Hubbry Logo
Distributive latticeDistributive latticeMain
Open search
Distributive lattice
Community hub
Distributive lattice
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Distributive lattice
Distributive lattice
from Wikipedia

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 ∧ (yz) = (xy) ∨ (xz).

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 ∨ (yz) = (xy) ∧ (xz)   for all x, y, and z in L.

In every lattice, if one defines the order relation pq as usual to mean pq=p, then the inequality x ∧ (yz) ≥ (xy) ∨ (xz) and its dual x ∨ (yz) ≤ (xy) ∧ (xz) 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]
Young's lattice

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:

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]
diamond lattice M3
pentagon lattice N5
Hasse diagrams of the two prototypical non-distributive lattices. The diamond lattice M3 is non-distributive because x ∧ (yz) = x ∧ 1 = x ≠ 0 = 0 ∨ 0 = (xy) ∨ (xz), while the pentagon lattice N5 is non-distributive because x ∧ (yz) = x ∧ 1 = xz = 0 ∨ z = (xy) ∨ (xz)

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
Distributive lattice which contains N5 (solid lines, left) and M3 (right) as subset, but not as sublattice

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]
Free distributive lattices on zero, one, two, and three generators. The elements labeled "0" and "1" are the empty join and meet, and the element labeled "majority" is (xy) ∨ (xz) ∨ (yz) = (xy) ∧ (xz) ∧ (yz).

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

0, 1, 4, 18, 166, 7579, 7828352, 2414682040996, 56130437228687557907786, 286386577668298411128469151667598498812364 (sequence A007153 in the OEIS).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In , particularly in , a distributive lattice is a lattice—a in which every pair of elements has a least upper bound (join) and a greatest lower bound (meet)—in which the operations satisfy the distributive laws: for all elements a,b,ca, b, c in the lattice, a(bc)=(ab)(ac)a \vee (b \wedge c) = (a \vee b) \wedge (a \vee c) and a(bc)=(ab)(ac)a \wedge (b \vee c) = (a \wedge b) \vee (a \wedge c). These laws ensure that the structure behaves analogously to the distribution of multiplication over addition in rings, making distributive lattices a fundamental bridging and . The concept of distributive lattices emerged in the late 19th century through the work of mathematicians like Ernst Schröder and Richard Dedekind, who explored lattices in the contexts of logic and algebraic number theory, respectively; Schröder examined them as generalizations of Boolean algebras in his Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik (1890–1905), while Dedekind identified distributive properties in his studies of ideals and modules around 1897–1900. Garrett Birkhoff played a pivotal role in systematizing the theory in the 1930s, publishing foundational results including his 1937 representation theorem and the seminal book Lattice Theory (1940), which established distributive lattices as a central object in modern mathematics with applications in logic, combinatorics, and topology. Key properties of distributive lattices include the absence of certain forbidden sublattices, such as N5N_5 or M3M_3, which characterize non-distributivity; this Birkhoff's forbidden sublattice theorem provides a structural criterion for recognition. Finite distributive lattices are particularly well-understood via Birkhoff's representation theorem, which states that every finite distributive lattice is isomorphic to the lattice of order ideals (down-sets) of some finite poset, ordered by inclusion, establishing a duality between finite posets and such lattices. In bounded distributive lattices, complemented elements have unique complements, and the structure often supports additional features like modularity or ranking. Prominent examples include the power set lattice of any set, where joins are unions and meets are intersections, forming a —a special case of distributive lattice; the lattice of positive divisors of a positive under divisibility; and the lattice of subspaces of a , which is modular but distributive only in specific cases like dimension 1. Distributive lattices generalize linear orders and appear in diverse areas, such as Heyting algebras in and in locale theory, underscoring their role in abstract algebraic structures.

Definition and Axioms

Formal Definition

A lattice is a (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 ∨. A distributive lattice is a lattice that satisfies the distributive laws x(yz)=(xy)(xz)x \wedge (y \vee z) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z) and x(yz)=(xy)(xz)x \vee (y \wedge z) = (x \vee y) \wedge (x \vee z) for all elements x,y,zx, y, z in the lattice. In any lattice, satisfaction of one of these laws implies satisfaction of the other. The partial order of a lattice can equivalently be characterized in terms of its meet and join operations: for elements pp and qq, pqp \leq q if and only if pq=pp \wedge q = p, or dually, if and only if pq=qp \vee q = q. A bounded distributive lattice is one that additionally possesses a bottom element, denoted $0andservingastheleastelementsuchthatand serving as the least element such that0 \leq xforallfor allx, and a top element, denoted $1 and serving as the greatest element such that x1x \leq 1 for all xx.

