I'm reading "A Course in Advanced Calculus" by Robert Borden, and one of the problems begins as follows:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

"Prove that the field Q is a lattice, but not a (sigma)-lattice, under the usual order" (pg.25)

Q is of course the rational numbers.

However, Q doesn't seem to be a lattice, since the supremum of, say, [0,1] doesn't exist, since given any upper bound eg 1.1, a smaller upper bound eg 1.01 that is still in Q can be found.

So is Q not in fact a lattice, or am I missing something?

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is Q a lattice?

Loading...

Similar Threads - lattice | Date |
---|---|

Natural numbers distributive lattice | Dec 9, 2014 |

Lattice/Complete lattice | Jun 10, 2014 |

Can one call a linear order a lattice? If not | Jun 4, 2013 |

Lattice on the closed unit circle? | May 27, 2013 |

Need Advice on Spatial Statistics for a Lattice | Jun 6, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**