1
$\begingroup$

Zorn's Lemma states that if every chain $C$ in a partially ordered set $X$ has an upper bound then there is at least one maximal element in $X$.

Let $n\in \mathbb{N}$, $C_n \subset \mathbb{N}$ be the set containing the natural numbers $\{1,\dots,n\}$. Then if $k\le n$, $C_k\subset C_n$, so $C_n$ is a chain. Also, $C_n$ has an upper bound, such as $n+1$. But what is the maximal element of $\mathbb{N}$?

There's something I don't get in Zorn's Lemma statement.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, your $C_n$ does not include every chain! $\endgroup$ – I.Padilla Sep 14 '17 at 0:39
  • $\begingroup$ @I.Padilla Why does it need to include every chain? $\endgroup$ – sequence Sep 14 '17 at 0:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sequence Because Zorn's Lemma only applies if every chain has an upper bound. All you've shown is that the specific chains $C_n$ have upper bounds; so what? $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Sep 14 '17 at 1:03
  • $\begingroup$ Um... because that's a condition for Zorn's Lemma--- that every chain has an upper bound. If C has no upper bound then it can't have a maximum element. Zorn's Lemma does not apply to $\mathbb N$ because not every chain has an upper bound. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Sep 14 '17 at 1:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $C_n$ satisfies Zorn's Lemma and $C_n$ does have a maximal element. But $C_n$ is not the same thing as $\mathbb N$. For Zorn's lemma to apply to $\mathbb N$ then every chain in $\mathbb N$ must be bounded above. That is not true for $\mathbb N$. $C_e=\{2n|n \in \mathbb N\} = \{$even numbers\}$ is a chain that is not bounded above. So Zorn's lemma does not apply to N. You listed a bunch of chains that were bounded above--- but they were not all of the chains in $\mathbb N$. So they don't matter. $\endgroup$ – fleablood Sep 14 '17 at 1:30
5
$\begingroup$

You just take some examples of chains, but there are many others, for example the multiples of any positive integer is a chain. The hypothesis of the lemma is that every chain must have a upper bound, but $\mathbb{N}$ is a total ordered set, then every subset of $\mathbb{N}$ is a chain, in special, $\mathbb{N}$ itself is a chain.

The Zorn's lemma is quite useless in a total ordered set, because, if this set satisfies the hypothesis, the upperbound of the set itself (which is a chain) is the maximal element.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.