Formal Definition
In a partially ordered set (P,≤) an element c is called compact (or finite) if it satisfies one of the following equivalent conditions:
- For every directed subset D of P, if D has a supremum sup D and c ≤ sup D then c ≤ d for some element d of D.
- For every ideal I of P, if I has a supremum sup I and c ≤ sup I then c is an element of I.
If the poset P additionally is a join-semilattice (i.e., if it has binary suprema) then these conditions are equivalent to the following statement:
- For every nonempty subset S of P, if S has a supremum sup S and c ≤ sup S, then c ≤ sup T for some finite subset T of S.
In particular, if c = sup S, then c is the supremum of a finite subset of S.
These equivalences are easily verified from the definitions of the concepts involved. For the case of a join-semilattice note that any set can be turned into a directed set with the same supremum by closing under finite (non-empty) suprema.
When considering directed complete partial orders or complete lattices the additional requirements that the specified suprema exist can of course be dropped. Note also that a join-semilattice which is directed complete is almost a complete lattice (possibly lacking a least element) -- see completeness (order theory) for details.
If it exists, the least element of a poset is always compact. It may be that this is the only compact element, as the example of the real unit interval shows.
Read more about this topic: Compact Element
Famous quotes containing the words formal and/or definition:
“This is no argument against teaching manners to the young. On the contrary, it is a fine old tradition that ought to be resurrected from its current mothballs and put to work...In fact, children are much more comfortable when they know the guide rules for handling the social amenities. It’s no more fun for a child to be introduced to a strange adult and have no idea what to say or do than it is for a grownup to go to a formal dinner and have no idea what fork to use.”
—Leontine Young (20th century)
“The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
—William James (1842–1910)