DOCSLIB.ORG

DISTRIBUTIVE LATTICES FACT 1: for Any Lattice <A,≤>: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 Hold in <A,≤>: the Distributive Inequal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DISTRIBUTIVE LATTICES FACT 1: for Any Lattice <A,≤>: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 Hold in <A,≤>: the Distributive Inequal DISTRIBUTIVE LATTICES FACT 1: For any lattice <A,≤>: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 hold in <A,≤>: The distributive inequalities: 1. for every a,b,c ∈ A: (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) ≤ a ∧ (b ∨ c) 2. for every a,b,c ∈ A: a ∨ (b ∧ c) ≤ (a ∨ b) ∧ (a ∨ c) 3. for every a,b,c ∈ A: (a ∧ b) ∨ (b ∧ c) ∨ (a ∧ c) ≤ (a ∨ b) ∧ (b ∨ c) ∧ (a ∨ c) The modular inequality: 4. for every a,b,c ∈ A: (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) ≤ a ∧ (b ∨ (a ∧ c)) FACT 2: For any lattice <A,≤>: 5 holds in <A,≤> iff 6 holds in <A,≤> iff 7 holds in <A,≤>: 5. for every a,b,c ∈ A: a ∧ (b ∨ c) = (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) 6. for every a,b,c ∈ A: a ∨ (b ∧ c) = (a ∨ b) ∧ (a ∨ c) 7. for every a,b,c ∈ A: a ∨ (b ∧ c) ≤ b ∧ (a ∨ c). A lattice <A,≤> is distributive iff 5. holds. FACT 3: For any lattice <A,≤>: 8 holds in <A,≤> iff 9 holds in <A,≤>: 8. for every a,b,c ∈ A:(a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) = a ∧ (b ∨ (a ∧ c)) 9. for every a,b,c ∈ A: if a ≤ b then a ∨ (b ∧ c) = b ∧ (a ∨ c) A lattice <A,≤> is modular iff 8. holds. FACT 4: Every distributive lattice is modular. Namely, let <A,≤> be distributive and let a,b,c ∈ A and let a ≤ b. a ∨ (b ∧ c) = (a ∨ b) ∧ (a ∨ c) [by distributivity] = b ∧ (a ∨ c) [since a ∨ b =b]. The pentagon: The diamond: o 1 o 1 o z o y x o o y o z o x o 0 o 0 THEOREM 5: A lattice is modular iff the pentagon cannot be embedded in it. PROOF: 1. The pentagon is not modular. x ≤ y x ∨ ( y ∧ z) = x y ∧ (x ∨ z) = y The class of modular lattices is defined by identity 8, hence it is closed under sublattices: every sublattice of a modular lattice is itself a modular lattice. If the pentagon can be embedded in a lattice, then that lattice has a non-modular sublattice, hence it is not modular. 2. Let <A,≤> be a non-modular lattice. Let a,b,c ∈ A, and a ≤ b and let a ∨ (b ∧ c) ≠ b ∧ (a ∨ c). We first show: a < b, ¬(c ≤ a), ¬(a ≤ c), ¬(c ≤ b), ¬(b ≤ c) a < b Namely: a ≤ b. If a = b, then a ∨ (b ∧ c) = a ∨ (a ∧ c) = a and b ∧ (a ∨ c) = a ∧ (a ∨ c) = a. Hence a ∨ (b ∧ c) = b ∧ (a ∨ c), contradicting the assumption. Hence a ≠ b. Hence a < b. ¬(a ≤ c) Namely: If a ≤ c, then a ∨ c = c, hence b ∧ (a ∨ c) = b ∧ c. Since a ≤ b and a ≤ c, a ≤ b ∧ c. Then a ∨ (b ∧ c) = b ∧ c. Hence b ∧(a ∨ c) = a ∨ (b ∧ c), contradicting the assumption. Hence ¬(a ≤ c). ¬(c ≤ a) Namely: If c ≤ a, then c ≤ b, hence b ∧ c = c, hence a ∨ (b ∧ c) = a ∨ c = a. Similarly, b ∧ (a ∨ c) = b ∧ a = a. Then b ∧(a ∨ c) = a ∨ (b ∧ c), contradicting the assumption. Hence ¬(c ≤ a). ¬(b ≤ c) Namely: If b ≤ c, then b ∧ c = b. Then a ∨ (b ∧ c) = b. Also a ∨ c = c, hence b ∧ (a ∨ c) = b. Then b ∧(a ∨ c) = a ∨ (b ∧ c), contradicting the assumption. Hence ¬(b ≤ a). ¬(c ≤ b) Namely: If c ≤ b, then b ∧ c = c, hence a ∨ (b ∧ c) = a ∨ c. Since a ≤ b and c ≤ b, a ∨ c ≤ b. Hence b ∧ (a ∨ c) = (a ∨ c). Then b ∧(a ∨ c) = a ∨ (b ∧ c), contradicting the assumption. Hence ¬(c ≤ b). Now let: 1' = a ∨ c z = c y = b ∧ (a ∨ c) x = a ∨ (b ∧ c) 0' = b ∧ c What we are going to prove is: 0' < x < y < 1' 0' < z < 1' ¬(x ≤ z), ¬(z ≤ x), ¬(y ≤ z), ¬(z ≤ y) x ∧ z = y ∧ z = 0' x ∨ z = y ∨ z = 1' 0' < x Namely: b ∧ c ≤ a ∨ (b ∧ c) If b ∧ c = a ∨ (b ∧ c), then a ≤ b ∧ c, and hence a ≤ c. But ¬(a ≤ c). Hence b ∧ c ≠ a ∨ (b ∧ c). Hence 0' < x. x < y Namely: (2.) under FACT 1, tells us that a ∨ (b ∧ c) ≤ (a ∨ b) ∧ (a ∨ c). Since a < b, a ∨ b = b, Hence we know that: a ∨ (b ∧ c) ≤ b ∧ (a ∨ c). By the assumption, it follows that: a ∨ (b ∧ c) < b ∧ (a ∨ c). Hence x < y. y < 1' Namely: b ∧ (a ∨ c) ≤ a ∨ c If b ∧ (a ∨ c) = a ∨ c, then a ∨ c ≤ b, and hence c ≤ b. But ¬(c ≤ b). Hence b ∧ (a ∨ c) ≠ a ∨ c. Hence y < 1'. 0 < z Namely: b ∧ c ≤ c If b ∧ c = c, c ≤ b. But ¬(c ≤ b). Hence b ∧ c ≠ c. Hence 0' < z. z < 1' Namely: c ≤ a ∨ c If c = a ∨ c, then a ≤ c. But ¬(a ≤ c). Hence c ≠ a ∨ c. Hence z < 1'. z ∧ y = 0' Namely: z ∧ y = c ∧ (b ∧ (a ∨ c)) = (c ∧ (a ∨ c)) ∧ b = b ∧ c = 0' ¬(z ≤ y), ¬(y ≤ z) Namely: If z ≤ y, then z ∧ y = z. Since z ∧ y = 0', then z = 0'. But 0' < z. Hence ¬(z ≤ y). Similarly ¬(y ≤ z). z ∨ x = 1' Namely: z ∨ x = c ∨ (a ∨ (b ∧ c)) = (c ∨ (b ∧ c)) ∨ a = a ∨ c = 1' ¬(z ≤ x), ¬(x ≤ z) Namely: If z ≤ x, then z ∨ x = x. Since z ∨ x = 1', then z = 1'. But z < 1' Hence ¬(z ≤ x). Similarly, ¬(x ≤ z). z ∧ x = 0' Namely: z ∧ y = 0' and 0' ≤ x, hence z ∧ y ≤ x. z ∧ y ≤ z, hence z ∧ y ≤ z ∧ x. x ≤ y, hence z ∧ x ≤ y. z ∧ x ≤ z, hence z ∧ x ≤ z ∧ y. Hence z ∧ x = z ∧ y, hence z ∧ x = 0'. z ∨ y = 1' Namely: z ∨ x = 1' and y ≤ 1', hence y ≤ z ∨ x. z ≤ z ∨ x, hence z ∨ y ≤ z ∨ x. x ≤ y, hence x ≤ z ∨ y. z ≤ z ∨ y, hence z ∨ x ≤ z ∨ y. Hence z ∨ y = z ∨ x , hence z ∨ y = 1'. What we have shown now is that {0',x,y,z,1'} ⊆ A is closed under join and meet. Hence <{0',x,y,z,1'},≤⌠{0',x,y,z,1'}> is a sublattice of <A,≤>. But, of course, this sublattice of <A,≤> is isomorphic to the pentagon, hence the pentagon can be embedded in <A,≤>. ◄ THE STORY IN PICTURES For the non-modular lattice, the story is simple. Let <A,≤> be a lattice, let a ≤ b, and let a ∨ (b ∧ c) < b ∧ (a ∨ c). As we have seen, we easily esablish that then a < b, and c is independent of a and of b, and, for that matter, of a ∨ (b ∧ c) and of b ∧ (a ∨ c). We get structure AF b ∨ c b a ∨ c b ∧ (a ∨ c) c a ∨ (b ∧ c) a b ∧ c a ∧ c We need to check now which of the lines in this picture represent 'smaller than' and which represent 'smaller