Answer by rschwieb for How is a complete lattice defined solely by a...
The problem is here:fine by their definition to define that $\{0\}$ is the lub of $\{\}$.I think you meant "that $0$ is the greatest lower bound of $\{\}$." But $1$ is a lower bound of $\{\}$ as well:...
View ArticleAnswer by Ittay Weiss for How is a complete lattice defined solely by a...
If $P$ is a poset such that every $S\subseteq P$ has a supremum (i.e., lub), then the the infimum (i.e., glb) of a fixed set $S$ is the the supremum of all the lower bounds of $S$. The proof is...
View ArticleHow is a complete lattice defined solely by a least-upper bound?
I'm pretty far into "Concrete Semantics With Isabelle HOL" and I've come to a section on complete lattices. Their definition of "complete lattice" goes like this:A type $'a$ with a partial order $\leq$...
View Article
More Pages to Explore .....
