Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Distributive lattice
View on WikipediaThis article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2011) |
In mathematics, a distributive lattice is a lattice in which the operations of join and meet distribute over each other. The prototypical examples of such structures are collections of sets for which the lattice operations can be given by set union and intersection. Indeed, these lattices of sets describe the scenery completely: every distributive lattice is—up to isomorphism—given as such a lattice of sets.
Definition
[edit]As in the case of arbitrary lattices, one can choose to consider a distributive lattice L either as a structure of order theory or of universal algebra. Both views and their mutual correspondence are discussed in the article on lattices. In the present situation, the algebraic description appears to be more convenient.
A lattice (L,∨,∧) is distributive if the following additional identity holds for all x, y, and z in L:
- x ∧ (y ∨ z) = (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z).
Viewing lattices as partially ordered sets, this says that the meet operation preserves non-empty finite joins. It is a basic fact of lattice theory that the above condition is equivalent to its dual:[1]
- x ∨ (y ∧ z) = (x ∨ y) ∧ (x ∨ z) for all x, y, and z in L.
In every lattice, if one defines the order relation p≤q as usual to mean p∧q=p, then the inequality x ∧ (y ∨ z) ≥ (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z) and its dual x ∨ (y ∧ z) ≤ (x ∨ y) ∧ (x ∨ z) are always true. A lattice is distributive if one of the converse inequalities holds, too. More information on the relationship of this condition to other distributivity conditions of order theory can be found in the article Distributivity (order theory).
Morphisms
[edit]A morphism of distributive lattices is just a lattice homomorphism as given in the article on lattices, i.e. a function that is compatible with the two lattice operations. Because such a morphism of lattices preserves the lattice structure, it will consequently also preserve the distributivity (and thus be a morphism of distributive lattices).
Examples
[edit]
Distributive lattices are ubiquitous but also rather specific structures. As already mentioned the main example for distributive lattices are lattices of sets, where join and meet are given by the usual set-theoretic operations. Further examples include:
- The Lindenbaum algebra of most logics that support conjunction and disjunction is a distributive lattice, i.e. "and" distributes over "or" and vice versa.
- Every Boolean algebra is a distributive lattice.
- Every Heyting algebra is a distributive lattice. Especially this includes all locales and hence all open set lattices of topological spaces. Also note that Heyting algebras can be viewed as Lindenbaum algebras of intuitionistic logic, which makes them a special case of the first example.
- Every totally ordered set is a distributive lattice with max as join and min as meet.
- The natural numbers form a (conditionally complete) distributive lattice by taking the greatest common divisor as meet and the least common multiple as join. This lattice also has a least element, namely 1, which therefore serves as the identity element for joins.
- Given a positive integer n, the set of all positive divisors of n forms a distributive lattice, again with the greatest common divisor as meet and the least common multiple as join. This is a Boolean algebra if and only if n is square-free.
- A lattice-ordered vector space is a distributive lattice.
- Young's lattice given by the inclusion ordering of Young diagrams representing integer partitions is a distributive lattice.
- The points of a distributive polytope (a convex polytope closed under coordinatewise minimum and coordinatewise maximum operations), with these two operations as the join and meet operations of the lattice.[2]
Early in the development of the lattice theory Charles S. Peirce believed that all lattices are distributive, that is, distributivity follows from the rest of the lattice axioms.[3][4] However, independence proofs were given by Schröder, Voigt,(de) Lüroth, Korselt,[5] and Dedekind.[3]
Characteristic properties
[edit]Various equivalent formulations to the above definition exist. For example, L is distributive if and only if the following holds for all elements x, y, z in L: Similarly, L is distributive if and only if
- and always imply

The simplest non-distributive lattices are M3, the "diamond lattice", and N5, the "pentagon lattice". A lattice is distributive if and only if none of its sublattices is isomorphic to M3 or N5; a sublattice is a subset that is closed under the meet and join operations of the original lattice. Note that this is not the same as being a subset that is a lattice under the original order (but possibly with different join and meet operations). Further characterizations derive from the representation theory in the next section.
