## Basic of Zorn’s Lemma – Initial Segment Part 2

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

To read this post, you should read the previous post first. It deals with the definition of that we will use. Happy reading.

**Theorem :**

Given poset with is the set of all well ordered subsets of poset and is a relation that defined as before. For any simply ordered subset of poset then always have the smallest upper bound.

**Proof :**

Given simply ordered subset of . Suppose then . Next, let’s say is non-empty simply ordered subset of . Consider :

It will be proved that is a well ordered subset of . Take any with then between the set , there is at least one that the element is on . Suppose the set is . Since is well ordered set then has the smallest element. Suppose the smallest element is . It will be proved that is also the smallest element for .

Take any with . Will be proven . Because of then there is such that . On the other hand, since is simply ordered set then or . If then and if then it is not possible to apply . It because, if then which results in a contradiction with is the smallest element of . In other words, apply for all . So for any , has the smallest element. We get is well ordered set which resulted . Thus, we get cause for any apply .

Based on the description above, for the next well ordered subset of poset on above is called the greatest ordered subset of . So is called the greatest ordered subset of if is not the initial segment of a well ordered subset of .

Thanks for reading. May be useful.

## Basic of Zorn’s Lemma – Initial Segment

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

In this post will be discussed about a theorem that will become the basic of Zorn’s Lemma. To remind you of initial segment, you should visit this post first. The definition of the initial segment will be used later.

**Theorem :**

For any poset with the every non-empty well ordered subset has the smallest upper bound on , then has at least one maximum element.

**Proof :**

Given is poset with the every non-empty well ordered subset has the smallest upper bound on . Take any function with for all . Next, take any . By Theorema (post sebelumnya) then can be consider well ordered set such that bounded from above and . It will be shown that is one of the maximal elements of . Take any . If or then it is always true that “if then ”. Also if and then it is always true that “if then ”. In other words, is one of the maximal elements of .

Next we will discuss one of the theorems. But before discussing the theorem, will be given a new definition of the symbol which also produces the following theorem.

**Theorem :**

Given is the set of all well ordered subsets of poset . Then can be partial order by by definition, for any :

**Proof :** (more…)

## Road to Zorn’s Lemma Part 3

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

As I said in the previous post, today we will discuss about the theorem of any poset that the every non-empty well ordered subset has the smallest bound on the poset. Happy reading.

**Theorem :**

Given any poset with the every non-empty well ordered subset has the smallest bound in . Given fuction with for all . For any then is well ordered set such that :

and if then apply :

**Proof :**

To prove the above theorem is sufficiently proved that because if applicable then by fuction definiton of . On the other hand , since then by

Theorem (ii)in this post applies . Since is then . Thus, we get .It will be proven that with . Given any with . Further taken any then by

Theorem (y)in this post can be consider . Furthermore, . Because of has the smallest element then also has the smallest element. Furthermore, . In other words, for any with then has the smallest element which resulted is well ordered set. Next, byTheorem (i)in this post then . Thus, we get and if then . In other words, is the smallest element of .It will then be proved that satisfy the -chain axioms. It has been proved that is well ordered set. According to the hypothesis on the proof of this theorem, then has the largest element. Let’s say . Defined . Will be shown is -chain. Since is well ordered set then also well ordered set with is the smallest element and is the largest element.

Condition (i)of definition -chain is fulfilled.Next, take any with then . Since then . Note that and are the last two elements on -chain . The result is valid for all .

Condition (ii)of definition -chain is fulfilled.Next, take any with then is the upper bound . There are two possibilities. The first possibility, if there is no such that for all then . Second possibility, if there is such that for all then .

Condition (iii)of definition -chain is fulfilled. In other words is a -chain with being its largest element.Since is the set of all elements -chain then . Then we get is -chain .

You should reopen my previous post to get a good understanding. This is because my posts are related to each other. If you forget a little definition or theorem, you will be confused. I try to make this discussion easier by providing links. I hope this makes it easier for you to understand this discussion.

