Understanding the Definition of a Directed Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehrenfest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of a directed set as presented in a Wikipedia article. Participants are examining the implications of the definition, particularly the requirement that for any two elements in a directed set, there exists another element related to both.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the necessity of the distinctness of the element c in relation to a and b, and whether this affects the binary relation. There is also a discussion about the comparability of elements a and b and the implications for defining a maximum element.

Discussion Status

The discussion is exploring different interpretations of the definition of directed sets. Some participants are providing examples to illustrate their points, while others are clarifying the conditions under which elements can be compared.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering the implications of using subsets to define the relation between elements, highlighting scenarios where elements may not be comparable.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_set

The definition of a directed set at the site above makes no sense to me. The part that does not make sense is: "for any two elements a and b in A, there exists an element c in A (not necessarily distinct from a,b) with"

If c does not need to be distinct from a or b, why does this add any restrictions on the binary relation because a possible c is always just max(a,b), where max is defined in the natural way?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ehrenfest said:
If c does not need to be distinct from a or b, why does this add any restrictions on the binary relation because a possible c is always just max(a,b), where max is defined in the natural way?
We have no guarantee that a and b are comparable (i.e. we may have [itex]a \not\leq b[/itex] and [itex]b \not\leq a[/itex]), and thus cannot define a maximum operator.
 
I see. Thanks.
 
For example consider a colection of SETS with [itex]\le[/itex] defined by [itex]A\e B[/itex] if and only if [itex]A\subset B[/itex]. It is quite possible to have A and B, [itex]A\me B[/itex] such that A is not a subset of B and B is not a subset of A.-
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K