Extended weak order for the affine symmetric group

Grant T. Barkley

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Extended weak order for the affine symmetric group

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the weak order on all total orders of the integers, on translation-invariant total orders, and on the extended weak order of the affine symmetric group are profinite semidistributive lattices, with canonical join…

desk verdict A clean, largely self-contained proof that the extended weak orders for S_infinity and S_tilde_n are profinite semidistributive, with the affine part still leaning on the author's earlier quotient theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05875 v1 pith:RYP62CPM submitted 2025-02-09 math.CO

Grant T. Barkley This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CO MSC 05E1520F5506B23

keywords extendedweakorderaffinesymmetricgrouptranslation-invarianttotalordersnon-crossingarcdiagramscanonicaljoinrepresentationssemidistributivelatticesprofinitebiclosedsets

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that three infinite posets are profinite semidistributive lattices: the weak order on all total orders of the integers, the weak order on translation-invariant total orders, and the extended weak order of the affine symmetric group (a Coxeter group, meaning a reflection group generated by involutions). The extended weak order is the poset of biclosed sets in a root system; being profinite means the lattice is determined by its finite quotient lattices, and being semidistributive is the lattice-theoretic condition that guarantees canonical join representations. The combinatorial payoff is a classification: the elements that have canonical join representations are exactly the 'widely generated' elements, and they are encoded by non-crossing arc diagrams for total orders and by cyclic non-crossing arc diagrams in the translation-invariant setting. The paper also conjectures that the extended weak order of every Coxeter group is profinite semidistributive, giving a uniform target for future work.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inversion set of a total order: writing $N(\prec)$ for the set of pairs $a<b$ with $b\prec a$ turns weak order into containment order and joins into transitive closure of unions. Arc diagrams are the second mechanism: an arc $(a,b,L,R)$ is a lower arc of $\prec$ when $(a,b)$ is a cover in $\prec$ and the integers between $a$ and $b$ are partitioned into those below $a$ and those above $b$; for widely generated total orders, the entire order is recovered from its non-crossing collection of lower arcs. For translation-invariant orders the same idea is repeated modulo $n$, giving wrapped arcs and cyclic non-crossing collections. Profiniteness is witnessed by the congruences $\equiv_{A,B}$ that identify total orders agreeing on the finite interval $\{A,\ldots,B\}$; these cofinite congruences separate distinct orders and give the finite quotients from which the lattice is rebuilt.

What would settle it

For $n=4$, take the TITO with window notation $[1,3][2,0]$ from Example 4.2, list its wrapped lower arcs as in Definition 4.10, form the join of the corresponding complete join-irreducibles, and compare with the original TITO: Theorems 4.12 and 4.13 predict equality, so any disagreement is a concrete counterexample to the canonical-join classification and hence to the semidistributivity argument built on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the infinite posets $\mathrm{WO}(\mathrm{Tot})$ and $\mathrm{WO}(\mathrm{TTot}_n)$ are profinite completely semidistributive lattices, and that the extended weak order of the affine symmetric group inherits both properties as a quotient. Inside these lattices, an element has a canonical join representation exactly when it is widely generated: for $\mathrm{WO}(\mathrm{Tot})$ these elements are in bijection with non-crossing collections of arcs, and for $\mathrm{WO}(\mathrm{TTot}_n)$ with cyclic non-crossing collections of wrapped arcs. The bridge from this combinatorial classification to the lattice-theoretic conclusion is a general theorem about profinite lattices: join semidistributivity holds precisely when every compact element has a canonical join representation. Because every profinite lattice is algebraic, all elements are joins of compact elements, so the finite inversion-set orders form a skeleton for the infinite structure.

