Talk:Linearly ordered group

The phrase totally ordered group is used in the literature at least as often as "linearly ordered group", so I have created a page to redirect to this one. --Michael Kinyon 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be better if the first sentence points directly to total order instead of total relation, but I can't think of a good way of formulating the sentence. Any ideas? --Michael Kinyon 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it doesn't need rewording. Never mind. --Michael Kinyon 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notation

Is it customary to denote linearly ordered groups additively? Because it just doesn't seem right when the group is potentially-not-abelian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.100.108 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I just read a book or article a day or two ago that used almost this exact terminology. "It is customary to use additive notation even if the group is potentially nonabelian." I admit it can be a little weird, but the answer to your question is yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onzie9 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes no sense to use additive notation, recent papers that deal with non-abelian groups certainly don't (eg. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.10687.pdf, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.03793.pdf). I appreciate there might be a significant body of work about abelian ordered groups but the article is not just about them so the usual group notation seems to avoid confusion. jraimbau (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]