Talk:Unital algebra

Shouldn't the product be

(x,r) * (y,s) = (xy + sx , ry + rs)

? /Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.161.181 (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second component ry + rs is not in K as it should be by the definition of the article's author (he defines algebra structure on A×K) — Artem M. Pelenitsyn (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

unitary is misleading

Please, don't use the notion unitary here. It is already used in Hilbert spaces for the unitary groups and their Lie algebras. Even unital is superfluous. It suffices to use algebra with unit (element). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.155.66 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to pseudo-ring?

Do we really need ths article? Shouldn't this be merged into, say, pseudo-ring? -- Taku (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is redundancy. But perhaps a merge to unit ring would be better, as both articles are largely about unital rings. --Mark viking (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good place to discuss "unital" vs "non-unital" is pseudo-ring, which already discusses the unitalization. And one article should be enough for the topic. I suggest we merge both this one and unital ring into pseudo-ring. -- Taku (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK too, as long as redirects are created from unit ring and unital algegbra to pseudo-ring for easy searching by readers. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]