Thanks for pointing out that the Tagore-Einstein conversation link was broken. I fixed it but with a link which appears to have more details than some of the alternatives. Keep it up.
Webmaestro365 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't follow. A unit in a ring is any invertible element. The only thing that follows is that they are associated, but all units are trivially associated. Your edit has no place there in any form. At first I thought you were purposefully inserting subtle errors into Wikipedia (eg. your taylor edit which was reverted too), but since you insist on it, I think you just need to stop editing things you don't understand. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I can't see where I misunderstood the article Cancellation law. Anyhow, welcome to Wikipedia and I am not trying to purposefully insert errors, as well as not trying to disencourage you. You may read the article and decide then.
- I also work for wikibooks, see b:Partial Differential Equations. Please forgive my mistake at the Taylor series article :-) --Mathmensch (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Let me give you an example then: Integers are surely a UFD. you can see that 2 = 1 * 2; But also 2 = (-1) * (-2). It doesn't follow that 1 = -1. That's because 2 and -2 are only associated, not equal (as is stated in the article). So I don't see how are you using the cancellation law.18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)