MHB Is a Boolean Lattice Atomic if the Top Element is the Join of Atoms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aryth1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lattice
Aryth1
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
My problem for this thread is:

Let $L$ be a Boolean lattice. Prove that $L$ is atomic if and only if the top element is the join of a set of atoms.

For the forward implication, I am already done. I used Zorn's lemma to show that the set, $\mathcal{F}$, of the elements in $L$ which are the joins of some set of atoms has a maximal element, and that that element must be the top.

The reverse implication is what is tripping me up. Any help is greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I'm pretty sure I solved this a few days ago, but I forgot that posting here might help others or myself so here's the proof to the reverse implication. I used an earlier exercise that proved that Boolean lattices were join continuous. Turns out this problem also solved my next problem that needed to show that, in a complete atomic Boolean lattice, every element is the join of a set of atoms.

Let $L$ be a Boolean lattice where $\top$ is the join of a set of atoms and let $A$ be the set of all atoms from $L$. Then $\bigvee A = \top$. Let $y\in L$. Then $y\wedge \bigvee A = \bigvee\{y\wedge a: a\in A\} = y$ since $L$ is join continuous. If $y\wedge a = \bot$ for all $a\in A$, then it must be that $y = \bot$. So, if $y\neq \bot$, then there exists an $a\in A$ such that $y\wedge a = a$ and so $\downarrow y$ contains an atom from $L$. Since $y$ was arbitrary, $L$ is atomic.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
6K
Replies
46
Views
8K
Back
Top