Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $H$ be a subgroup of lattice-ordered group $G$. $H$ is a lattice-ordered group as a induced partial order from $G$ but $H$ is not a lattice-subgroup of $G$. For $a, b\in H$, let $ c=inf(a, b) \in H$ and let $d= inf(a, b) \in G$. Is it necessary to be $c = d$ or not? Thanks

share|improve this question
    
Isn't it true by definition? A lattice ordered group is an algebra with 4 operations: $\cdot, ^{-1}, \wedge, \vee$, so a lattice ordered subgroup is a subalgebra with respect to these 4 operations. –  Mark Sapir Feb 18 '13 at 3:50
    
Sometimes a lattice ordered group is defined as a partially ordered group were the partial order happens to be a lattice, i.e., any two elements have infimum and supremum. In this case the answer to this question is not so obvious. –  Stefan Geschke Feb 18 '13 at 12:56
    
@ Mark Sapir and Stefan Geschke, Thanks. I am trying to show $c=d$ but still I am not –  Rajnish Feb 18 '13 at 21:24
    
As I understand, @Rajnish asks about a subgroup (not a lattice subgroup) which happens to be a lattice w.r. to the induced partial order, but which is NOT a sublattice of the whole group because the lattice operations in the subgroup are not the same as in the whole group. There are other algebraic structures (instead of a group) where this kind of a situation is common. –  Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Feb 19 '13 at 1:12
    
@ Wlodzimierz Thank you very much. I am completely agree with the "a subgroup (not a lattice subgroup) which happens to be a lattice w.r. to the induced partial order". I am going to correct my question. –  Rajnish Feb 19 '13 at 5:21

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

No. A counterexample (essentially from Bourbaki's Algèbre VI.1 Exercice 12 a)) is the following.

We furnish $\mathbb{Z}$ with its usual structure of ordered group and consider the product of ordered groups $G=\mathbb{Z}^3$. This is a lattice, and for $(x,y,z),(u,v,w)\in G$ we have $$\textstyle\sup_G((x,y,z),(u,v,w))=(\sup(x,u),\sup(y,v),\sup(z,w)).$$ Now we consider the subgroup $H=\{(x,y,z)\in G\mid z=x+y\}$ of $G$, furnished with its induced structure of ordered group. This is also a lattice, as one readily checks that for $(x,y,x+y),(u,v,u+v)\in H$ we have $$\textstyle\sup_H((x,y,x+y),(u,v,u+v))=(\sup(x,u),\sup(y,v),\sup(x,u)+\sup(y,v)).$$ However, since $$\textstyle\sup_G((0,1,1),(1,0,1))=(1,1,1)\neq(1,1,2)=\sup_H((0,1,1),(1,0,1))$$ we see that $H$ is not a sublattice of $G$.

share|improve this answer
    
@Fred, Thank you. I did not get the idea used for subgroup $H$. Why is that on third compoent $(x + y)\vee (u + v) = x\vee u + y\vee u$. –  Rajnish Feb 20 '13 at 21:18
    
Dear Rajnish, I do not understand your question. Please clarify. –  Fred Rohrer Feb 20 '13 at 21:41
    
@Fred,Thank you very much. I did not get the result of third component in this line $sup_{H}((x,y,x+y), (u,v, u + v)) = (sup(x,u), sup(y,v), sup(x,y) + sup(y,v))$. –  Rajnish Feb 20 '13 at 22:11
    
First, $\sup(x,u)+\sup(y,v)$ is greater than $x+y$ and than $u+v$. Second, if $(a,b,a+b)\in H$ is greater than $(x,y,x+y)$ and $(u,v,u+v)$, then $\sup(x,u)$ is smaller than $a$ and $\sup(y,v)$ is smaller than $b$. Hence, $\sup(x,u)+\sup(y,v)$ is smaller than $a+b$. This yields the claim. (Note that the third component needs to be the sum of the first and the second in order for the triple to be an element of $H$.) –  Fred Rohrer Feb 20 '13 at 22:59
    
@ Fred, Thank you. I got it. –  Rajnish Feb 20 '13 at 23:55

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.