199:
little to be done about it other than put redirects from "field of fractions" and mention it in the text. The term is common and used, so whether or not it is confusing is somewhat besides the point. There is plenty of mathematical terminology that is confusing, both desperately and mildly so. I do not think there is a warrant to move from the (apparently, judging from your quick google survey) most common term to another term simply because we do not like the former or prefer the latter. While the text, speaking of "partisans" and the like, seems overly judgemental, other than redirects and perhaps a bit of cleaning up on this text I do not think a page move is warranted.
84:
74:
53:
439:
of fractions construction to a general "pseudo ring", i.e. any ring in the broad sense (without requiring a 1). I have never come across the concept of a "field of fractions" in this broad sense, and I am not aware of any way of constructing a field in this case. Certainly it is obvious that no construction can always produce a field containing an isomorphic copy of the base ring/pseudo-ring. Perhaps the remark was intended to refer to the
22:
397:". Then use the second sentence to say basically what it already says and explain that the field of fractions can be defined in a slightly more general context. Because the fact of the matter is most people coming to this article will be looking for the word "integral domain", and everybody else can wait until the second sentence to see the more general context.
438:
I have rewritten the opening of the article in line with the above suggestions: I hope satisfactorily. Incidentally, I don't fully understand "the field of fractions of a pseudo-ring which is not a ring doesn't necessarily contain the pseudo-ring". Perhaps this refers to attempting to apply the field
221:
Where there is more than one term for something, Knowledge tries to use one term consistently, and this is in itself exercising a little bit of wiggle room to teach an inconsistently-taught subject consistently. Knowledge should certainly not make its own terms up or make idiosyncratic choices, but
312:
OK, that's good enough for me - two of the three major participants like it, and the only argument against is a 4% difference in Google popularity, which may be misleadingly large for two reasons. In addition many
Knowledge pages already point to "field of fractions" and get redirected. I'll make
231:
My Google survey shows that "quotient field" is used less than 35% of the time, and "field of fractions" less than 31% of the time; that's not a big difference. Also, "field of fractions" and "fraction field" are obvious variants of each other, so there's a case to be made that "quotient field" is
162:
I do not know why the term "frield of fractions" was changed to "fraction field". I have certainly seen the former, I do not recall seeing the latter. As for comments like "some mathematicians prefer", etc., they might be better placed as notes on usage or perhaps elsewhere, but they seemed out of
327:
I know that this discussion took place three years ago and is long since settled, but if it is of any interest to anyone a count of a random sample from the first couple of hundred Google hits for "quotient field" suggests that about half of them mean the field of quotients or fractions, and the
198:
Well, since you ask... I suspect "quotient field" came about from talking about the "field of quotients", though the term seems to be even more rare acccording to google. Personally, I would prefer "field of fractions" or "field of quotients", but if it is not the most common term then there is
600:
with the corresponding universal property (that is, the field, together with embedding of R into it, that has this property relative to embeddings of R into fields). That's why R itself doesn't satisfy it, unless it is already a field. 06:13, 24 October 2018
596:"Field monomorphism" is unnecessary; a ring homomorphism with domain a field is either the zero map or is one-to-one (and hence a monomorphism). Since h is injective, and g extends h, g cannot be the zero map. As for the "universal property", it's a
443:
of fractions, rather than field. If, however, we are referring not to this general situation but rather to the much more limited situation described in the article (commutative, no zero divisors, at least two elements) then the construction
355:". JamesBWatson reverted the change, saying "No, if you read further down it explicitly states taht there need not be a 1. "Ring" is often taken as implying a 1, but not always." However, Knowledge practice does currently define "
498:
I've added the general embedding for rngs from
Hungerford's Algebra; the previous reference (Hartley and Hawkes) seemed only to contain the construction for (unital) rings, and did not give any embedding for rngs.
222:
I think the difference in popularity is sufficiently small that we may allow other considerations to weigh in on what term
Knowledge should settle on, and which term is least confusing is a good consideration.
140:
374:
of a pseudo-ring which is not a ring doesn't necessarily contain the pseudo-ring, contrary to the assertion that it is "the smallest field in which it can be embedded". Thoughts?
171:
I agree with those "partisans" - "quotient field" is a desperately confusing term! Would it not be preferable to move the page to one of the other two terms?
389:
In wiki, it is currently the convention that rings have identity. Also, as a matter of clarity, I think the first sentence should have "a zero-divisor free
619:
130:
614:
188:
What do those who prefer the term "quotient field" use to refer to the "ring of fractions" where the underlying ring is not an integral domain? —
106:
566:
584:
The universal property doesn't seem right. I see no reason why the domain itself doesn't satisfy the requirements for Quot(R). Perhaps
97:
58:
479:
Very foolish of me to miss the natural injection - thanks! Made that intro slightly shorter by linking to the existing article on
287:
I agree: when I hear "quotient field", I always check twice whether they're talking about the field of fractions, or about the
424:." The ring convention is I think flexible enough to handle a contrast, because it's meant to set the implicit definition. ᛭
295:, giving a field. I suspect that some of the Google hits for "quotient field" reported above refer to the second notion.
