Talk:Glossary of module theory

Merger proposal: merge with Glossary of ring theory

I propose that we merge this glossary into Glossary of ring theory and rename the latter to "glossary of ring and module theory". The reason: nowadays it is not natural to do ring theory without doing any of module theory, especially for non-commutative ring theory. Since we already have Glossary of commutative algebra, Glossary of ring theory is going to be mostly about non-commutative ring theory. The merger will also give us a chance to alphabetize the glossary. -- Taku (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rings and modules are generalization of fields and vector spaces. We have Glossary of field theory separate from Glossary of linear algebra (includes vector spaces). Such separation helps novice math readers. Rings and modules are studied at a more advanced level but keeping concepts straight is helpful for the uninitiated. The necessity of considering the likely readers is emphasized at WP:AUDIENCE. Also, per non-commutative theory and modules, this motivation involves more than a merge. The Glossary of commutative algebra is 91.5% due to departed user R.e.b and has extra markup, so it may not be a model to imitate. — Rgdboer (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rgdboer: First my apology for late replay. To respond, I don't believe that is the right *perspective*. The connection between Glossary of ring theory and Glossary of module theory is much tighter; there are many books devoted to linear algebra, while the module theory (aside from the research level) is discussed in abstract algebra books that simultaneously discuss the ring theory. In any case, I will wait for opinions from the other editors; if no new inputs come in say a week, I will withdraw the proposal -- Taku (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

While they're very closely related subjects (I mean, they're essentially the same subject), there seems to be enough in each article to have them be standalone glossaries. Particularly since they are two well-defined distinct classes of objects, it seems fine to me to leave them separate even if they refer to each other. It's just a glossary though; I don't feel strongly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Finitely presented & finite presentation

@TakuyaMurata: Can we remove finitely presenter? They’re basically the same thing in different word tenses, and their entries are almost adjacent. It’s like including finite generation as a term too - its a bit redundant! — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I know but couldn’t figure out the way to combine the two entireties. I tried some edit; hopefully the result is not confusing. —- Taku (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)