A function is *continuous* exactly when it is

- monotonic, i.e. , and
- lub-preserving, i.e. for any chain we have (call this (1))

We can demonstrate that the first property is implied by the second (and is thus unnecessary) by reasoning as follows. Suppose is lub-preserving.

Lub-preservation is a property of *all* chains, so let’s consider the particular chain . The lub of this chain is , so the LHS of (1) becomes . The RHS is , and since this is required to be equal to we can deduce that . We have deduced monotonicity.

Sadly, the reasoning is invalid. Since is a binary operation on *chains* rather than just sets, it might not be defined for . We could respond by saying that it *must* be defined because it’s equal to ! This, however, is dependent on your definition of equality. A perfectly sensible definition of equality between and could be: if and are defined, then the values at which they are defined are the same. This definition makes vacuously true should either be undefined.

In conclusion: the answer is no; to show continuity we need to show both monotonicity *and* lub-preservation.

### Like this:

Like Loading...