Equivalence of two statements on an arbitrary partially ordered set $(A, <)$
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $(A, <)$ a arbitrary partially ordered set. ( $<$ is irreflexive and transitive)
These two statements are equivalent:
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from above has a supremum in $A$
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from below has an infimum in $A$
My attempt:
Let the first statement be true and I will try to prove the second follows.(I suspect the second direction will be pretty much the same)
Let $Csubset A$ be an arbitrary subset of $A$ that is bounded from below.
Let $D$ denote the set of all lower bounds of $C$.
So we have $forall c in C, forall d in D, d < c$.
I have to prove that $D$ has the biggest element(definition of infimum).
I know that $D$ is a set that is bounded from above, then it follows that $D$ has a supremum, let's denote it by $S$.
Now, I know, $(forall d in D)( d < S lor d = S)$. But I don't know how to prove that $Sin D$. Because if $S notin D$ then $S$ doesn't have to be comparable to any $c in C$ since the set is partially ordered, then $S$ is definitely not the infimum of $C$ which I think it should be.
Thanks in advance!
elementary-set-theory order-theory
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $(A, <)$ a arbitrary partially ordered set. ( $<$ is irreflexive and transitive)
These two statements are equivalent:
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from above has a supremum in $A$
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from below has an infimum in $A$
My attempt:
Let the first statement be true and I will try to prove the second follows.(I suspect the second direction will be pretty much the same)
Let $Csubset A$ be an arbitrary subset of $A$ that is bounded from below.
Let $D$ denote the set of all lower bounds of $C$.
So we have $forall c in C, forall d in D, d < c$.
I have to prove that $D$ has the biggest element(definition of infimum).
I know that $D$ is a set that is bounded from above, then it follows that $D$ has a supremum, let's denote it by $S$.
Now, I know, $(forall d in D)( d < S lor d = S)$. But I don't know how to prove that $Sin D$. Because if $S notin D$ then $S$ doesn't have to be comparable to any $c in C$ since the set is partially ordered, then $S$ is definitely not the infimum of $C$ which I think it should be.
Thanks in advance!
elementary-set-theory order-theory
1
The involved subsets of $A$ are supposed to be non-empty. You forgot to mention that.
– drhab
Nov 17 at 16:33
@drhab true, i added it now, i had forgotten about it before!!
– Collapse
Nov 17 at 16:34
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $(A, <)$ a arbitrary partially ordered set. ( $<$ is irreflexive and transitive)
These two statements are equivalent:
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from above has a supremum in $A$
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from below has an infimum in $A$
My attempt:
Let the first statement be true and I will try to prove the second follows.(I suspect the second direction will be pretty much the same)
Let $Csubset A$ be an arbitrary subset of $A$ that is bounded from below.
Let $D$ denote the set of all lower bounds of $C$.
So we have $forall c in C, forall d in D, d < c$.
I have to prove that $D$ has the biggest element(definition of infimum).
I know that $D$ is a set that is bounded from above, then it follows that $D$ has a supremum, let's denote it by $S$.
Now, I know, $(forall d in D)( d < S lor d = S)$. But I don't know how to prove that $Sin D$. Because if $S notin D$ then $S$ doesn't have to be comparable to any $c in C$ since the set is partially ordered, then $S$ is definitely not the infimum of $C$ which I think it should be.
Thanks in advance!
elementary-set-theory order-theory
Let $(A, <)$ a arbitrary partially ordered set. ( $<$ is irreflexive and transitive)
These two statements are equivalent:
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from above has a supremum in $A$
Every nonempty subset of $A$ that is bounded from below has an infimum in $A$
My attempt:
Let the first statement be true and I will try to prove the second follows.(I suspect the second direction will be pretty much the same)
Let $Csubset A$ be an arbitrary subset of $A$ that is bounded from below.
Let $D$ denote the set of all lower bounds of $C$.
So we have $forall c in C, forall d in D, d < c$.
I have to prove that $D$ has the biggest element(definition of infimum).
I know that $D$ is a set that is bounded from above, then it follows that $D$ has a supremum, let's denote it by $S$.
