1
$\begingroup$

The problem is as follows:

Show that if $X$ is a well-ordered set, then $X \times [0,1)$ in the dictionary order is a linear continuum.

Let $X \times [0,1)=L$. Now, by the definition of a linear continuum, I sought to prove that

  1. $L$ has the least upper bound property, and that
  2. if $x<y$ for any two elements $x,y \in L$ there exists $z \in L$ such that $x < z < y$.

However, since we are given the information that $X$is a well-ordered set, I was wondering if proving 1. was equivalent to proving that $L$ has a greatest lower bound? Which is easy. Is this equivalent? If yes, why is it so?

Hope you can help me clarify this issue. Thanks!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I think having the least upper bound property is always equivalent to having the greatest lower bound property.

Indeed, suppose $(X,<)$ is a totally ordered set with the the l.u.b. property. Take a nonempty set $S \subset X$ which possesses a lower bound. Therefore, $L = \{ x \in X : x \leq S\}$ is nonempty. Also, $L$ posses an upper bound (any element of the nonempty set $S$ is an example). Since the l.u.b. property holds, $L$ has a least upper bound $y$. It is straightforward to check that $y$ is also the greatest lower bound of $S$.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Be careful, we still have the second criterion and must use the definition of dictionary order.

That is given an order relation $<_A$ on the set $A$ and an order relation $<_A$ on the set $B$, we define the order relation $<$ on $A\times B$ such that: \begin{equation} a_1\times b_1 < a_2 \times b_2 \end{equation} if $a_1<_Aa_2$, or if $a_1=a_2$ and $b_1<_Bb_2$. The relation $<$ is called the dictionary order relation on $A\times B$.

This is the catch that we are missing. Suppose that $X$ is not a linear continuum. Then either axiom is false. Suppose that the second axiom is not true for $X$. Then we see that there exists at least two elements $a,b\in X$ with $a<_Xb$ such that there is no $d\in X$ such that $a<_Xd<_Xb$. This implies that through the definition of the dictionary order that there are no $d\times z$ such that $a\times x < d\times z < b\times y$. We cannot resort to the second part of the definition because by the assumption of this case, $a<_Xb$.

If the first is false instead, then we still have a problem in the dictionary order. This is equivalent to saying $X$ is unbounded above. If $X$ is unbounded above, this will imply through the use of the dictionary order that there is no $a\in X$ such that $b\leq_X a$ for any $b\in X$. This implies that there is no $a\times x$ in $X\times[0,1)$ such that $b\times y < a\times x$ for any $b\times y$ in $X\times[0,1)$.

The claim the problem asks you to prove is in fact false by these definitions.

$\endgroup$

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.