Do complete atomic boolean algebras form a full subcategory of boolean algebras?












3












$begingroup$


I would like to know if a boolean morphism (that is an application that respects $vee, wedge, neg, 0,1$) between two complete atomic boolean algebras is necessarily complete (it respects also infinite $vee$ and $wedge$)?



I am tempted to say yes because of the duality between complete atomic boolean algebras and sets, but I cannot find a proof.



Thank you!






boolean-algebra duality-theorems







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    I would like to know if a boolean morphism (that is an application that respects $vee, wedge, neg, 0,1$) between two complete atomic boolean algebras is necessarily complete (it respects also infinite $vee$ and $wedge$)?



    I am tempted to say yes because of the duality between complete atomic boolean algebras and sets, but I cannot find a proof.



    Thank you!






    boolean-algebra duality-theorems







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3


      2



      $begingroup$


      I would like to know if a boolean morphism (that is an application that respects $vee, wedge, neg, 0,1$) between two complete atomic boolean algebras is necessarily complete (it respects also infinite $vee$ and $wedge$)?



      I am tempted to say yes because of the duality between complete atomic boolean algebras and sets, but I cannot find a proof.



      Thank you!






      boolean-algebra duality-theorems







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I would like to know if a boolean morphism (that is an application that respects $vee, wedge, neg, 0,1$) between two complete atomic boolean algebras is necessarily complete (it respects also infinite $vee$ and $wedge$)?



      I am tempted to say yes because of the duality between complete atomic boolean algebras and sets, but I cannot find a proof.



      Thank you!






      boolean-algebra duality-theorems




      boolean-algebra duality-theorems






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 28 at 14:18









      L. De RudderL. De Rudder

      335




      335






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          No. For instance, let $X$ be an infinite set and $U$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $X$. Then there is a Boolean homomorphism $f:P(X)to{0,1}$ which maps the elements of $U$ to $1$ and the elements of $Xsetminus U$ to $0$. This homomorphism $f$ is not complete since it maps every singleton to $0$ but does not map every arbitrary join of singletons (i.e., every set) to $0$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            2












            $begingroup$

            Up to isomorphism, a complete and atomic Boolean algebra is a powerset algebra, and powerset algebras are always complete and atomic.

            So, without loss of generality, we can think of complete and atomic Boolean algebras as being exactly the same as powerset algebras.



            Now, let $mathbf A$ be one such algebra, that is, there exists a set $X$ such that $mathbf A = langle mathscr P(X), cap, cup, ', varnothing, X rangle$.

            Let $Y$ be the set of ultrafilters of $mathbf A$;
            for example, for each $x in X$, the set $U_x = {Z in mathscr P(X) : x in Z}$ is an ultrafilter (the principal ultrafilter generated by ${x}$, having ${x}$ as its infimum).

            Let $mathbf B = langle mathscr P(Y), cap, cup, ', varnothing, Y rangle$ be the Boolean algebra of the powerset of $Y$.



            Using properties of ultrafilters, one can easily prove that $Phi : mathbf A to mathbf B$ given by
            $$Phi(a) = { U in Y : a in U }$$
            is a Boolean algebra homomorphism.

            Now consider the set $At_A$ of atoms of $mathbf A$.
            As in any atomic Boolean algebra, $bigvee At_A = top_A$ which is $X$, in this case.

            For $a = {x}$, with $x in X$ (that is, $a in At_A$),
            $$Phi(a) = {U in Y:{x} in U} = {U_x} in At_B,$$
            whence $Phi(At_A) subseteq At_B$.

            If $mathbf A$ is finite, then $Phi$ is an isomorphism and so it is complete.

            But if $mathbf A$ is infinite, then it has at least one non-principal ultrafilter $U_0$, and so $Phi(At_A) neq At_B$, and therefore
            $$bigvee Phi(At_A) < bigvee At_B = Y = Phi(X) = Phileft(bigvee At_Aright),$$
            where the inequality holds because, in a Boolean algebra, the join of a proper subset of the atoms is less than the top element (it is the complement of the join of the remaining atoms).