or equal than'. This is done in the following picture: thick and double lines represent 'smaller than', thin lines represent 'smaller or equal than': b 1' y z = c x 0' a Homomorphisms can contract thin lines, but not thick or double lines. This means that the picture really stands for two structures: A1, where a < x, A1 = AF, and A2 where a = x. A2 is the pentagon. We know then that A contains the sublattice in the picture, [{a,b,c}], which is either AF, which contains the pentagon as a sublattice, or the pentagon itself. THEOREM 6: A modular lattice is distributive iff the diamond cannot be embedded in it. PROOF: 1. The diamond is modular, but not distributive. That the diamond is modular follows from theorem 5. Obviously the pentagon cannot be embedded in it. The diamond is not distributive: y ∨ (x ∧ z) = y (y ∨ x) ∧ (y ∨ z) = 1 The class of distributive lattices is defined by identity 5, hence it is closed under sublattices: every sublattice of a distributive lattice is itself a distributive lattice. If the diamond can be embedded in a lattice, then that lattice has a non-distributive sublattice, hence it is not distributive. 2. Let <A,≤> be a modular, non-distributive lattice. Let a,b,c ∈ A and let a ∧ (b ∨ c) ≠ (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) . By (1.) of FACT 1, this means that: (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) < a ∧ (b ∨ c). This implies that: ¬(a ≤ b), ¬ (b ≤ a), ¬ (a ≤ c), ¬(c ≤ a), ¬(b ≤ c), ¬(c ≤ b). Namely: If a ≤ b, then a ∧ b = a. Hence (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) = a ∨ (a ∧ c) = a Then a < a ∧ (b ∨ c), which is impossible. Hence ¬(a ≤ b). If b ≤ a, then a ∧ b = b. Then (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) = b ∨ (a ∧ c). Hence b ∨ (a ∧ c) < a ∧ (b ∨ c). But, since <A,≤> is modular and b ≤ a, b ∨ (a ∧ c) = a ∧ (b ∨ c). Contradiction. Hence ¬(b ≤ a). Obviously, the same argument shows that ¬(a ≤ c) and ¬(c ≤ a). If b ≤ c, then a ∧ (b ∨ c) = a ∧ c. Hence (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) < (a ∧ c). This is obviously impossible. Hence ¬(b ≤ c). Similarly, ¬(c ≤ b). Now let: 1' = (a ∨ b) ∧ (a ∨ c) ∧ (b ∨ c) x = (a ∧ 1') ∨ 0' y = (b ∧ 1') ∨ 0' z = (c ∧ 1') ∨ 0' 0' = (a ∧ b) ∨ (a ∧ c) ∨ (b ∧ c) 0 ≤ 1' . This is (3.) of FACT 1. 0' ≤ x, 0' ≤ y, 0' ≤ z. Obviously. x ≤ 1', y ≤ 1', z ≤ 1'. Namely: a ∧ 1' ≤ 1' and 0 ≤ 1', hence ((a ∧ 1') ∨ 0' ≤ 1', hence x ≤ 1'. Similarly, y ≤ 1' and z ≤ 1'. What we are going to prove is: 0' < x < 1, 0' < y < 1', 0 < z < 1' ¬(x ≤ y), ¬(y ≤ x), ¬(x ≤ z), ¬(z ≤ x), ¬(y ≤ z), ¬(z ≤ y) x ∧ y = x ∧ z = y ∧ z = 0' x ∨ y = x ∨ z = y ∨ z = 1' We will start by deriving some useful facts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semimodular Lattices Theory and Applications