Now, I know, $(forall d in D)( d < S lor d = S)$. But I don't know how to prove that $Sin D$. Because if $S notin D$ then $S$ doesn't have to be comparable to any $c in C$ since the set is partially ordered, then $S$ is definitely not the infimum of $C$ which I think it should be.
Thanks in advance!
elementary-set-theory order-theory
elementary-set-theory order-theory
edited Nov 17 at 16:34
asked Nov 17 at 16:27
Collapse
716420
716420
1
The involved subsets of $A$ are supposed to be non-empty. You forgot to mention that.
– drhab
Nov 17 at 16:33
@drhab true, i added it now, i had forgotten about it before!!
– Collapse
Nov 17 at 16:34
add a comment |
1
The involved subsets of $A$ are supposed to be non-empty. You forgot to mention that.
– drhab
Nov 17 at 16:33
@drhab true, i added it now, i had forgotten about it before!!
– Collapse
Nov 17 at 16:34
1
1
The involved subsets of $A$ are supposed to be non-empty. You forgot to mention that.
– drhab
Nov 17 at 16:33
The involved subsets of $A$ are supposed to be non-empty. You forgot to mention that.
– drhab
Nov 17 at 16:33
@drhab true, i added it now, i had forgotten about it before!!
– Collapse
Nov 17 at 16:34
@drhab true, i added it now, i had forgotten about it before!!
– Collapse
Nov 17 at 16:34
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Suppose $Snotin D$. Then $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ and so there exists $cin C$ such that $clt S$. This is impossible because all elements of $c$ are upper bounds for $D$ so $S$ would not be the least upper bound for $D$. This is a contradiction.
Edit: There is a slight problem with this proof due to the fact that the order is a partial order. Thank you to drhab for pointing it out. The fix is simple enough and I can do it without deriving a contradiction.
For any $cin C$ and any $din D$, $dle c$ so $c$ is an upper bound for $D$. Since $S$ is the least upper bound, $Sle c$. Since this is true for every $cin C$, $S$ is a lower bound for $C$ and hence, is in $D$.
This only works under the extra assumption that $<$ is comparable. If that is not the case then it can happen that $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ without the existence of any $cin C$ such that $c<S$. So it works for total orders, but not more generally for partial orders.
– drhab
Nov 18 at 13:45
@drhab Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it and, as a result, have a cleaner proof.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:55
1
@MakeTheTrumpetsBlow There is an error in my original answer because the order is a partial order. I have fixed it now. Please take a look to ensure that this meets your needs.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:57
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
If $varnothingneq Csubseteq A$ and $C$ is bounded from below, and $D:={din Amid dtext{ is a lower bound of }C}$ then $D$ is not empty and:
$$forall cin Cforall din D;dleq ctag1$$
where $dleq c$ abbreviates $d=cvee d<c$.
Since $D$ is not empty it will have a least upper bound $s$ (I prefer a small $s$ here and preserve capitals for sets).
It is our aim to prove that $s$ is greatest lower bound of $C$.
$(1)$ tells us that every $cin C$ is an upper bound of $D$ so that $sleq c$ for every $cin C$ (because $s$ is the least upper bound of $D$).
This proves that $s$ is a lower bound of $C$ or equivalently that $sin D$.
Next to that we have $dleq s$ for every $din D$ (i.e. for every lower bound of $C$) so $s$ can be classified as greatest lower bound of $C$.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Suppose $Snotin D$. Then $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ and so there exists $cin C$ such that $clt S$. This is impossible because all elements of $c$ are upper bounds for $D$ so $S$ would not be the least upper bound for $D$. This is a contradiction.
Edit: There is a slight problem with this proof due to the fact that the order is a partial order. Thank you to drhab for pointing it out. The fix is simple enough and I can do it without deriving a contradiction.
For any $cin C$ and any $din D$, $dle c$ so $c$ is an upper bound for $D$. Since $S$ is the least upper bound, $Sle c$. Since this is true for every $cin C$, $S$ is a lower bound for $C$ and hence, is in $D$.
This only works under the extra assumption that $<$ is comparable. If that is not the case then it can happen that $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ without the existence of any $cin C$ such that $c<S$. So it works for total orders, but not more generally for partial orders.