            We conclude that $Phi$ is not a complete homomorphism.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              $bigvee At_A = top_A$ is not true in an arbitrary Boolean algebra (though it is true in any atomic Boolean algebra).
              $endgroup$
              – Eric Wofsey
              Jan 29 at 21:05










            • $begingroup$
              @EricWofsey Yes, of course, here I went a bit too far. Thanks for pointing out; I'll edit it. Actually, when I wrote it, I actually mean that if a Boolean algebra has at least an atom, then it is atomic, which is not true!
              $endgroup$
              – amrsa
              Jan 29 at 22:43












            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3090909%2fdo-complete-atomic-boolean-algebras-form-a-full-subcategory-of-boolean-algebras%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2












            $begingroup$

            No. For instance, let $X$ be an infinite set and $U$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $X$. Then there is a Boolean homomorphism $f:P(X)to{0,1}$ which maps the elements of $U$ to $1$ and the elements of $Xsetminus U$ to $0$. This homomorphism $f$ is not complete since it maps every singleton to $0$ but does not map every arbitrary join of singletons (i.e., every set) to $0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              2












              $begingroup$

              No. For instance, let $X$ be an infinite set and $U$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $X$. Then there is a Boolean homomorphism $f:P(X)to{0,1}$ which maps the elements of $U$ to $1$ and the elements of $Xsetminus U$ to $0$. This homomorphism $f$ is not complete since it maps every singleton to $0$ but does not map every arbitrary join of singletons (i.e., every set) to $0$.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                No. For instance, let $X$ be an infinite set and $U$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $X$. Then there is a Boolean homomorphism $f:P(X)to{0,1}$ which maps the elements of $U$ to $1$ and the elements of $Xsetminus U$ to $0$. This homomorphism $f$ is not complete since it maps every singleton to $0$ but does not map every arbitrary join of singletons (i.e., every set) to $0$.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                No. For instance, let $X$ be an infinite set and $U$ be a nonprincipal ultrafilter on $X$. Then there is a Boolean homomorphism $f:P(X)to{0,1}$ which maps the elements of $U$ to $1$ and the elements of $Xsetminus U$ to $0$. This homomorphism $f$ is not complete since it maps every singleton to $0$ but does not map every arbitrary join of singletons (i.e., every set) to $0$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 29 at 21:04









                Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

                191k14216349




                191k14216349























                    2












                    $begingroup$

                    Up to isomorphism, a complete and atomic Boolean algebra is a powerset algebra, and powerset algebras are always complete and atomic.

                    So, without loss of generality, we can think of complete and atomic Boolean algebras as being exactly the same as powerset algebras.



                    Now, let $mathbf A$ be one such algebra, that is, there exists a set $X$ such that $mathbf A = langle mathscr P(X), cap, cup, ', varnothing, X rangle$.

                    Let $Y$ be the set of ultrafilters of $mathbf A$;
                    for example, for each $x in X$, the set $U_x = {Z in mathscr P(X) : x in Z}$ is an ultrafilter (the principal ultrafilter generated by ${x}$, having ${x}$ as its infimum).

                    Let $mathbf B = langle mathscr P(Y), cap, cup, ', varnothing, Y rangle$ be the Boolean algebra of the powerset of $Y$.



                    Using properties of ultrafilters, one can easily prove that $Phi : mathbf A to mathbf B$ given by
                    $$Phi(a) = { U in Y : a in U }$$
                    is a Boolean algebra homomorphism.

                    Now consider the set $At_A$ of atoms of $mathbf A$.
                    As in any atomic Boolean algebra, $bigvee At_A = top_A$ which is $X$, in this case.

                    For $a = {x}$, with $x in X$ (that is, $a in At_A$),
                    $$Phi(a) = {U in Y:{x} in U} = {U_x} in At_B,$$
                    whence $Phi(At_A) subseteq At_B$.

                    If $mathbf A$ is finite, then $Phi$ is an isomorphism and so it is complete.

