Talk:Subring test

2Z
The current statement is inaccurate. 2Z does not form a ring, yet satisfies the criterion with respect to Z. Joeldl 15:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2Z does form a ring under Z if unity is not a requirement of a ring. selfworm _ _  ( Talk ·  Contribs ) _ 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. That's been fixed now by specifying the non-unit definition of ring used in the article. Joeldl 20:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Repetition
The two sentences: seem repetitive. We should remove one of them. selfworm _ _ ( Talk ·  Contribs ) _ 20:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Note that here, the terms ring and subring are used without requiring a multiplicative identity element."
 * "This theorem is applicable to rings that, by definition, do not require a unity."
 * I'm in favour of specifying the definition as early as possible, since there is a substantial difference in the statement. Joeldl 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well then. I will remove the latter statement and keep the former statement. selfworm _ _  ( Talk ·  Contribs ) _ 04:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)