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

So I am little confused here; Zorn's lemma says that if every chain has a supremum in a poset one defines, then the poset must have a maximal element. My question is, how does this lead to the proof that a dense set in a poset by Zorn's lemma have a maximal antichain as a subset of the dense set?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Suppose $D$ is a dense subset of a poset $P$. Define $Q$ to be the family of all antichains of $P$ made up of elements of $D$, ordered by inclusion. By Zorn's Lemma $Q$ has a maximal element, call it $A$. In particular this means that for every $y \in D$ either $y \in A$ or $A \cup \{ y \}$ is not an antichain, which implies that $y$ is compatible with some element of $A$; in either case $y$ is compatible with some element of $A$.

To show that $A$ is actually a maximal antichain in $P$ it suffices to show that every $x \in P$ is compatible with an element of $A$. Given $p \in P$a s $D$ is dense in $P$ there is a $y \in D$ with $y \leq x$. By the above there is an $a \in A$ such that $a$ and $y$ are compatible. It follows that $x$ and $a$ are compatible.

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.