How Does Subset Relation Affect Least Upper Bounds in Partial Orders?

In summary, the lemma proves that if B1 ⊆ B2, x2 is an upper bound of B1. Using this fact, we can then prove that if B1 ⊆ B2, (x1, x2) ∈ R. This problem requires a proof by contradiction, and it can be considered a challenging problem in set theory.
  • #1
Syrus
214
0

Homework Statement



Suppose that R is a partial order on A, B1 ⊆ A, B2 ⊆ A, x1 is the least upper bound of B1, and x2 is the least upper bound of B2. Prove that if B1 ⊆ B2, then (x1,x2) ∈ R.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



This problem has been stumping me. After assuming B1 ⊆ B2, I have been trying to construct a proof by cases. I am not even certain that this is the best way to proceed, however. The cases I have attempted are x1 ∈ B2 or x1 ∉ B2, but i haven't found a way to complete the proof this way, and so i am beginning to doubt this proof strategy (by cases). I have also attempted a proof by contradiction, but this doesn't seem to make it too far either.

My main questions are:

1) If this IS a proof that should proceed via cases, are there any suggestions as to which cases should be used?
2) If this is not a proof by cases, what method of proof should be used, and in what ways does the problem suggest this?

I have been practicing proofs in set theory for about a year and am now reviewing for a credit by examination test I will be taking this semester by performing some of the problems which occur later in the problem sets in Velleman's text on proofs/set theory. If you have any insight, I would also like to ask your opinion as to the degree of difficulty you believe this problem is. I'm interested in assessing my mastery of the subject. The proofs which appear in the examples within the text and earlier in the problem sets are easily achieved, but the later ones usually leave me thinking for many hours, and sometimes even a day or two (oftentimes without much progress toward the solution).

Thanks in advance,

Syrus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Complete Proof of Original post:


Lemma: Suppose that R is a partial order on A, B1 ⊆ A, B2 ⊆ A, x1 is the least upper bound of B1, and x2 is the least upper bound of B2. Prove that if B1 ⊆ B2, x2 is an upper bound of B1.

Proof: Assume B1 ⊆ B2. Let b1 ∈ B1. Then b1 ∈ B2. Thus, (b1, x2) ∈ R, so x2 is an upper bound of B1 (since b1 was arbitrary).

Q.E.D.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Problem: Suppose that R is a partial order on A, B1 ⊆ A, B2 ⊆ A, x1 is the least upper bound of B1, and x2 is the least upper bound of B2. Prove that if B1 ⊆ B2, (x1, x2) ∈ R.

Proof: By the lemma above, we know x2 is an upper bound of B1. But since x1 is the least upper bound of B1, it follows that (x1, x2) ∈ R.

Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: How Does Subset Relation Affect Least Upper Bounds in Partial Orders?

What is the Least Upper bound?

The Least Upper bound, also known as the supremum, is the smallest number that is greater than or equal to all the numbers in a set. It is commonly denoted as "sup S" where S is the set.

What is a Least Upper bound proof?

A Least Upper bound proof is a mathematical method used to prove the existence of the Least Upper bound of a set. It involves showing that the proposed supremum is greater than or equal to all the numbers in the set, and any number smaller than the proposed supremum cannot be an upper bound for the set.

How is a Least Upper bound proof useful?

A Least Upper bound proof is useful in many areas of mathematics, particularly in analysis and real analysis. It is used to prove the existence of the supremum in various theorems and to establish the completeness of certain sets.

What are the steps involved in a Least Upper bound proof?

The first step is to define the set and the proposed supremum. Then, the proof involves showing that the proposed supremum is greater than or equal to all the numbers in the set. This is usually done by contradiction, assuming a smaller number is the supremum and showing that it cannot be an upper bound. Finally, the proof concludes by showing that there is no smaller number that satisfies the criteria of being an upper bound.

Are there any common mistakes made in Least Upper bound proofs?

One common mistake is assuming that a number is the least upper bound without proving it. Another mistake is assuming that a smaller number is an upper bound without showing that it is greater than or equal to all the numbers in the set. It is important to carefully follow the steps and criteria for a Least Upper bound proof to avoid these mistakes.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Back
Top