Talk:Finitely generated projective module

Content fork
This page appears as being a redundant content fork of Projective module. In fact there are too few results which are specific to finitely generated projective modules for needing a separate page. Thus this page should be merged into Projective module. D.Lazard (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Two topics, projective module and f-gen proj, are really not the same. The former can concentrate on the generality of a projective module, while the latter the case when there is finiteness condition. As I understand, the theory becomes quite different whether a proj module is f-gen or not. (countably gen. case should probably be discussed in countably generated module.) The main motivation for me to start this page was that Bourbaki devotes a whole section. To me, this was enough to justify a standalone article. Right now, the article is quite short, but obviously that cannot be a reason for merger. The category of f-gen proj (and K_0 in algbraic K-theory) is also an important topic and it deserves a thorought treatment. This could be done more easily if we had separate articles. -- Taku (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly the two topics are not the same, but one is a subtopic of the other. Moreover, most readers looking for some information on projective modules consider, in reality, only the finitely generated ones. Thus having two articles may be confusing. Also, there is few material that is specific to finitely generated proj. modules and does not deserve to appear in projective module. Thus it is much better to put such a content in a section named "finitely generated projective module" of Projective module. Following WP:split, a split will be useful only when this section will be larger than the remainder of the article. For these reasons and without any valuable argument against the merge, I'll merge the two articles. D.Lazard (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything interesting about finite generation itself is well taken care of by the finitely-generated module article. So, I support this merge, also. Rschwieb (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If you insist, I'm not going to undo the merger. I had my reasons, but if you disagree, that's fine. We can discuss again if/when a split becomes necessary. -- Taku (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)