Prove Zorn's Lemma is equivalent to the following statement

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Zorn's Lemma is proven to be equivalent to the statement that for any partially ordered set (A, ≤), the set of all chains of (A, ≤) contains a ⊆-maximal element. The proof consists of two parts: first, assuming Zorn's Lemma holds, it is shown that the set of chains has a ⊆-maximal element; second, assuming the maximal element exists, it is demonstrated that a maximal element exists in the partially ordered set (P, ≤). The argument relies on the properties of chains and upper bounds within the context of set theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partially ordered sets (posets)
  • Familiarity with the concepts of chains and maximal elements
  • Knowledge of Zorn's Lemma and its implications in set theory
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical logic and proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Zorn's Lemma in functional analysis
  • Explore the relationship between Zorn's Lemma and the Axiom of Choice
  • Learn about other equivalent formulations of Zorn's Lemma
  • Investigate applications of maximal elements in algebraic structures
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of set theory, and anyone interested in the foundations of mathematics and the implications of Zorn's Lemma in various mathematical contexts.

VrhoZna
Messages
14
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


From Introduction to Set Theory Chapter 8.1 exercise 1.4

Prove that Zorn's Lemma is equivalent to the following statement:
For all ##(A,\leq)##, the set of all chains of ##(A,\leq)## has an ##\subseteq##-maximal element.[/B]

Homework Equations


N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


(##\Rightarrow##): Suppose Zorn's Lemma holds and let ##(A,\leq)## be a partially ordered set and let C be its set of chains. It's clear that each element of C is bounded above (##X \subseteq A## for each ##X \in C##) and thus has C has a ##\subseteq##-maximal element by Zorn's Lemma.

(##\Leftarrow##): Suppose, for all ##(A,\leq)##, the set of all chains of ##(A,\leq)## has an ##\subseteq##-maximal element. Let (##P, \leq##) be a partially ordered set, C the set of chains of P, X a maximal element of C, and suppose that every chain of P is bounded above; we show that P has a ##\leq##-maximal element. Since X is bounded above there exists a ##c \in P## such that ##x \leq c## for all ##x \in X##. Now let ##y \in \bigcup C = P## (as the singleton subsets of P are trivially chains of P) such that ##y \not\in X## (if no such y exists then X = P and c is the greatest element of P and hence a ##\leq##-maximal element). Then, if ##c \leq y##, we have ##x \leq y## for all ##x \in X## and thus ##X = X \cup \{y\}## as ##X \cup \{y\}## is a chain of P and X is a ##\subseteq##-maximal element of C, contradicting our choice of y. Hence ##y \leq c## for all ##y \in A## so c is the greatest element of A and thus a ##\leq##-maximal element.[/B]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assume that
VrhoZna said:
For all (A,≤)(A,\leq), the set of all chains of (A,≤)(A,\leq) has an ⊆\subseteq-maximal element.
Then in conditions of the Zorn lemma this maximal chain has an upper bound. This upper bound is a maximal element of ##A##.
 
I see now. If ##y \in A## and ##c \leq y##, then X is a subset of the chain ##X \cup \{y\}## and so ##X = X \cup \{y\}## and ##y \in X## and we must have y = c.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K