Thread: Some noob analysis questions

I just started Analysis and I have a few questions,

1. "In a partial order on , an element is maximal if , and is maximum if for all "

It seems to me that these definitions are equivalent, since if it means that such that , so x is bigger than every other element in the set.
Also, is pretty much saying x is bigger than every other element in the set, right?
So what am I missing? :/

2.
"A subset Y of X such that for any , either or is called a chain. If X itself is a chain, the partial order is a linear or total order."
Just to make sure I'm understanding this alright:
Say you have a set
Then would with partial order and with partial order be "chains"?
What are other partial orders you could have? I can only think of


3. Do partially ordered sets have to be countable?

4. What does mean?


Thanks

Originally Posted by DivideBy0

I just started Analysis and I have a few questions,

1. "In a partial order on , an element is maximal if , and is maximum if for all "

It seems to me that these definitions are equivalent, since if it means that such that , so x is bigger than every other element in the set.
Also, is pretty much saying x is bigger than every other element in the set, right?
So what am I missing? :/


In the definition of maximal there is no requirement that if , and in the definition of maximum THERE IS such a requirement.

For example, if you look at the set of sets and you partial order it wrt subset relation, then both

are maximal elements of S since there is no set (element) in S "bigger" (containing) any of them.


Now, if you'd put then is now the maximum element of S'.

Pay attention to the fact that is an element is a maximum then it also is a maximal element and, in fact, the only one (maximum/maximal) there is, but there can be many maximal elements.

Finally, wrt your last question: that an element is maximal means there is no element bigger than it, and that an element is a (in fact, as already noted, THE) maximum means it is the biggest element of the set.

2.
"A subset Y of X such that for any , either or is called a chain. If X itself is a chain, the partial order is a linear or total order."
Just to make sure I'm understanding this alright:
Say you have a set
Then would with partial order and with partial order be "chains"?


Y is not a chain because neither nor . Z is a chain because it contains one unique element so it vacuously fulfills the condition.



What are other partial orders you could have? I can only think of

There are infinitely many different partial orders on infinitely many different sets, but perhaps it's too soon to even give you examples. First grab the basics.


3. Do partially ordered sets have to be countable?

No

4. What does mean?

Per definition it is the set of all the functions from the natural numbers to the real ones. You can think of it as the set of all the real sequences...

Tonio


Thanks

.

Thanks so much tonio, I think I understand it now - just 2 more questions, if you have a partial order with respect to , then maximum = maximal, right?

Also, say you have a chain , then that doesn't have a maximal element, but according to Zorn's lemma it should? How does that work?

Excellent, Tonio.

However, in Problem 2 he asked about Z= {4, 5, 6} with as order- he was thinking of them as numbers, not as a single set.

Hurry and get those new reading glasses!

Divideby0, for numbers is a linear order so, yes, "maximal" and "maximum" are the same- in fact, you would not normally use the word "maximal" in a linear order.

Zorn's lemma says that if every chain in a partial order has a maximum, then the set contains maximal elements. It does NOT say every chain has a maximum!

Originally Posted by DivideBy0

Thanks so much tonio, I think I understand it now - just 2 more questions, if you have a partial order with respect to , then maximum = maximal, right?


It seems like you're thinking here of a very particular, specific example: the usual partial order on the real numbers, right? In this case we must be careful with derfinitions and NAMES, which can vary between differnet authors: most people, I believe, would call in this case SUPREMUM to what you call maximal, and maximum to maximum. This can be a little confusing, but the difference is the supremum always exists in the reals if the set is bounded, whereas the maximum is a supremum belonging to the given set


Also, say you have a chain , then that doesn't have a maximal element, but according to Zorn's lemma it should? How does that work?

What has Zorn's Lemma to do here? The set (closed-open or clopen interval) [0,1) in the reals is bounded and thus has a supremum and an infimum. The supremum is and is thus not a maximum, whereas the infimum is and is thus also the minimum.

Tonio