Prove that lower bounds of upper bounds of a subset is a closure operator on a lattice.











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $(L, le)$ be a poset regarded as a lattice (s.t. $forall a, b in L$ both $sup({a,b})$ and $inf({a,b})$ exist in L).



Let $A subseteq L$. We denote
$$U(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: a leq b} \
L(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: b leq a}$$



sets of all upper and lower bounds of $A$.



I need to prove that map $C(A):= L(U(A))$ defines a closure operator on $L$.
That is I need to prove 3 properties:



1) $Asubseteq C(A)$



2) $C(C(A)) = C(A)$



3) $Asubseteq B implies C(A) subseteq C(B)$



My try:



1) $bin A implies forall ain U(A): bleq a implies b in L(U(A)) implies A subseteq L(U(A)) = C(A)$



2) ?



3) We have property: $A subseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A)$ and $L(B) subseteq L(A)$.



Thus
$ Asubseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A) implies L(U(A)) subseteq L(U(B))$



I'm strugling to prove idempotency property. I guess to prove it I need to show that $$U(A) = U(L(U(A)))$$ but I don't know how to do it formally.



Question: are these proofs valid and how do I prove idempotency?



Edit:



2) $U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A)$ from properties (1) and (3).
$$a in U(A) implies forall b in L(U(A)): b leq a implies a in U(L(U(A))) implies U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$$
That is equality holds, thus $C$ is idempotent.



Thanks everyone!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Your proofs look valid to me. Using what you showed in part 1, you can conclude that $U(A)subseteq U(L(U(A)))$, so only the reverse inclusion is needed. Then you can just ask yourself if you can have $ain U(A)$ such that $anotin U(L(U(A)))$. In other words, can there be $bin L(U(A))$ such that $angeq b$?
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 16:41












  • @KevinLong Isn't it backwards from part 1: $A subseteq C(A) implies U(C(A)) subseteq U(A)$ and not the other way around? Because upper/lower bounds of superset are definitely upper/lower bounds of each subset bot not the other way.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 17:06










  • Sorry, that's right. I was thinking the right thing, but wrote the wrong one. Everything after that still explains what you need to do.
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 18:48















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $(L, le)$ be a poset regarded as a lattice (s.t. $forall a, b in L$ both $sup({a,b})$ and $inf({a,b})$ exist in L).



Let $A subseteq L$. We denote
$$U(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: a leq b} \
L(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: b leq a}$$



sets of all upper and lower bounds of $A$.



I need to prove that map $C(A):= L(U(A))$ defines a closure operator on $L$.
That is I need to prove 3 properties:



1) $Asubseteq C(A)$



2) $C(C(A)) = C(A)$



3) $Asubseteq B implies C(A) subseteq C(B)$



My try:



1) $bin A implies forall ain U(A): bleq a implies b in L(U(A)) implies A subseteq L(U(A)) = C(A)$



2) ?



3) We have property: $A subseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A)$ and $L(B) subseteq L(A)$.



Thus
$ Asubseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A) implies L(U(A)) subseteq L(U(B))$



I'm strugling to prove idempotency property. I guess to prove it I need to show that $$U(A) = U(L(U(A)))$$ but I don't know how to do it formally.



Question: are these proofs valid and how do I prove idempotency?



Edit:



2) $U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A)$ from properties (1) and (3).
$$a in U(A) implies forall b in L(U(A)): b leq a implies a in U(L(U(A))) implies U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$$
That is equality holds, thus $C$ is idempotent.



Thanks everyone!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Your proofs look valid to me. Using what you showed in part 1, you can conclude that $U(A)subseteq U(L(U(A)))$, so only the reverse inclusion is needed. Then you can just ask yourself if you can have $ain U(A)$ such that $anotin U(L(U(A)))$. In other words, can there be $bin L(U(A))$ such that $angeq b$?
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 16:41












  • @KevinLong Isn't it backwards from part 1: $A subseteq C(A) implies U(C(A)) subseteq U(A)$ and not the other way around? Because upper/lower bounds of superset are definitely upper/lower bounds of each subset bot not the other way.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 17:06










  • Sorry, that's right. I was thinking the right thing, but wrote the wrong one. Everything after that still explains what you need to do.
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 18:48













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Let $(L, le)$ be a poset regarded as a lattice (s.t. $forall a, b in L$ both $sup({a,b})$ and $inf({a,b})$ exist in L).



Let $A subseteq L$. We denote
$$U(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: a leq b} \
L(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: b leq a}$$



sets of all upper and lower bounds of $A$.



I need to prove that map $C(A):= L(U(A))$ defines a closure operator on $L$.
That is I need to prove 3 properties:



1) $Asubseteq C(A)$



2) $C(C(A)) = C(A)$



3) $Asubseteq B implies C(A) subseteq C(B)$



My try:



1) $bin A implies forall ain U(A): bleq a implies b in L(U(A)) implies A subseteq L(U(A)) = C(A)$



2) ?



