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!
order-theory lattice-orders
add a comment |
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!
order-theory lattice-orders
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
add a comment |
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!
order-theory lattice-orders
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
order-theory lattice-orders
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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