Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexCreated [[exponent of a group]].

   Created exponent of a group.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
   • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
   • (edited Jul 1st 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: SridharRamesh
   Format: MarkdownItex[On edit: Ah, I'm being dumb, see below!] The note of concern over how to interpret "least" makes no difference, in that using either the ordinary ordering or the divisibility ordering will yield the same exponent, for the same reason that they will yield the same least common multiple of any naturals. (But perhaps the purpose of the note is precisely to note that there is no difference between these?) (If the purpose of this note is in fact to quibble about the Right Way of looking at things, I would say the Right Way to think of orders of group elements in general is in terms of the induced ideal on the integers (the order of $g$ being the kernel of the mapping $n \mapsto g^n$); the exponent of group $G$ (i.e., the order of the generic element $id_G$ within the group $G^{|G|}$) then amounts to the intersection of the ideals corresponding to the orders of the elements of $G$. Of course, this ends up being just another way of talking about least common multiples of naturals, by the correspondence of integer ideals and natural numbers).

   [On edit: Ah, I’m being dumb, see below!]

   The note of concern over how to interpret “least” makes no difference, in that using either the ordinary ordering or the divisibility ordering will yield the same exponent, for the same reason that they will yield the same least common multiple of any naturals. (But perhaps the purpose of the note is precisely to note that there is no difference between these?)

   (If the purpose of this note is in fact to quibble about the Right Way of looking at things, I would say the Right Way to think of orders of group elements in general is in terms of the induced ideal on the integers (the order of $g$ being the kernel of the mapping $n \mapsto g^n$); the exponent of group $G$ (i.e., the order of the generic element $id_G$ within the group $G^{|G|}$) then amounts to the intersection of the ideals corresponding to the orders of the elements of $G$. Of course, this ends up being just another way of talking about least common multiples of naturals, by the correspondence of integer ideals and natural numbers).

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
   • (edited Jun 30th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItex$0$ is maximal in the divisibility ordering, and minimal in the ordinary ordering. Something about that note seems to bother you. I suggest you merely think of it as an internal justification for why I'm adopting the convention about $0$ as a possible exponent, and what the rule is, and why it's reasonable.

   $0$ is maximal in the divisibility ordering, and minimal in the ordinary ordering.

   Something about that note seems to bother you. I suggest you merely think of it as an internal justification for why I’m adopting the convention about $0$ as a possible exponent, and what the rule is, and why it’s reasonable.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
   • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
   • (edited Jul 1st 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: SridharRamesh
   Format: MarkdownItexAh, you're right about 0; I wasn't thinking about that (even though the note explicitly pointed it out!). With that in mind, I sheepishly retract my entire previous post. :) [I wasn't actually bothered by the note; just trying to understand what its importance was. Which I now do, and agree with you for including! Sorry about the confusion.]

   Ah, you’re right about 0; I wasn’t thinking about that (even though the note explicitly pointed it out!). With that in mind, I sheepishly retract my entire previous post. :)

   [I wasn’t actually bothered by the note; just trying to understand what its importance was. Which I now do, and agree with you for including! Sorry about the confusion.]