Equivalence of Complete Semilattice and Complete Lattice
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This article needs proofreading. Please check it for mathematical errors. If you believe there are none, please remove {{Proofread}} from the code.To discuss this page in more detail, feel free to use the talk page. When this work has been completed, you may remove this instance of {{Proofread}} from the code. |
Theorem
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be an ordered set.
The following statements are equivalent::
- $(\text 1) \quad \struct {S, \preceq}$ is a complete join semilattice
- $(\text 2) \quad \struct {S, \preceq}$ is a complete meet semilattice
- $(\text 3) \quad \struct {S, \preceq}$ is a complete lattice
Proof
Statement $(\text 1)$ implies Statement $(\text 2)$
Let $\struct {S, \preceq}$ be a complete join semilattice.
Let $A \subseteq S$.
Let $T = \leftset{s \in S : s}$ is a lower bound for $\rightset{A}$
By definition of complete join semilattice:
- $\sup T$ exists in $\struct {S, \preceq}$
Let $a = \sup T$.
We have:
- $\forall s \in A : s$ is an upper bound for $T$
By definition of supremum:
- $\forall s \in A: a \preceq s$
By definition of lower bound:
- $a$ is a lower bound for $A$
Since $a$ is the supremum of all lower bounds of $A$:
- $a = \inf A$
Since $A$ was arbitrary:
- $\forall A \subseteq S : \inf A \in S$
Hence $\struct {S, \preceq}$ is a complete meet semilattice by definition.
$\Box$
Statement $(\text 2)$ implies Statement $(\text 3)$
We have:
- Statement $(\text 2)$ implies Statement $(\text 1)$
is the dual statement of:
- Statement $(\text 1)$ implies Statement $(\text 2)$
We have:
- Statement $(\text 1)$ implies Statement $(\text 2)$
So:
- Statement $(\text 2)$ implies Statement $(\text 1)$
follows from the Duality Principle.
The result now follows directly from:
$\Box$
Statement $(\text 3)$ implies Statement $(\text 1)$
The result follows immediately from:
$\blacksquare$
Sources
- 1982: Peter T. Johnstone: Stone Spaces: Chapter $\text I$: Preliminaries, $\S4.3$ Proposition