Definition talk:Algebraic Number Field

They're only equivalent without the restriction to finite extensions in the first! --Linus44 17:42, 27 March 2011 (CDT)
 * That went so far over my head I didn't hear it whistle ... I think I need to do some reading. --prime mover 00:23, 28 March 2011 (CDT)

I understand now what I did wrong when I added the second definition for a number field - I quoted an unnecessarily loose sentence in.

I believe what needs to be done is that the second sentence should be extracted into a proof that such a number field is an element of the set of all number fields in that it has $\Q$ as a subfield - but this can not be used as a definition. --prime mover 00:40, 18 August 2011 (CDT)

Suggested rename to Algebraic Number Field
... why? --prime mover (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm currently following a course on these; it's plainly called number field there as well. --Lord_Farin (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Because "number field" makes "standard number field" sound like a special case of this. That's really it. --abcxyz (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)