    P1: SDY/SIL P2: SDY/SJS QC: SSH/SDY CB178/Stern CB178-FM March 3, 1999 9:46 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF MATHEMATICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS Semimodular Lattices Theory and Applications MANFRED STERN P1: SDY/SIL P2: SDY/SJS QC: SSH/SDY CB178/Stern CB178-FM March 3, 1999 9:46 PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA http://www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia c Cambridge University Press 1999 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1999 Printed in the United States of America Typeset in 10/13 Times Roman in LATEX2ε[TB] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stern, Manfred. Semimodular lattices: theory and applications. / Manfred Stern. p. cm. – (Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications ; v. 73) Includes bibliographical references and index. I. Title. II. Series. QA171.5.S743 1999 511.303 – dc21 98-44873 CIP ISBN 0 521 46105 7 hardback P1: SDY/SIL P2: SDY/SJS QC: SSH/SDY CB178/Stern CB178-FM March 3, 1999 9:46 Contents Preface page ix 1 From Boolean Algebras to Semimodular Lattices 1 1.1 Sources of Semimodularity
    [Show full text]
  • Cayley's and Holland's Theorems for Idempotent Semirings and Their
    Cayley's and Holland's Theorems for Idempotent Semirings and Their Applications to Residuated Lattices Nikolaos Galatos Department of Mathematics University of Denver [email protected] Rostislav Horˇc´ık Institute of Computer Sciences Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [email protected] Abstract We extend Cayley's and Holland's representation theorems to idempotent semirings and residuated lattices, and provide both functional and relational versions. Our analysis allows for extensions of the results to situations where conditions are imposed on the order relation of the representing structures. Moreover, we give a new proof of the finite embeddability property for the variety of integral residuated lattices and many of its subvarieties. 1 Introduction Cayley's theorem states that every group can be embedded in the (symmetric) group of permutations on a set. Likewise, every monoid can be embedded into the (transformation) monoid of self-maps on a set. C. Holland [10] showed that every lattice-ordered group can be embedded into the lattice-ordered group of order-preserving permutations on a totally-ordered set. Recall that a lattice-ordered group (`-group) is a structure G = hG; _; ^; ·;−1 ; 1i, where hG; ·;−1 ; 1i is group and hG; _; ^i is a lattice, such that multiplication preserves the order (equivalently, it distributes over joins and/or meets). An analogous representation was proved also for distributive lattice-ordered monoids in [2, 11]. We will prove similar theorems for resid- uated lattices and idempotent semirings in Sections 2 and 3. Section 4 focuses on the finite embeddability property (FEP) for various classes of idempotent semirings and residuated lat- tices.
