The definition of "algebraic poset" in Continuous Lattices and Domains, Definition I-4.2, says that, for all $x \in L$,

  • the set $A(x) = {\downarrow} x \cap K(L)$ should be a directed set, and
  • $x = \bigsqcup ({\downarrow} x \cap K(L)$.

Here $L$ is a poset, $K(L)$ is the set of compact elements of $L$, and ${\downarrow} x$ means $\{y \mid y \sqsubseteq x\}$.

I was a bit surprised by the first condition. It is an easy argument to show that, if $k_1$ and $k_2$ are in $A(x)$ then $k_1 \sqcup k_2$ is also in $A(x)$. So, all nonempty finite subsets of $A(x)$ have upper bounds in it. The only question is whether the empty subset has an upper bound in it, i.e., whether $A(x)$ is nonempty in the first place. So,

  • Is it ok to replace the first condition with $A(x)$ is nonempty?
  • What is an example of a situation where $A(x)$ is empty?

Note added: How is $k_1 \sqcup k_2$ in A(x)? First, since $k_1 \sqsubseteq x$ and $k_2 \sqsubseteq x$, we have $k_1 \sqcup k_2 \sqsubseteq x$. Second, $k_1$ and $k_2$ are compact. So, any directed set that goes "beyond" them must "pass" them. Suppose a directed set $u$ also goes beyond $k_1 \sqcup k_2$, i.e., $k_1 \sqcup k_2 \sqsubseteq \bigsqcup u$. Since it has gone beyond $k_1$ and $k_2$, it must have passed them, i.e., there are elements $y_1, y_2 \in u$ such that $k_1 \sqsubseteq y_1$ and $k_2 \sqsubseteq y_2$. Since $u$ is a directed set, it must have an upper bound for $y_1$ and $y_2$, say $y$. Now, $k_1 \sqcup k_2 \sqsubseteq y \in d$. This shows that $k_1 \sqcup k_2$ is compact. The two pieces together say $k_1 \sqcup k_2 \in A(x)$.

  • You say: “if k1 and k2 are in A(x) then k1⊔k2 is also in A(x)” — how do you prove this? – Artem Pelenitsyn Feb 24 '14 at 9:12
  • @ArtemPelenitsyn: I have added my argument to the question. – Uday Reddy Feb 24 '14 at 9:27
  • 1
    Please correct me if I got this wrong, but: in your note you assume that k1⊔k2 exists in L. But L is only a poset, not a directed set, so you can't do that. – Artem Pelenitsyn Feb 24 '14 at 9:40
  • 1
    I also found the fact that second condition is sufficient in bounded complete cpo here: (p. 1) – Artem Pelenitsyn Feb 24 '14 at 9:56
  • @ArtemPelenitsyn. Great, thanks very much. Be wary of the hidden assumption! – Uday Reddy Feb 24 '14 at 18:11
up vote 12 down vote accepted

An example where $A(x)$ is empty is the set of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$ with the usual ordering. It has no compact elements at all.

If we assume the second condition then $A(x)$ cannot be empty: if $A(x) = \emptyset$ then by the second condition $x$ is the empty join, therefore the least element of $L$, which is compact, therefore $x \in A(x) = \emptyset$, a contradiction.

Your proposal to replace the first condition with non-emptyness does not work. Consider the poset $L$ which consists of two copies of $\mathbb{N}$ and $\infty$, where we write $\iota_1(n)$ and $\iota_2(n)$ for the two copies of $n$, ordered by:

  • $\iota_1(m) \leq \iota_1(n) \iff m \leq n$
  • $\iota_2(m) \leq \iota_2(n) \iff m \leq n$
  • $x \leq \infty$ for all $x$.

In words, we have two incomparable chains with a common supremum. All elements are compact except $\infty$. Now:

  1. ${\downarrow}x \cap K(L) \neq \emptyset$, obviously.

  2. $x = \bigvee ({\downarrow}x \cap K(L))$, obviously.

  3. The set ${\downarrow}\infty \cap K(L) = \mathbb{N} + \mathbb{N}$ is not directed.

  • 1
    Cool. Great example! – Uday Reddy Feb 24 '14 at 18:15

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.