Is this lemma equivalent to the axiom of choice?What is the minimal size of a partial order that is universal for all partial orders of size n?Complete anti-chain lattices and the axiom of choiceWhen does $A^A=2^A$ without the axiom of choice?Antichain on $mathcalP(omega)/fin$ of cardinality $2^aleph_0$?Strongly minimal covering subsets of $textInd(G)$More in bijective-equivalent class in NBG set theory (1)“Gaps” in the Rudin-Keisler orderingIn the context of directed graphs is it standard notation to allow an element of an independent vertex set to be contained in a loop?Graphs without maximal vertex-transivite subgraphsGeneralization of the linear extension theorem to directed acyclic graphs

Is this lemma equivalent to the axiom of choice?


What is the minimal size of a partial order that is universal for all partial orders of size n?Complete anti-chain lattices and the axiom of choiceWhen does $A^A=2^A$ without the axiom of choice?Antichain on $mathcalP(omega)/fin$ of cardinality $2^aleph_0$?Strongly minimal covering subsets of $textInd(G)$More in bijective-equivalent class in NBG set theory (1)“Gaps” in the Rudin-Keisler orderingIn the context of directed graphs is it standard notation to allow an element of an independent vertex set to be contained in a loop?Graphs without maximal vertex-transivite subgraphsGeneralization of the linear extension theorem to directed acyclic graphs













4












$begingroup$


Given any pre-ordering $preceq$ of an arbitrary set $X$ is the following lemma:



$$textThere exists an inclusion minimal set Stext satisfying apreceq b:bin S=X\iff text Every chain in (X,preceq)text has a lower bound$$



Equivalent to the axiom of choice? Also assuming the axiom of choice if every chain in $(X,preceq)$ does have a lower bound, then is it true that for every set $Qsubseteq X$ we have:



$$Qtext is an inclusion minimal set satisfying apreceq b:bin Q=X\iff Qtext is a maximal anti-chain of minimal elements in (X,preceq)$$



Sorry if this is elementary, I found several mistakes in some stuff I typed while writing out an analog of Dilworth's theorem for pre-orders and just want to be sure its correct before I write it again formally.





To clarify what I mean by chains and anti-chains in $(X,preceq)$, if we define an undirected graph $G$ such that $V(G)=X$ and $E(G)=u,vsubseteq X:uleq v$ then for any sets $C,Asubseteq X$ we can write:



$$Ctext is a chain of (X,preceq)iff Ctext is a clique of G\iff textEvery pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$
$$Atext is an anti-chain of (X,preceq)iff Atext is an independent set of G\iff textNo pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$



Also by a minimal element in $(X,preceq)$ I mean any $min X$ satisfying $forall xin X(xleq mimplies mleq x)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Your lemma is written somewhat ambiguously; as the axiom of choice doesn't depend on some $X$, I'm guessing that your lemma is that for every preordered set $(X, preceq )$, either both sides of the biimplication above are true or they are both false. Is that correct?
    $endgroup$
    – user44191
    16 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Writing $apreceq b:bin S$ is really bad form. I recommend $ain X:exists bin S, apreceq b$, and also mind you $apreceq b$ gives you maximal elements, not minimal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    16 hours ago















4












$begingroup$


Given any pre-ordering $preceq$ of an arbitrary set $X$ is the following lemma:



$$textThere exists an inclusion minimal set Stext satisfying apreceq b:bin S=X\iff text Every chain in (X,preceq)text has a lower bound$$



Equivalent to the axiom of choice? Also assuming the axiom of choice if every chain in $(X,preceq)$ does have a lower bound, then is it true that for every set $Qsubseteq X$ we have:



$$Qtext is an inclusion minimal set satisfying apreceq b:bin Q=X\iff Qtext is a maximal anti-chain of minimal elements in (X,preceq)$$



Sorry if this is elementary, I found several mistakes in some stuff I typed while writing out an analog of Dilworth's theorem for pre-orders and just want to be sure its correct before I write it again formally.





