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

enter image description here

Is this correct? I think it is wrong. According to wikipedia

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.

However, can't see how this is equivalent to the definition given in notes.

share|cite|improve this question
Your confusion might come from the fact that you are thinking of a defintion of inductive set that is not meant in this context. You are probably thinking of sets that contain 0 and are closed under successors. Here inductive partially ordered set certainly means partial order in which every chain has an upper bound. – Stefan Geschke Dec 29 '11 at 11:29
-1 for not citing the source for the text you speak about. – Henning Makholm Dec 29 '11 at 23:07
up vote 5 down vote accepted

To understand the statement of the theorem you would have to look up what an inductive partial order is. If you do, you should find that it is a partial order in which every chain has an upper bound. Therefore the statements are the same. (I do not have access to your notes to know whether the meaning of inductive was made clear there.)

share|cite|improve this answer

Yes, that is the statement of Zorn's Lemma. If S is a partially ordered set in which every chain has an upper bound (i.e. if S is an inductive set and is partially ordered) then S has a maximal element. Your notes say exactly what Wikipedia is saying.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.