- #1
beeftrax
- 9
- 0
I'm reading "A Course in Advanced Calculus" by Robert Borden, and one of the problems begins as follows:
"Prove that the field Q is a lattice, but not a (sigma)-lattice, under the usual order" (pg.25)
Q is of course the rational numbers.
However, Q doesn't seem to be a lattice, since the supremum of, say, [0,1] doesn't exist, since given any upper bound eg 1.1, a smaller upper bound eg 1.01 that is still in Q can be found.
So is Q not in fact a lattice, or am I missing something?
I apologize if this is in the wrong forum.
"Prove that the field Q is a lattice, but not a (sigma)-lattice, under the usual order" (pg.25)
Q is of course the rational numbers.
However, Q doesn't seem to be a lattice, since the supremum of, say, [0,1] doesn't exist, since given any upper bound eg 1.1, a smaller upper bound eg 1.01 that is still in Q can be found.
So is Q not in fact a lattice, or am I missing something?
I apologize if this is in the wrong forum.