Let $\Bbb R^+$ be the set of positive real numbers. Use Zorn's Lemma to show that $\Bbb R^+$ is the union of two disjoint, non-empty subsets, each closed under addition.
Using Zorn's lemma show that $\mathbb R^+$ is the disjoint union of two sets closed under addition.
-
0It's actually a practice test. My teacher does not give us homework or many examples but mostly lectures and I am having a very hard time figuring out how to solve problems in set theory. I am getting used to reading and writing it, but actually using it is proving to be a greater challenge than I expected it to be. – 2012-11-25
3 Answers
First let us recall Zorn's lemma.
Zorn's lemma. Suppose that $(P,\leq)$ is a non-empty partial ordered set such that whenever $C\subseteq P$ is a chain, then there is $p\in P$ that for every $c\in C$, $c\leq p$. Then $(P,\leq)$ has a maximal element.
To use Zorn's lemma, if so, one has to find a partial order with the above property (every chain has an upper bound) an utilize the maximality to prove what is needed.
We shall use the partial order whose members are $(A,B)$ where $A,B$ are disjoint subsets of $\mathbb R^+$ each is closed under addition. We will say that $(A,B)\leq (A',B')$ if $A\subseteq A'$ and $B\subseteq B'$.
This is obviously a partial order. It is non-empty because we can take $A=\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}$ and $B=\{n\cdot\pi\mid n\in\mathbb N\setminus\{0\}\}$, both are clearly closed under addition and disjoint.
Suppose that $C=\{(A_i,B_i)\mid i\in I\}$ is a chain, let $A=\bigcup_{i\in I}A_i$ and $B=\bigcup_{i\in I} B_i$. To see that these sets are disjoint suppose $x\in A\cap B$ then for some $A_i$ and $B_j$ we have $x\in A_i\cap B_j$. Without loss of generality $i
Then $(A,B)\in P$ and therefore is an upper bound of $C$. So every chain has an upper bound and Zorn's lemma says that there is some $(X,Y)$ which is a maximal element.
Now all that is left is to show that $X\cup Y=\mathbb R^+$. Suppose that it wasn't then there was some $r\in\mathbb R^+$ which was neither in $X$ nor in $Y$, then we can take $X'$ to be the closure of $X\cup\{r\}$ under addition. If $X'\cap Y=\varnothing$ then $(X',Y)\in P$ and it is strictly above $(X,Y)$ which is a contradiction to the maximality. Therefore $X'\cap Y$ is non-empty, but then taking $Y'$ to be the closure of $Y\cup\{r\}$ under addition has to be disjoint from $X$, and the maximality argument holds again.
In either case we have that $X\cup Y=\mathbb R^+$.
-
2@Mirko Another way to see this: if $x_0+nr=y_0$ and $y_1+mr=x_1$, then $mx_0+nx_1=my_0+ny_1$ is in $X\cap Y$. – 2017-05-18
Pick a basis for $\mathbb R$ over $\mathbb Q$ and let $v$ be an element of the basis.
Each element in $\mathbb R^+$ can be expressed uniquely as a lineal combination of the basis (containing of course only a finite number of coefficients different from $0$).
Consider the set $A$ of elements of $\mathbb R^+$ in which the coefficient of $v$ is non-negative.
Consider the set $B$ of the elements of $\mathbb R^+$ in which the coefficient of $v$ is negative.
These sets do the trick.
-
1any proper subfield of $\mathbb R$ does the trick – 2017-05-17
Here's a proof which uses Teichmüller–Tukey lemma:
If $\mathcal{F}\ne\emptyset$ is a family of finite character, i.e $X\in \mathcal{F} \iff$ every finite subset of $X$ is in $\mathcal{F}$, then $\mathcal{F}$ has a member which is maximal under inclusion.
This lemma is equivalent to Zorn's lemma. So not quite the exact requirement, but perhaps a simpler proof.
Now, let $\mathcal{F}$ be the collection of $A\subset \mathbb{R}^+$ such that if $x_1,...,x_n \in A$ (perhaps with repetitions) then $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \notin \mathbb{N}$. Then $\mathcal{F}$ is of finite character, since the condition only requires finite subsets of each $A\in\mathcal{F}$. $\{\pi\}\in\mathcal{F}$ so it is not empty. Let $A$ be maximal in $\mathcal{F}$.
- $A$ is closed under addition since for $x,y\in A$, if $x+y\notin A$ by maximality it means that for some $x_1,...,x_n \in A$, $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i+(x+y) \in \mathbb{N}$ but this is still a finite sum of elements of $A$, contradiction.
- $\mathbb{R}^+\setminus A$ is closed under addition, since for $x,y\in \mathbb{R}^+\setminus A$, by maximality and closure under addition of $A$ there are $a,b\in A$ such that $a+x,b+y\in \mathbb{N}$, but then also $a+b+(x+y)\in\mathbb{N}$ so we can't have $x+y\in A$.
So, $(A,\mathbb{R}^+\setminus A)$ is the required partition.
-
0@HenningMakholm We'll yes, that's what I wrote. Since I saw an answer using the fact that every vector space has a basis, which is also a consequence Zorn's lemma, but not the lemma itself, I figured this would be ok as well. – 2018-07-12