    [Show full text]
  • Groups with Almost Modular Subgroup Lattice Provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector
    Journal of Algebra 243, 738᎐764Ž. 2001 doi:10.1006rjabr.2001.8886, available online at http:rrwww.idealibrary.com on View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Groups with Almost Modular Subgroup Lattice provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Francesco de Giovanni and Carmela Musella Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni, Uni¨ersita` di Napoli ‘‘Federico II’’, Complesso Uni¨ersitario Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, I 80126, Naples, Italy and Yaroslav P. Sysak1 Institute of Mathematics, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, ¨ul. Tereshchenki¨ska 3, 01601 Kie¨, Ukraine Communicated by Gernot Stroth Received November 14, 2000 DEDICATED TO BERNHARD AMBERG ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 60TH BIRTHDAY 1. INTRODUCTION A subgroup of a group G is called modular if it is a modular element of the lattice ᑦŽ.G of all subgroups of G. It is clear that everynormal subgroup of a group is modular, but arbitrarymodular subgroups need not be normal; thus modularitymaybe considered as a lattice generalization of normality. Lattices with modular elements are also called modular. Abelian groups and the so-called Tarski groupsŽ i.e., infinite groups all of whose proper nontrivial subgroups have prime order. are obvious examples of groups whose subgroup lattices are modular. The structure of groups with modular subgroup lattice has been described completelybyIwasawa wx4, 5 and Schmidt wx 13 . For a detailed account of results concerning modular subgroups of groups, we refer the reader towx 14 . 1 This work was done while the third author was visiting the Department of Mathematics of the Universityof Napoli ‘‘Federico II.’’ He thanks the G.N.S.A.G.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Meet Representations in Upper Continuous Modular Lattices James Elton Delany Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1966 Meet representations in upper continuous modular lattices James Elton Delany Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Delany, James Elton, "Meet representations in upper continuous modular lattices " (1966). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 2894. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/2894 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been microiihned exactly as received 66-10,417 DE LA NY, James Elton, 1941— MEET REPRESENTATIONS IN UPPER CONTINU­ OUS MODULAR LATTICES. Iowa State University of Science and Technology Ph.D., 1966 Mathematics University Microfilms, Inc.. Ann Arbor, Michigan MEET REPRESENTATIONS IN UPPER CONTINUOUS MODULAR LATTICES by James Elton Delany A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Mathematics Approved: Signature was redacted for privacy. I _ , r Work Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. Iowa State University of Science and Technology Ames, Iowa 1966 il TABLE OP CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. TORSION ELEMENTS, TORSION FREE ELEMENTS, AND COVERING CONDITIONS 4 3. ATOMIC LATTICES AND UPPER CONTINUITY 8 4. COMPLETE JOIN HOMOMORPHISMS 16 5. TWO HOMOMORPHISMS 27 6.
    [Show full text]
  • LATTICE THEORY of CONSENSUS (AGGREGATION) an Overview
    Workshop Judgement Aggregation and Voting September 9-11, 2011, Freudenstadt-Lauterbad 1 LATTICE THEORY of CONSENSUS (AGGREGATION) An overview Bernard Monjardet CES, Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne & CAMS, EHESS Workshop Judgement Aggregation and Voting September 9-11, 2011, Freudenstadt-Lauterbad 2 First a little precision In their kind invitation letter, Klaus and Clemens wrote "Like others in the judgment aggregation community, we are aware of the existence of a sizeable amount of work of you and other – mainly French – authors on generalized aggregation models". Indeed, there is a sizeable amount of work and I will only present some main directions and some main results. Now here a list of the main contributors: Workshop Judgement Aggregation and Voting September 9-11, 2011, Freudenstadt-Lauterbad 3 Bandelt H.J. Germany Barbut, M. France Barthélemy, J.P. France Crown, G.D., USA Day W.H.E. Canada Janowitz, M.F. USA Mulder H.M. Germany Powers, R.C. USA Leclerc, B. France Monjardet, B. France McMorris F.R. USA Neumann, D.A. USA Norton Jr. V.T USA Powers, R.C. USA Roberts F.S. USA Workshop Judgement Aggregation and Voting September 9-11, 2011, Freudenstadt-Lauterbad 4 LATTICE THEORY of CONSENSUS (AGGREGATION) : An overview OUTLINE ABSTRACT AGGREGATION THEORIES: WHY? HOW The LATTICE APPROACH LATTICES: SOME RECALLS The CONSTRUCTIVE METHOD The federation consensus rules The AXIOMATIC METHOD Arrowian results The OPTIMISATION METHOD Lattice metric rules and the median procedure The "good" lattice structures for medians: Distributive lattices Median semilattice Workshop Judgement Aggregation and Voting September 9-11, 2011, Freudenstadt-Lauterbad 5 ABSTRACT CONSENSUS THEORIES: WHY? "since Arrow’s 1951 theorem, there has been a flurry of activity designed to prove analogues of this theorem in other contexts, and to establish contexts in which the rather dismaying consequences of this theorem are not necessarily valid.