Load-bearing premise

The affine symmetric group half of the theorem rests on an earlier theorem, cited rather than proved here, that the map from translation-invariant total orders to biclosed sets in the affine root system is a surjective complete lattice homomorphism; if that quotient theorem had a gap, the affine conclusions would not follow from this paper's own arguments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In $\mathrm{WO}(\mathrm{Tot})$, the compact elements are exactly the total orders with finite inversion set, i.e. the permutations in $S_\infty$; since every profinite lattice is algebraic, every total order is a join of these finite-permutation orders.
In $\mathrm{WO}(\mathrm{TTot}_n)$, the compact elements are exactly the translation-invariant total orders with finitely many reflection-index inversions, equivalently those with no two consecutive waxing blocks.
Every widely generated total order or TITO is uniquely determined by its (cyclic) non-crossing collection of lower arcs, and that collection is its canonical join representation.
The extended weak order of the affine symmetric group is a profinite completely semidistributive lattice, obtained as a complete lattice quotient of $\mathrm{WO}(\mathrm{TTot}_n)$.
If the paper's conjecture is correct, every Coxeter group's extended weak order would be profinite semidistributive, putting all such orders under one lattice-theoretic umbrella.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A practical consequence not spelled out in the paper: because the congruences $\equiv_{A,B}$ are cofinite, a finite computation on the interval $\{A,\ldots,B\}$ can certify any join equality in these infinite lattices, so the infinite structure is algorithmically accessible.
The profinite-lattice criterion suggests a route to the conjecture for other Coxeter groups: find natural cofinite congruences and classify the compact elements in each type; the paper notes the affine cases already follow quickly from earlier lattice results.
The 'widely generated' notion, borrowed from torsion-class lattices, is shown here to coincide with having a canonical join representation in the profinite setting, which hints at a general dictionary between torsion-theoretic and Coxeter-theoretic lattices.
A first test of the conjecture in any new Coxeter type is to look for a compact element without a canonical join representation; by the paper's equivalence such an element would exactly disprove join semidistributivity of that extended weak order.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this paper delivers what it promises. Theorem 1.1 is real, and two of its three parts are proved from scratch. WO(Tot) and WO(TTot_n) are profinite completely semidistributive lattices; the compact elements are described precisely; and the cyclic non-crossing arc diagrams give a clean description of canonical join representations. The third part, for Dyer(S_tilde_n), is inherited from the quotient theorem in the author's earlier paper with Speyer [3]. That is the one genuinely load-bearing external input, and the paper is explicit about it.

What is new: the widely generated characterization, the arc diagram bijections (Theorems 3.17 and 4.12), the cyclic arc diagram description of canonical join representations, and the general profinite-lattice result (Proposition 5.15) that join semidistributivity is equivalent to every widely generated element having a canonical join representation. That proposition is a nice tool and is cleanly proved. The paper is also well written; the background on weak order, arc diagrams, and shards is genuinely useful, and the exposition is aimed at readers who do not know Coxeter groups. Credit where due: Lemma 3.14 is the technical heart, and it works. The proof that LowerArcs of a join of j_a recovers D is careful, and I could not find a gap in the WO(Tot) or WO(TTot_n) parts.

Soft spots, in proportion: the Dyer(S_tilde_n) part of Theorem 1.1, Corollary 5.19, and Theorem 5.20 all pass through Theorem 5.18 of [3]. If that quotient theorem had a gap, those statements would not follow from this paper's arguments. I have no reason to suspect a gap -- the authors are the right people to have proved it -- but a referee should check it. Minor issues: the proof of Theorem 3.22 has a forward reference to Theorem 4.12 when Lemma 3.14 would suffice; and there are a few 'cases are similar' arguments (Lemma 3.14 and Theorem 4.9) that a referee will want expanded. The citation to [21] for the analog of the 'no two waxing blocks' criterion is appropriate. None of this threatens the central claims.

Bottom line: this is a strong paper for combinatorialists working on weak order, canonical join representations, or profinite lattices. I would cite it and bring it to a reading group. It deserves a serious referee; I would recommend accept with minor revisions.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the extended weak order on the affine symmetric group ~S_n through the lattice WO(TTot_n) of translation-invariant total orders of Z and the lattice WO(Tot) of all total orders. It shows that both lattices are profinite completely semidistributive, describes their compact elements and canonical join representations using (cyclic) non-crossing arc diagrams, and proves that an element has a canonical join representation if and only if it is widely generated. A general theorem shows that in a profinite lattice, join semidistributivity is equivalent to compact elements having canonical join representations. The main theorem (Theorem 1.1) concludes that WO(Tot), WO(TTot_n), and Dyer(~S_n) are profinite semidistributive lattices; the Dyer(~S_n) part passes through a quotient theorem cited from the author's earlier paper [3].