                    But if $mathbf A$ is infinite, then it has at least one non-principal ultrafilter $U_0$, and so $Phi(At_A) neq At_B$, and therefore
                    $$bigvee Phi(At_A) < bigvee At_B = Y = Phi(X) = Phileft(bigvee At_Aright),$$
                    where the inequality holds because, in a Boolean algebra, the join of a proper subset of the atoms is less than the top element (it is the complement of the join of the remaining atoms).



                    We conclude that $Phi$ is not a complete homomorphism.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$









                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      $bigvee At_A = top_A$ is not true in an arbitrary Boolean algebra (though it is true in any atomic Boolean algebra).
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Wofsey
                      Jan 29 at 21:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      @EricWofsey Yes, of course, here I went a bit too far. Thanks for pointing out; I'll edit it. Actually, when I wrote it, I actually mean that if a Boolean algebra has at least an atom, then it is atomic, which is not true!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amrsa
                      Jan 29 at 22:43
















                    2












                    $begingroup$

                    Up to isomorphism, a complete and atomic Boolean algebra is a powerset algebra, and powerset algebras are always complete and atomic.

                    So, without loss of generality, we can think of complete and atomic Boolean algebras as being exactly the same as powerset algebras.



                    Now, let $mathbf A$ be one such algebra, that is, there exists a set $X$ such that $mathbf A = langle mathscr P(X), cap, cup, ', varnothing, X rangle$.

                    Let $Y$ be the set of ultrafilters of $mathbf A$;
                    for example, for each $x in X$, the set $U_x = {Z in mathscr P(X) : x in Z}$ is an ultrafilter (the principal ultrafilter generated by ${x}$, having ${x}$ as its infimum).

                    Let $mathbf B = langle mathscr P(Y), cap, cup, ', varnothing, Y rangle$ be the Boolean algebra of the powerset of $Y$.



                    Using properties of ultrafilters, one can easily prove that $Phi : mathbf A to mathbf B$ given by
                    $$Phi(a) = { U in Y : a in U }$$
                    is a Boolean algebra homomorphism.

                    Now consider the set $At_A$ of atoms of $mathbf A$.
                    As in any atomic Boolean algebra, $bigvee At_A = top_A$ which is $X$, in this case.

                    For $a = {x}$, with $x in X$ (that is, $a in At_A$),
                    $$Phi(a) = {U in Y:{x} in U} = {U_x} in At_B,$$
                    whence $Phi(At_A) subseteq At_B$.

                    If $mathbf A$ is finite, then $Phi$ is an isomorphism and so it is complete.

                    But if $mathbf A$ is infinite, then it has at least one non-principal ultrafilter $U_0$, and so $Phi(At_A) neq At_B$, and therefore
                    $$bigvee Phi(At_A) < bigvee At_B = Y = Phi(X) = Phileft(bigvee At_Aright),$$
                    where the inequality holds because, in a Boolean algebra, the join of a proper subset of the atoms is less than the top element (it is the complement of the join of the remaining atoms).



                    We conclude that $Phi$ is not a complete homomorphism.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$









                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      $bigvee At_A = top_A$ is not true in an arbitrary Boolean algebra (though it is true in any atomic Boolean algebra).
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Wofsey
                      Jan 29 at 21:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      @EricWofsey Yes, of course, here I went a bit too far. Thanks for pointing out; I'll edit it. Actually, when I wrote it, I actually mean that if a Boolean algebra has at least an atom, then it is atomic, which is not true!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amrsa
                      Jan 29 at 22:43














                    2












                    2








                    2





                    $begingroup$

                    Up to isomorphism, a complete and atomic Boolean algebra is a powerset algebra, and powerset algebras are always complete and atomic.

                    So, without loss of generality, we can think of complete and atomic Boolean algebras as being exactly the same as powerset algebras.



                    Now, let $mathbf A$ be one such algebra, that is, there exists a set $X$ such that $mathbf A = langle mathscr P(X), cap, cup, ', varnothing, X rangle$.

