The Natural Partial Order
An inverse semigroup S possesses a natural partial order relation ≤ (sometimes denoted by ω) which is defined by the following:
for some idempotent e in S. Equivalently,
for some (in general, different) idempotent f in S. In fact, e can be taken to be aa−1 and f to be a−1a.
The natural partial order is compatible with both multiplication and inversion, that is,
and
In a group, this partial order simply reduces to equality, since the identity is the only idempotent. In a symmetric inverse semigroup, the partial order reduces to restriction of mappings, i.e., α ≤ β if, and only if, the domain of α is contained in the domain of β and xα = xβ, for all x in the domain of α.
The natural partial order on an inverse semigroup interacts with Green's relations as follows: if s ≤ t and st, then s = t. Similarly, if st.
On E(S), the natural partial order becomes:
so the product of any two idempotents in S is equal to the lesser of the two, with respect to ≤. If E(S) forms a chain (i.e., E(S) is totally ordered by ≤), then S is a union of groups.
Read more about this topic: Inverse Semigroup
Famous quotes containing the words partial order, natural, partial and/or order:
“Both the man of science and the man of art live always at the edge of mystery, surrounded by it. Both, as a measure of their creation, have always had to do with the harmonization of what is new with what is familiar, with the balance between novelty and synthesis, with the struggle to make partial order in total chaos.... This cannot be an easy life.”
—J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904–1967)
“Parents fear lest the natural love of their children may fade away. What kind of nature is that which is subject to decay? Custom is a second nature which destroys the former. But what is nature? For is custom not natural? I am much afraid that nature is itself only a first custom, as custom is a second nature.”
—Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)
“It is characteristic of the epistemological tradition to present us with partial scenarios and then to demand whole or categorical answers as it were.”
—Avrum Stroll (b. 1921)
“The general feeling was, and for a long time remained, that one had several children in order to keep just a few. As late as the seventeenth century . . . people could not allow themselves to become too attached to something that was regarded as a probable loss. This is the reason for certain remarks which shock our present-day sensibility, such as Montaigne’s observation, “I have lost two or three children in their infancy, not without regret, but without great sorrow.””
—Philippe Ariés (20th century)