Thanks for reading. May be useful.

## Road To Zorn’s Lemma Part 2

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

Before reading this post, you should read the previous post first. It deals with the definition of and . As a reminder only if you forget. The post is still about the character of and . Happy reading.

**(x) Theorem :**

If then either of the following two applies, or .

**Proof :**

Defined then is well ordered set because is subset of and both of which are well ordered set. Further, by definition -chain

condition (i)then and by definition -chaincondition (iii)then are in and also in which resulted . Next, assume then . if then by definition -chaincondition (ii). Contradictions with . In other words, if then which resulted . Because of then by definition -chaincondition (i)we get . Even though and are two things that are contradictory then the assumption is rejected. Theorem is proven.

**(y) Theorem :**

If then there is a unique such that .

**Proof :** (more…)

## p-Chain – Road To Zorn’s Lemma Part 1

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

Starting this post, we’ve entered about Zorn’s Lemma. This discussion will start from several definitions and theorems that later lead to Zorn’s Lemma. Happy reading.

***

For any poset it is not guaranteed that every non-empty well ordered subset has an upper bound. It automatically does not have the smallest upper bound too. As an example . Any non-empty well ordered subset of the poset does not have the smallest upper bound.

In this discussion, we will discuss about posets that each of the non-empty well ordered subset have the smallest upper bound.

**Definition :**

Given any poset with each of the non-empty well ordered subset having the smallest upper bound on . Given function with for all . For any defined -chain that denoted by under the condition :

(i) is well ordered subset with being the smallest element and is the largest element.

(ii) For all apply

(iii) The smallest upper bound of any non-empty subset of is in

In the above definition, the **condition (ii)**, such terms clearly apply only to. It because, if is always true that . On the other hand, . Then there is a contradiction with the definition of -chain **conditions (i)** that is the largest element of . Next defined

Next will be given properties about -chain and which is presented in the theorems below.

**Theorem :** (more…)

## Well Ordered Set

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

As I said in the previous post, this post will discuss about the well ordered set. Happy reading.

In a poset, not necessarily the poset has the smallest element. So it is with the subsets. This gives rise to a new understanding which is a special occurrence of a poset.

**Definition :**

A poset is said to be well ordered set if for any non-empty subset of the poset, it has the smallest element.

**Example :**

(i) Poset does not have the smallest element. In the subset there are also those that do not have the smallest element. For the example , simply ordered subset , , and none of them has the smallest element. So the poset is not a well ordered set.

(ii) Poset is well ordered set.

**Theorem :**

Every well ordered set is simply ordered set.

**Proof :** (more…)

## Simply/Linearly/Totally Ordered Set

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

Today we will discuss about simply ordered set. Sometimes also called linearly or totally ordered set. To read this post, you should read this post first. You need the definition of an initial segment to understand the theorem we are going to discuss. Happy reading.

In a poset is not necessarily between one element with another can be compared. For example is a poset but between and is incommensurable.

**Definition :**

Partial order in the set it says simple (linear, total) order in if for any apply :

Then any poset it says simply (linearly, totally) ordered set if is a simple (linear, total) order in .

Example :

(i) is simply ordered set.

(ii) Poset of the set of all natural numbers it’s also simply ordered set.

**Theorem :**

Given any simply ordered set . Then the set of all initial segments of is simply ordered by .

**Proof :** (more…)

## Initial Segment

Hello, infinite-set reader. Set theory is back.

In this post will be introduced about the initial segment. Definition of initial segment will be used in the process of proving Zorn’s Lemma. So you have to make a special mark for this post. It will be important for the future.

**Definition :**

Given any poset . For any defined with :

Furthermore is called the initial segment of defined by . If is not empty set then is called \emph{proper initial segment} of .

**Example :**

Given poset then , , and . (more…)

## Recent Comments