Timeline for Non-archimedean group over the reals
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 15, 2020 at 17:52 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| Feb 15, 2020 at 17:51 | comment | added | YCor | The right way to formulate the question would be: Let $(A,+,\le)$ be a totally ordered abelian group such that $(A,\le)$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbf{R},\le)$ as ordered set. Is $(A,+,\le)$ Archimedean? (If groups are allowed to be non-abelian, it should be specified what invariance is required: left-invariance or bi-invariance.) | |
| May 30, 2012 at 15:23 | history | edited | chros | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| May 29, 2012 at 8:54 | history | edited | chros | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 29, 2012 at 8:45 | vote | accept | chros | ||
| May 29, 2012 at 8:31 | history | edited | chros | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body; added 12 characters in body
|
| May 28, 2012 at 22:11 | answer | added | Goldstern | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 28, 2012 at 22:08 | answer | added | Andreas Blass | timeline score: 9 | |
| May 28, 2012 at 22:03 | comment | added | Salvo Tringali | Let me try and guess that "over the reals" means that the carrier of the structure is the reals. On another hand, I don't understand why the OP speaks of an ordered group but specifies what looks like the signature of an ordered monoid. | |
| May 28, 2012 at 21:39 | comment | added | Noah Stein | I agree that this question needs some work to be coherent enough to answer. But two unexplained downvotes don't seem to be helping. I am canceling one out. Chros, please hit edit then proofread your question (totally ordered group? etc.) and define terms which you are not sure are standard. | |
| May 28, 2012 at 20:08 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | What does "over the reals" mean here? | |
| May 28, 2012 at 19:44 | history | asked | chros | CC BY-SA 3.0 |