5
$\begingroup$

For $A, B \subseteq \omega$ we set $A \leq_{\text{inj}} B$ if there is an injective and order-preserving map $f:\omega\to \omega$ , such that $f(A)$ is a down-set of $B$. It is easy to see that $\leq_{\text{inj}}$ is an ordering relation on ${\cal P}(\omega)$. (This is different from the lexicographic ordering discussed in another post.)

Let us compare the two posets $({\cal P}(\omega), \subseteq)$ and $({\cal P}(\omega), \leq_{\text{inj}})$: Are there surjective order-preserving maps between them, in either direction?

EDITED: Where down-set is printed above, I had the weaker (and confusing) condition $f(A)\subseteq B$ which doesn't make sense, as Andreas Blass pointed out.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Dominic, Andreas Blass points out that every infinite subset is $\leq_{inj}$ every other infinite subset. Surely you meant what I read it as, with $f(A) = B$, not $f(A) \subseteq B$? $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Oct 24, 2017 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ I want $f(A)$ to be a down-set inside $B$... does that make any sense, and I'm still not 100% sure the resulting relation is anti-symmetric (pretty sure though, for what it's worth) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 24, 2017 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, good. So if $A$ and $B$ are both infinite, that is the same as $A=B$ and thus the order is as I described. So I think my solution is still correct. $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Oct 24, 2017 at 11:24
  • $\begingroup$ Right - now that I had a look at it again, I agree! I'll accept it $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 24, 2017 at 12:32

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Yes there is a surjective order-preserving map from $\leq_{inj}$ to $\subseteq$, no in the reverse direction.

If you restrict the $\leq_{inj}$ order to the family of all infinite subsets of $\omega$ the result is isomorphic to the set of all functions from $\omega$ to $\omega$ with the coordinatewise order ($f \leq g$ if $f(n) \leq g(n)$ for all $n$). Namely, if $(a_n)$ is an infinite subset of $\omega$ given in increasing order, map it to the sequence $(a_{n+1} - a_n - 1)$. I.e. map an infinite set to the sequence of gaps.

It's easy to see that there is an order-preserving surjection from this space to $\mathcal{P}(\omega)$. (Identify the latter with the set of functions from $\omega$ to ${0,1}$.) Any finite subset corresponds to a function from an initial segment of $\omega$ to $\omega$; fill it out with a sequence of zeros and map it to the image of that sequence. That gives you one direction.

For the nonexistence of a map with the desired properties in the other direction, just note that the standard order had a greatest element (namely, $\omega$) but the inj order does not. So any map has to take $\omega$ somewhere and then nothing could consistently map to any greater element.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe I'm just confused, but it seems to me that your isomorphism between $\leq_{\text{inj}}$ and the coordinatewise order on functions $\omega\to\omega$ involves $\leq_{\text{inj}}$ defined as "there is an injective order-preserving $f:\omega\to\omega$ with $f(A)=B$", whereas the definition in the question ends with $f(A)\subseteq B$. With the $\subseteq$ version of the definition, it seems that every subset of $\omega$ is $\leq_{\text{inj}}$ every infinite subset of $\omega$. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 23, 2017 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ Comments that begin "Maybe I'm just confused" are the most dangerous ones, aren't they? Well, you are right, I totally misread the question. Though I wonder if the definition I used was actually the intended one, since otherwise the problem is trivial. $\endgroup$
    – Nik Weaver
    Commented Oct 24, 2017 at 1:09
  • $\begingroup$ Right - sorry for the buggy definition! That's a nuisance if the OP doesn't get it right -- I apologise $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 24, 2017 at 6:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .