Talk:Regular sequence

Moving (2004)
I think it's probably better to move this to regular sequence (algebra), now; and then redirect regular sequence to that.

Charles Matthews 08:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. I noticed yesterday that I wanted to put in some redirections as I've seen you do, but I don't know how to do it yet. Another related page is Koszul complex, which I'll put in part of today.

So that's done now. Redirect syntax is like


 * REDIRECT Whatever.

Charles Matthews 16:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

possible typo in the text
Hmm, the text says that the depth of R is the depth of the R-module R itself. A bit later it states that the dept of an R-module is at most the dimension of this R-module. This sentence seems to imply that the depth of R itself is at most 1? Or should one add the comment that the restriction to the depth only applies for free R-modules?

Melchior 146.186.134.176 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Move? (2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Regular sequence (algebra) → Regular sequence –
 * "Regular sequence" is a dab page which is no more needed because one of the two uses is rare and the disambiguation is resolved by a hatnote in "regular sequence (algebra)". Thus the precision "(algebra)" is also not needed D.Lazard (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- This is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Since there are only 2 items, and this seems to be the primary topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Some authors also require ..."?
I don't think it is correct to say that only some authors require that $$M/(r_1,\dots,r_d)M\neq 0$$. This requirement is critical to a correct definition. We can always add $$1$$ (or a unit) to the sequence otherwise. Perhaps this can be clarified. If we do not have the requirement $$1\in R$$, then we can also drop the requirement that this quotient is non-zero. kapil (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)