Jump to content

Field (mathematics): Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

2 October 2026

4 September 2026

17 August 2026

27 July 2026

24 July 2026

23 July 2026

  • curprev 20:2320:23, 23 July 2026 ~2026-41199-02 talk 87,721 bytes +119 Changed the definition so that it doesn't lack small but important detail - inescapability of the field on +, -, *, / operations, without it its hard to understand the concept undo

5 June 2026

4 June 2026

13 May 2026

12 May 2026

26 March 2026

17 March 2026

23 February 2026

30 January 2026

16 January 2026

  • curprev 20:1520:15, 16 January 2026 Ebony Jackson talk contribs 87,389 bytes −42 The sentence "finite fields have finitely many elements" seems almost tautological; it doesn't seem to merit space in the lead, so I removed it, but added finite fields to the list of "many other fields". People who don't know what a finite field is can click on the link. I made one or two other minor changes. undo
  • curprev 17:5317:53, 16 January 2026 Jacobolus talk contribs 87,431 bytes −7 a couple of tweaks in the lead: (1) take 'real numbers' out of the first sentence, for concision, since it is also repeated two sentences later. move the application of finite fields to cryptography to the more topical later paragraph, since it felt out of place among the bare list. (feel free to keep reworking though) undo
  • curprev 15:4215:42, 16 January 2026 Ebony Jackson talk contribs 87,438 bytes −30 →Classic definition: Rewording. There is no need to name 1 in the first succinct definition. undo

13 January 2026

2 January 2026

  • curprev 00:5100:51, 2 January 2026 JBW talk contribs 87,468 bytes −104 I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If it means that once one has a and -1 one knows that the additive inverse of a is (−1) ⋅ a then I don't see that it adds anything to the fact that once one has a and -1 one knows that the additive inverse of a is −a. If it means something more significant than that then it needs clarification. undo

31 December 2025

17 December 2025

31 October 2025

30 October 2025

15 October 2025

  • curprev 00:2100:21, 15 October 2025 JayBeeEll talk contribs 87,593 bytes −43 Undid revision 1316839465 by Ascchrvalstr (talk) Personally I like LaTeX but (1) changing formats merely for the sake of changing formats is explicitly discouraged by our guidelines, and (2) this is especially extra true when doing so makes the style and notation of one part of an article inconsistent with teh rest of the article, as here undo Tag: Undo

14 October 2025

6 October 2025

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)