Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose I have a poset $(P,\leq)$, and am trying to prove that it is complete. If, for a general subset $S \subseteq P$, I've come up with a candidate $x$ for its supremum and am trying to prove it is such, am I correct in saying that it is (in general) invalid to suppose for contradiction that there as another upper bound $y$ of $S$ such that $ y < x$?

If $P$ is not a total order (or, more precisely, if the set of upper bounds of $S$ is not a chain), it may be possible to prove that $x$ is the least element from the subset of upper bounds of $S$ which are comparable with $x$ whilst there are other upper bounds not comparable with $x$ that satisfy the same criteria. Is there an example of this? I don't really care if there isn't an obvious one, I'd ultimately like verification that my reasoning here is correct.

This thought occured to me when I was trying to prove a certain poset was complete, and I proceeded in the fashion that I was used to in real analysis (where $\mathbb R$ with its usual order is obviously a total order).

Thanks.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Let $P=\mathbb{N}\cup\{a,b\}$, where $a$ and $b$ are distinct elements not in $\mathbb{N}$. Give $\mathbb{N}$ the usual order $\le$, and set $n\le a$ and $n\le b$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Make $a$ and $b$ incomparable. Then $a$ and $b$ are both upper bounds for $\mathbb{N}$ with no smaller upper bound.

share|improve this answer
    
A wonderfully $\mathbb N$atural example. Thanks! –  Matt Jan 21 '12 at 18:01

Here is an easy example. Take two disjoint sets $A$ and $B$, each with at least two elements, and let the partial order have everybody in $A$ less than everybody in $B$, but no other order relations. In this case, every element of $B$ is an upper bound of $A$, and furthermore satisfies your criteria, since distinct elements of $B$ are incomparable. But $A$ will have no least upper bound, precisely because the upper bounds of $A$ are exactly the elements of $B$, and these are incomparable.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.