3) We have property: $A subseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A)$ and $L(B) subseteq L(A)$.



Thus
$ Asubseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A) implies L(U(A)) subseteq L(U(B))$



I'm strugling to prove idempotency property. I guess to prove it I need to show that $$U(A) = U(L(U(A)))$$ but I don't know how to do it formally.



Question: are these proofs valid and how do I prove idempotency?



Edit:



2) $U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A)$ from properties (1) and (3).
$$a in U(A) implies forall b in L(U(A)): b leq a implies a in U(L(U(A))) implies U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$$
That is equality holds, thus $C$ is idempotent.



Thanks everyone!










share|cite|improve this question















Let $(L, le)$ be a poset regarded as a lattice (s.t. $forall a, b in L$ both $sup({a,b})$ and $inf({a,b})$ exist in L).



Let $A subseteq L$. We denote
$$U(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: a leq b} \
L(A):= { bin L | forall ain A: b leq a}$$



sets of all upper and lower bounds of $A$.



I need to prove that map $C(A):= L(U(A))$ defines a closure operator on $L$.
That is I need to prove 3 properties:



1) $Asubseteq C(A)$



2) $C(C(A)) = C(A)$



3) $Asubseteq B implies C(A) subseteq C(B)$



My try:



1) $bin A implies forall ain U(A): bleq a implies b in L(U(A)) implies A subseteq L(U(A)) = C(A)$



2) ?



3) We have property: $A subseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A)$ and $L(B) subseteq L(A)$.



Thus
$ Asubseteq B implies U(B) subseteq U(A) implies L(U(A)) subseteq L(U(B))$



I'm strugling to prove idempotency property. I guess to prove it I need to show that $$U(A) = U(L(U(A)))$$ but I don't know how to do it formally.



Question: are these proofs valid and how do I prove idempotency?



Edit:



2) $U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A)$ from properties (1) and (3).
$$a in U(A) implies forall b in L(U(A)): b leq a implies a in U(L(U(A))) implies U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$$
That is equality holds, thus $C$ is idempotent.



Thanks everyone!







order-theory lattice-orders






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 19 at 19:55

























asked Nov 19 at 15:39









Sergey Dylda

1176




1176








  • 1




    Your proofs look valid to me. Using what you showed in part 1, you can conclude that $U(A)subseteq U(L(U(A)))$, so only the reverse inclusion is needed. Then you can just ask yourself if you can have $ain U(A)$ such that $anotin U(L(U(A)))$. In other words, can there be $bin L(U(A))$ such that $angeq b$?
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 16:41












  • @KevinLong Isn't it backwards from part 1: $A subseteq C(A) implies U(C(A)) subseteq U(A)$ and not the other way around? Because upper/lower bounds of superset are definitely upper/lower bounds of each subset bot not the other way.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 17:06










  • Sorry, that's right. I was thinking the right thing, but wrote the wrong one. Everything after that still explains what you need to do.
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 18:48














  • 1




    Your proofs look valid to me. Using what you showed in part 1, you can conclude that $U(A)subseteq U(L(U(A)))$, so only the reverse inclusion is needed. Then you can just ask yourself if you can have $ain U(A)$ such that $anotin U(L(U(A)))$. In other words, can there be $bin L(U(A))$ such that $angeq b$?
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 16:41












  • @KevinLong Isn't it backwards from part 1: $A subseteq C(A) implies U(C(A)) subseteq U(A)$ and not the other way around? Because upper/lower bounds of superset are definitely upper/lower bounds of each subset bot not the other way.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 17:06










  • Sorry, that's right. I was thinking the right thing, but wrote the wrong one. Everything after that still explains what you need to do.
    – Kevin Long
    Nov 19 at 18:48








1




1




Your proofs look valid to me. Using what you showed in part 1, you can conclude that $U(A)subseteq U(L(U(A)))$, so only the reverse inclusion is needed. Then you can just ask yourself if you can have $ain U(A)$ such that $anotin U(L(U(A)))$. In other words, can there be $bin L(U(A))$ such that $angeq b$?
– Kevin Long
Nov 19 at 16:41






Your proofs look valid to me. Using what you showed in part 1, you can conclude that $U(A)subseteq U(L(U(A)))$, so only the reverse inclusion is needed. Then you can just ask yourself if you can have $ain U(A)$ such that $anotin U(L(U(A)))$. In other words, can there be $bin L(U(A))$ such that $angeq b$?
– Kevin Long
Nov 19 at 16:41














@KevinLong Isn't it backwards from part 1: $A subseteq C(A) implies U(C(A)) subseteq U(A)$ and not the other way around? Because upper/lower bounds of superset are definitely upper/lower bounds of each subset bot not the other way.
– Sergey Dylda
Nov 19 at 17:06




