TITLE: Confusion about definition of Maximum Element
QUESTION [0 upvotes]: I have some confusion about the definition of maximum elements. On the wikipedia page it says this:
Formally, given a partially ordered set (P, ≤), an element g of a subset S of P is the greatest element of S if

s ≤ g, for all elements s of S. 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_and_least_elements
My question is: Why is the ≤ sign not a < sign? As I understand, a maximum element is unique within a poset (partially ordered set). It seems more logical to me that a < sign would be used instead of a ≤ sign, to ensure that the maximum is unique.
Is it because of the fact that in this poset (P, ≤) only the ≤ sign is relevant and that the < sign is not at play?

REPLY [0 votes]: Assuming "$x<y$" to be equivalent to "$x\leq y\wedge x\neq y$", it should be clear that we cannot simply use that relation in the definition quoted above; if $x<g$ for all $x\in S$, then $g$ cannot also be in $S$ or else you get $g<g$, which is clearly false.
You can phrase the idea of a maximum alternate ways using "$<$", for instance $\forall x\in S(x\neq g\Rightarrow x<g)$; but the clause in parentheses there is the same thing as $x=g\vee x<g$, which is in turn the same thing as $x\leq g$, so we may as well just use the shorter one instead.
{"set_name": "stack_exchange", "score": 0, "question_id": 2501614}