MHB Graded poset definition trouble

  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
AI Thread Summary
A graded poset is defined as a poset with a function that establishes a hierarchy based on covering relations. The discussion highlights a specific example, P={a,b,c,d}, where the first definition classifies it as a graded poset, while the alternative characterization suggests it is not due to lacking a least and greatest element. The confusion arises from the distinction between graded and bounded posets, as the latter requires extremal elements. Ultimately, the example is confirmed to be a graded poset but not a bounded one. Understanding these definitions is crucial for clarity in poset classification.
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Graded poset on wiki: Graded poset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia defines a 'graded Poset' as a poset $P$ such that there exists a function $\rho:P\to \mathbb N$ such that $x< y\Rightarrow \rho(x)< \rho(y)$ and $\rho(b)=\rho(a)+1$ whenever $b$ covers $a$.

Then if you go to the 'Alternative Characterizations' on the page whose link I gave above you would see that the first line reads:
A bounded poset admits a grading if and only if all maximal chains in $P$ have the same length.
Here's the problem. Consider $P=\{a,b,c,d\}$ with $a<b,b<d,a<c,a<d$. All other pairs are incomparable. Then according to the first definition $P$ is a graded poset while the second definition says otherwise.

Maybe I am committing a very silly mistake but just can't find it.

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: graded poset definition trouble

caffeinemachine said:
Consider $P=\{a,b,c,d\}$ with $a<b,b<d,a<c,a<d$. All other pairs are incomparable. Then according to the first definition $P$ is a graded poset while the second definition says otherwise.
This is indeed a graded poset, but it is not a bounded poset. The latter has to have a least and a greatest elements.
 
Re: graded poset definition trouble

Evgeny.Makarov said:
This is indeed a graded poset, but it is not a bounded poset. The latter has to have a least and a greatest elements.

Thanks! Guess it will take some time for the definitions to sink in.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
Back
Top