[A027623 (rings with n elements)]

[Christian G. Bower]

Edwin Clark <eclark at math.usf.edu> wrote:

> 
> This was given as an illustration in Neil's Notices article. I took a look
> at it:
> 
> The offset is given as 0: 
> 
> But if (R,+,*) is a ring then (R,+) is an abelian group
> and so must contain an additive identity. So R has at least one element
> and there is no ring with 0 elements, n'est pas? 
> 
Take a look at A037234

This came from essentially the same controversy on Math Fun (back in 1998)

Christian