6
$\begingroup$

Suppose $\mathbb{P}$ is a regular suborder of the separative partial order $\mathbb{Q}$ (see below for definitions). Must there always exist some complete boolean algebra $\mathbb{B}$ such that:

  1. $\mathbb{P}$ is a dense suborder of $\mathbb{B}$ (so $\mathbb{B}$ is the boolean completion of $\mathbb{P}$)
  2. $\mathbb{B}$ is a subalgebra of the boolean completion $\text{ro}(\mathbb{Q})$ of $\mathbb{Q}$ (here we are viewing $\mathbb{Q}$ as a dense suborder of its boolean completion $\text{ro}(\mathbb{Q})$)
  3. $\mathbb{B}$ is also regular in $\text{ro}(\mathbb{Q})$

It is a standard fact that one can lift any regular embedding of separative posets to a regular embedding of the boolean completions. The question is basically whether this lifting can also be viewed as an identity map in a natural way, if the original map was the identity. I suspect the answer is no, and must be known, but do not know of a counterexample.

Definition: Let $\mathbb{P}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ be separative partial orders. A map $e: \mathbb{P} \to \mathbb{Q}$ is called a regular embedding (or complete embedding) iff it is order and incompatibility preserving, and whenever $A$ is a maximal antichain in $\mathbb{P}$ then $e[A]$ is maximal in $\mathbb{Q}$. The latter is equivalent to saying that every $q \in \mathbb{Q}$ has an $e$-reduction in $\mathbb{P}$; i.e. there is some $p \in \mathbb{P}$ such that whenever $p' \le p$ then $e(p') \parallel q$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What goes wrong if we simply take $\mathbb{B}$ as the elements of $\text{RO}(\mathbb{Q})$ that are the joins of a subset of $\mathbb{P}$? $\endgroup$ May 17, 2015 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ Joel, maybe I'm missing something easy, but I don't see why the $\mathbb{B}$ you mentioned has complements. Consider some $X \subset \mathbb{P}$. In $\text{RO}(\mathbb{Q})$, the complement of $\text{sup}_{\text{RO}(\mathbb{Q})}(X)$ is the supremum of the set of all $q \in \text{RO}(\mathbb{Q})$ such that $\forall x \in X \ q \wedge x = 0$. How can this supremem be represented as a supremum of a subset of $\mathbb{P}$? $\endgroup$
    – Sean Cox
    May 17, 2015 at 19:33
  • $\begingroup$ Being the supremum of a subset of $\mathbb{P}$ is the same as being the supremum of an antichain from $\mathbb{P}$. Continue this antichain to a maximal antichain in $\mathbb{P}$, which is also maximal in $\mathbb{Q}$, and the complement of the original element is the join of the part of this antichain that was added. $\endgroup$ May 17, 2015 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ The algebra $\mathbb{B}$ I mentioned is the same as the complete subalgebra of $\text{RO}(\mathbb{Q})$ generated by $\mathbb{P}$, and probably it is easiest to make a general argument this way. $\endgroup$ May 17, 2015 at 19:47

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\P{\mathbb{P}}\newcommand\Q{\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand\Q{\mathbb{Q}}\newcommand\B{\mathbb{B}}\newcommand\Z{\mathbb{Z}} \newcommand\RO{\text{RO}}$Unless I am mistaken (and please correct me if I am, since these issues are sometimes confusing), I believe the answer is yes. Let $\B$ consist of the elements of $\RO(\Q)$ that are the join of a subset of $\P$. This is the same as the elements in $\RO(\Q)$ that are the join of an antichain in $\P$, since if $a=\bigvee X$ with $X\subset\P$, then let $A\subset\P$ be an antichain in $\P$ that is maximal consisting of elements pointwise below elements of $X$, and note that $a=\bigvee A$. Clearly, $\B$ is closed under arbitrary joins. Also, $\B$ is closed under complements, since if $a=\bigvee A$ for an antichain $A\subset\P$, then we may extend $A$ to a maximal antichain $A\sqcup B$ in $\P$, which is also maximal in $\Q$, and so $\neg a=\bigvee B$. Thus, $\B$ is the complete subalgebra of $\RO(\Q)$ generated by $\P$.

Clearly $\P$ is dense in $\B$ and $\B$ is a complete subalgebra of $\RO(\Q)$, and so $\B$ is as desired.

Lastly, although in your question you had assumed only that $\Q$ is separative and not that $\P$ is separative, let me remark that actually it follows from the other assumptions that $\P$ must be separative. To see this, suppose $x\not\leq y$ in $\P$, but there is no $z\in\P$ with $z\leq x$ and $z\perp y$. So we may find a maximal antichain $A\cup\{y\}$ in $\P$ where every element of $A$ is incompatible with $x$. This antichain cannot be maximal in $\Q$, however, since being separative, $\Q$ has an element $z\leq x$ with $z\perp y$, and this $z$ is therefore incompatible with every element of $A\cup\{y\}$, violating that $\P$ is regular in $\Q$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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