-1
$\begingroup$

Let $U$ be a set. Let $N$ be a (possibly infinite) index set. Let $f$ be an $N$-ary relation on $U$ (that is $f$ is a set of functions $N\rightarrow U$).

I denote $\mathcal{L}\in \upuparrows f \Leftrightarrow \forall L\in\prod_{i\in N}\mathcal{L}_i: f \cap \prod_{i\in N} L_i\ne\emptyset$ for every $N$-indexed family $\mathcal{L}$ of filters on $U$.

Does $\mathcal{L}\in \upuparrows f$ imply existence of $a\in \prod_{i\in N} \operatorname{atoms} \mathcal{L}_i$ (where $\operatorname{atoms}\mathcal{X}$ is the set of ultrafilters over filter $\mathcal{X}$) such that $\forall A\in\prod_{i\in N} a_i: f\cap \prod_{i\in N} A_i\ne\emptyset$?

This question is probably related with my other question.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Counter-example:

Example There exists such an (infinite) set $N$ and $N$-ary relation $f$ that $\mathcal{P} \in \upuparrows f$ but there are no indexed family $a \in \prod_{i \in N} \operatorname{atoms} \mathcal{P}_i$ of atomic filter such that $\forall A \in \operatorname{up} a : f \cap \prod A \ne \emptyset$.

Proof Take $\mathcal{L}_0$, $\mathcal{L}_1$ and $f$ from the the answer to this question. Take $\mathcal{P} = \operatorname{up}\mathcal{L}_0 \cap \operatorname{up}\mathcal{L}_1$. If $a \in \prod_{i \in N} \operatorname{atoms} \mathcal{P}_i$ then there exists $c \in \{ 0, 1 \}^N$ such that $a_i \sqsubseteq \mathcal{L}_{c (i)} (i)$ (because $\mathcal{L}_{c (i)} (i) \ne 0$). Then from that example it follows that $(\lambda i \in N : \mathcal{L}_{c (i)} (i)) \not\in \upuparrows f$ and thus $a \not\in \upuparrows f$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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