Talk:Primitive ring

Equivalence question

I see two interpretations for "A left artinian ring is left primitive if and only if it is simple if and only if it is prime." How is the grouping supposed to work?

It is supposed to mean the following conditions are equivalent for left artinian rings: (1) primitive (2) simple (3) prime. I think the phrasing is pretty common. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 changes

Hello all. Besides adding a few references, I reorganized and added. The sections (definition/properties/examples) seemed to have gotten their contents shuffled at some point, so I sorted them as best I could. There was also at least one repetitious statement ("Examples include matrix algebras over division rings... and simple Artinian rings"). Finally, I removed the example "noncommutative polynomial rings", but it can be put back in if someone figures out the restrictions on the coefficient ring. (Isn't it true that if you take the product of two commutative rings and form a noncommutative polynomial ring, the result isn't even prime, much less primitive?) Rschwieb (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally like the changes, except in the lead. "In the area of abstract algebra known as ring theory..." seems to me rather roundabout; for that matter, why say "is a ring" and not "is an algebraic structure known as a ring..." ? In short, I don't see why that clunky construction should replace "In ring theory..." Magidin (talk) 04:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is that you, Arturo? If so, we have met :) I also would prefer not putting all that information in the first sentence, but based on this edit to another article, I'm feeling pressure to cover all the bases... It can definitely be changed back, I just altered it in passing because of this experience. Rschwieb (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]