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 following is an example given by my professor, but there is an equality that I don't understand.

Let a partially ordered set $(S,\preceq)$ is the union of three sets such that $S=X\cup Y\cup Z$ such that $x\preceq y$ and $x\preceq z$ for all $x\in X, y\in Y, z\in Z$, but no $y\in Y$ and no $z\in Z$ are comparable.

Now let $T=S\cup$ {$\nu,\eta$} and $T'=S\cup$ {$\nu$} where

$x\prec\nu\prec y$ for all $x\in X$ and all $y\in Y$, $x\prec\eta\prec z$ for all $x\in X$ and all $z\in Z$, but $\nu$ and $\eta$ are not comparable.

It continues to say that $L(Y)=(\nu]\cap S=X=L(Z)$. However, I don't see how the first equality holds. Since $\nu=\inf_{T'}Y$, it would follow that $\nu\in L(Y)$, but isn't $\nu\notin (\nu]\cap S$, since $\nu\notin S$?

Perhaps I have mistook $L(Y)$ as $L_{T'}(Y)$, and so it is actually not the case that $\nu\in L(Y)$? Thanks for any answer to my doubts.

(Also, is there a different way to TeX { and } on this site? { and \left{ don't seem to translate.)

share|cite|improve this question
Try \\{ for TeX { – Asaf Karagila Sep 13 '10 at 20:37
\lbrace and \rbrace also work. – Paul VanKoughnett Oct 14 '10 at 4:47
Sometimes the braces seem to want one backslash for me, sometimes two. I just see what works. – Ross Millikan Jan 12 '11 at 5:00

I do not think you know that $\nu=\inf_{T'}(Y)$. Since $S\subset T'$, you know that if $\inf_{T'}(Y)$ and $\inf_S(Y)$ both exist, then $\inf_S(Y)\preceq\inf_{T'}(Y)$; but you could have equality (e.g., if $Y$ has a minimum). If you have equality, then $\nu$ is not the infimum of $Y$ in $T'$. You do know that $\nu\preceq\inf_{T'}(Y)$, because $\nu$ is a lower bound for $Y$ in $T'$, but the inequality could be strict. I would argue that you do not know that $L(Y)=(\nu]\cap S$, because it excludes the possibility that there is a $y\in Y$ that is a lower bound for $Y$. For the same reason, $L_{T'}(Y)$ cannot equal $(\nu]\cap S$.

So, presumably you are also assuming that $Y$ has no minimum. If that's the case, then I think that $L(Y)$ is meant to be $L_S(Y)$, rather than $L_{T'}(Y)$ or $L_T(Y)$.

P.S. I'm assuming that $L(A)$ means "lower bounds of $A$"; it's possible it is supposed to mean "strict lower bounds of $A$" (that is, $L(A) = \{x|x\prec y$ for all $y\in Y\}$), in which case my objection above vanishes. In any case, I suspect that $L(Y)$ is meant to be $L_S(Y)$, $S$ being the set that we started with so the one that it makes sense to take as understood from context.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.