                    Let $Y$ be the set of ultrafilters of $mathbf A$;
                    for example, for each $x in X$, the set $U_x = {Z in mathscr P(X) : x in Z}$ is an ultrafilter (the principal ultrafilter generated by ${x}$, having ${x}$ as its infimum).

                    Let $mathbf B = langle mathscr P(Y), cap, cup, ', varnothing, Y rangle$ be the Boolean algebra of the powerset of $Y$.



                    Using properties of ultrafilters, one can easily prove that $Phi : mathbf A to mathbf B$ given by
                    $$Phi(a) = { U in Y : a in U }$$
                    is a Boolean algebra homomorphism.

                    Now consider the set $At_A$ of atoms of $mathbf A$.
                    As in any atomic Boolean algebra, $bigvee At_A = top_A$ which is $X$, in this case.

                    For $a = {x}$, with $x in X$ (that is, $a in At_A$),
                    $$Phi(a) = {U in Y:{x} in U} = {U_x} in At_B,$$
                    whence $Phi(At_A) subseteq At_B$.

                    If $mathbf A$ is finite, then $Phi$ is an isomorphism and so it is complete.

                    But if $mathbf A$ is infinite, then it has at least one non-principal ultrafilter $U_0$, and so $Phi(At_A) neq At_B$, and therefore
                    $$bigvee Phi(At_A) < bigvee At_B = Y = Phi(X) = Phileft(bigvee At_Aright),$$
                    where the inequality holds because, in a Boolean algebra, the join of a proper subset of the atoms is less than the top element (it is the complement of the join of the remaining atoms).



                    We conclude that $Phi$ is not a complete homomorphism.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    Up to isomorphism, a complete and atomic Boolean algebra is a powerset algebra, and powerset algebras are always complete and atomic.

                    So, without loss of generality, we can think of complete and atomic Boolean algebras as being exactly the same as powerset algebras.



                    Now, let $mathbf A$ be one such algebra, that is, there exists a set $X$ such that $mathbf A = langle mathscr P(X), cap, cup, ', varnothing, X rangle$.

                    Let $Y$ be the set of ultrafilters of $mathbf A$;
                    for example, for each $x in X$, the set $U_x = {Z in mathscr P(X) : x in Z}$ is an ultrafilter (the principal ultrafilter generated by ${x}$, having ${x}$ as its infimum).

                    Let $mathbf B = langle mathscr P(Y), cap, cup, ', varnothing, Y rangle$ be the Boolean algebra of the powerset of $Y$.



                    Using properties of ultrafilters, one can easily prove that $Phi : mathbf A to mathbf B$ given by
                    $$Phi(a) = { U in Y : a in U }$$
                    is a Boolean algebra homomorphism.

                    Now consider the set $At_A$ of atoms of $mathbf A$.
                    As in any atomic Boolean algebra, $bigvee At_A = top_A$ which is $X$, in this case.

                    For $a = {x}$, with $x in X$ (that is, $a in At_A$),
                    $$Phi(a) = {U in Y:{x} in U} = {U_x} in At_B,$$
                    whence $Phi(At_A) subseteq At_B$.

                    If $mathbf A$ is finite, then $Phi$ is an isomorphism and so it is complete.

                    But if $mathbf A$ is infinite, then it has at least one non-principal ultrafilter $U_0$, and so $Phi(At_A) neq At_B$, and therefore
                    $$bigvee Phi(At_A) < bigvee At_B = Y = Phi(X) = Phileft(bigvee At_Aright),$$
                    where the inequality holds because, in a Boolean algebra, the join of a proper subset of the atoms is less than the top element (it is the complement of the join of the remaining atoms).