Significance. The results for WO(Tot) and WO(TTot_n) are new and substantial: the arc-diagram description of canonical join representations is a clean combinatorial model, and the profinite lattice results (Proposition 5.15, Theorems 5.6, 5.17) are elegant and likely to be used elsewhere. The paper is written in a self-contained, accessible style for a combinatorial audience, with careful proofs of the main new claims. The only external load-bearing input is [3, Theorem 5.18], which is natural given the paper's introductory purpose; the WO(Tot) and WO(TTot_n) statements do not depend on it.

major comments (2)

[§5.3, Theorem 5.18] The Dyer(~S_n) half of Theorem 1.1 is obtained by invoking [3, Theorem 5.18], which asserts that the map from WO(TTot_n) to Dyer(~S_n) is a surjective complete lattice homomorphism. This theorem is cited rather than proved. Since Theorem 1.1 explicitly includes Dyer(~S_n), the paper should state clearly that this part relies entirely on that external result, and ideally give a precise reference (theorem number in [3]) so the reader can verify it. If the editors require self-containedness, a proof sketch of Theorem 5.18 would be necessary; otherwise, the dependency is acceptable.
[§3.2, Theorem 3.22] In the proof of Theorem 3.22, the sentence 'using Theorem 4.12' is incorrect, because Theorem 4.12 concerns WO(TTot_n), not WO(Tot). The needed statement is provided directly by Lemma 3.14, which gives LowerArcs(⋁_{a∈D} ja)=D for any non-crossing collection D. Please replace the reference.

minor comments (5)

[§3.1, Theorem 3.7] The statement and proof use π in parts (b) and (c), but the object under consideration is a total order ≺; replace π with ≺ in the expressions '(a,b)·π', 'N(π)', and 'N(π)∖{(a,b)}' for consistency.
[§4, Example 4.2] In the displayed TITO (2), the first term should read '· · · ≺ −3 ≺ 1 ≺ 5 ≺ 9 ≺ · · ·' with a missing ≺ before −3.
[§5.3, Theorem 5.20] The sentence 'Each congruence on WO(TTot_n) coarsening ≡ corresponds to a congruence of Dyer(~S_n)' would benefit from a short justification, since it is the bridge between congruences on WO(TTot_n) and congruences on the quotient Dyer(~S_n).
[§5.2, Proposition 5.15] In the proof of (a)=>(c), the citation [17, Exercise 9.49] is appropriate but the statement 'any complete lattice quotient of a semidistributive lattice is semidistributive' is not obvious; a one-sentence explanation or a reference to the exact exercise would help the reader.
[§2.4, Figure 3] The caption for Figure 3 says 'The intersection of B3 with a two-dimensional subspace'; the figure is small and the labels in the right panel are hard to read. A larger version or vector graphic would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the WO(Tot) and WO(TTotn) derivations are self-contained, and the Dyer(S~n) conclusions rest on a parameter-free prior theorem [3] that does not assume the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central new claims for WO(Tot) and WO(TTotn) are proved from definitions using finite-lattice facts (Reading arc diagrams, Duquenne–Cherfouh semidistributivity, Propositions 2.10, 2.14, 2.16) and then extended to the infinite setting by joins and finite congruences. No parameter is fitted, and no target conclusion is used as a hypothesis. The only load-bearing external input is Theorem 5.18, which the paper states as 'shown in [3]': the surjective complete lattice homomorphism from WO(TTotn) onto Dyer(S~n). Corollaries 5.19 and 5.20 for Dyer(S~n) pass through this theorem, so those particular conclusions are not proved from scratch in this paper. However, [3] is a parameter-free prior theorem whose assumptions do not include semidistributivity or profiniteness of Dyer(S~n); it is therefore independent support rather than a circular premise. The internal forward reference in the proof of Theorem 3.22 to Theorem 4.12 appears to be a citation slip, since Lemma 3.14 supplies the needed statement, and it does not create a circular dependence. Verdict: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two categories of external input: standard lattice theory facts (finite semidistributivity and canonical join representation equivalence, quotient preservation) and the author's prior theorem describing Dyer(S~_n) as a quotient of WO(TTot_n). There are no free parameters and no invented entities.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Theorem 5.18 (from Barkley-Speyer [3]): the map sending a translation-invariant total order to its real reflection-index inversion set is a surjective complete lattice homomorphism from WO(TTot_n) onto Dyer(S~_n).
Used to derive the Dyer(S~_n) parts of Theorem 1.1; the paper cites this rather than proving it.
standard math Complete lattice quotients of semidistributive lattices are semidistributive.
Invoked in Proposition 5.15 and Corollary 5.19; credited to [17, Exercise 9.49].
standard math A finite lattice is join semidistributive if and only if every element has a canonical join representation.
Used to pass from canonical join representation existence to semidistributivity in Proposition 5.15; credited to [10].
domain assumption The lower arc map gives a bijection between permutations of S_n and non-crossing collections of arcs (Proposition 2.10).
Background result from Reading's theory used in the finite case in Lemma 3.14 and to motivate the infinite and cyclic generalizations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended weak order for the affine symmetric group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYP62CPM

