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.

Let $B$ be a Boolean algebra. Then we say $B$ is $\kappa$-saturated if there is no partition $W$ of $B$ such that $|W| = \kappa$. We say that $B$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition if there is no descending $\kappa$-sequence $u_0 > u_1 > \ldots > u_{\alpha} > \ldots$ $(\alpha < \kappa)$ of elements of $B$.

Let $B$ be complete. I am trying to prove the statement "$B$ satisfies the $\kappa$-chain condition if and only if $B$ is $\kappa$-saturated" (in Jech's book, Chapter 7). I think one direction is easy. If we have a decreasing sequence, set $W'= \{ \{u_{\alpha} \} \mid \alpha < \kappa \}$, and define a partition $W =\left( B \setminus W' \right) \cup W'$. This is a partition of size $\kappa + 1 = \kappa$, so $B$ is not $\kappa$-saturated.

Does anyone have any ideas of how to prove the converse? I supposed that $B$ is not $\kappa$- saturated, and tried to construct a decreasing sequence from the resulting partition of size $\kappa$, but to no avail. Any help would be appreciated.

share|improve this question
1  
I find that an extremely useful heuristic when calculating in a Boolean algebra is to pretend you're working in an algebra of sets. We tend to have more intuition about what's going on in this case. For instance, via this heuristic, a $\kappa$-partition is just $\kappa$ many disjoint sets, which cover a bigger set. From this point of view, the answer (provided by Henno) becomes more or less obvious. Additionally, this heuristic is very much valid, due to Brikhoff's theorem. –  Miha Habič Feb 7 '12 at 19:20
    
That is good to know. I did use that heuristic a couple of times to get a feel for what's going on, but it's good to know it is valid! –  Paul Slevin Feb 7 '12 at 19:48
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Let $\{ u_\alpha \mid \alpha < \kappa \}$ be a partition of $B$ (of non-$0$ elements). Then by completeness $v_{\alpha} = \lor \{ u_\beta \mid \beta \ge \alpha \}$ is well defined and forms a decreasing $\kappa$-sequence of elements of $B$.

share|improve this answer
    
You have considered a partition to be a set of elements of B here, am I right? Should we not think of it as a collection of sets of elements of B? –  Paul Slevin Feb 7 '12 at 22:07
1  
No, not in a general Boolean algebra. If we apply the heuristic that it is like a collection of sets, then every element can be seen as a subset of some large set, and a partition is then analogous to a mutually disjoint family of subsets of that set. But the definition is (in general) a set of elements in a Boolean algebra. –  Henno Brandsma Feb 8 '12 at 5:49
add comment

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.