                    We conclude that $Phi$ is not a complete homomorphism.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Jan 29 at 22:46

























                    answered Jan 29 at 18:36









                    amrsaamrsa

                    3,8552618




                    3,8552618








                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      $bigvee At_A = top_A$ is not true in an arbitrary Boolean algebra (though it is true in any atomic Boolean algebra).
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Wofsey
                      Jan 29 at 21:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      @EricWofsey Yes, of course, here I went a bit too far. Thanks for pointing out; I'll edit it. Actually, when I wrote it, I actually mean that if a Boolean algebra has at least an atom, then it is atomic, which is not true!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amrsa
                      Jan 29 at 22:43














                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      $bigvee At_A = top_A$ is not true in an arbitrary Boolean algebra (though it is true in any atomic Boolean algebra).
                      $endgroup$
                      – Eric Wofsey
                      Jan 29 at 21:05










                    • $begingroup$
                      @EricWofsey Yes, of course, here I went a bit too far. Thanks for pointing out; I'll edit it. Actually, when I wrote it, I actually mean that if a Boolean algebra has at least an atom, then it is atomic, which is not true!
                      $endgroup$
                      – amrsa
                      Jan 29 at 22:43








                    1




                    1




                    $begingroup$
                    $bigvee At_A = top_A$ is not true in an arbitrary Boolean algebra (though it is true in any atomic Boolean algebra).
                    $endgroup$
                    – Eric Wofsey
                    Jan 29 at 21:05




                    $begingroup$
                    $bigvee At_A = top_A$ is not true in an arbitrary Boolean algebra (though it is true in any atomic Boolean algebra).
                    $endgroup$
                    – Eric Wofsey
                    Jan 29 at 21:05












                    $begingroup$
                    @EricWofsey Yes, of course, here I went a bit too far. Thanks for pointing out; I'll edit it. Actually, when I wrote it, I actually mean that if a Boolean algebra has at least an atom, then it is atomic, which is not true!
                    $endgroup$
                    – amrsa
                    Jan 29 at 22:43




                    $begingroup$
                    @EricWofsey Yes, of course, here I went a bit too far. Thanks for pointing out; I'll edit it. Actually, when I wrote it, I actually mean that if a Boolean algebra has at least an atom, then it is atomic, which is not true!
                    $endgroup$
                    – amrsa
                    Jan 29 at 22:43


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3090909%2fdo-complete-atomic-boolean-algebras-form-a-full-subcategory-of-boolean-algebras%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    'app-layout' is not a known element: how to share Component with different Modules

                    Image
                    0 My application was working fine until I decided to go with lazy loading: So, my shared component looks like this: import { Component, Renderer2 } from '@angular/core'; export interface FormModel { captcha?: string; } @Component({ selector: 'app-layout', templateUrl: './app-layout.component.html', styleUrls: ['./app-layout.css'] }) export class FullLayoutComponent { } app-layout.component.ts I am using this component in my Another component say school-home.component.html like this: <app-layout> </app-layout> and it was working fine until I created a Module school-home.module.ts like this: import { NgModule } from '@angular/core'; import { CommonModule } from '@angular/common'; import { SchoolhomeRoutingModule ...
                    Read more

                    android studio warns about leanback feature tag usage required on manifest while using Unity exported app?

                    Image
                    .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 This is a simple project showing cubes on Unity, exported to android project and imported on Android studio. On maifest file it showed following warning: Expecting <uses-feature android:name="android.software.leanback" android:required="false" /> tag I have no information about it. And also on default emptyview android project does not use/mention this feature. I know it is required by TV's and such but why its not added by default? Why is this? And Should I concern about it? android unity3d ...
                    Read more

                    WPF add header to Image with URL pettitions [duplicate]

                    Image
                    up vote 0 down vote favorite This question already has an answer here: Image source URI requiring authorization 3 answers Add header to all* HTTP requests on a machine 1 answer first of all sorry for my english. Recently I added some security in the backend of my project, and now I need to send a validation code(apiKey) inside the headers to retrieve the images. I have a problem with ALL images in my project that I had attached in my UI. For example, before I had: <Image Height="90" Source="{Binding Video.Thumbnail}"/> Now I need to change my code to create a CUSTOM petition add the apiKey in the header:...
                    Read more