Let $\mathfrak{A}$, $\mathfrak{B}$ be posets, $\mathfrak{A} \subseteq \mathfrak{B}$ (and $\mathfrak{A}$ is the induced order of $\mathfrak{B}$). Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a filter on $\mathfrak{A}$.

Help me to prove (or disprove): $$ \left\{ L \in \mathfrak{B} \mid \forall Y \in \mathfrak{A}: (Y \geq L \Rightarrow Y \in \mathcal{A}) \right\} = [\mathcal{A}]_{\mathfrak{B}} $$ where $[\mathcal{A}]_{\mathfrak{B}}$ is the filter on $\mathfrak{B}$ generated by the set $\mathcal{A}$.

If it does not hold for arbitrary posets $\mathfrak{A}$, $\mathfrak{B}$, does it holds for $\mathfrak{A}$, $\mathfrak{B}$ being booleans lattices of subsets of some sets?

By the way, is $$ \left\{ L \in \mathfrak{B} \mid \forall Y \in \mathfrak{A}: (Y \geq L \Rightarrow Y \in \mathcal{A}) \right\} $$ necessarily a filter on $\mathfrak{B}$?

I am also interested in the following special case:

  • $\mathfrak{B}$ is the boolean lattice $\mathscr{P}(U\times U)$ of all subsets of a set $U\times U$;
  • $\mathfrak{A}$ is the boolean lattice $\Gamma(U;U)$ of all finite unions of cartesian products of two subsets of the set $U$.

My main question is answered.

However, it is yet an open question whether $\left\{ L \in \mathfrak{B} \mid \forall Y \in \mathfrak{A}: (Y \geq L \Rightarrow Y \in \mathcal{A}) \right\}$ is always a filter.

  • $\begingroup$ In one direction: Let $X \in [\mathcal{A}]_{\mathfrak{B}}$. Then $\exists Y' \in \mathcal{A} : X \geq Y'$. Thus if $Y \geq X$ for $Y \in \mathfrak{A}$ then $Y \geq Y'$ and thus $Y \in \mathcal{A}$. So $\forall Y \in \mathfrak{A}: (Y \geq X \Rightarrow Y \in \mathcal{A})$. $\endgroup$ – porton Dec 1 '14 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ The other direction is surprisingly difficult $\endgroup$ – porton Dec 1 '14 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ See also counter-examples in this thread: groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.math/Plru0S8ePzs $\endgroup$ – porton Dec 2 '14 at 15:41

Counterexample $\mathfrak{B}= \mathscr{P} (U \times U)$, $\mathfrak{A}= \Gamma (U ; U)$, $\mathcal{A} = \left\{ X \in \Gamma (U ; U) \mid X \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U \right\}$ for $U=\mathbb{R}$. (It is easy to generalize for every infinite set $U$.)

Proof Let $L \in \mathscr{P} (U \times U)$.

Let's prove $$ \forall Y \in \mathfrak{A}: (Y \geq L \Rightarrow Y \in \mathcal{A}) \Leftrightarrow L \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U $$ that is $$ \forall Y \in \Gamma (U ; U) : \left( Y \geq L \Rightarrow Y \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U \right) \Leftrightarrow L \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U . $$

$L \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U \Rightarrow \forall Y \in \Gamma (U ; U) : \left( Y \geq L \Rightarrow Y \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U \right)$ is obvious.

Let now $L \nsupseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U$ that is $(x ; x) \not\ni L$. Then there exists $Y \in \Gamma (U ; U)$ such that $Y \geq L$ but $Y \nsupseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U$ (take $Y = (\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}) \setminus \{ (x ; x) \}$).

Thus we have proved the above equivalence.

Let $L_0 = \bigcup_{i \in \mathbb{Z}} ([i ; i + 1 [\times [i ; i + 1 [)$.

$L_0 \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U$ but $L_0 \not\in [\mathcal{A}]_{\mathfrak{B}}$ because otherwise there would be $P \in \Gamma (U ; U)$ such that both $P \supseteq {(\mathord{=})} |_U$ and $P \subseteq L_0$. This is clearly impossible because $P$ must have a point in every $[i ; i + 1 [\times [i ; i + 1 [$ for $i \in \mathbb{Z}$ and thus isn't representable as a finite union of cartesian products.

Thus $\forall Y \in \mathfrak{A}: (Y \geq L_0 \Rightarrow Y \in \mathcal{A}) \nLeftrightarrow L_0 \in [\mathcal{A}]_{\mathfrak{B}}$.

It is yet an open question whether $\left\{ L \in \mathfrak{B} \mid \forall Y \in \mathfrak{A}: (Y \geq L \Rightarrow Y \in \mathcal{A}) \right\}$ is always a filter.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.