An alternative way of stating the same fact is that every distributive lattice is a subdirect product of copies of the two-element chain, or that the only subdirectly irreducible member of the class of distributive lattices is the two-element chain. As a corollary, every Boolean lattice has this property as well.[6]
Finally distributivity entails several other pleasant properties. For example, an element of a distributive lattice is meet-prime if and only if it is meet-irreducible, though the latter is in general a weaker property. By duality, the same is true for join-prime and join-irreducible elements.[7] If a lattice is distributive, its covering relation forms a median graph.[8]
Furthermore, every distributive lattice is also modular.
Representation theory
[edit]The introduction already hinted at the most important characterization for distributive lattices: a lattice is distributive if and only if it is isomorphic to a lattice of sets (closed under set union and intersection). (The latter structure is sometimes called a ring of sets in this context.) That set union and intersection are indeed distributive in the above sense is an elementary fact. The other direction is less trivial, in that it requires the representation theorems stated below. The important insight from this characterization is that the identities (equations) that hold in all distributive lattices are exactly the ones that hold in all lattices of sets in the above sense.
Birkhoff's representation theorem for distributive lattices states that every finite distributive lattice is isomorphic to the lattice of lower sets of the poset of its join-prime (equivalently: join-irreducible) elements. This establishes a bijection (up to isomorphism) between the class of all finite posets and the class of all finite distributive lattices. This bijection can be extended to a duality of categories between homomorphisms of finite distributive lattices and monotone functions of finite posets. Generalizing this result to infinite lattices, however, requires adding further structure.
Another early representation theorem is now known as Stone's representation theorem for distributive lattices (the name honors Marshall Harvey Stone, who first proved it). It characterizes distributive lattices as the lattices of compact open sets of certain topological spaces. This result can be viewed both as a generalization of Stone's famous representation theorem for Boolean algebras and as a specialization of the general setting of Stone duality.
A further important representation was established by Hilary Priestley in her representation theorem for distributive lattices. In this formulation, a distributive lattice is used to construct a topological space with an additional partial order on its points, yielding a (completely order-separated) ordered Stone space (or Priestley space). The original lattice is recovered as the collection of clopen lower sets of this space.
As a consequence of Stone's and Priestley's theorems, one easily sees that any distributive lattice is really isomorphic to a lattice of sets. However, the proofs of both statements require the Boolean prime ideal theorem, a weak form of the axiom of choice.
Free distributive lattices
[edit]
The free distributive lattice over a set of generators G can be constructed much more easily than a general free lattice. The first observation is that, using the laws of distributivity, every term formed by the binary operations and on a set of generators can be transformed into the following equivalent normal form:
where are finite meets of elements of G. Moreover, since both meet and join are associative, commutative and idempotent, one can ignore duplicates and order, and represent a join of meets like the one above as a set of sets:
where the are finite subsets of G. However, it is still possible that two such terms denote the same element of the distributive lattice. This occurs when there are indices j and k such that is a subset of In this case the meet of will be below the meet of and hence one can safely remove the redundant set without changing the interpretation of the whole term. Consequently, a set of finite subsets of G will be called irredundant whenever all of its elements are mutually incomparable (with respect to the subset ordering); that is, when it forms an antichain of finite sets.
Now the free distributive lattice over a set of generators G is defined on the set of all finite irredundant sets of finite subsets of G. The join of two finite irredundant sets is obtained from their union by removing all redundant sets. Likewise the meet of two sets S and T is the irredundant version of The verification that this structure is a distributive lattice with the required universal property is routine.
The number of elements in free distributive lattices with n generators is given by the Dedekind numbers. These numbers grow rapidly, and are known only for n ≤ 9; they are
- 2, 3, 6, 20, 168, 7581, 7828354, 2414682040998, 56130437228687557907788, 286386577668298411128469151667598498812366 (sequence A000372 in the OEIS).
The numbers above count the number of elements in free distributive lattices in which the lattice operations are joins and meets of finite sets of elements, including the empty set. If empty joins and empty meets are disallowed, the resulting free distributive lattices have two fewer elements; their numbers of elements form the sequence
See also
[edit]- Completely distributive lattice — a lattice in which infinite joins distribute over infinite meets
- Duality theory for distributive lattices
- Spectral space
References
[edit]- ^ Birkhoff, Garrett (1967). Lattice Theory. Colloquium Publications (3rd ed.). American Mathematical Society. p. 11. ISBN 0-8218-1025-1. §6, Theorem 9
- ^ Felsner, Stefan; Knauer, Kolja (2011), "Distributive lattices, polyhedra, and generalized flows", European Journal of Combinatorics, 32 (1): 45–59, doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2010.07.011, MR 2727459.
