1
$\begingroup$

I am reading 'Topology' by J.R. Munkres's first chapter on set theory. In the exercises 5-7 on page 72 he asks the reader to show that Zorn's lemma implies Hausdorff maximum principle via the following route : Zorn's lemma $\implies$ Kuratowski lemma $\implies$ Tukey lemma $\implies$ Maximum principle

What is wrong with the following proof of this statement ?

Proof : Let $X$ be a partially ordered set. Let $\mathcal{B}$ be the collection of strictly ordered subsets of $X$. Then $\mathcal{B}$ is partially ordered and satisfies the hypothesis of Zorn's lemma. Thus $\mathcal{B}$ has a maximal element. This element is a maximal strictly ordered subset of $X$ thereby completing the proof.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The proof is fine. (Although you probably mean linearly ordered, not strictly ordered.)

I imagine that the route is suggested from a pedagogical point of view, so that you learn about a couple other equivalents to the axiom of choice and their typical uses.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .