5
$\begingroup$

I was reading about ordered fields $\mathbb{F}$ with countable cofinality which means that there is a countable set $S$ that is cofinal. The definition of $S$ being cofinal is that for all $a \in \mathbb{F}$ there exists $s \in S$ such that $s \geq a$.

I was wondering about the meaning of the name "cofinal". It seems (at least to me) that it would imply that there is such a notion as a "final" subset. Oddly enough, the dual notion seems to be that of a coinitial subset (just switch the direction of the inequality in cofinality).

I was just wondering if anyone knew if there was any meaning to the "co-". I looked around on Wikipedia and did not really find anything. The closed that I came was the definition of an initial/lower set. So, I suppose that to dualize the definition of initial set, you take its definition: $\forall s \in S, (y \leq s \Rightarrow y \in S)$ and somehow turn it into coinitial: $\forall y\in \mathbb{F}, (\exists s \in S, s \geq y)$.

I do not exactly see how one systematically creates the notion of co- for coinitial sets. And especially so for cofinal sets.

Thank you for your help.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In this case, I think "co-" isn't used in the sense of duality, but rather as "together". A cofinal set is final with the base set, as in they reach equally far, "together". $\endgroup$ – Arthur Oct 1 '17 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "base set"? $\endgroup$ – user357980 Oct 1 '17 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ In this case your ordered field, but the phrase is used in general with total orderings. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Oct 1 '17 at 18:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It could just as well be called "final" rather than "cofinal". This practice was adopted by category theorists when they generalised the notion of a cofinal set to that of a final functor. In part, I suspect this is because of the confusion with the "co-" prefix. (Indeed, the dual of a final functor is an initial functor, which is called 'co-cofinal' by some authors.) I suspect that set theorists / order theorists chose "cofinal" over "final", since "final subset" could be confused with "terminal segment" (i.e. upwards-closed subset). $\endgroup$ – Clive Newstead Oct 1 '17 at 18:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Arthur: They're also different in any totally ordered set with a maximal element. In fact, in such posets, no subset is unbounded, but all subsets containing the maximal element are cofinal. However, they do coincide in totally ordered sets with no maximal element. $\endgroup$ – Clive Newstead Oct 1 '17 at 19:18

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.