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 $\Bbb R^+$ be the set of positive real numbers. Use Zorn's Lemma to show that $\Bbb R^+$ is the union of two disjoint, non-empty subsets, each closed under addition.

share|improve this question
1  
What have you tried? –  kahen Nov 25 '12 at 19:15
    
You're asking a lot of similar questions in a very short time span. If you are posting your homework you should use the homework tag. –  Dominik Nov 25 '12 at 19:16
    
It's actually a practice test. My teacher does not give us homework or many examples but mostly lectures and I am having a very hard time figuring out how to solve problems in set theory. I am getting used to reading and writing it, but actually using it is proving to be a greater challenge than I expected it to be. –  Omar Nov 25 '12 at 19:18
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

First let us recall Zorn's lemma.

Zorn's lemma. Suppose that $(P,\leq)$ is a non-empty partial ordered set such that whenever $C\subseteq P$ is a chain, then there is $p\in P$ that for every $c\in C$, $c\leq p$. Then $(P,\leq)$ has a maximal element.

To use Zorn's lemma, if so, one has to find a partial order with the above property (every chain has an upper bound) an utilize the maximality to prove what is needed.

We shall use the partial order whose members are $(A,B)$ where $A,B$ are disjoint subsets of $\mathbb R$ each is closed under addition. We will say that $(A,B)\leq (A',B')$ if $A\subseteq A'$ and $B\subseteq B'$.

This is obviously a partial order. It is non-empty because we can take $A=\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}$ and $B=\{n\cdot\pi\mid n\in\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}\}$, both are clearly closed under addition and disjoint.

Suppose that $C=\{(A_i,B_i)\mid i\in I\}$ is a chain, let $A=\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i$ and $B=\bigcup_{i\in I} B_i$. To see that these sets are disjoint suppose $x\in A\cap B$ then for some $A_i$ and $B_j$ we have $x\in A_i\cap B_j$. Without loss of generality $i<j$ then $x\in A_j\cap B_j$ contradiction the assumption that $(A_j,B_j)\in P$ and therefore these are disjoint sets. The proof that $A$ and $B$ are closed under unions is similar.

Then $(A,B)\in P$ and therefore is an upper bound of $C$. So every chain has an upper bound and Zorn's lemma says that there is some $(X,Y)$ which is a maximal element.

Now all that is left is to show that $X\cup Y=\mathbb R^+$. Suppose that it wasn't then there was some $r\in\mathbb R^+$ which was neither in $X$ nor in $Y$, then we can take $X'$ to be the closure of $X\cup\{r\}$ under addition. If $X'\cap Y=\varnothing$ then $(X',Y)\in P$ and it is strictly above $(X,Y)$ which is a contradiction to the maximality. Therefore $X'\cap Y$ is non-empty, but then taking $Y'$ to be the closure of $Y\cup\{r\}$ under addition has to be disjoint from $X$, and the maximality argument holds again.

In either case we have that $X\cup Y=\mathbb R^+$.

share|improve this answer
1  
The part showing that $Y'\cap X=\varnothing$ is a bit tricky, but if you think about it you can make it on your own (hint, argue by contradiction that otherwise you get that for some $n>1$, $nr+x\in Y$ and $nr+y\in X$. Deduce that $x+y\in X\cap Y$). –  Asaf Karagila Nov 25 '12 at 19:38
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.