Contrast With Polynomials
Since the words over the alphabet {X1, ...,Xn} form a basis of R⟨X1,...,Xn⟩, it is clear that any element of R⟨X1, ...,Xn⟩ can be uniquely written in the form:
where are elements of R and all but finitely many of these elements are zero. This explains why the elements of R⟨X1,...,Xn⟩ are often denoted as "non-commutative polynomials" in the "variables" (or "indeterminates") X1,...,Xn; the elements are said to be "coefficients" of these polynomials, and the R-algebra R⟨X1,...,Xn⟩ is called the "non-commutative polynomial algebra over R in n indeterminates". Note that unlike in an actual polynomial ring, the variables do not commute. For example X1X2 does not equal X2X1.
More generally, one can construct the free algebra R⟨E⟩ on any set E of generators. Since rings may be regarded as Z-algebras, a free ring on E can be defined as the free algebra Z⟨E⟩.
Over a field, the free algebra on n indeterminates can be constructed as the tensor algebra on an n-dimensional vector space. For a more general coefficient ring, the same construction works if we take the free module on n generators.
The construction of the free algebra on E is functorial in nature and satisfies an appropriate universal property. The free algebra functor is left adjoint to the forgetful functor from the category of R-algebras to the category of sets.
Free algebras over division rings are free ideal rings.
Read more about this topic: Free Algebra
Famous quotes containing the words contrast with and/or contrast:
“In contrast with envy, which usually occurs between two people and is focused upon another person’s qualities or possessions, jealousy occurs when a third person becomes a threat to a dyad. Jealousy involves the loss or the impending loss of a relationship that one wants to hold onto, a relationship that is vital to personal fulfillment and claimed as one’s own.”
—Carol S. Becker (b. 1942)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)