4
$\begingroup$

Let be given a map $F:(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^n\to F(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^n$.
Let us denote by $\mathcal{P}$ the set whose elements are the solutions of the ode $y'=F(x,y)$, i.e. the differentiable maps $u:J\to\mathbb{R}^n$, where $J\ $ is some open interval in $\mathbb{R}\ $, s.t. $u'(t)=F(t,u(t))$ for all $t\in J$.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be endowed with the ordering by extension.

In order to prove that any element of $\mathcal{P}$ is extendable to a (not unique) maximal element, without particular hypothesis on $F$, I was wondering if the Zorn lemma can be used.

  • 0
    I vaguely recall there might be something in Coddington & Levinson about this, in a section about existence theorems.2011-10-18
  • 0
    You'll probably want to restrict your attention explicitly to functions defined on connected subsets of $\mathbb R$. Otherwise if you start with, say, a solution defined on the open unit interval, the "maximal extension" you get could be the original solution extended periodically to $\mathbb R\setminus\mathbb N$ with jump discontinuities at each integer. And that isn't very interesting...2011-10-18
  • 0
    Dear Henning Makholm, I have edited the question after your comment.2011-10-18
  • 0
    You need the existence theorem itself to guarantee $\mathcal{P}$ is not empty. The next issue, to apply Zorn's lemma you need upper bounds for each chain -- showing this strikes me as a big problem.2011-10-18
  • 1
    @Bill, existence of a partial solution is assumed -- it is implicit in stating the proposition as "any element of $P$ ...". As for upper bounds, what could go wrong? Under the common definition of a function as the set of pairs $\langle x,f(x)\rangle$, the union of all functions in a chain will -- as far as I can see -- be a function with the required property.2011-10-20
  • 0
    For some reason I was thinking there was an issue with differentiability or continuity...but thinking about it some more I guess not.2011-10-20
  • 0
    @Henning Makholm: If you posted your comment as an answer then I would accept it.2011-10-22
  • 0
    @Giuseppe, okay, since you keep insisting. But it's not really much of an answer -- all I did was deny that the proof you had already sketched in the question has any problems with it.2011-10-22

1 Answers 1

2

Yes, Zorn's Lemma should be all you need. Take the set of partial solutions that extend your initial solution, and order them by the subset relation under the common definition of a function as the set of pairs $\langle x, f(x)\rangle$. Then the union of all functions in a chain will be another partial solution, so Zorn's Lemma applies.