@KevinLong Isn't it backwards from part 1: $A subseteq C(A) implies U(C(A)) subseteq U(A)$ and not the other way around? Because upper/lower bounds of superset are definitely upper/lower bounds of each subset bot not the other way.
– Sergey Dylda
Nov 19 at 17:06












Sorry, that's right. I was thinking the right thing, but wrote the wrong one. Everything after that still explains what you need to do.
– Kevin Long
Nov 19 at 18:48




Sorry, that's right. I was thinking the right thing, but wrote the wrong one. Everything after that still explains what you need to do.
– Kevin Long
Nov 19 at 18:48










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










As Kevin Long wrote in a comment, you already have that $U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$.

For the converse inclusion, using (1), and your observation that $A subseteq B$ implies $U(B) subseteq U(A)$,
$$A subseteq L(U(A)) Longrightarrow U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A).$$
Notice also that this is true for any poset, which is quite clear since nowhere in the proof is any lattice property used.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Can you please elaborate a little on the first step? $b in U(A) implies forall a in A: aleq b implies ... ?... implies b in U(L(U(A)))$ I don't fully get what arguments should be applied here.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:46












  • Figured it out by myself, thanks.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:56











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005082%2fprove-that-lower-bounds-of-upper-bounds-of-a-subset-is-a-closure-operator-on-a-l%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote



accepted










As Kevin Long wrote in a comment, you already have that $U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$.

For the converse inclusion, using (1), and your observation that $A subseteq B$ implies $U(B) subseteq U(A)$,
$$A subseteq L(U(A)) Longrightarrow U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A).$$
Notice also that this is true for any poset, which is quite clear since nowhere in the proof is any lattice property used.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Can you please elaborate a little on the first step? $b in U(A) implies forall a in A: aleq b implies ... ?... implies b in U(L(U(A)))$ I don't fully get what arguments should be applied here.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:46












  • Figured it out by myself, thanks.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:56















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










As Kevin Long wrote in a comment, you already have that $U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$.

For the converse inclusion, using (1), and your observation that $A subseteq B$ implies $U(B) subseteq U(A)$,
$$A subseteq L(U(A)) Longrightarrow U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A).$$
Notice also that this is true for any poset, which is quite clear since nowhere in the proof is any lattice property used.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Can you please elaborate a little on the first step? $b in U(A) implies forall a in A: aleq b implies ... ?... implies b in U(L(U(A)))$ I don't fully get what arguments should be applied here.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:46












  • Figured it out by myself, thanks.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:56













up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






As Kevin Long wrote in a comment, you already have that $U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$.

For the converse inclusion, using (1), and your observation that $A subseteq B$ implies $U(B) subseteq U(A)$,
$$A subseteq L(U(A)) Longrightarrow U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A).$$
Notice also that this is true for any poset, which is quite clear since nowhere in the proof is any lattice property used.






share|cite|improve this answer












As Kevin Long wrote in a comment, you already have that $U(A) subseteq U(L(U(A)))$.

For the converse inclusion, using (1), and your observation that $A subseteq B$ implies $U(B) subseteq U(A)$,
$$A subseteq L(U(A)) Longrightarrow U(L(U(A))) subseteq U(A).$$
Notice also that this is true for any poset, which is quite clear since nowhere in the proof is any lattice property used.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 19 at 18:53









amrsa

3,4052518




3,4052518












  • Can you please elaborate a little on the first step? $b in U(A) implies forall a in A: aleq b implies ... ?... implies b in U(L(U(A)))$ I don't fully get what arguments should be applied here.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:46












  • Figured it out by myself, thanks.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:56


















  • Can you please elaborate a little on the first step? $b in U(A) implies forall a in A: aleq b implies ... ?... implies b in U(L(U(A)))$ I don't fully get what arguments should be applied here.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:46












  • Figured it out by myself, thanks.
    – Sergey Dylda
    Nov 19 at 19:56
















Can you please elaborate a little on the first step? $b in U(A) implies forall a in A: aleq b implies ... ?... implies b in U(L(U(A)))$ I don't fully get what arguments should be applied here.
– Sergey Dylda
Nov 19 at 19:46






Can you please elaborate a little on the first step? $b in U(A) implies forall a in A: aleq b implies ... ?... implies b in U(L(U(A)))$ I don't fully get what arguments should be applied here.
– Sergey Dylda
Nov 19 at 19:46














Figured it out by myself, thanks.
– Sergey Dylda
Nov 19 at 19:56




Figured it out by myself, thanks.
– Sergey Dylda
Nov 19 at 19:56


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005082%2fprove-that-lower-bounds-of-upper-bounds-of-a-subset-is-a-closure-operator-on-a-l%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten