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.

I've been struggling with the following problem I found for a while now:

Suppose $(T,\preceq)$ is a partially ordered subset of $(U,\preceq)$ and $S\subseteq T$. If $\inf_T S$ and $u=\inf_U S$ both exist, and there exists a subset $S'\subseteq T$ such that $u=\sup_U S'$, then $\inf_U S=\inf_T S$.

First I noted that $\inf_T S\preceq\inf_U S$, since $\inf_T S\in U$.

I also saw that $u=\inf_U([u)\cap T)$ by the following: For $x\in S$, $u\preceq x$ and $x\in T$, so $x\in [u)\cap T$, and so $S\subseteq [u)\cap T$. So $u$ is a lower bound of $[u)\cap T$. Now suppose there exists some $y\in U$ such that $u\prec y$, but $y\preceq x$ for all $x\in [u)\cap T$. Since $S\subseteq [u)\cap T$, $y$ would be a lower bound of $S$ larger than $u$, contradicting the fact that $u=\inf_U S$.

I was hoping to show that $\inf_U S\preceq\inf_T S$ in order to show equality, but I can't piece it together. Can someone explain how to show this?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

So, you have shown that $\inf_T(S)\leq \inf_U(S)=u$. You want to show that $u\leq\inf_T(S)$. Clearly, you need to use the existence of $S'$ somehow, because without the existence of $S'$ you can trivially show this is false.

You know that $\inf_T(S)\leq\inf_U(S)$. You want to show that you do not have $\inf_T(S)\lt\inf_U(S)=u$.

Edit: (added case) If $S'=\emptyset$, then $u=\inf_U(\emptyset)=\sup(U)$, so in particular $\inf_T(S)\leq u$ and we are done. So we may assume that $S'\not= \emptyset$.

Added later: Actually, this is not needed strictly speaking, but it may be a good point to mention explicitly; if $t\lt u$, then $t$ is not an upper bound for $S'$; the only way that can occur in the first place is if $S'$ is not empty, since everything is an upper bound for the empty set, so this case is covered by the assumption being made.

If $t\in T$ is such that $t\lt u$, then since $t\in U$ and $u=\sup_U(S')$, you know that there exists $s'\in S'$ such that $t\lt s'\leq u$.

Edit: (implicitly assumed certain things were comparable, which may not be the case in general; fixed below).

Note that for every $s'\in S'$ and $s\in S$, you have $s'\leq u\leq s$ (since $u=\inf_U(S)$), and so in particular $s'\leq \inf_T(S)$, since $S'\subseteq T$. So $\inf_T(S)$ is comparable to every element of $S'$.

Suppose that $t\in T$ is such that $t\lt u$. Since $u=\sup_U(S')$, it follows that $t$ cannot be an upper bound for $S'$ in $U$. In particular, there exists $s'\in S'$ such that $s'\not\leq t$; so either $t\lt s'$, or else $t$ and $s'$ are incomparable.

In summary, for every $t\in T$, if $t\lt u$ and $t$ is comparable to every element of $S'$, then $t\lt\inf_T(S)$.

Since $\inf_T(S)\in T$, $\inf_T(S)$ is comparable to every element of $S'$ (as noted above), and $\inf_T(S)\not\lt\inf_T(S)$, you can can conclude by contrapositive that $\inf_T(S)\not\lt u$. Since you already know that $\inf_T(S)\leq u$, you are done.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for this response! One question though, you mention you know that there exists $s'\in S'$ such that $t\lt s'\leq u$. Is this acceptable in the case where $S'$ is empty? And furthermore, how do you know that $t$ is strictly smaller than $s'$? Would you not only know that $t\lt u$ and $s'\leq u$? –  yunone Sep 11 '10 at 21:37
    
@yunone: No, it's not; you are correct that it should be treated separately. If $S'$ is empty, then $\sup_U(S')=u = \sup_U(\emptyset)=\inf(U)$. But If $U$ is the infimum of $U$, then certainly we have $u= \inf_U(S)\leq\inf_T(S)$ and you are done. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 11 '10 at 21:59
    
@yunone: So, it wasn't just one question, then... There is small argument I skipped for the second part. I'll edit the reply. Sorry. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 11 '10 at 22:05
    
I hope I am not asking too many small questions, I just want to see all the detail. Thank you so far for your helpful explanations. Sorry to beat a dead horse, but we are guaranteed the existence of $\inf(U)$ since it is given that there exists $u=\sup_U(S')$, and that is why we may assume that $\sup_U(\emptyset)=\inf(U)$ truly does hold, correct? –  yunone Sep 11 '10 at 22:09
    
Yes: We know that if $\sup_U(\emptyset)$ exists, it must be the infimum of $U$ (it is the least upper bound of $\emptyset$ by definition, which implies comparability, and everything in $U$ is an upper bound for $\emptyset$). Since here we are told it exists, we know it must the infimum of $U$. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 11 '10 at 22:18

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.