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!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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

















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!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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















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!










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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
















  • 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












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 $D$.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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


















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 $C$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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

























    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 $D$.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • 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















    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 $D$.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • 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













    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 $D$.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    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 $D$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    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


















    • 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










    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 $C$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      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 $C$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        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 $C$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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 $C$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 18 at 13:41









        drhab

        95k543125




        95k543125






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

            How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

            QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater