Definitions of greatest and least elements in terms of strict orderings

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The definitions of greatest and least elements in terms of strict orderings were clarified in the discussion. A greatest element b in a subset B of an ordered set A is defined such that for every x in B, if x is not equal to b, then x is less than b. Conversely, a least element b in B is defined such that for every x in B, if x is not equal to b, then b is less than x. Additional definitions for maximal, minimal, upper bounds, supremum, lower bounds, and infimum were also confirmed as correct.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of strict orderings and their properties
  • Familiarity with concepts of greatest and least elements in set theory
  • Knowledge of upper and lower bounds in ordered sets
  • Basic comprehension of mathematical notation and definitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of strict orderings in set theory
  • Study the implications of maximal and minimal elements in ordered sets
  • Explore the concepts of supremum and infimum in real analysis
  • Learn about comparable and incomparable elements in order theory
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying set theory, and anyone interested in the foundations of order theory will benefit from this discussion.

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