Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I found in Awodey's "Theory Category", second edition p34, a set of poset axioms to define Boolean algebras, whereas I don't see how they can be sufficient.

Here are the axioms:

A Boolean algebra is a poset B equipped with distinguished elements 0, 1, binary operations $a \vee b$ of "join" and $a \wedge b$ of "meet", and a unary operation $\neg b$ of "complementation". These are required to satisfy the conditions $$0 \le a$$ $$a \le 1$$ $$a \le c \text{ and } b > \le c \text{ iff } a\vee b \le c $$ $$c \le a \text{ and } c \le b \text{ > iff } c \le a \wedge b$$ $$a \le \neg > b \text{ iff } a \wedge b = 0$$ $$\neg\neg a =a$$

I can see that from these axioms I can deduce several of the common properties of boolean algebras, so for example I can prove $\forall c, c\wedge\neg c =0$, $\forall (a,c), a\wedge c \le c$, etc. but there are some properties I cannot see how they are provable in this axiomatics.

Here one of which I tried so hard (and failed) to prove from the axioms above: $\forall (a,b), a \le a \vee b$

Could somebody guide me? I am trying to make something impossible? Is my mistake on things I think that are required to be true in a Boolean algebra and are not?

share|improve this question
    
In your second-last axiom, you probably want to say $a\wedge b=0$ rather than $a\vee b=0$. –  Joel David Hamkins Mar 19 '13 at 2:44
    
Yes, thank you. Corrected. I confused three times "vee" and "wedge" while redacting... I hope all is corrected now. –  Almeo Maus Mar 19 '13 at 2:48
1  
The claim that $a\leq a\vee b$ seems to follow immediately from the third axiom, by taking $c=a\vee b$, since $c\leq c$. –  Joel David Hamkins Mar 19 '13 at 2:52
    
Exact. Now I feel so stupid that I'd like to close my question... Thank you so much. –  Almeo Maus Mar 19 '13 at 2:56
3  
Hey, don't worry about it! We all miss easy things sometimes... –  Joel David Hamkins Mar 19 '13 at 3:02
add comment

closed as off-topic by Ricardo Andrade, David White, Carlo Beenakker, Daniel Moskovich, Ryan Budney Oct 19 '13 at 13:25

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about research level mathematics within the scope defined in the help center." – Ricardo Andrade, David White, Carlo Beenakker, Daniel Moskovich, Ryan Budney
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote accepted

As remarked by Joel, this is indeed very direct starting from $a\vee b \le a \vee b$ and using the third axiom. Many thanks to have unstucked me.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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