Talk:Depth (ring theory)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Depth (ring theory) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Depth of noncommutative subrings
[edit]Since this new section is completely unrelated to the main subject of the article, I think that it should be moved into a separate article. Arcfrk (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Arcfrk (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
That's rude, dude. Don't start wars over nothing. The article identifies itself as depth in ring theory rather than commutative ring theory. So there you go. Lkadison (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am not your "dude". Please, learn to behave. Secondly, since you elected not to respond to a courtesy remark directly above, your claim about "starting wars" is completely disingeneous. Thirdly, if you feel that the title of the article does not accurately reflect it content, this can certainly be discussed. As far as I can tell, it follows Wikipedia's standard naming conventions. Have a nice day, amigo. Arcfrk (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright amigo (or mother?), you leave an opening: if you google depth you will find these two notions we deal with. I propose that you leave your article entitled the way it is, and that mine gets the new title Depth (noncommutative algebra) although I seem to be barred from doing that. As your new amigo, I don't mind referring to your article for people who have astray in the ether. 130.244.202.210 (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"By definition, the depth of a ring R is its depth as a module over itself." With respect to what ideal? This should be with respect to the maximal ideal of a local ring, right? Nathan Clement (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)