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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let P be a poset and let us say that a subset A of P is a down-set if: $$x \in A, y < x \implies y \in A.$$

A directed set is a poset P such that for every two elements, $a,b \in P$ we can find $c \in P$ such that $c \geq a $ and $c \geq b$. Now, I am trying to prove the following statement:

A poset P is directed if and only if for every finite down-set D we can find a $c \in P$ such that $c \geq d, \forall d \in D$.

One direction is very easy, namely, to show that if a poset is directed, we can find such an upper bound for every finite down-set. The other direction seems a bit more tricky, but I suspect there's something obvious I am missing here. How could I show the other implication?

Is the statement really true? What about say $\mathbb{Z} \amalg \mathbb{Z}$, with the usual order on each factor? Are there any non-empty finite down-sets here? For what I can see, $\mathbb{Z} \amalg \mathbb{Z}$ is not directed, yet if there are no other finite down-sets than the empty set, then it satisfies the statement above.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Your counterexample is correct and shows that the statement you're trying to prove is wrong. There's not much else to say!

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.