33:
366:
I think the best fix would be to start out discussing integral domains, and then discuss the more general case of a
570:
550:
21:
535:
452:
a natural injection of the original "pseudo-ring" into this field: 0 is mapped to 0, and any other element
469:
333:
275:
39:
83:
488:
379:
261:
One other point - how many of those Google hits for "quotient field" is
Knowledge responsible for? —
429:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
554:
531:
371:
356:
89:
73:
52:
245:
09:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (updated percentages to take "field of quotients into account —
504:
465:
329:
402:
390:
348:
274:
I think of this as the field of fractions, and 'quotient field' is unpleasantly ambiguous.
484:
417:
394:
375:
352:
314:
262:
246:
242:
189:
363:, so using this longer phrase doesn't make the more general applicability any clearer.
425:
296:
608:
558:
292:
288:
527:
500:
200:
589:
530:
for references and for an explanation of how the best definition leads to this.
480:
421:
398:
367:
102:
79:
574:
539:
508:
492:
473:
433:
406:
383:
337:
317:
299:
278:
265:
249:
203:
192:
557:. Citations don't go in that section; if you have questions about the
360:
212:
You make a good case, but let me have a go at bringing you around...
15:
241:
Finally, we still need a term for "ring of fractions"... —
184:"Field of quotients" - 10,800 Google hits (updated to add)
328:
other half mean the quotient of a ring by an ideal.
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
370:later in the article, especially since AFAICT the
8:
393:with more than one element" replaced by "an
19:
47:
178:"Field of fractions" - 33,700 Google hits
359:" to have a multiplicative identity via
163:place in the middle of the discussion.
49:
351:with more than one element" with "an
181:"Fraction field" - 27,100 Google hits
175:"Quotient field" - 37,700 Google hits
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
528:Zero_divisor#Zero_as_a_zero_divisor
38:It is of interest to the following
588:should be a field monomorphism? --
14:
620:Low-priority mathematics articles
522:is a zero divisor if and only if
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
615:Start-Class mathematics articles
514:Zero is sometimes a zero divisor
347:I replaced "a zero-divisor free
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
1:
540:07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
509:05:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
318:18:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
300:17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
279:10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
266:09:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
250:11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
204:02:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
193:16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
575:03:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
526:is not the zero ring. See
291:of a commutative ring by a
636:
434:06:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
592:28 June 2005 17:12 (UTC)
545:"Citation needed" removed
493:14:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
474:09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
407:14:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
384:13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
338:17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
232:the idiosyncratic choice.
134:
67:
46:
518:The element 0 of a ring
141:project's priority scale
565:page instead. Thanks,
98:WikiProject Mathematics
561:, please mark them on
28:This article is rated
448:produce a field, and
412:I suggest we write "
158:Fraction field, etc.
121:mathematics articles
580:Universal Condition
414:field of quotients
372:field of fractions
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
549:I've removed the
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
627:
422:without identity
391:commutative ring
349:commutative ring
343:Integral domain?
276:Charles Matthews
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
635:
634:
630:
629:
628:
626:
625:
624:
605:
604:
582:
551:citation needed
547:
516:
418:integral domain
395:integral domain
353:integral domain
345:
169:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
633:
631:
623:
622:
617:
607:
606:
603:
602:
581:
578:
567:128.135.98.218
553:template from
546:
543:
515:
512:
496:
495:
410:
409:
344:
341:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
305:
304:
303:
302:
282:
281:
271:
270:
269:
268:
256:
255:
254:
253:
236:
235:
234:
233:
226:
225:
224:
223:
216:
215:
214:
213:
207:
206:
186:
185:
182:
179:
176:
168:
165:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
632:
621:
618:
616:
613:
612:
610:
599:
595:
594:
593:
591:
587:
579:
577:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
559:Ore condition
556:
552:
544:
542:
541:
537:
533:
532:Ebony Jackson
529:
525:
521:
513:
511:
510:
506:
502:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:is mapped to
455:
451:
447:
442:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
342:
340:
339:
335:
331:
319:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
301:
298:
294:
293:maximal ideal
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
277:
273:
272:
267:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
251:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
237:
230:
229:
228:
227:
220:
219:
218:
217:
211:
210:
209:
208:
205:
202:
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
183:
180:
177:
174:
173:
172:
166:
164:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
597:
585:
583:
562:
548:
523:
519:
517:
497:
483:(aka rngs).
481:pseudo-rings
466:JamesBWatson
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
437:
413:
411:
365:
346:
330:JamesBWatson
326:
313:the move. —
187:
170:
161:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
368:pseudo-ring
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
609:Categories
555:§ See also
485:ciphergoth
376:ciphergoth
315:ciphergoth
263:ciphergoth
247:ciphergoth
243:ciphergoth
190:ciphergoth
167:Page move?
426:LokiClock
297:AxelBoldt
450:there is
420:with or
289:quotient
501:Frentos
201:Magidin
139:on the
590:MarSch
416:of an
399:RobHar
361:monoid
36:scale.
601:(UTC)
598:field
571:talk
563:that
536:talk
505:talk
489:talk
470:talk
446:does
441:ring
430:talk
403:talk
380:talk
357:ring
334:talk
131:Low
611::
573:)
538:)
507:)
499:--
491:)
472:)
464:.
432:)
405:)
382:)
336:)
586:g
569:(
534:(
524:R
520:R
503:(
487:(
468:(
462:x
460:/
458:x
454:x
428:(
401:(
378:(
332:(
252:)
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
