Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
    • (edited Jul 1st 2015)

    [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 gg being the kernel of the mapping ng nn \mapsto g^n); the exponent of group GG (i.e., the order of the generic element id Gid_G within the group G |G|G^{|G|}) then amounts to the intersection of the ideals corresponding to the orders of the elements of GG. 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).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
    • (edited Jun 30th 2015)

    00 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 00 as a possible exponent, and what the rule is, and why it’s reasonable.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorSridharRamesh
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2015
    • (edited Jul 1st 2015)

    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.]

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)