To clarify what I mean by chains and anti-chains in $(X,preceq)$, if we define an undirected graph $G$ such that $V(G)=X$ and $E(G)=u,vsubseteq X:uleq v$ then for any sets $C,Asubseteq X$ we can write:



$$Ctext is a chain of (X,preceq)iff Ctext is a clique of G\iff textEvery pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$
$$Atext is an anti-chain of (X,preceq)iff Atext is an independent set of G\iff textNo pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$



Also by a minimal element in $(X,preceq)$ I mean any $min X$ satisfying $forall xin X(xleq mimplies mleq x)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Your lemma is written somewhat ambiguously; as the axiom of choice doesn't depend on some $X$, I'm guessing that your lemma is that for every preordered set $(X, preceq )$, either both sides of the biimplication above are true or they are both false. Is that correct?
    $endgroup$
    – user44191
    16 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Writing $apreceq b:bin S$ is really bad form. I recommend $ain X:exists bin S, apreceq b$, and also mind you $apreceq b$ gives you maximal elements, not minimal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    16 hours ago













4












4








4





$begingroup$


Given any pre-ordering $preceq$ of an arbitrary set $X$ is the following lemma:



$$textThere exists an inclusion minimal set Stext satisfying apreceq b:bin S=X\iff text Every chain in (X,preceq)text has a lower bound$$



Equivalent to the axiom of choice? Also assuming the axiom of choice if every chain in $(X,preceq)$ does have a lower bound, then is it true that for every set $Qsubseteq X$ we have:



$$Qtext is an inclusion minimal set satisfying apreceq b:bin Q=X\iff Qtext is a maximal anti-chain of minimal elements in (X,preceq)$$



Sorry if this is elementary, I found several mistakes in some stuff I typed while writing out an analog of Dilworth's theorem for pre-orders and just want to be sure its correct before I write it again formally.





To clarify what I mean by chains and anti-chains in $(X,preceq)$, if we define an undirected graph $G$ such that $V(G)=X$ and $E(G)=u,vsubseteq X:uleq v$ then for any sets $C,Asubseteq X$ we can write:



$$Ctext is a chain of (X,preceq)iff Ctext is a clique of G\iff textEvery pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$
$$Atext is an anti-chain of (X,preceq)iff Atext is an independent set of G\iff textNo pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$



Also by a minimal element in $(X,preceq)$ I mean any $min X$ satisfying $forall xin X(xleq mimplies mleq x)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Given any pre-ordering $preceq$ of an arbitrary set $X$ is the following lemma:



$$textThere exists an inclusion minimal set Stext satisfying apreceq b:bin S=X\iff text Every chain in (X,preceq)text has a lower bound$$



Equivalent to the axiom of choice? Also assuming the axiom of choice if every chain in $(X,preceq)$ does have a lower bound, then is it true that for every set $Qsubseteq X$ we have:



$$Qtext is an inclusion minimal set satisfying apreceq b:bin Q=X\iff Qtext is a maximal anti-chain of minimal elements in (X,preceq)$$



Sorry if this is elementary, I found several mistakes in some stuff I typed while writing out an analog of Dilworth's theorem for pre-orders and just want to be sure its correct before I write it again formally.





To clarify what I mean by chains and anti-chains in $(X,preceq)$, if we define an undirected graph $G$ such that $V(G)=X$ and $E(G)=u,vsubseteq X:uleq v$ then for any sets $C,Asubseteq X$ we can write:



$$Ctext is a chain of (X,preceq)iff Ctext is a clique of G\iff textEvery pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$
$$Atext is an anti-chain of (X,preceq)iff Atext is an independent set of G\iff textNo pair of elements in Ctext is adjacent in G$$



Also by a minimal element in $(X,preceq)$ I mean any $min X$ satisfying $forall xin X(xleq mimplies mleq x)$.







