Talk:Partially ordered ring

Merge proposal
I think that ordered ring should be merged into the "Ordered rings" section of partially-ordered ring because presenting an ordered ring as a partially-ordered ring with an additional property provides the opportunity of gradually building up the topic. The way it currently stands, ordered ring duplicates the definition of a partially-ordered ring, with the additional hypothesis, and it may be unclear to the casual reader how it relates; partially-ordered ring shows the interrelation, and also has a bit more information about ordered rings than the ordered ring article.

« D. Trebbien ( talk ) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal. It seems to me that the Ordered Ring article in their definition left something out --- namely, that for ever elt a, either a > 0, or a < 0 or a=0.  This is necessary for the order to be total.  The PO-ring article has this in it. Justinian11 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Robert Jamison

Question
I hope I am doing this right. I'd like to ask a question and make a comment:

Q) The sets P and S at the beginning of the article are the same. I have called such a set a "positive semiring".  Is there a standard name?

C) The notion of "compatible" at the same place should be defined.

Justinian11 (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)R Jamison