Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

The well-ordering theorem states that every set can be well-ordered. That is, there is a total order on the set in which every non-empty subset has a least element. I was wondering whether it's also true that for every set you can define a total order such that for every non-empty subset there is a greatest element and would that be equivalent to the well ordering theorem?


share|cite|improve this question
Is it also true there is necessarily an order that has both a least and greatest element? – Serpahimz Jan 12 '13 at 23:52
Curious how three different answers speak of "reversing" the order rather than "inverting" the order. The latter is in a sense technically correct, but the former seems to be the prevailing informal usage. – Michael Hardy Jan 13 '13 at 0:32
If every subset of a linearly ordered set has both a least element and a greatest element, then the set is finite. So the proposed theorem would be true only of finite sets. – Michael Hardy Jan 13 '13 at 0:33

Any claim about an order is immediately applicable on its reverse order by "reversing" the statement. Minimals are now maximals, and vice versa.

Any well-order can be reversed to obtain an order in which every non-empty set has a maximal element; and vice versa. So the axiom of choice is equivalent to this principle as well.

Equally the axiom of choice is equivalent to the dual Zorn's lemma:

If $(P,\leq)$ is a partially ordered set in which every chain is bounded from below, then there is a minimal element.

share|cite|improve this answer

Yes, of course. Just reverse the order given by the well-ordering theorem.

share|cite|improve this answer

Yes: such an order is simply the reverse of a well-order, so every set has the one if and only if it has the other: just replace $\le$ by $\ge$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks Brian. The answer is so simple I feel quite foolish for not seeing it right away. I'm going to blame the fact it's quite late here to make myself feel a little better.. – Serpahimz Jan 12 '13 at 23:25
@Serpahimz: You’re welcome. (And we’ve all had that experience, I’m afraid.) – Brian M. Scott Jan 12 '13 at 23:28

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.