Talk:Regular sequence

Moving (2004)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support -- This is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since there are only 2 items, and this seems to be the primary topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]