- ^ a b Peirce, Charles S.; Fisch, M. H.; Kloesel, C. J. W. (1989), Writings of Charles S. Peirce: 1879–1884, Indiana University Press, ISBN 0-253-37204-6, p. xlvii.
- ^ Charles S. Peirce (1880). "On the Algebra of Logic". American Journal of Mathematics. 3 (1): 15–57. doi:10.2307/2369442. JSTOR 2369442., p. 33 bottom
- ^ A. Korselt (1894). "Bemerkung zur Algebra der Logik". Mathematische Annalen. 44: 156–157. doi:10.1007/bf01446978. Korselt's non-distributive lattice example is a variant of M3, with 0, 1, and x, y, z corresponding to the empty set, a line, and three distinct points on it, respectively.
- ^ Balbes and Dwinger (1975), p. 63 citing Birkhoff, G. "Subdirect unions in universal algebra", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society SO (1944), 764-768.
- ^ See Birkhoff's representation theorem#The partial order of join-irreducibles.
- ^ Birkhoff, Garrett; Kiss, S. A. (1947), "A ternary operation in distributive lattices", Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 53 (1): 749–752, doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1947-08864-9, MR 0021540.
Further reading
[edit]- Burris, Stanley N.; Sankappanavar, H.P. (1981). A Course in Universal Algebra. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-90578-2.
- OEIS sequence A006982 (Number of unlabeled distributive lattices with n elements)
Distributive lattice
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Axioms
Formal Definition
A lattice is a partially ordered set (poset) in which every pair of elements has both a greatest lower bound, called the meet and denoted by ∧, and a least upper bound, called the join and denoted by ∨.[6] A distributive lattice is a lattice that satisfies the distributive laws and for all elements in the lattice.[6] In any lattice, satisfaction of one of these laws implies satisfaction of the other.[6] The partial order of a lattice can equivalently be characterized in terms of its meet and join operations: for elements and , if and only if , or dually, if and only if .[6] A bounded distributive lattice is one that additionally possesses a bottom element, denoted $00 \leq xx, and a top element, denoted $1 and serving as the greatest element such that for all .[6]Distributivity Laws
A distributive lattice satisfies two fundamental equalities that capture the interaction between its join and meet operations. The first requires that meet distributes over join: for all elements in the lattice, The second, its dual, requires that join distributes over meet: These two laws are equivalent in any lattice; satisfaction of one implies the other, as shown by deriving the dual from the primary law using the lattice's idempotence, commutativity, and associativity properties.[7] In a complete distributive lattice, where arbitrary joins and meets exist, the finite distributivity laws may extend to infinite cases in stronger structures. In completely distributive lattices, meet distributes over arbitrary joins: and dually, join distributes over arbitrary meets: [8] The absorption laws hold in all lattices. They can be verified using the distributive laws as follows. Consider : by meet-distributivity, Dually, by join-distributivity, Thus, both expressions equal, and since , monotonicity yields , while trivially, so equality to follows. The dual absorption holds symmetrically.[7]Properties and Characterizations
Basic Properties
Distributivity in a lattice implies modularity. Specifically, for all elements in the lattice, the equality holds. To see this, apply the distributive law directly: the left side expands as . By idempotence of the meet operation, , yielding the right side. Dually, the other modular identity follows from the dual distributive law.[6] In bounded distributive lattices, relative complements exhibit notable properties. If an element has a complement in the lattice (i.e., there exists such that and ), then also possesses a relative complement in every interval containing it, where . Moreover, all such relative complements are unique. A relative complement of in is an element satisfying and . This uniqueness distinguishes distributive lattices from more general modular ones.[6][9] Pseudocomplements provide another structural feature in distributive lattices, particularly when bounded. A Heyting algebra is a bounded distributive lattice equipped with a relative pseudocomplementation operation , defined such that for all , is the greatest element satisfying . The (absolute) pseudocomplement of an element , denoted , is then , the greatest element disjoint from (i.e., ). This operation captures implication in intuitionistic logic and ensures the lattice models relevant algebraic properties without classical complements.[10] Distributive lattices form median algebras via a natural ternary operation. Define the median . This satisfies the median algebra axioms, including symmetry and idempotence , along with the four key identities identified for embedding into distributive structures: , , and similar for other permutations. Intervals in such median algebras are themselves distributive lattices.[11][6] In bounded distributive lattices, complements—if they exist—are unique. Suppose and both complement an element , so and . Then , and dually , implying . This extends to relative complements in intervals, reinforcing the lattice's ordered structure.[6][12]Characteristic Properties
