Definition talk:Annihilator

Yes but are all these definitions equivalent? --prime mover 14:13, 9 March 2011 (CST)

Not as it stands -- the first definition the annihilator consists of linear forms $G \to R$, the second consists of elements of $R$; linear forms $G \to G$.

Oo-er ... that makes me uneasy. What we need to do is (a) split the page up into separately headed sections, and (b) write something to explain the differences and what they mean. Then when we write something that references the concept "annihilator", we link to the specific section on this page which is relevant to what is meant at the time.

I don't think I can do this at my current level of expertise. If you're not up for it yourself, stick an "explain" or "expand" template in there, if you could. Indebted. (PS it wasn't you to whom I was referring on my latest talk page rant.) --prime mover 15:22, 9 March 2011 (CST)

I'll stick explain there for the moment, it may be that the two are isomorphic as $R$-modules, in which case the distinction isn't so important. --Linus44 16:21, 9 March 2011 (CST)

How about this? It treats both at once so we don't have two conflicting definitions --Linus44 23:24, 18 March 2011 (CDT)

Hmm ... it's so far over my head I can't hear it whistle :-) ... but that's the sort of thing I was angling for. Works for me. --prime mover 04:42, 19 March 2011 (CDT)

Oh, and one other thing: Is a "bilinear form" the same thing as a bilinear mapping? If not, are you able to document the overlap? --prime mover 04:44, 19 March 2011 (CDT)

According to Wikipedia a form takes both arguments from the same space, may as well go with this and use `mapping' here. --Linus44 08:54, 19 March 2011 (CDT)