructions "from R-modules" and "from rings" only give ways to build every possible associative unital algebra over a commutative ring. 
I find nonunital algebras quite annoying, but if that's what is under discussion in this page, the construction "from R-modules" should leave out the identity 1, and the construction "from rings" should allow A to be "rng" --- a ring without unit --- and it should only demand that the homomorphisms from R to A be a rng homomorphism.  The former correction is pretty painless.  The latter correction is more annoying, since most people don't know about rngs.  So perhaps one might just keep the current construction "from rings" but admit that one is only getting associative unital algebras this way.
Someone should also come out and say that for lots of people, "associative algebra" means "associative unital algebra".  Indeed, associative but not necessarily unital algebras should be just as unpopular (or popular) as rngs. John Baez (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: The link to Street's paper is broken.
Crasshopper (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Associative algebra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050825034431/http://www-texdev.ics.mq.edu.au:80/Quantum/Quantum.ps to http://www-texdev.ics.mq.edu.au/Quantum/Quantum.ps
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: part of the definition says "where the ring addition and module addition are the same", I find the "are the same" unclear so maybe the property they satisfy should be made explicit  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:0:F234:8DB7:F4F7:B0FD:15FA (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "are the same", it is "are the same operation". Nevertheless, I have edited the sentence for improving the clarity. D.Lazard (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I propose that we merge algebra homomorphism into this article. The reason is that I am not convinced that such a separate article is needed. Note we already have ring homomorphism, which mostly covers what such an article can cover. There are few aspects specific to algebra homomorphisms but that can be easily handled in this article. Taku (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it was a clear consensu to merge or redirect Algebra homomorphism somewhere, there was no consensus on the target. Also, the closing comment is "merge" without indication on the target. So, I have redirected boldy Algebra homomorphism to Algebra over a field#Algebra homomorphisms. D.Lazard (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, okay.  Perfect.  I came across this because of the banner at the top of Algebra homomorphism that you have now taken care of.  Thanks.  —Quondum 17:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Algebra homomorphism]] 

message: In the examples, the article mentions that semimartingales form a ring. But, in this article, we're talking about associative algebras, not rings. Do the semimartingales also form an associative algebra? Thatsme314 (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semimartingales 

message: What a terrible explaination 2A02:14F:178:3BA5:0:0:C665:9328 (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible