Infinite set ordering convention

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of the "smallest set" in the context of finite automata and strict partial orders. The smallest set, denoted as m, is defined as a minimal element within a collection C of countably infinite sets, where m serves as a lower bound for C. The professor clarified that "smallest under inclusion" refers to m being contained in all other sets within C, reinforcing its role as a minimal element. The relationship between upper bounds, maximal elements, and their counterparts in lower bounds is also highlighted, emphasizing the importance of these definitions in set theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of finite automata
  • Familiarity with strict partial orders
  • Knowledge of set theory concepts such as minimal and maximal elements
  • Basic comprehension of cardinality in mathematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of strict partial orders in depth
  • Explore the implications of minimal and maximal elements in set theory
  • Research cardinality and its significance in infinite sets
  • Examine the concept of upper bounds and their applications in mathematical analysis
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, particularly those studying set theory and finite automata, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to minimal elements and strict partial orders.

0rthodontist
Science Advisor
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
0
I was reading the electronic notes for my class on finite automata and the professor defines something as the smallest set having certain properties. The thing is that all sets having those properties are countable infinite. But there is a potential ordering, because all sets having those properties are supersets of the minimal set intended. Is this worth mentioning to him?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is what is meant by "the smallest set." My book introduces two notions that have to do with strict partial orders: upper bounds and maximal elements. Given a set A with strict partial order <, an element c of A is an upper bound for a subset B of A if for every b in B, either b < c or b = c. A maximal element m of A is an element such that for all a in A, m < a never holds. Note that this does not mean that for all a in A, either a < m or a = m holds, since < is a partial order, and so comparability is not guaranteed. We can form analogous concepts of lower bounds and minimal elements. In your case, you have a collection C of sets with a certain property, and a special set m in C. m is a minimal element of C, in that for all c in C, c < m never holds (that is, c is never properly contained in m). m is also a lower bound of the subset C of C, since for every c in C, either m = c or m < c (i.e. every other set with the property is a superset of this special set m). The fact that m is a lower bound of the subset C of C implies that m is a minimal element of C. In fact, in your case m is the lower bound of C, and is the minimal element of C. This is normally what is meant by "the smallest set".

Coincidentally, this smallest set will also have cardinality less than (or equal to) all other elements in C as a result of being contained in all of them, but this is a mere consequence of being the smallest set, it is not what your professor means when he says it's the smallest.
 
I talked to him and he clarified that he meant "smallest under inclusion" which is what you said.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K