Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are two definitions of an ordered field: you can define it as a field with a total ordering and certain axioms relating the ordering to the field operations, or as a field with a "positive cone": a subset of the field satisfying certain axioms (see Orderered Field on Wikipedia). These definitions are equivalent: the total orders and the positive cones are in one-to-one correspondence.

I am wondering if the same equivalence holds for rings. I'm taking the definition of a totally ordered ring from Wikipedia, and I am taking the same definition for a positive cone as is given for fields: a positive cone on a ring $R$ is a subset $P$ of $R$ satisfying

  1. $P$ is closed under $+$ and $\cdot$.
  2. $x^2 \in P$ for all $x \in R$.
  3. $-1 \notin P$.
  4. either $x \in P$ or $-x \in P$ for all $x \in R$.

I have checked that the function $F$ taking a ring total order $\leq$ to the set $\{x \in R | x \geq 0\}$ and the function $G$ taking a positive cone $P$ to the relation $x \leq y \equiv y - x \in P$ are inverses.

I have also shown that if $\leq$ is a ring total order then $F(\leq)$ is a positive cone. However, I don't see how to show that if $P$ is a positive cone then $G(P)$ is a total order. In particular, I don't see how to show that $G(P)$ is anti-symmetric without using cancellation.

So I am wondering whether this equivalence holds or not. If not, is there a simple tweak to the positive cone style definition that makes it work? I'm interested because I think it is more natural to implement this style of definition in the algebra software I'm designing.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 0 down vote accepted

The equivalence does not hold in $\:\mathbb{Z}\left[\sqrt0\hspace{.01 in}\right]\:$ with $\;\;\;\; P \;\; = \;\; \left\{ \:a+\left(b\cdot \sqrt0\right) \: : \: 0\leq a \: \right\} \;\;\;\;$.

Replacing 3 with $\;\;$ "For all $\:x\in R\:$,$\:$ if $\:x\in P\:$ and $\: -x \in P \:$ then $\:x=0\:$." $\;\;$ will make it work.
(Since that is exactly what you need for anti-symmetry.)

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! And that would be a suitable definition for fields as well since in a field (or an integral domain even) the two are equivalent. –  mdgeorge Nov 29 '12 at 20:59
    
The definition has some problems still. First, it's not necessary to suppose that $x^2$ is in $P$ (in the strict ordering variant I describe in my answer, this doesn't quite hold). In any case, if $x\in P$, then we have $x^2\in P$ by (1). Otherwise, $-x\in P$, so $x^2 = (-x)^2 \in P$. In the weak ordering case, $0\in P$ so $0^2\in P$. In the strict ordering case, this doesn't apply. The second problem is that $-1$ only exists in a ring with unity. But in a (non-null) ring with unity, $1≠0$, so $1=1^2 \in P$. Thus $-1 \notin P$ by the antisymmetry condition. –  dfeuer Feb 2 '13 at 19:33

I've been messing around with this notion for groups. Suppose you have a group $(G,\circ)$ with identity $e$ and a subset $C$ of $G$ such that for each $x,y\in G$:

$x,y \in C \implies x \circ y \in C$

$x\circ y \in C \implies y \circ x \in C$.

Then if you define a relation $\mathcal R$ by letting $x \mathrel{\mathcal R} y \iff y\circ x^{-1}\in C$, then that relation will be "compatible" with $\circ$ in the sense that if $x \mathrel{\mathcal R} y$ then $x \circ z \mathrel{\mathcal R} y \circ z$ and $z \circ x \mathrel{\mathcal R} z \circ y$. The relation will also be transitive.

If you impose the condition that $C \cap C^{-1} \subseteq \{e\}$, then the relation will be antisymmetric.

If you impose the condition that the group identity $e\in C \cap C^{-1}$, then the relation will be reflexive. Combined with the condition for antisymmetry, this gives a weak partial order. If instead you impose the condition that $e\notin C \cap C^{-1}$, then you get an irreflexive relation which, combined with the antisymmetry condition, gives a strict partial order. These combined conditions can be written as $C\cap C^{-1}=\{e\}$ and $C \cap C^{-1} = \varnothing$, respectively.

If you add to the weak partial order condition the condition that $C\cup C^{-1} = G$, you get a weak total order. If to the strict partial order condition you add the condition that $C\cup C^{-1}\cup\{e\}=G$, you get a strict total order.

All that is good for general groups. In a ring $(R,+,\cdot)$ you need to impose one of the above-described conditions for $(R,+)$, and add the condition that $x,y \in C \implies x\cdot y \in C$.

There are various definitions for a partially ordered field, but the definition that makes the most sense to me requires that $x \in C \implies x^{-1} \in C$. This added condition is automatically satisfied for a totally ordered field.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.