# Zorn's Lemma related statement

Consider the following statement:

If $X$ is partially ordered set such that every chain in $X$ has un upper bound, then for every $x \in X$ there is a maximal element $m$ in $X$ such that $x \le m$.

What is the relation, if any, to Zorn's lemma? Is it weaker, stronger or maybe just nonsense?

-
Do you mean that there is a larger/equal element to every element in $x$, or that there is a maximal element in $X$? –  naslundx Mar 1 at 8:41
For every $x$ in $X$ there is larger/equal element which is maximal in $X$. –  martin Mar 1 at 8:43
By "Zorn's lemma" I guess you mean the assertion that every partially ordered set has a maximal chain? –  bof Mar 1 at 8:45
Zorn's Lemma: If $X$ is partially ordered set such that every chain in $X$ has an upper bound, then there is a maximal element in $X$. –  martin Mar 1 at 8:47

On the other hand, assuming Zorn's lemma, and given a partial order $(P,\leq)$ satisfying these requirement, consider for $x$ in the partial order the set $P_x=\{m\in P\mid x\leq m\}$, then the restriction of $\leq$ to $P_x$ satisfies Zorn's lemma again, and therefore it has a maximal element, $m$ which is maximal in $P$, and so $x\leq m$.
Very interesting, thank you. Small typo: in the last line should be $P_x$. –  martin Mar 1 at 8:57
No, it should be $P$. We want a maximal element in $P$; Zorn's lemma gives us $m$ as a maximal element of $P_x$, but it's also maximal in $P$. –  Asaf Karagila Mar 1 at 8:58
So in the definition of $P_x$, $m$ is also maximal in $P$ and not just larger than $x$. Am I right? –  martin Mar 1 at 9:01