Definition talk:Order Embedding

Name

The term "order embedding" might have less potential for confusion than "order monomorphism", since it is not exactly the same as a monomorphism in the category of ordered sets. Comments? --abcxyz (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it is required to reflect, embedding seems to be more accurate. It also seems to coincide with the notion of embedding from a model-theoretic perspective (not that such relations can be explicated at this point, but it's a nice bonus). --Lord_Farin (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Order embedding seems intuitively clear, and it's the term I've seen elsewhere, so no objections from me. --Dfeuer (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your argument, but will counter it with: as soon as it is backed up by a published citation which is directly supported with a source reference in the Sources section, it should stay like it is. And I will repeat what I always say (my fingers are going to get muscle memory at this rate): please, when making these statements "I've seen [this] elsewhere", state where you have seen it so this can be verified. --prime mover (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Steven Roman: Lattices and Ordered Sets (2008) and Brian A. Davey and Hilary A. Priestley: Introduction to Lattices and Order (2002). --abcxyz (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)