@misc{pith2026250205875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended weak order for the affine symmetric group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYP62CPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05875}
}

abstract

The extended weak order on a Coxeter group $W$ is the poset of biclosed sets in its root system. In (Barkley-Speyer 2024), it was shown that when $W=\widetilde{S}_n$ is the affine symmetric group, then the extended weak order is a quotient of the lattice $L_n$ of translation-invariant total orderings of the integers. In this article, we give a combinatorial introduction to $L_n$ and the extended weak order on $\widetilde{S}_n$. We show that $L_n$ is an algebraic completely semidistributive lattice. We describe its canonical join representations using a cyclic version of Reading's non-crossing arc diagrams. We also show analogous statements for the lattice of all total orders of the integers, which is the extended weak order on the symmetric group $S_\infty$. A key property of both of these lattices is that they are profinite; we also prove that a profinite lattice is join semidistributive if and only if its compact elements have canonical join representations. We conjecture that the extended weak order of any Coxeter group is a profinite semidistributive lattice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05875 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The arc diagrams for arcs in S4 with initial value 1 and terminal value 4. Below each diagram, we have indicated the associated JI in S4. (cJI) if there is no set X ⊆ L with x 6∈ X so that W X = x. We write JIrrc (L) for the set of complete join-irreducibles in L. We similarly define complete meet-irreducibles and write MIrrc (L) for their collection. The two notions coincide for finite lattices. We will exclusively… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The intersection of B3 with a twodimensional subspace of R 3 . Two points are in the same region of B3 if their coordinates are in the same order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The Hasse diagram of weak order on Se2. Each affine permutation is labeled by its window notation. (b) Xn i=1 πe(i) = Xn i=1 i. Elements of Sen are affine permutations. The one-line notation of an affine permutation is defined similarly to a usual permutation, so that …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The poset Dyer(S3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The Hasse diagram for WO(TTot2). Each TITO is labeled by its window notation. Theorem 4.9. The following are equivalent, for a TITO (≺) and a real reflection index (a, b): (a) The reflection index (a, b) is a lower wall of (≺); (b) The TITO tab · (≺) is covered by (≺);…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: On the left, a wrapped arc drawn in two ways: “unwrapped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

The Affine Tamari Lattice
math.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

New cyclic and affine Tamari lattices of sizes Catalan Bn and Dn are constructed and shown to govern maximal green sequence lengths for path algebras of oriented cycles.
Computing Tools for Translation-Invariant Total Orders
math.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

TITO_Explore implements canonical window normalization, inversion-set computation, O(n^{2}) weak-order comparison by residue-class partitions, and join via a weighted digraph transitive-closure procedure for period-n TITOs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[3]

Barkley and David E

Grant T. Barkley and David E. Speyer. Combinatorial description s of biclosed sets in aﬃne type. Comb. Theory, 4(2):Paper No. 7, 33, 2024

work page 2024
[21]

Inﬁnite reduced words, lattice property and braid graph of aﬃne Weyl groups

Weijia Wang. Inﬁnite reduced words, lattice property and braid graph of aﬃne Weyl groups. J. Algebra, 536:170–214, 2019. 39

work page 2019
[1]

Wide subcategories and lattices of t orsion classes

Sota Asai and Calvin Pfeifer. Wide subcategories and lattices of t orsion classes. Algebr. Represent. Theory, 25(6):1611–1629, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Barkley and David E Speyer

Grant T. Barkley and David E Speyer. Aﬃne extended weak order is a lattice, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Orderings of Coxeter groups

Anders Bj¨ orner. Orderings of Coxeter groups. In Combinatorics and algebra (Boulder, Colo., 1983), volume 34 of Contemp. Math. , pages 175–195. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1984. 38

work page 1983
[5]

The structure of total reﬂection ord ers in aﬃne root systems

Paola Cellini and Paolo Papi. The structure of total reﬂection ord ers in aﬃne root systems. J. Algebra, 205(1):207–226, 1998

work page 1998
[6]

Shard modules, 2023

Will Dana, David E Speyer, and Hugh Thomas. Shard modules, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

