2
$\begingroup$

This is something only slightly stronger than monotonicity. I think that in category theory this would be a fully faithful functor, but I’m not sure if there is a standard name for this in order theory.

For context, I’m working in a theorem prover (Isabelle) and this is a property of the function which converts words to natural numbers (embedding $\{0 \ldots 2^{32} - 1\}$ into $\mathbb{N}$).

New contributor
Mitchell Buckley is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The first sentence is really an understatement: in fact, this is much stronger than monotonicity. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Glueck 2 days ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For posets this condition forces injectivity so "order embedding" is natural. But for preorders (=set with reflexive transitive relations), it doesn't imply injective, so "order embedding" would be misleading. $\endgroup$ – YCor 2 days ago
3
$\begingroup$

The first thing I thought of was

order embedding

and this is confirmed by an article on monotonicity in order theory.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

The first thing I thought of was also order embedding (like Bjørn), but one can also say that $f$ preserves and reflects the order. That way, you understand even if you don't know what an order embedding is. Folks sometimes write that $f$ is a strong order homomorphism in this situation.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I rather think that “order embedding” is more clear even if you see the terms for the first time; most people do not know what “reflects” means, whereas embeddings are commonplace. However, the “preserves and reflects” or “strong homomorphism” terminology has one big advantage, namely that it is applicable more generally to any relational structures, whereas the identification of this property with order embedding relies on reflexivity and antisymmetry of the partial order, and it is not valid in general. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek 2 days ago
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek Somehow, your comment makes me think of languages without equality. $\endgroup$ – Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen 2 days ago

Your Answer

Mitchell Buckley is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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