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

I stumbled across a cute result about order-reflecting functions.

A couple of questions:

  1. Is the following result well-known?

  2. I know lots of place to learn about order-preserving functions, but is there anywhere can I learn about order-reflecting functions (article, book etc.)?

  3. Its easy to see that they form a category. Has this point of view been developed anywhere?

Here's the good stuff.

Definition. If $P$ and $Q$ are prosets and $f : P \rightarrow Q$ is an arbitrary function (not necessarily order-preserving), we say that $f$ is order-reflecting iff

$$\forall xy \in P : f(x) \leq f(y) \implies x \leq y.$$

Proposition. If $P$ and $Q$ are prosets and $f : P \rightarrow Q$ is an order-reflecting function with downward-closed image, then $f$ preserves downward-closedness.

Proof. Suppose $P$ and $Q$ are prosets and that $f : P \rightarrow Q$ is an order-reflecting function with the property that $f(P)$ is downward-closed.

Now assume for a contradiction that some downward-closed $P' \subseteq P$ has the property that $f(P')$ is not downward-closed. Find $q \in Q$ and $q' \in f(P')$ such that $q \leq q'$, but $q \notin f(P').$ We will contradict this last statement.

Since $q' \in f(P'),$ thus $q' \in f(P).$ Thus we have written down all of the following:

$$q' \in f(P), \quad q \leq q',\quad f(P) \mbox{ is downward closed}.$$

Deduce that $q \in f(P)$. So in summary:

$$q \in f(P), \quad q' \in f(P'),\quad q \leq q'$$

Thus we can find $p \in P$ and $p' \in P'$ such that $f(p) = q$ and $f(p')=q'$. But since $q \leq q'$, thus $p \leq p'$ (by the order-reflecting property of $f$). So in summary

$$p \in P, \quad p' \in P',\quad p \leq p'$$

Now recall that $P'$ is downward-closed. Thus $p \in P'$. So $q \in f(P')$, which is a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this question

Your proof of the Proposition is unnecessarily complicated. You don't have to write it as a contradiction.

Let $P' \subseteq P$ be downward-closed. In order to show that $f(P') \subseteq Q$ is downward-closed, let $q' \in f(P')$ and $q \leq q'$. Then $q'=f(p')$ and $q=f(p)$ for some $p \in P, p' \in P'$. Since $f$ is order-reflecting, we have $p \leq p'$, hence $p \in P'$ and therefore $q \in f(P')$.

The proof is entirely obvious. In research papers such a Proposition would be regarded as trivial and used without proof. Also remark that the proof doesn't use the properties of $\leq$. It could be any relation whatsoever.

I'm afraid that I cannot offer any literature about order-reflecting maps, but this notion is well-known. When we regard posets as thin categories, order-preserving maps correspond to functors (and order-embeddings to fully faithful functors). Order-reflecting maps correspond to "op-functors" which I define as follows: If $\mathcal{C},\,\mathcal{D}$ are categories, an "op-functor" $F : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ associates to every object $C \in \mathcal{C}$ and object $F(C) \in \mathcal{D}$ and to every morphism $\phi : F(C) \to F(D)$ a morphism $F^{-1}(\phi) : C \to D$, such that the following holds: $F^{-1}(\mathrm{id}_{F(C)})=\mathrm{id}_C$ and for $F(C) \xrightarrow{\phi} F(D) \xrightarrow{\psi} F(E)$ we have $F^{-1}(\psi \phi) = F^{-1}(\psi) F^{-1}(\phi)$. There is an identity op-functor and op-functors can be composed in the obvious way. Thus, we get the category of (small) categories and op-funtors.

The terminology "op-functor" is not perfect and it could easily get confused with "oplax functor" which are defined in higher category theory. I don't know if these things already have a name.

Obviously every fully faithful functor $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ induces an op-functor $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$. More generally, every full functor in which the preimages can be chosen in a coherent way induces an op-functor. If $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ have only one object, i.e. they correspond to monoids, then an op-functor is just a homomorphism of monoids in the other direction. It would be interesting to see a natural example of an op-functor (not between posets or monoids) which doesn't arise this way.

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice remark that the proof doesn't use the properties of ≤. I am a bit confused by your definition though. Perhaps there are some typos. The op-functor is $F$ or is $F^{-1}$ ? Also, the op-functor should go in the opposite direction to $F$, correct? "op" stands for (or reminds to) "opposite"? – magma Sep 6 '13 at 9:28

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.