Definitions of greatest and least elements in terms of strict orderings

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions of greatest and least elements in the context of strict orderings, specifically examining how these definitions relate to the properties of sets and order relations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to clarify the definitions of greatest and least elements under strict orderings, questioning the implications of these definitions when considering elements that are not equal.

Discussion Status

Some participants confirm the correctness of the proposed definitions, while others express confidence in the related definitions of maximal and minimal elements, as well as upper and lower bounds.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes considerations about the implications of strict inequalities and the nature of comparability among elements in the set.

hmb
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



State the definitions of greatest and least elements in terms of strict orderings.

Homework Equations



Let \leq be an ordering of A and < be a strict ordering on A, and let B \subseteq A.

b \in B is the greatest element of B in the ordering \leq if, for every x \in B, x \leq b.

b \in B is the least element of B in the ordering \leq if, for every x \in B, b \leq x.

The Attempt at a Solution



b \in B is the greatest element of B in the ordering < if, for every x \in B, x < b.

But then there is no greatest element, because x < b implies x \neq b. So maybe it should be:

b \in B is the greatest element of B in the ordering < if, for every x \in B and x \neq b, x < b?

b \in B is the least element of B in the ordering < if, for every x \in B, b < x.

But then there is no least element, because x < b implies x \neq b. So maybe it should be:

b \in B is the least element of B in the ordering < if, for every x \in B and x \neq b, b < x?

While I am at it I might as well also check that I've got some other definitions right:

b \in B is a maximal element of B in the ordering < if there exists no x \in B such that b < x.

b \in B is a minimal element of B in the ordering < if there exists no x \in B such that x < b.

a \in A is an upper bound of B in the ordered set (A, <) if x < a for all a \in B.

a \in A is called a supremum of B in (A, <) if it is the least element of the set of all upper bounds of B in (A, <).

a \in A is a lower bound of B in the ordered set (A, <) if a < x for all x \in B.

a \in A is called an infimum of B in (A, <) if it is the greatest element of the set of all lower bounds of B in (A, <).

Let a, b \in A, and let < be an ordering of A. We say that a and b are comparable in the ordering < if a < b or b < a. We say that a and b are incomparable if they are not comparable (i.e., if a \neq b and neither a < b nor b < a .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hmb said:

b \in B is the greatest element of B in the ordering < if, for every x \in B and x \neq b, x < b?


This is correct.
 
Great, thank you for your help. I will take it that the corresponding definition of "least element" is correct as well then.

Thanks again.
 
Yes, the other definitions are correct as well :smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K