On permutation lattic es

Vincent Duquenne and Ameziane Cherfouh. On permutation lattic es. Math. Social Sci. , 27(1):73–89, 1994

work page 1994

Show all 21 references

[8]

On the weak order of Coxeter groups

Matthew Dyer. On the weak order of Coxeter groups. Canad. J. Math. , 71(2):299–336, 2019

2019
[9]

Matthew J. Dyer. Hecke algebras and shellings of Bruhat interva ls. Compositio Math., 89(1):91– 115, 1993

1993
[10]

Ralph Freese, Jaroslav Jeˇ zek, and J. B. Nation. Free lattices, volume 42 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1995

1995
[11]

Parameterizations of inﬁnite biconvex sets in aﬃne roo t systems

Ken Ito. Parameterizations of inﬁnite biconvex sets in aﬃne roo t systems. Hiroshima Math. J., 35(3):425–451, 2005

2005
[12]

Lattice structure of Weyl groups via representation theory of preprojective algebras

Osamu Iyama, Nathan Reading, Idun Reiten, and Hugh Thomas. Lattice structure of Weyl groups via representation theory of preprojective algebras. Compos. Math., 154(6):1269–1305, 2018

2018
[13]

Total positivity for loop grou ps II: Chevalley generators

Thomas Lam and Pavlo Pylyavskyy. Total positivity for loop grou ps II: Chevalley generators. Transform. Groups, 18(1):179–231, 2013

2013
[14]

Shard polytopes

Arnau Padrol, Vincent Pilaud, and Julian Ritter. Shard polytopes . Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (9):7686–7796, 2023

2023
[15]

Noncrossing partitions and the shard interse ction order

Nathan Reading. Noncrossing partitions and the shard interse ction order. J. Algebraic Com- bin., 33(4):483–530, 2011

2011
[16]

Noncrossing arc diagrams and canonical join r epresentations

Nathan Reading. Noncrossing arc diagrams and canonical join r epresentations. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 29(2):736–750, 2015

2015
[17]

Lattice theory of the poset of regions

Nathan Reading. Lattice theory of the poset of regions. In Lattice theory: special topics and applications. Vol. 2 , pages 399–487. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, 2016

2016
[18]

Finite Coxeter groups and the weak order

Nathan Reading. Finite Coxeter groups and the weak order. In Lattice theory: special topics and applications. Vol. 2 , pages 489–561. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, 2016

2016
[19]

Rowmotion in slow motion

Hugh Thomas and Nathan Williams. Rowmotion in slow motion. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 119(5):1149–1178, 2019

2019
[20]

Logic, Algebra and Topology

Jacob Vosmaer. Logic, Algebra and Topology. Investigations into canonica l extensions, duality theory and point-free topology . PhD thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, December 2010. Promotores: M. Gehrke and Y. Venema

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Barkley and David E

Grant T. Barkley and David E. Speyer. Combinatorial description s of biclosed sets in aﬃne type. Comb. Theory, 4(2):Paper No. 7, 33, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [21]

Inﬁnite reduced words, lattice property and braid graph of aﬃne Weyl groups

Weijia Wang. Inﬁnite reduced words, lattice property and braid graph of aﬃne Weyl groups. J. Algebra, 536:170–214, 2019. 39

work page 2019

[3] [1]

Wide subcategories and lattices of t orsion classes

Sota Asai and Calvin Pfeifer. Wide subcategories and lattices of t orsion classes. Algebr. Represent. Theory, 25(6):1611–1629, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [2]

Barkley and David E Speyer

Grant T. Barkley and David E Speyer. Aﬃne extended weak order is a lattice, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [4]

Orderings of Coxeter groups

Anders Bj¨ orner. Orderings of Coxeter groups. In Combinatorics and algebra (Boulder, Colo., 1983), volume 34 of Contemp. Math. , pages 175–195. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1984. 38

work page 1983

[6] [5]

The structure of total reﬂection ord ers in aﬃne root systems

Paola Cellini and Paolo Papi. The structure of total reﬂection ord ers in aﬃne root systems. J. Algebra, 205(1):207–226, 1998

work page 1998

[7] [6]

Shard modules, 2023

Will Dana, David E Speyer, and Hugh Thomas. Shard modules, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [7]

On permutation lattic es

Vincent Duquenne and Ameziane Cherfouh. On permutation lattic es. Math. Social Sci. , 27(1):73–89, 1994

work page 1994