Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2015 / ii / Paper 3 / 13I (Logic and Set Theory)

Zorn lemma states that a nonempty partially ordered set in which every chain in a partial order has an upper bound has a maximal element. Here is a proof from the axiom of choice and Hartogs theorem.

Suppose there is no maximal element. Every chain $C$ has a strict upper bound: choose an upper bound $b$ and then an element strictly greater than $b$. The family of sets of strict upper bounds is a set of nonempty subsets of the underlying set $P$. The axiom of choice is used here to choose, simultaneously for every chain $C$, one strict upper bound $b(C)$.

By Hartogs theorem there is an ordinal $\kappa$ admitting no injection into $P$. Transfinite recursion defines $x_{\alpha }$ for $\alpha <\kappa$ byAt each stage the previous elements form a chain, and $x_{\alpha }$ is strictly above every one of them. Hence $\alpha \mapsto x_{\alpha }$ is an injection $\kappa \to P$, a contradiction. Therefore a maximal element exists.

Replace the strict partial order by its reflexive closure $\le$. Partially order all partial orders on $X$ extending $\le$ by inclusion. A chain has an upper bound given by its union: transitivity and antisymmetry each concern finitely many pairs, which all lie in one member of the chain. By Zorn lemma there is a maximal extension $R$.

If $a,b$ are incomparable under $R$, defineThis adds $a{R}^{\prime }b$. It is transitive: composing an old pair with a new one stays in the added set; composing two new pairs would require $bRa$, which is impossible. It is antisymmetric: an added pair and a reverse old pair would again imply $bRa$, and two reverse added pairs would do the same. Thus $R^{\prime }$ is a larger partial order, contradicting maximality. Therefore $R$ is total, and removing its diagonal gives a total order extending the original strict order.

A well-founded relation has a minimal element in every nonempty subset; with the axiom of choice this is equivalent to having no infinite strictly descending sequence. If an extension is a well-order, its least element in any nonempty subset is minimal for the original relation, so the original order must be well-founded.

However not every total extension need be a well-order. Take the empty strict order on $\mathbb{N}$, which is well-founded. Its extension defined by $x\prec y$ if $x>y$ in the usual order is total and has no least element.