set-theory order-theory axiom-of-choice






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 15 hours ago







Ethan

















asked 17 hours ago









EthanEthan

872619




872619











  • $begingroup$
    Your lemma is written somewhat ambiguously; as the axiom of choice doesn't depend on some $X$, I'm guessing that your lemma is that for every preordered set $(X, preceq )$, either both sides of the biimplication above are true or they are both false. Is that correct?
    $endgroup$
    – user44191
    16 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Writing $apreceq b:bin S$ is really bad form. I recommend $ain X:exists bin S, apreceq b$, and also mind you $apreceq b$ gives you maximal elements, not minimal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    16 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Your lemma is written somewhat ambiguously; as the axiom of choice doesn't depend on some $X$, I'm guessing that your lemma is that for every preordered set $(X, preceq )$, either both sides of the biimplication above are true or they are both false. Is that correct?
    $endgroup$
    – user44191
    16 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Writing $apreceq b:bin S$ is really bad form. I recommend $ain X:exists bin S, apreceq b$, and also mind you $apreceq b$ gives you maximal elements, not minimal elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila
    16 hours ago















$begingroup$
Your lemma is written somewhat ambiguously; as the axiom of choice doesn't depend on some $X$, I'm guessing that your lemma is that for every preordered set $(X, preceq )$, either both sides of the biimplication above are true or they are both false. Is that correct?
$endgroup$
– user44191
16 hours ago




$begingroup$
Your lemma is written somewhat ambiguously; as the axiom of choice doesn't depend on some $X$, I'm guessing that your lemma is that for every preordered set $(X, preceq )$, either both sides of the biimplication above are true or they are both false. Is that correct?
$endgroup$
– user44191
16 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
Writing $apreceq b:bin S$ is really bad form. I recommend $ain X:exists bin S, apreceq b$, and also mind you $apreceq b$ gives you maximal elements, not minimal elements.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
16 hours ago




$begingroup$
Writing $apreceq b:bin S$ is really bad form. I recommend $ain X:exists bin S, apreceq b$, and also mind you $apreceq b$ gives you maximal elements, not minimal elements.
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila
16 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

You seem to flip some directions of the order, take $Bbb N$, every chain has a lower bound, but there is no set of maximal elements. You also want to quantify over all $X$, in the sense that choice is equivalent to that for any preordered $X$ etc.



Now, the answer is simple, yes. This is equivalent to choice. Simply note that every partially ordered set is preordered, and every partially ordered set with a minimal set of "generators" must have that all those "generators" are maximal elements. So we get the following version of Zorn's lemma, which is of course equivalent to the standard one:




(Zorn$^+$) Suppose $X$ is a partially ordered set where every chain has an upper bound. Every $xin X$ lies beneath a maximal element.




So your lemma implies Zorn's pretty obviously. The other direction is also simple: move from the preordered set to its antisymmetric quotient, then use choice to choose representatives for the maximal equivalences classes in the quotient order.



To your second question, which we used in the above proof, yes. If $Q$ is an inclusion minimal set, then no two elements in it can be comparable, otherwise you could omit one of them. And they have to be maximal (or minimal, if you reverse your comparison), otherwise you won't span everything.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












    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: "504"
    ;
    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',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324927%2fis-this-lemma-equivalent-to-the-axiom-of-choice%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









    9












    $begingroup$

    You seem to flip some directions of the order, take $Bbb N$, every chain has a lower bound, but there is no set of maximal elements. You also want to quantify over all $X$, in the sense that choice is equivalent to that for any preordered $X$ etc.



    Now, the answer is simple, yes. This is equivalent to choice. Simply note that every partially ordered set is preordered, and every partially ordered set with a minimal set of "generators" must have that all those "generators" are maximal elements. So we get the following version of Zorn's lemma, which is of course equivalent to the standard one:




    (Zorn$^+$) Suppose $X$ is a partially ordered set where every chain has an upper bound. Every $xin X$ lies beneath a maximal element.




