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

Zorn's lemma states

Suppose a partially ordered set $P$ has the property that every chain (i.e. totally ordered subset) has an upper bound in $P$. Then the set $P$ contains at least one maximal element.

Now, of course, the rationals $\mathbb{Q}$ satisfy the condition that every chain has an upper bound in $\mathbb{Q}$. But $\mathbb{Q}$ does not contain a maximal element, a contradiction.

Where is my line of reasoning going wrong?

share|cite|improve this question
$\mathbb Q$ is particularly badly chosen, because even bounded chains may not have an upper bound in $\mathbb Q$, like a chain of rationals converging towards $\sqrt 2$ from below. – Denis Sep 5 '13 at 14:22
dkuper: Bounded chains in $\mathbb Q$ do have an upper bound but may lack a least upper bound. – nonpop Sep 5 '13 at 14:35
up vote 6 down vote accepted

What is an upper bound of the chain $\mathbb{Z}$ in $\mathbb{Q}$? (or $\mathbb{Q}$ itself, for that matter.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Suppose $x, y \in \Bbb{Q}$.Take any rational y in 0 < x < 1 such that x < y. – Don Larynx Sep 5 '13 at 12:39
@Josie: I am having trouble making heads or tails of your comment above. But ask yourself this question: is there a rational number $q$ such that $n \leq q$ holds for every integer $n$? – arjafi Sep 5 '13 at 12:42
That wasn't readily obvious, thanks! – Don Larynx Sep 5 '13 at 13:05

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.