    [Show full text]
  • Problems and Comments on Boolean Algebras Rosen, Fifth Edition: Chapter 10; Sixth Edition: Chapter 11 Boolean Functions
    Problems and Comments on Boolean Algebras Rosen, Fifth Edition: Chapter 10; Sixth Edition: Chapter 11 Boolean Functions Section 10. 1, Problems: 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 29, 36, 37 (fifth edition); Section 11.1, Problems: 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 31, 40, 41 (sixth edition) The notation ""forOR is bad and misleading. Just think that in the context of boolean functions, the author uses instead of ∨.The integers modulo 2, that is ℤ2 0,1, have an addition where 1 1 0 while 1 ∨ 1 1. AsetA is partially ordered by a binary relation ≤, if this relation is reflexive, that is a ≤ a holds for every element a ∈ S,it is transitive, that is if a ≤ b and b ≤ c hold for elements a,b,c ∈ S, then one also has that a ≤ c, and ≤ is anti-symmetric, that is a ≤ b and b ≤ a can hold for elements a,b ∈ S only if a b. The subsets of any set S are partially ordered by set inclusion. that is the power set PS,⊆ is a partially ordered set. A partial ordering on S is a total ordering if for any two elements a,b of S one has that a ≤ b or b ≤ a. The natural numbers ℕ,≤ with their ordinary ordering are totally ordered. A bounded lattice L is a partially ordered set where every finite subset has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound.The least upper bound of the empty subset is defined as 0, it is the smallest element of L.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is the Final Preprint Version of a Paper Which Appeared at Algebraic & Geometric Topology 17 (2017) 439-486
    This is the final preprint version of a paper which appeared at Algebraic & Geometric Topology 17 (2017) 439-486. The published version is accessible to subscribers at http://dx.doi.org/10.2140/agt.2017.17.439 SIMPLICIAL COMPLEXES WITH LATTICE STRUCTURES GEORGE M. BERGMAN Abstract. If L is a finite lattice, we show that there is a natural topological lattice structure on the geo- metric realization of its order complex ∆(L) (definition recalled below). Lattice-theoretically, the resulting object is a subdirect product of copies of L: We note properties of this construction and of some variants, and pose several questions. For M3 the 5-element nondistributive modular lattice, ∆(M3) is modular, but its underlying topological space does not admit a structure of distributive lattice, answering a question of Walter Taylor. We also describe a construction of \stitching together" a family of lattices along a common chain, and note how ∆(M3) can be regarded as an example of this construction. 1. A lattice structure on ∆(L) I came upon the construction studied here from a direction unrelated to the concept of order complex; so I will first motivate it in roughly the way I discovered it, then recall the order complex construction, which turns out to describe the topological structures of these lattices. 1.1. The construction. The motivation for this work comes from Walter Taylor's paper [20], which ex- amines questions of which topological spaces { in particular, which finite-dimensional simplicial complexes { admit various sorts of algebraic structure, including structures of lattice. An earlier version of that paper asked whether there exist spaces which admit structures of lattice, but not of distributive lattice.
