Difference between revisions of "Ascending chain condition"
(added alternate condition) |
(Tag: Undo) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Similarly, if every descending chain | Similarly, if every descending chain | ||
<cmath> x_0 \geqslant x_1 \geqslant x_2 \geqslant \dotsc </cmath> | <cmath> x_0 \geqslant x_1 \geqslant x_2 \geqslant \dotsc </cmath> | ||
− | stabilizes, we say that <math>S</math> satisfies the '''descending chain condition''' ('''DCC'''). A set <math>S</math> with an ordering <math>\leqslant</math> | + | stabilizes, we say that <math>S</math> satisfies the '''descending chain condition''' ('''DCC'''). A set <math>S</math> with an ordering <math>\leqslant</math> satisfies ACC if and only if |
its opposite ordering satisfies DCC. | its opposite ordering satisfies DCC. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:00, 15 December 2018
Let be a partially ordered set. We say that satisfies the ascending chain condition (ACC) if every ascending chain eventually stabilizes; that is, there is some such that for all .
Similarly, if every descending chain stabilizes, we say that satisfies the descending chain condition (DCC). A set with an ordering satisfies ACC if and only if its opposite ordering satisfies DCC.
Every finite ordered set necessarily satisfies both ACC and DCC.
Let be a ring, and let be an -module. If the set of sub-modules of with the ordering of satifies ACC, we say that is Noetherian. If this set satisfies DCC, we say that is Artinian.
Theorem. A partially ordered set satisfies the ascending chain condition if and only if every subset of has a maximal element.
Proof. First, suppose that every subset of has a maximal element. Then every ascending chain in has a maximal element, so satisfies ACC.
Now, suppose that some subset of has no maximal element. Then we can recursively define elements such that , for all . This sequence constitutes an ascending chain that does not stabilize, so does not satisfy ACC.
This article is a stub. Help us out by expanding it.