Talk:Partially ordered group

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

The content of Partially ordered group was merged into Partially ordered group on April 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

It seems easy to verify that if an ordered group is finite, the order has to be equality; i.e., apart from this trivial case an ordered group is infinite. If we have a source we should add this.--Patrick 07:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Moreover, every element in the positive cone apart from the identity element has infinite order.--Patrick 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is + being used for multiplication here? As far as I know, orderability has nothing to do with abelian groups, so this notation is just...wrong.

Unless someone can come up with a good reason I will change this notation to be multiplication, as is standard.

Farpov (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would like to point out that the if and only if statement in the introduction of the article assumes G to be commutative as well. The correct statement for non-commutative G is: for all a,b in G: a<=b iff (-a*b is in G or b*-a is in G). Not assuming this results in the statement being false for all groups with non trivial centralizor!

I thus completely agree with Farpov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.166.152 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

In addition, things like "if a ∈ H then -x + a + x ∈ H for each x of G" become completely redundant for abelian groupsHagman (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There's quite a lot of information behind partially ordered abelian groups that I would like to add. Should I add it to this page or create a new page? It may be distracting to have the abelian case here since the nonabelian case is quite different. Minimalrho (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Upon further inspection of this article, I'm concerned about the extent to which the abelian and non-abelian cases are confused. Is perforation a useful concept in the non-abelian case? Do the definitions of Riesz groups and Riesz interpolation property require being abelian or is it standard terminology for non-abelian groups? Minimalrho (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there a source for this definition of archimedean? I checked the definitions in [0] and [1] and both require the stated property only for 1 ≤ a < b. This definition is not equivalent to the one from the article. In any case, the definition has to require at least that a be non-negative.

[0] V. M. Kopytov and N. Ya. Medvedev, Right-ordered groups, Siberian School of Algebra and Logic, Consultants Bureau, 1996.

[1] Glass, A. M. W. (1999). Partially ordered groups 2A00:1398:4:A0F:8877:8440:3C36:92D5 (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense, i edited the definition to fit the references as you quote them. Thanks! jraimbau (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply