Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 25th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexfor completeness: [[unitization]]

   for completeness: unitization

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJul 25th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexNew entry [[unital category]] in the sense of Bourn. Unfortunately not much in accordance to other unitalities (in higher category theory).

   New entry unital category in the sense of Bourn. Unfortunately not much in accordance to other unitalities (in higher category theory).

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 25th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexI generalised [[unitalisation]] to nonassociative algebras.

   I generalised unitalisation to nonassociative algebras.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 25th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexEr, wait. I spent some time with renaming "unitalization" to "unitization". You revereted it? Well, it's fine with me if that's more correct!

   Er, wait. I spent some time with renaming “unitalization” to “unitization”. You revereted it? Well, it’s fine with me if that’s more correct!

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI prefer "unitalization" myself. (Cf. "abelianization".)

   I prefer “unitalization” myself. (Cf. “abelianization”.)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeJul 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry Urs, I thought that "unitization" was a typo.

   Sorry Urs, I thought that “unitization” was a typo.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat happened was that first I had created the entry titled "unitalization". Then I was going through some literature and saw it as "unitization". So I renamed entries and everything. But never mind, you decide on what it should be called! :-)

   What happened was that first I had created the entry titled “unitalization”. Then I was going through some literature and saw it as “unitization”. So I renamed entries and everything. But never mind, you decide on what it should be called! :-)

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorjesse
   • CommentTimeSep 21st 2016
   • (edited Sep 21st 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: jesse
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a couple of observations (Remarks 3.3 and 3.4) at the section [[nonunital ring|unitization]] of the page [[nonunital ring]]: i) I always thought the just-so definition in terms of $A \mapsto \left(A \oplus \mathbb{Z}\right)$ with the multiplication $(a_1, z_1) \cdot (a_2, z_2) \mapsto (a_1 a_2 + a_1 z_2 + z_1 a_2, z_1 z_2)$ was a bit mysterious, so I pointed out that you can get the same thing by taking $A[x]$ and quotienting out by relations which say that $x$ is a unit. ii) The universal property of the unitalization and the fact that endomorphism rings of abelian groups are unital means that a module over a nonunital ring is the same thing as a module over its unitalization.

   I added a couple of observations (Remarks 3.3 and 3.4) at the section unitization of the page nonunital ring:

   i) I always thought the just-so definition in terms of $A \mapsto \left(A \oplus \mathbb{Z}\right)$ with the multiplication $(a_1, z_1) \cdot (a_2, z_2) \mapsto (a_1 a_2 + a_1 z_2 + z_1 a_2, z_1 z_2)$ was a bit mysterious, so I pointed out that you can get the same thing by taking $A[x]$ and quotienting out by relations which say that $x$ is a unit.

   ii) The universal property of the unitalization and the fact that endomorphism rings of abelian groups are unital means that a module over a nonunital ring is the same thing as a module over its unitalization.