Abstract
In the above-named paper (this JOURNAL, vol. 77 (1955), pp. 895-913), Theorem 6. 4 should have been stated only for rings of zero characteristic: the argument for the case of prime characteristic breaks down in the last formula line on p. 911. This involves jettisoning Theorem 6. 5 (the implied of depended on applying Theorem 6. 4 to homomorphs cannot be guaranteed to have zero characteristic, even when the given ring has). However, the writer has no evidence that Theorem 6. 4 as stated or Theorem 6. 5 is actually false. And in any case, since the valid part of the proof of Theorem 6. 4 establishes the weaker conclusion [Xm, ynp?] = 0 without characteristic hypothesis, the remarks following Theorem 6. 4 still hold good, provided that we modify the final parenthetical clause so as to read which would at any rate imply that every weak K-ring R with kc, m, n satisfying (a) or (b) has R/J commutative.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