– drhab
Nov 18 at 13:45
@drhab Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it and, as a result, have a cleaner proof.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:55
1
@MakeTheTrumpetsBlow There is an error in my original answer because the order is a partial order. I have fixed it now. Please take a look to ensure that this meets your needs.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:57
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Suppose $Snotin D$. Then $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ and so there exists $cin C$ such that $clt S$. This is impossible because all elements of $c$ are upper bounds for $D$ so $S$ would not be the least upper bound for $D$. This is a contradiction.
Edit: There is a slight problem with this proof due to the fact that the order is a partial order. Thank you to drhab for pointing it out. The fix is simple enough and I can do it without deriving a contradiction.
For any $cin C$ and any $din D$, $dle c$ so $c$ is an upper bound for $D$. Since $S$ is the least upper bound, $Sle c$. Since this is true for every $cin C$, $S$ is a lower bound for $C$ and hence, is in $D$.
This only works under the extra assumption that $<$ is comparable. If that is not the case then it can happen that $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ without the existence of any $cin C$ such that $c<S$. So it works for total orders, but not more generally for partial orders.
– drhab
Nov 18 at 13:45
@drhab Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it and, as a result, have a cleaner proof.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:55
1
@MakeTheTrumpetsBlow There is an error in my original answer because the order is a partial order. I have fixed it now. Please take a look to ensure that this meets your needs.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:57
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
Suppose $Snotin D$. Then $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ and so there exists $cin C$ such that $clt S$. This is impossible because all elements of $c$ are upper bounds for $D$ so $S$ would not be the least upper bound for $D$. This is a contradiction.
Edit: There is a slight problem with this proof due to the fact that the order is a partial order. Thank you to drhab for pointing it out. The fix is simple enough and I can do it without deriving a contradiction.
For any $cin C$ and any $din D$, $dle c$ so $c$ is an upper bound for $D$. Since $S$ is the least upper bound, $Sle c$. Since this is true for every $cin C$, $S$ is a lower bound for $C$ and hence, is in $D$.
Suppose $Snotin D$. Then $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ and so there exists $cin C$ such that $clt S$. This is impossible because all elements of $c$ are upper bounds for $D$ so $S$ would not be the least upper bound for $D$. This is a contradiction.
Edit: There is a slight problem with this proof due to the fact that the order is a partial order. Thank you to drhab for pointing it out. The fix is simple enough and I can do it without deriving a contradiction.
For any $cin C$ and any $din D$, $dle c$ so $c$ is an upper bound for $D$. Since $S$ is the least upper bound, $Sle c$. Since this is true for every $cin C$, $S$ is a lower bound for $C$ and hence, is in $D$.
edited Nov 18 at 19:55
answered Nov 17 at 17:13
John Douma
5,13611319
5,13611319
This only works under the extra assumption that $<$ is comparable. If that is not the case then it can happen that $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ without the existence of any $cin C$ such that $c<S$. So it works for total orders, but not more generally for partial orders.
– drhab
Nov 18 at 13:45
@drhab Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it and, as a result, have a cleaner proof.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:55
1
@MakeTheTrumpetsBlow There is an error in my original answer because the order is a partial order. I have fixed it now. Please take a look to ensure that this meets your needs.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:57
add a comment |
This only works under the extra assumption that $<$ is comparable. If that is not the case then it can happen that $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ without the existence of any $cin C$ such that $c<S$. So it works for total orders, but not more generally for partial orders.
– drhab
Nov 18 at 13:45
@drhab Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it and, as a result, have a cleaner proof.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:55
1
@MakeTheTrumpetsBlow There is an error in my original answer because the order is a partial order. I have fixed it now. Please take a look to ensure that this meets your needs.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:57
This only works under the extra assumption that $<$ is comparable. If that is not the case then it can happen that $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ without the existence of any $cin C$ such that $c<S$. So it works for total orders, but not more generally for partial orders.
– drhab
Nov 18 at 13:45
This only works under the extra assumption that $<$ is comparable. If that is not the case then it can happen that $S$ is not a lower bound for $C$ without the existence of any $cin C$ such that $c<S$. So it works for total orders, but not more generally for partial orders.