A lattice is distributive if and only if it does not contain a sublattice isomorphic to or .[7] This characterization, known as Birkhoff's theorem, provides a structural test for distributivity via forbidden sublattices.[7] The lattice , often called the diamond, consists of a bottom element , a top element , and three incomparable atoms , , and such that and . To see that is non-distributive, consider , , and : the left distributivity law gives , while the right side yields .[7] Thus, violates distributivity.[7] The lattice , known as the pentagon, has elements forming a chain of length 3, together with an additional element such that and is incomparable to both and , with meets and joins determined by the order (e.g., and ). To verify non-distributivity, take , , and : then , but .[7] Hence, fails distributivity.[7] The proof that the absence of these sublattices implies distributivity involves showing that any violation of the distributive law embeds one of these configurations, using modular lattice properties as an intermediate step.[7] A lattice is distributive if and only if the join-semilattice formed by its join-irreducible elements is distributive.[7] Here, join-irreducible elements are those that cannot be expressed as the join of two strictly smaller elements, and the induced join operation on this subset satisfies the distributive law precisely when the original lattice does; this follows from the unique irredundant join decompositions in distributive lattices.[7] The Hasse diagram of a distributive lattice is a median graph, where for any three vertices , there is a unique vertex adjacent to all three shortest paths between them, and every order interval induces a convex subgraph.[13] This correspondence arises because the median operation in the lattice, defined as , aligns with the graph's geodesic medians, preserving the distributive structure.[13] In a distributive lattice, if an element has a complement (an element such that and ), then this complement is unique.[9] To prove uniqueness, suppose and both complement ; then , using distributivity repeatedly.[9]Examples
Classical Examples
One of the most fundamental examples of a distributive lattice is the power set lattice of a set , consisting of all subsets of ordered by inclusion, where the join operation is set union and the meet operation is set intersection. This structure satisfies the distributivity laws because the Boolean operations of union and intersection inherently distribute over each other: for any subsets , and dually, This example, prototypical for distributive lattices, arises naturally in set theory and logic, where subsets represent propositions or properties.[14] Another classical instance is the lattice formed by any totally ordered set (also called a chain), equipped with the order relation, where the join of two elements is their maximum and the meet is their minimum. In such a structure, distributivity holds trivially because for any elements with , the expressions simplify due to comparability: for example, , and similar reasoning applies to the dual law. Chains thus provide the simplest nontrivial distributive lattices, including examples like the integers under the usual order or the real numbers.[15] The lattice of positive divisors of a positive integer , denoted , ordered by divisibility (where if divides ), has meet given by the greatest common divisor (gcd) and join by the least common multiple (lcm). This forms a distributive lattice if and only if is square-free, meaning is not divisible by the square of any prime; in such cases, is actually a Boolean algebra isomorphic to the power set lattice of the set of prime factors of . For instance, if , the divisors satisfy distributivity under gcd and lcm, but for , the structure fails distributivity due to the repeated prime factor. Historically, the study of distributive lattices was influenced by early assumptions about their universality among lattices. In 1867, Charles Sanders Peirce, in his work on the logic of relatives, posited that all lattices satisfy the distributive laws as a consequence of the basic lattice axioms, viewing them as inherent to structures like sets or classes. This claim was challenged and refuted in the late 19th century: Ernst Schröder demonstrated in 1890, using models from algebraic logic, that distributivity is independent of the other lattice axioms, providing explicit counterexamples in the appendix to the first volume of his Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik. Further models followed from August Voigt and Jakob Lüroth in the 1890s, employing ideal contents of concepts and classes of natural numbers closed under addition, respectively; André Korselt in 1920 used geometric configurations from Euclidean and projective geometry; and Richard Dedekind in 1901 (building on his 1897 work) introduced "Dualgruppen" based on modules and ideals to confirm that general lattices need not be distributive. These developments clarified the boundaries of distributivity, distinguishing it from more general lattice structures.[4][16] The Cartesian product of distributive lattices also yields a distributive lattice. Specifically, if for are distributive lattices, then the product , with componentwise operations and , satisfies distributivity because each component does: for elements , with the dual law following analogously. This construction preserves distributivity and is useful for building complex examples from simpler ones, such as the product of chains yielding a distributive lattice of multidimensional orders.[17]Counterexamples
