0
$\begingroup$

GLB=greatest lower bound LUB=least upper bound Give one example of a set such that the GLB and LUB exist but there exists at least one subset which has no GLB and LUB.

  • 1
    Hmm, is the set supposed to be a set of reals? The [tag:real-analysis] tag suggests that it is, but [tag:boolean-algebra] could imply that you're thinking about a more general order-theoretic setting. – 2017-01-23

2 Answers 2

4

Consider the set $\{42\}$. It has a greatest lower bound and a least upper bound (both of which are $42$), but its subset $\varnothing$ has neither.

  • 0
    A more non-trivial example? In the real line, this cannot happen non-trivially, right? – 2017-01-23
  • 1
    @астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг: Correct. If the original set has both upper and lower bounds, then all of its subsets are bounded, and so every _non-empty_ subset will have a GLB and LUB. – 2017-01-23
  • 0
    Thank you for the reply, but what would be an example of an ordered set where this would be the case? That set certainly cannot have the GLB/LUB property, right? – 2017-01-23
  • 2
    @астонвіллаолофмэллбэрг: Obviously not -- but for example in $\mathbb Q$ we could consider $\{x\mid -2$\mathbb R$, of course, but not if $\mathbb Q$ is all we know). – 2017-01-23
  • 0
    Oh yes, that is correct. The GLB may exist, but we can not say it exists within the given set. That is a clear example. – 2017-01-23
0

Consider the partially ordered set $$P=\{1,2,3,5,12,18,72,108,1080\}$$ ordered by divisibility. The set $X=\{5,12,18\}$ has greatest lower bound $1$ and least upper bound $1080,$ but its subset $Y=\{12,18\}$ has neither a greatest lower bound nor a least upper bound in $P.$