– drhab
Nov 18 at 13:45
@drhab Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it and, as a result, have a cleaner proof.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:55
@drhab Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it and, as a result, have a cleaner proof.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:55
1
1
@MakeTheTrumpetsBlow There is an error in my original answer because the order is a partial order. I have fixed it now. Please take a look to ensure that this meets your needs.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:57
@MakeTheTrumpetsBlow There is an error in my original answer because the order is a partial order. I have fixed it now. Please take a look to ensure that this meets your needs.
– John Douma
Nov 18 at 19:57
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
If $varnothingneq Csubseteq A$ and $C$ is bounded from below, and $D:={din Amid dtext{ is a lower bound of }C}$ then $D$ is not empty and:
$$forall cin Cforall din D;dleq ctag1$$
where $dleq c$ abbreviates $d=cvee d<c$.
Since $D$ is not empty it will have a least upper bound $s$ (I prefer a small $s$ here and preserve capitals for sets).
It is our aim to prove that $s$ is greatest lower bound of $C$.
$(1)$ tells us that every $cin C$ is an upper bound of $D$ so that $sleq c$ for every $cin C$ (because $s$ is the least upper bound of $D$).
This proves that $s$ is a lower bound of $C$ or equivalently that $sin D$.
Next to that we have $dleq s$ for every $din D$ (i.e. for every lower bound of $C$) so $s$ can be classified as greatest lower bound of $C$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
If $varnothingneq Csubseteq A$ and $C$ is bounded from below, and $D:={din Amid dtext{ is a lower bound of }C}$ then $D$ is not empty and:
$$forall cin Cforall din D;dleq ctag1$$
where $dleq c$ abbreviates $d=cvee d<c$.
Since $D$ is not empty it will have a least upper bound $s$ (I prefer a small $s$ here and preserve capitals for sets).
It is our aim to prove that $s$ is greatest lower bound of $C$.
$(1)$ tells us that every $cin C$ is an upper bound of $D$ so that $sleq c$ for every $cin C$ (because $s$ is the least upper bound of $D$).
This proves that $s$ is a lower bound of $C$ or equivalently that $sin D$.
Next to that we have $dleq s$ for every $din D$ (i.e. for every lower bound of $C$) so $s$ can be classified as greatest lower bound of $C$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
If $varnothingneq Csubseteq A$ and $C$ is bounded from below, and $D:={din Amid dtext{ is a lower bound of }C}$ then $D$ is not empty and:
$$forall cin Cforall din D;dleq ctag1$$
where $dleq c$ abbreviates $d=cvee d<c$.
Since $D$ is not empty it will have a least upper bound $s$ (I prefer a small $s$ here and preserve capitals for sets).
It is our aim to prove that $s$ is greatest lower bound of $C$.
$(1)$ tells us that every $cin C$ is an upper bound of $D$ so that $sleq c$ for every $cin C$ (because $s$ is the least upper bound of $D$).
This proves that $s$ is a lower bound of $C$ or equivalently that $sin D$.
Next to that we have $dleq s$ for every $din D$ (i.e. for every lower bound of $C$) so $s$ can be classified as greatest lower bound of $C$.
If $varnothingneq Csubseteq A$ and $C$ is bounded from below, and $D:={din Amid dtext{ is a lower bound of }C}$ then $D$ is not empty and:
$$forall cin Cforall din D;dleq ctag1$$
where $dleq c$ abbreviates $d=cvee d<c$.
Since $D$ is not empty it will have a least upper bound $s$ (I prefer a small $s$ here and preserve capitals for sets).
It is our aim to prove that $s$ is greatest lower bound of $C$.
$(1)$ tells us that every $cin C$ is an upper bound of $D$ so that $sleq c$ for every $cin C$ (because $s$ is the least upper bound of $D$).
This proves that $s$ is a lower bound of $C$ or equivalently that $sin D$.
Next to that we have $dleq s$ for every $din D$ (i.e. for every lower bound of $C$) so $s$ can be classified as greatest lower bound of $C$.
answered Nov 18 at 13:41
drhab
95k543125
95k543125
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002546%2fequivalence-of-two-statements-on-an-arbitrary-partially-ordered-set-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The involved subsets of $A$ are supposed to be non-empty. You forgot to mention that.
– drhab
Nov 17 at 16:33
@drhab true, i added it now, i had forgotten about it before!!
– Collapse
Nov 17 at 16:34