I've done some search in Internet and other sources about this question. Why the name ring to this particular object? Just curiosity.


  • 27
    $\begingroup$ In German, "Ring" can also mean a (close) group of people with shared interests, an association. Maybe it is because of that: you've got some closely interacting elements but for all their interaction, they never leave the group. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael
    Commented Sep 2, 2011 at 23:05
  • 60
    $\begingroup$ @Raphael Funny how you started with a ring and ended with a group :). $\endgroup$
    – Srivatsan
    Commented Sep 2, 2011 at 23:09
  • 15
    $\begingroup$ Did nobody thought that maybe -- just maybe -- that perhaps the bloke who coined the name thought the name just sounds cool? I mean, if you had the chance to coin a name for something you discovered, wouldn't some of you want to name it Diamond or something like that? $\endgroup$
    – Lie Ryan
    Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 1:43
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @yoyo: yes, it is true, but for me in particular, is interesting to know the origin of this words. I think that all of us should be know a little about that. $\endgroup$
    – leo
    Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 2:03
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ leo: I totally agree with your last comment. It goes hand in hand with the "read the masters" credo to know and try to find out a little about where the words we use on a daily basis come from. While in principle, as Hilbert allegedly put it, "One must be able to say at all times--instead of points, straight lines, and planes--tables, chairs, and beer mugs", I think knowing the etymology of words and the history of ideas is part of the general culture a mathematician should have. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 3:02

1 Answer 1


The name "ring" is derived from Hilbert's term "Zahlring" (number ring), introduced in his Zahlbericht for certain rings of algebraic integers. As for why Hilbert chose the name "ring", I recall reading speculations that it may have to do with cyclical (ring-shaped) behavior of powers of algebraic integers. Namely, if $\:\alpha\:$ is an algebraic integer of degree $\rm\:n\:$ then $\:\alpha^n\:$ is a $\rm\:\mathbb Z$-linear combination of lower powers of $\rm\:\alpha\:,\:$ thus so too are all higher powers of $\rm\:\alpha\:.\:$ Hence all powers cycle back onto $\rm\:1,\:\alpha,\:,\ldots,\alpha^{n-1}\:,\:$ i.e. $\rm\:\mathbb Z[\alpha]\:$ is a finitely generated $\:\mathbb Z$-module. Possibly also the motivation for the name had to do more specifically with rings of cyclotomic integers. However, as plausible as that may seem, I don't recall the existence of any historical documents that provide solid evidence in support of such speculations.

Beware that one has to be very careful when reading such older literature. Some authors mistakenly read modern notions into terms which have no such denotation in their original usage. To provide some context I recommend reading Lemmermeyer and Schappacher's Introduction to the English Edition of Hilbert’s Zahlbericht. Below is a pertinent excerpt.

enter image description here

Below is an excerpt from Leo Corry's Modern algebra and the rise of mathematical structures, p. 149.

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

Below are a couple typical examples of said speculative etymology of the term "ring" via the "circling back" nature of integral dependence, from Harvey Cohn's Advanced Number Theory, p. 49.

$\quad$The designation of the letter $\mathfrak D$ for the integral domain has some historical importance going back to Gauss's work on quadratic forms. Gauss $\left(1800\right)$ noted that for certain quadratic forms $Ax^2+Bxy+Cy^2$ the discriminant need not be square-free, although $A$, $B$, $C$ are relatively prime. For example, $x^2-45y^2$ has $D=4\cdot45$. The $4$ was ignored for the reason that $4|D$ necessarily by virtue of Gauss's requirement that $B$ be even, but the factor of $3^2$ in $D$ caused Gauss to refer to the form as one of "order $3$." Eventually, the forms corresponding to a value of $D$ were called an "order" (Ordnung). Dedekind retained this word for what is here called an "integral domain."

$\quad$The term "ring" is a contraction of "Zahlring" introduced by Hilbert $\left(1892\right)$ to denote (in our present context) the ring generated by the rational integers and a quadratic integer $\eta$ defined by $$\eta^2+B\eta+C=0.$$ It would seem that module $\left[1,\eta\right]$ is called a Zahlring because $\eta^2$ equals $-B\eta-C$ "circling directly back" to an element of $\left[1,\eta\right]$ . This word has been maintained today. Incidentally, every Zahlring is an integral domain and the converse is true for quadratic fields.

and from Rotman's Advanced Modern Algebra, p. 81.

enter image description here

  • 74
    $\begingroup$ "Beware that one has to be very careful when reading such older literature. Some authors mistakenly read modern notions into terms which have no such denotation in their original usage." deserves a +1 on its own. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 1:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Bill, I think it would be worth pointing readers to Kleiner's article From Numbers to Rings: The Early History of Ring Theory which you mentioned here. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 3:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think you missed anything. I just thought that people interested in the etymology of the word "ring" will likely be interested in the history of rings, and that's why I pointed to your other answer. $\endgroup$
    – t.b.
    Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 3:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Bravo for including 'original literature' $\endgroup$
    – Simon S
    Commented Jul 17, 2015 at 11:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Leo Corry p. 149: "Thus a ring in Hilbert's sense is a system of algebraic integers of the given field, closed under [addition, subtraction and product]." Might Hilbert have used "ring" as an alternative word for "closed" since a ring is a closed length of wire with no dangling ends? And... I see that Raphael Sep 2 '11 at 23:05 suggested pretty much the same thing in the very first comment to the question itself, almost a decade ago! I'll leave this in for the quote of Corry, but anyone reading this should look at Raphael's comment also. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28, 2021 at 13:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .