How Does Subset Relation Affect Least Upper Bounds in Partial Orders?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on proving the relationship between least upper bounds in partial orders, specifically that if B1 ⊆ B2, then (x1, x2) ∈ R, where x1 and x2 are the least upper bounds of B1 and B2, respectively. The proof is constructed using the lemma that establishes x2 as an upper bound of B1, leading to the conclusion that since x1 is the least upper bound, (x1, x2) must be in the relation R. The proof strategy discussed includes direct proof rather than proof by cases or contradiction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial orders and their properties
  • Familiarity with least upper bounds in set theory
  • Experience with constructing mathematical proofs
  • Knowledge of Velleman's text on proofs and set theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of partial orders in depth
  • Learn about least upper bounds and their implications in set theory
  • Practice constructing direct proofs in mathematical logic
  • Review advanced problems in Velleman's text on proofs/set theory
USEFUL FOR

Students preparing for examinations in set theory, mathematicians interested in proof techniques, and educators teaching concepts of partial orders and least upper bounds.

Syrus
Messages
213
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose that R is a partial order on A, B1 ⊆ A, B2 ⊆ A, x1 is the least upper bound of B1, and x2 is the least upper bound of B2. Prove that if B1 ⊆ B2, then (x1,x2) ∈ R.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



This problem has been stumping me. After assuming B1 ⊆ B2, I have been trying to construct a proof by cases. I am not even certain that this is the best way to proceed, however. The cases I have attempted are x1 ∈ B2 or x1 ∉ B2, but i haven't found a way to complete the proof this way, and so i am beginning to doubt this proof strategy (by cases). I have also attempted a proof by contradiction, but this doesn't seem to make it too far either.

My main questions are:

1) If this IS a proof that should proceed via cases, are there any suggestions as to which cases should be used?
2) If this is not a proof by cases, what method of proof should be used, and in what ways does the problem suggest this?

I have been practicing proofs in set theory for about a year and am now reviewing for a credit by examination test I will be taking this semester by performing some of the problems which occur later in the problem sets in Velleman's text on proofs/set theory. If you have any insight, I would also like to ask your opinion as to the degree of difficulty you believe this problem is. I'm interested in assessing my mastery of the subject. The proofs which appear in the examples within the text and earlier in the problem sets are easily achieved, but the later ones usually leave me thinking for many hours, and sometimes even a day or two (oftentimes without much progress toward the solution).

Thanks in advance,

Syrus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Complete Proof of Original post:


Lemma: Suppose that R is a partial order on A, B1 ⊆ A, B2 ⊆ A, x1 is the least upper bound of B1, and x2 is the least upper bound of B2. Prove that if B1 ⊆ B2, x2 is an upper bound of B1.

Proof: Assume B1 ⊆ B2. Let b1 ∈ B1. Then b1 ∈ B2. Thus, (b1, x2) ∈ R, so x2 is an upper bound of B1 (since b1 was arbitrary).

Q.E.D.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Problem: Suppose that R is a partial order on A, B1 ⊆ A, B2 ⊆ A, x1 is the least upper bound of B1, and x2 is the least upper bound of B2. Prove that if B1 ⊆ B2, (x1, x2) ∈ R.

Proof: By the lemma above, we know x2 is an upper bound of B1. But since x1 is the least upper bound of B1, it follows that (x1, x2) ∈ R.

Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K