    [Show full text]
  • ON DISCRETE IDEMPOTENT PATHS Luigi Santocanale
    ON DISCRETE IDEMPOTENT PATHS Luigi Santocanale To cite this version: Luigi Santocanale. ON DISCRETE IDEMPOTENT PATHS. Words 2019, Sep 2019, Loughborough, United Kingdom. pp.312–325, 10.1007/978-3-030-28796-2_25. hal-02153821 HAL Id: hal-02153821 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02153821 Submitted on 12 Jun 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ON DISCRETE IDEMPOTENT PATHS LUIGI SANTOCANALE Laboratoire d’Informatique et des Syst`emes, UMR 7020, Aix-Marseille Universit´e, CNRS Abstract. The set of discrete lattice paths from (0, 0) to (n, n) with North and East steps (i.e. words w x, y such that w x = w y = n) has a canonical monoid structure inher- ∈ { }∗ | | | | ited from the bijection with the set of join-continuous maps from the chain 0, 1,..., n to { } itself. We explicitly describe this monoid structure and, relying on a general characteriza- tion of idempotent join-continuous maps from a complete lattice to itself, we characterize idempotent paths as upper zigzag paths. We argue that these paths are counted by the odd Fibonacci numbers. Our method yields a geometric/combinatorial proof of counting results, due to Howie and to Laradji and Umar, for idempotents in monoids of monotone endomaps on finite chains.
    [Show full text]
  • An Efficient Algorithm for Fully Robust Stable Matchings Via Join
    An Efficient Algorithm for Fully Robust Stable Matchings via Join Semi-Sublattices Tung Mai∗1 and Vijay V. Vazirani2 1Adobe Research 2University of California, Irvine Abstract We are given a stable matching instance A and a set S of errors that can be introduced into A. Each error consists of applying a specific permutation to the preference list of a chosen boy or a chosen girl. Assume that A is being transmitted over a channel which introduces one error from set S; as a result, the channel outputs this new instance. We wish to find a matching that is stable for A and for each of the jSj possible new instances. If S is picked from a special class of errors, we give an O(jSjp(n)) time algorithm for this problem. We call the obtained matching a fully robust stable matching w.r.t. S. In particular, if S is polynomial sized, then our algorithm runs in polynomial time. Our algorithm is based on new, non-trivial structural properties of the lattice of stable matchings; these properties pertain to certain join semi-sublattices of the lattice. Birkhoff’s Representation Theorem for finite distributive lattices plays a special role in our algorithms. 1 Introduction The two topics, of stable matching and the design of algorithms that produce solutions that are robust to errors, have been studied extensively for decades and there are today several books on each of them, e.g., see [Knu97, GI89, Man13] and [CE06, BTEGN09]. Yet, there is a paucity of results at the intersection of these two topics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Variety of Modular Lattices Is Not Generated
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 255, November 1979 THE VARIETYOF MODULAR LATTICES IS NOT GENERATED BY ITS FINITE MEMBERS BY RALPH FREESE1 Abstract. This paper proves the result of the title. It shows that there is a five-variable lattice identity which holds in all finite modular lattices but not in all modular lattices. It is also shown that every free distributive lattice can be embedded into a free modular lattice. An example showing that modular lattice epimorphisms need not be onto is given. We prove the result of the title by constructing a simple modular lattice of length six not in the variety generated by all finite modular lattices. This lattice can be generated by five elements and thus the free modular lattice on five generators, FM (5), is not residually finite. Our lattice