MHB Graded poset definition trouble

  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
AI Thread Summary
A graded poset is defined as a poset with a function that establishes a hierarchy based on covering relations. The discussion highlights a specific example, P={a,b,c,d}, where the first definition classifies it as a graded poset, while the alternative characterization suggests it is not due to lacking a least and greatest element. The confusion arises from the distinction between graded and bounded posets, as the latter requires extremal elements. Ultimately, the example is confirmed to be a graded poset but not a bounded one. Understanding these definitions is crucial for clarity in poset classification.
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Graded poset on wiki: Graded poset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia defines a 'graded Poset' as a poset $P$ such that there exists a function $\rho:P\to \mathbb N$ such that $x< y\Rightarrow \rho(x)< \rho(y)$ and $\rho(b)=\rho(a)+1$ whenever $b$ covers $a$.

Then if you go to the 'Alternative Characterizations' on the page whose link I gave above you would see that the first line reads:
A bounded poset admits a grading if and only if all maximal chains in $P$ have the same length.
Here's the problem. Consider $P=\{a,b,c,d\}$ with $a<b,b<d,a<c,a<d$. All other pairs are incomparable. Then according to the first definition $P$ is a graded poset while the second definition says otherwise.

Maybe I am committing a very silly mistake but just can't find it.

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: graded poset definition trouble

caffeinemachine said:
Consider $P=\{a,b,c,d\}$ with $a<b,b<d,a<c,a<d$. All other pairs are incomparable. Then according to the first definition $P$ is a graded poset while the second definition says otherwise.
This is indeed a graded poset, but it is not a bounded poset. The latter has to have a least and a greatest elements.
 
Re: graded poset definition trouble

Evgeny.Makarov said:
This is indeed a graded poset, but it is not a bounded poset. The latter has to have a least and a greatest elements.

Thanks! Guess it will take some time for the definitions to sink in.
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top