How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced — the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted — a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated — a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Upper bound, least upper bound, and strict upper bound
Definition
Let be a poset (Partial order and partially ordered set) and .
An element is an upper bound of if for every .
An element is a least upper bound (or supremum) of if is an upper bound of and for every upper bound of . When it exists we write .
An element is a strict upper bound of if for every .
Remarks
- A least upper bound is unique when it exists. If and are both least upper bounds of then each is an upper bound and each is below the other, so and , whence by antisymmetry (Partial order and partially ordered set). This is what makes the notation legitimate. Antisymmetry is not peculiar to this argument: the same two-inequality step gives uniqueness of a greatest element (Maximal element and greatest element), and it is used essentially in Bourbaki–Witt fixed point theorem, whose fixed point is obtained by passing from and to . Drop antisymmetry and it is the conclusion, not merely the notation, that goes: on two distinct elements each below the other, every subset still has a least upper bound, yet the map exchanging the two satisfies and has no fixed point.
- Every element of is an upper bound of the empty set, vacuously. Consequently , when it exists, is the least element of .
- An upper bound of need not belong to , and may have many upper bounds and no least one. In with its usual order, the set has upper bounds but no least upper bound.
- In a poset, a strict upper bound is exactly an upper bound outside . If is strict then , since is impossible. Conversely, if is an upper bound and , then every satisfies and , hence . This distinction from an arbitrary upper bound matters in Zorn's lemma, where the argument must produce one outside the chain.
Depends on
Used by
- (ℕ, ≤) has no maximal element: Zorn's chain hypothesis fails Counterexample
- A progressive map with no fixed point, on a poset that is not chain-complete Counterexample
- A sequence with limsup = +∞: the greatest subsequential limit exists only in overlineℝ Counterexample
- xₖ = 1 + (-1)ᵏ, yₖ = 1 + (-1)ᵏ⁺¹ give limsup(xₖ yₖ) = 0 < 4 Counterexample
- Chain-complete poset Definition
- Real powers from suprema of rational powers, with the reciprocal convention below base one Definition
- The five completeness properties of an ordered field: least upper bound, monotone convergence, nested intervals, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy completeness Definition
- The order topology of a linearly ordered set, with the open rays as a subbasis; order-convex sets, order-density, the least upper bound property, and linear continua Definition
- (-1)ᵏ has liminf = -1 and limsup = 1, so it does not converge Example
- A positive sequence making all three inequalities of the ratio-to-root chain strict Example
- Assuming the Axiom of Choice, compactness of [0,1] derived from the subbase lemma alone, using only the rays as a subbasis and the least upper bound property Example
- The block sequence 1/1; 1/2, 2/2; 1/3, 2/3, 3/3; … has subsequential limit set exactly [0,1] Example
- The chains of a poset, ordered by inclusion, form a chain-complete poset Example
- The power set is chain-complete, with union as supremum Example
- FALSE: limsup aₖ^1/k = limsup aₖ₊₁/aₖ for every positive sequence False statement
- FALSE: limsup(xₖ + yₖ) = limsup xₖ + limsup yₖ False statement
- A supremum of extremal elements is extremal Lemma
- An ordered field with the least-upper-bound property has the nested interval property and is Archimedean Lemma
- Every subset of overlineℝ has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound in overlineℝ, agreeing with the real supremum and infimum on nonempty sets bounded in ℝ Lemma
- For finite L: L = limsup xₖ iff for every ε > 0 one has xₖ < L + ε eventually and xₖ > L - ε frequently Lemma
- If xₖ ≤ yₖ eventually then limsup xₖ ≤ limsup yₖ and liminf xₖ ≤ liminf yₖ Lemma
- liminf xₖ ≤ limsup xₖ for every real sequence Lemma
- limsup(-xₖ) = -liminf(xₖ), with the reflection of overlineℝ exchanging ±∞ Lemma
- The cut at an extremal element is closed under chain suprema Lemma
- The monotone convergence property plus the Archimedean property imply the least-upper-bound property Lemma
- The tail suprema of any real sequence are nonincreasing in overlineℝ, so the limit superior exists for every sequence Lemma
- The union of a nonempty chain of filters is a filter Lemma
- A linear continuum is connected in its order topology, and so is every order-convex subset of it Theorem
- A real sequence converges to L ∈ ℝ iff liminf xₖ = limsup xₖ = L, and diverges to ±∞ iff both equal ±∞ Theorem
- A summability matrix with only finitely many nonzero entries per row is regular iff each column tends to 0, the row sums tend to 1, and the row absolute sums are uniformly bounded Theorem
- Alexander's subbase lemma: if every cover by members of a fixed subbasis has a finite subcover then the space is compact; the proof is an application of Zorn's lemma Theorem
- Every closed initial segment of the long ray is compact; the long ray is not compact; and, assuming countable choice, it is countably compact and not Lindel"of Theorem
- For aₖ > 0: liminf aₖ₊₁/aₖ ≤ liminf aₖ^1/k ≤ limsup aₖ^1/k ≤ limsup aₖ₊₁/aₖ Theorem
- For bounded nonnegative sequences, limsup(xₖ yₖ) ≤ (limsup xₖ)(limsup yₖ) Theorem
- limsup(xₖ + yₖ) ≤ limsup xₖ + limsup yₖ whenever the right-hand side is defined in overlineℝ, and dually for liminf Theorem
- The limit superior is itself a subsequential limit in overlineℝ and is the greatest one Theorem
- The long ray is a linear continuum, hence connected; every one of its at most countable subsets is bounded above, assuming countable choice Theorem
- The ultrafilter lemma, from the Axiom of Choice: every filter extends to an ultrafilter Theorem
- The well-ordering theorem Theorem
- Zorn's lemma Theorem
…and 1 more result.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 1 result over 1 level. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Upper and lower bounds (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Partially ordered set (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)