This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
In that case, you can't prove it because they are not order-isomorphic.
Proof. Suppose that they are order-isomorphic. Then, there exists a bijection f:S∪{0}→S such that x≥y⟺f(x)≥f(y)∀x,y∈S∪{0}.
Now, since 0 is divisible by every integer (since 0=0×a for all integers a), we have 0≥a∀a∈S∪{0}. So, we have f(0)≥f(a)∀a∈S∪{0}, i.e., f(0)≥k∀k∈Im(f)=S.
Since f(0)∈S, this means that there must exist some element in S (which would be f(0)) which is divisible by every element in S. Since 0∈Dom(f), we know that f(0) exists, say f(0)=m.
Now, since f(0)=m∈S, by definition of S, we get that m+2∈S but note that m is not divisible by m+2 (obvious), i.e., m=f(0)≥m+2 which is a contradiction.
Hence, our assumption is wrong and f doesn't exist.
Hence, we conclude that (S∪{0},≥) is not order-isomorphic to (S,≥)
An informal argument that one could use to show the same fact is that an order-isomorphism preserves maximum properties and since 0 is a maximum for (S∪{0},≥) whereas there is no maximum element in (S,≥), they cannot be order-isomorphic.
In fact, there's a more general theorem which gives some sufficient conditions for two posets to not be order-isomorphic. You can check it out here.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
It is just for mistake, thanks for the reminder.
Log in to reply
I edited your post a bit using standard notation for a set and a poset. Can you check and tell me if this is what you wanted to mean? Thanks.
Yes, absolutely.
In that case, you can't prove it because they are not order-isomorphic.
Proof. Suppose that they are order-isomorphic. Then, there exists a bijection f:S∪{0}→S such that x≥y⟺f(x)≥f(y) ∀ x,y∈S∪{0}.
Now, since 0 is divisible by every integer (since 0=0×a for all integers a), we have 0≥a ∀ a∈S∪{0}. So, we have f(0)≥f(a) ∀ a∈S∪{0}, i.e., f(0)≥k ∀ k∈Im(f)=S.
Since f(0)∈S, this means that there must exist some element in S (which would be f(0)) which is divisible by every element in S. Since 0∈Dom(f), we know that f(0) exists, say f(0)=m.
Now, since f(0)=m∈S, by definition of S, we get that m+2∈S but note that m is not divisible by m+2 (obvious), i.e., m=f(0)≥m+2 which is a contradiction.
Hence, our assumption is wrong and f doesn't exist.
Hence, we conclude that (S∪{0},≥) is not order-isomorphic to (S,≥)
An informal argument that one could use to show the same fact is that an order-isomorphism preserves maximum properties and since 0 is a maximum for (S∪{0},≥) whereas there is no maximum element in (S,≥), they cannot be order-isomorphic.
In fact, there's a more general theorem which gives some sufficient conditions for two posets to not be order-isomorphic. You can check it out here.