3
$\begingroup$

Let $(P,\leq)$ be a poset, and let $\downarrow\! p = \{ x\leq p\}\subseteq P$. Let $M\subseteq P$ be the subset of all maximal elements of $P$.

Question: is there a specific term for a poset $(P,\leq)$ such that $P \subseteq \cup_{m\in M} \downarrow\! m$? That is, $P$ is equal to the union of the lower sets of all maximal elements?


If it makes any difference, in my particular case I have that $P = L \setminus \{ \sup L\}$ where $L$ is a complete lattice.

  • 0
    Sorry, I made a mistake in my previous comment. It is true that in an [inductive poset](http://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Inductive_Poset) there exists a maximal element above each element. (For example, see Arturo Magidin's answer to [this question](http://math.stackexchange.com/q/23724/).) But these two conditions are clearly not equivalent.2014-04-02

1 Answers 1

3

If we have a poset $(P,\le)$ then we can adjoin a new greatest element by setting $\overline P=P\cup\{1\}$ and $p\le 1$ for each $p\in P$. As OP mentioned in his post, this is the situation he is working with. (In this case $\overline P$ is the complete lattice $L$.)

In the above situation:

  • $m$ is a maximal element of $P$ if and only if $m$ is a coatom in $\overline P$;
  • the condition $P \subseteq \cup_{m\in M} \downarrow\! m$ means that every element of $P$ has a coatom of $\overline P$ above it (this is equivalent to: every element of $P$ has a $P$-maximal element above it).

So together we get that $P$ has the required property if and only if $\overline P$ is coatomic.

The notions of coatom and coatomic poset are dual to the notions of atom and atomic poset. The latter seem to be used more frequently.


Based on a guess what phrase could be used if someone would define such thing as described in the question, I browsed a little through the results of searches similar to poset "minimal element below". The only thing I found out was that in study of preference relations the name smooth relation is used sometimes, e.g. Coherent systems by Karl Schlechta p.79:

A strong requirement for the relation, which we find difficult to justify intuitively as a relation property, is smoothness. Essentially, it says that elements are either minimal, or there is a minimal element below them.

Although I do not think this particular case is of much interest for the OP.