The smallest non-distributive lattices are the five-element lattices known as and . The lattice , also called the diamond lattice, consists of a bottom element , a top element , and three incomparable atoms , , and , where , , and . Its Hasse diagram forms a diamond shape with edges connecting to each atom and each atom to . This lattice fails distributivity because , while .[7] The lattice , or pentagon lattice, has elements with covering relations and , where is incomparable to both and . Its Hasse diagram resembles a pentagon. Distributivity fails here as well; for instance, since , we have , while . Both and are the minimal forbidden sublattices for distributivity, and all non-distributive lattices contain one or the other as a sublattice.[7] An example of a modular lattice that is non-distributive is the lattice of subspaces of a vector space over a field, ordered by inclusion. For a vector space of dimension at least 2, this lattice is modular due to the properties of linear independence and dimension additivity in short exact sequences, but it is non-distributive because it contains an sublattice—for instance, taking the zero subspace, three distinct one-dimensional subspaces, and the whole space.[7] For an infinite non-distributive example, consider the lattice of subspaces of an infinite-dimensional vector space, such as the space of countable sequences over a field with finite support. This structure remains modular for the same reasons as the finite-dimensional case but fails distributivity, as it embeds finite sublattices in any finite-dimensional subspace of dimension 2 or higher.[7]Representation Theory
Finite Representations
In finite distributive lattices, a fundamental representation theorem provides a constructive isomorphism to the lattice of order ideals of a partially ordered set (poset). An element in a lattice is defined as join-irreducible if is not the bottom element and whenever for , then either or . Birkhoff's representation theorem states that every finite distributive lattice is isomorphic to the lattice of lower sets (down-sets or order ideals) of the poset formed by the join-irreducible elements of , ordered by the restriction of the lattice order. The poset is unique up to isomorphism, and the isomorphism maps each down-set to the join in (with the empty set mapping to the bottom element).[5] The construction is algorithmic: first, identify the join-irreducible elements of and induce the poset structure on them; then, generate all down-sets of this poset and map them back to via joins, yielding a bijection that preserves meets and joins. For example, consider the lattice of positive divisors of 12 under divisibility, with elements {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12} where meets are gcd and joins are lcm. The join-irreducible elements are 2, 3, and 4, forming the poset with 2 < 4 and 3 incomparable to both. The down-sets are \emptyset (mapping to 1), {2} (to 2), {3} (to 3), {2,3} (to 6), {2,4} (to 4), and {2,3,4} (to 12), recovering the original lattice.[5] A corollary of the theorem is that the number of elements in a finite distributive lattice equals the number of down-sets in its poset of join-irreducibles; in particular, the order of the free distributive lattice on generators equals the -th Dedekind number , which counts the number of down-sets in the Boolean lattice on n atoms (though full enumeration of all finite distributive lattices is deferred to other contexts).[18] The dual version of Birkhoff's theorem represents every finite distributive lattice as the lattice of upper sets (up-sets or order filters) of the poset of its meet-irreducible elements, where an element is meet-irreducible if is not the top element and implies or .General Representations
