Undergrad Why are linearly ordered R and R/{0} not isomophic?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies that the sets R and R/{0} are not isomorphic due to the absence of a least upper bound in R/{0}. Specifically, the set [-1, 0) in R/{0} has upper bounds but lacks a least upper bound, a property not found in the linearly ordered set R. The removal of zero from R results in the absence of a smallest positive number, which further complicates the structure of R/{0}. Ultimately, while both sets are open, R remains connected, whereas R/{0} does not.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear orderings in set theory
  • Familiarity with compactness in topology
  • Knowledge of upper bounds and least upper bounds in real analysis
  • Basic concepts of connectedness in topological spaces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of compact sets in topology
  • Learn about upper bounds and least upper bounds in real analysis
  • Explore the concept of connectedness in topological spaces
  • Investigate the implications of removing elements from ordered sets
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of ordered sets and topology will benefit from this discussion.

QuasarBoy543298
Messages
32
Reaction score
2
i saw a proof that said “in R/{0} , the set [-1,0) has an upper bound ,but no least upper bound. no such set exists in linearly ordered R” ,but i could not understand it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
so ##[-1,0]## is compact and using the identity function has a maximum at zero. If you delete the zero you lose compactness and there is no longer a maximum.
- - --

edit:
I think I misread this. The issue is that the Real Line with zero deleted doesn't have a smallest positive number for the same reason it doesn't have biggest (i.e. smallest magnitude) negative number. Any non-negative number is an upper bound of ##[-1,0)## but the issue is that if you have ##0## removed from the real line, you must use positive numbers and there isn't a smallest positive number hence no tight upper bound on negative numbers.

The point, I suppose is that ##\mathbb R## and ##\mathbb R /{0}## are both open sets but the former is connected while the latter is not
 
Last edited:
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K