    So your lemma implies Zorn's pretty obviously. The other direction is also simple: move from the preordered set to its antisymmetric quotient, then use choice to choose representatives for the maximal equivalences classes in the quotient order.



    To your second question, which we used in the above proof, yes. If $Q$ is an inclusion minimal set, then no two elements in it can be comparable, otherwise you could omit one of them. And they have to be maximal (or minimal, if you reverse your comparison), otherwise you won't span everything.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      9












      $begingroup$

      You seem to flip some directions of the order, take $Bbb N$, every chain has a lower bound, but there is no set of maximal elements. You also want to quantify over all $X$, in the sense that choice is equivalent to that for any preordered $X$ etc.



      Now, the answer is simple, yes. This is equivalent to choice. Simply note that every partially ordered set is preordered, and every partially ordered set with a minimal set of "generators" must have that all those "generators" are maximal elements. So we get the following version of Zorn's lemma, which is of course equivalent to the standard one:




      (Zorn$^+$) Suppose $X$ is a partially ordered set where every chain has an upper bound. Every $xin X$ lies beneath a maximal element.




      So your lemma implies Zorn's pretty obviously. The other direction is also simple: move from the preordered set to its antisymmetric quotient, then use choice to choose representatives for the maximal equivalences classes in the quotient order.



      To your second question, which we used in the above proof, yes. If $Q$ is an inclusion minimal set, then no two elements in it can be comparable, otherwise you could omit one of them. And they have to be maximal (or minimal, if you reverse your comparison), otherwise you won't span everything.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        9












        9








        9





        $begingroup$

        You seem to flip some directions of the order, take $Bbb N$, every chain has a lower bound, but there is no set of maximal elements. You also want to quantify over all $X$, in the sense that choice is equivalent to that for any preordered $X$ etc.



        Now, the answer is simple, yes. This is equivalent to choice. Simply note that every partially ordered set is preordered, and every partially ordered set with a minimal set of "generators" must have that all those "generators" are maximal elements. So we get the following version of Zorn's lemma, which is of course equivalent to the standard one:




        (Zorn$^+$) Suppose $X$ is a partially ordered set where every chain has an upper bound. Every $xin X$ lies beneath a maximal element.




        So your lemma implies Zorn's pretty obviously. The other direction is also simple: move from the preordered set to its antisymmetric quotient, then use choice to choose representatives for the maximal equivalences classes in the quotient order.



        To your second question, which we used in the above proof, yes. If $Q$ is an inclusion minimal set, then no two elements in it can be comparable, otherwise you could omit one of them. And they have to be maximal (or minimal, if you reverse your comparison), otherwise you won't span everything.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        You seem to flip some directions of the order, take $Bbb N$, every chain has a lower bound, but there is no set of maximal elements. You also want to quantify over all $X$, in the sense that choice is equivalent to that for any preordered $X$ etc.



        Now, the answer is simple, yes. This is equivalent to choice. Simply note that every partially ordered set is preordered, and every partially ordered set with a minimal set of "generators" must have that all those "generators" are maximal elements. So we get the following version of Zorn's lemma, which is of course equivalent to the standard one:




        (Zorn$^+$) Suppose $X$ is a partially ordered set where every chain has an upper bound. Every $xin X$ lies beneath a maximal element.




        So your lemma implies Zorn's pretty obviously. The other direction is also simple: move from the preordered set to its antisymmetric quotient, then use choice to choose representatives for the maximal equivalences classes in the quotient order.



        To your second question, which we used in the above proof, yes. If $Q$ is an inclusion minimal set, then no two elements in it can be comparable, otherwise you could omit one of them. And they have to be maximal (or minimal, if you reverse your comparison), otherwise you won't span everything.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 16 hours ago









        Asaf KaragilaAsaf Karagila

        21.3k680180




        21.3k680180



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • 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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324927%2fis-this-lemma-equivalent-to-the-axiom-of-choice%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

            How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

            random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

            Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye