0
$\begingroup$

Is there any filter in the $(\mathbb{R},\max, \min)$ lattice that is not a principal filter (a principal filter generated by an element $a$ is the set $\{ x \in \mathbb{R}\mid a \leq x \}$ )

I'm guessing it exists as the assignment states "Find a non-principal filter of $(\mathbb{R},\max, \min)$", but I cannot figure it out. The only one I can think of is the whole set $\mathbb{R}$, but I don't know if that's right.

Here's my thoughts about it:

Any filter $F$ is non-empty. If $F$ had a minimum element $r_{\rm min}$ then $F$ would be the principal filter generated by $r_{\rm min}$. Therefore, $F$ must "grow indefinitely backwards". But then, $F$ equals $\mathbb{R}$, because if $x$ belongs to $F$ then any real number $y$ larger than $x$ must belong to $F$.

I doubt this reasoning is correct, but even if I am right: is there any other filter F different from $\mathbb{R}$ that is not principal?

  • 0
    **Hint.** Does every subset of $\mathbb{R}$ that is bounded below have a *minimum*?2011-12-12
  • 2
    **Hint 2.** Your error is thinking that just because for every $x\in F$ there is a $y\in F$ with $y\lt x$, this means that $F$ must contain real numbers that are arbitrarily large and negative. It's possible for a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ to have no minimum, and yet be bounded below. If you can't think of one, try not be so negative...2011-12-12
  • 1
    @ArturoMagidin thanks for the hints! If I get you right I could say, for example, _F_ = {x | x > PI} Thus F would be bounded by PI though it would be no principal filter as I cannot "reach" any certain real number g such that F=[g)2011-12-12
  • 2
    @Arturo: Surely thinking negatively would be ideal. :-) (Leandro: **Ignore this comment.**)2011-12-12
  • 0
    @Leandro: Yes, $\{x:x>\pi\}$ works fine. So does $\{x:x>0\}$, which is what Arturo was thinking of when he wrote ‘try not [to] be so negative ...’.2011-12-12

1 Answers 1