is constructed using the technique of Hall and Dilworth [9] and is closely related to their third example. Let F and K be countably infinite fields of characteristics p and q, where p and q are distinct primes. Let Lp be the lattice of subspaces of a four-dimensional vector space over F, Lq the lattice of subspaces of a four-dimensional vector space over K. Two-dimen- sional quotients (i.e. intervals) in both lattices are always isomorphic to Mu (the two-dimensional lattice with « atoms). Thus Lp and Lq may be glued together over a two-dimensional quotient via [9], and this is our lattice. Notice that if F and K were finite fields we could not carry out the above construction since two-dimensional quotients of Lp would have/)" + 1 atoms and those of Lq would have qm + 1, for some n, m > 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Modular Lattices
    Wednesday 1/30/08 Modular Lattices Definition: A lattice L is modular if for every x; y; z 2 L with x ≤ z, (1) x _ (y ^ z) = (x _ y) ^ z: (Note: For all lattices, if x ≤ z, then x _ (y ^ z) ≤ (x _ y) ^ z.) Some basic facts and examples: 1. Every sublattice of a modular lattice is modular. Also, if L is distributive and x ≤ z 2 L, then x _ (y ^ z) = (x ^ z) _ (y ^ z) = (x _ y) ^ z; so L is modular. 2. L is modular if and only if L∗ is modular. Unlike the corresponding statement for distributivity, this is completely trivial, because the definition of modularity is invariant under dualization. 3. N5 is not modular. With the labeling below, we have a ≤ b, but a _ (c ^ b) = a _ 0^ = a; (a _ c) ^ b = 1^ ^ b = b: b c a ∼ 4. M5 = Π3 is modular. However, Π4 is not modular (exercise). Modular lattices tend to come up in algebraic settings: • Subspaces of a vector space • Subgroups of a group • R-submodules of an R-module E.g., if X; Y; Z are subspaces of a vector space V with X ⊆ Z, then the modularity condition says that X + (Y \ Z) = (X + Y ) \ Z: Proposition 1. Let L be a lattice. TFAE: 1. L is modular. 2. For all x; y; z 2 L, if x 2 [y ^ z; z], then x = (x _ y) ^ z. 2∗. For all x; y; z 2 L, if x 2 [y; y _ z], then x = (x ^ z) _ y.
    [Show full text]
  • Dimensional Functions Over Partially Ordered Sets
    Intro Dimensional functions over posets Application I Application II Dimensional functions over partially ordered sets V.N.Remeslennikov, E. Frenkel May 30, 2013 1 / 38 Intro Dimensional functions over posets Application I Application II Plan The notion of a dimensional function over a partially ordered set was introduced by V. N. Remeslennikov in 2012. Outline of the talk: Part I. Definition and fundamental results on dimensional functions, (based on the paper of V. N. Remeslennikov and A. N. Rybalov “Dimensional functions over posets”); Part II. 1st application: Definition of dimension for arbitrary algebraic systems; Part III. 2nd application: Definition of dimension for regular subsets of free groups (L. Frenkel and V. N. Remeslennikov “Dimensional functions for regular subsets of free groups”, work in progress). 2 / 38 Intro Dimensional functions over posets Application I Application II Partially ordered sets Definition A partial order is a binary relation ≤ over a set M such that ∀a ∈ M a ≤ a (reflexivity); ∀a, b ∈ M a ≤ b and b ≤ a implies a = b (antisymmetry); ∀a, b, c ∈ M a ≤ b and b ≤ c implies a ≤ c (transitivity). Definition A set M with a partial order is called a partially ordered set (poset). 3 / 38 Intro Dimensional functions over posets Application I Application II Linearly ordered abelian groups Definition A set A equipped with addition + and a linear order ≤ is called linearly ordered abelian group if 1. A, + is an abelian group; 2. A, ≤ is a linearly ordered set; 3. ∀a, b, c ∈ A a ≤ b implies a + c ≤ b + c. Definition The semigroup A+ of all nonnegative elements of A is defined by A+ = {a ∈ A | 0 ≤ a}.
    [Show full text]