Distributive lattices admit topological representations that generalize Stone's classical duality for Boolean algebras. In 1938, Marshall Stone established that every distributive lattice is isomorphic to the lattice of clopen sets in a certain topological space known as a spectral space, which is a T0, compact, coherent, and sober topological space, with the topology generated by the prime ideals of the lattice under the Zariski topology.[19] This representation embeds the lattice into the power set of its spectrum, preserving the lattice operations through set-theoretic unions and intersections. Spectral spaces provide a spatial dual where the points correspond to prime filters or ideals, linking the algebraic structure to sheaf-theoretic constructions over the space, such as the sheaf of sections associated with the lattice-valued functions. For bounded distributive lattices, a more refined duality was developed by Hilary Priestley in 1970, establishing a categorical equivalence between the category of bounded distributive lattices and the category of Priestley spaces. A Priestley space is a compact ordered topological space equipped with a partial order that is continuous and satisfies a separation axiom: for any two distinct points, there exists a clopen upset separating them. The duality maps a lattice to the space of its prime ideals ordered by inclusion, with the lattice operations corresponding to upset maps between spaces, enabling a full correspondence that preserves both algebraic and order-theoretic structures. This framework extends Stone's representation by incorporating the order, and it relies on the Boolean prime ideal theorem for the non-constructive existence of prime ideals in the lattice, which ensures the spectrum is non-empty but may not be provable constructively.[20] A specialization of Priestley duality applies to Heyting algebras, which are distributive lattices equipped with a relative pseudocomplement (implication operation). Leo Esakia developed this in the 1970s, showing that Heyting algebras are dual to Esakia spaces, a subclass of Priestley spaces where the order is the specialization order of the topology, ensuring the space is compact, ordered, and hereditary (upsets are open). The duality functor assigns to each Heyting algebra the Esakia space of its prime filters, with the implication operation reflected in the spatial morphisms, providing a topological semantics for intuitionistic logic.[21] Canonical extensions offer an algebraic embedding for distributive lattices into complete lattices. Introduced by Bjarni Jónsson and Alfred Tarski in their 1951 work on Boolean algebras with operators and later generalized to distributive lattices, this construction embeds a distributive lattice into its canonical extension, a complete lattice that preserves all finite meets and joins while extending infinite ones in a specific way using the ideal-completion and filter-completion of the lattice. This embedding facilitates duality proofs and operator extensions without relying solely on topological duals.Free Distributive Lattices
Construction
The free distributive lattice on a set , denoted , is generated by the elements of using the binary operations of meet () and join (), subject only to the relations imposed by the axioms of bounded distributive lattices, including commutativity, associativity, idempotence, absorption, and the distributive laws and its dual.[6] This structure is constructed as the quotient of the term algebra on —the absolutely free algebra formed by all finite expressions built from elements of using and —by the smallest congruence that enforces these axioms, ensuring universality: any map from to another distributive lattice extends uniquely to a lattice homomorphism from .[6] Adjoining bottom element and top element bounds the lattice, with as the empty meet and as the empty join.[22] Elements of admit a unique canonical representation as irredundant join words, expressed as finite joins of meets of generators: , where each is a nonempty finite subset of , the are pairwise incomparable under inclusion, and the representation is irredundant in that omitting any term changes the join while no term is absorbed by the others via absorption or distributivity.[22] This form arises from applying the distributive laws to normalize terms, eliminating redundancies such as nested meets or joins that simplify under the axioms, and corresponds to the disjunctive normal form adapted to lattices without negation.[22] A fundamental theorem characterizes via its join-irreducible elements: these are precisely the meets for nonempty finite subsets , forming a poset isomorphic to the poset of such subsets ordered by reverse inclusion ( if ).[22] Then is freely generated as the distributive lattice of all order ideals of , with no additional relations beyond those enforced by distributivity; every distributive lattice is a homomorphic image of some .[6] Equivalently, is isomorphic to the lattice of all join-closed subsets (up-sets) of the Boolean lattice .[6] For , say , is the chain .[22] For , say , the six elements are , , , , , and , with below both and , and above both.[22] In universal algebra, is the free algebra in the variety of bounded distributive lattices generated by .[22]Enumerative Properties
The number of elements in the free distributive lattice generated by elements is given by the th Dedekind number . These numbers also count the antichains in the power set of an -element set ordered by inclusion. The free distributive lattice on generators is isomorphic to the lattice of up-sets in this Boolean lattice, where up-sets correspond bijectively to antichains via their sets of minimal elements. Known values of the Dedekind numbers for small are as follows:| 0 | 2 |
| 1 | 3 |
| 2 | 6 |
| 3 | 20 |
| 4 | 168 |