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 x,y,zx, y, z in the lattice, x(yz)=(xy)(xz).x \wedge (y \vee z) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z). The second, its dual, requires that join distributes over meet: x(yz)=(xy)(xz).x \vee (y \wedge z) = (x \vee y) \wedge (x \vee z). 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. 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: xiIyi=iI(xyi),x \wedge \bigvee_{i \in I} y_i = \bigvee_{i \in I} (x \wedge y_i), and dually, join distributes over arbitrary meets: xiIyi=iI(xyi).x \vee \bigwedge_{i \in I} y_i = \bigwedge_{i \in I} (x \vee y_i). The absorption laws hold in all lattices. They can be verified using the distributive laws as follows. Consider x(xy)x \wedge (x \vee y): by meet-distributivity, x(xy)=(xx)(xy)=x(xy).x \wedge (x \vee y) = (x \wedge x) \vee (x \wedge y) = x \vee (x \wedge y). Dually, by join-distributivity, x(xy)=(xx)(xy)=x(xy).x \vee (x \wedge y) = (x \vee x) \wedge (x \vee y) = x \wedge (x \vee y). Thus, both expressions equal, and since xyxx \wedge y \leq x, monotonicity yields x(xy)xx=xx \vee (x \wedge y) \leq x \vee x = x, while xx(xy)x \leq x \vee (x \wedge y) trivially, so equality to xx follows. The dual absorption x(xy)=xx \vee (x \wedge y) = x holds symmetrically.

Properties and Characterizations

Basic Properties

Distributivity in a lattice implies modularity. Specifically, for all elements x,y,zx, y, z in the lattice, the equality x(y(xz))=(xy)(xz)x \wedge (y \vee (x \wedge z)) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z) holds. To see this, apply the distributive law directly: the left side expands as x(y(xz))=(xy)(x(xz))x \wedge (y \vee (x \wedge z)) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge (x \wedge z)). By idempotence of the meet operation, x(xz)=xzx \wedge (x \wedge z) = x \wedge z, yielding the right side. Dually, the other modular identity follows from the dual distributive law. In bounded distributive lattices, relative complements exhibit notable properties. If an element aa has a complement in the lattice (i.e., there exists bb such that ab=0a \wedge b = 0 and ab=1a \vee b = 1), then aa also possesses a relative complement in every interval [c,d][c, d] containing it, where cadc \leq a \leq d. Moreover, all such relative complements are unique. A relative complement of aa in [c,d][c, d] is an element ee satisfying ae=ca \wedge e = c and ae=da \vee e = d. This uniqueness distinguishes distributive lattices from more general modular ones. Pseudocomplements provide another structural feature in distributive lattices, particularly when bounded. A is a bounded distributive lattice equipped with a relative pseudocomplementation operation \to, defined such that for all a,ba, b, aba \to b is the greatest element cc satisfying acba \wedge c \leq b. The (absolute) pseudocomplement of an element aa, denoted aa^*, is then a0a \to 0, the greatest element disjoint from aa (i.e., aa=0a \wedge a^* = 0). This operation captures implication in and ensures the lattice models relevant algebraic properties without classical complements. Distributive lattices form median algebras via a natural ternary operation. Define the median m(x,y,z)=(xy)(xz)(yz)m(x, y, z) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z) \vee (y \wedge z). This satisfies the median algebra axioms, including symmetry m(x,y,z)=m(y,z,x)=m(z,x,y)m(x, y, z) = m(y, z, x) = m(z, x, y) and m(x,x,y)=xm(x, x, y) = x, along with the four key identities identified for embedding into distributive structures: m(x,y,m(x,y,z))=m(x,y,z)m(x, y, m(x, y, z)) = m(x, y, z), m(x,m(x,y,z),z)=m(x,y,z)m(x, m(x, y, z), z) = m(x, y, z), and similar for other permutations. Intervals in such median algebras are themselves distributive lattices. In bounded distributive lattices, complements—if they exist—are unique. Suppose yy and zz both complement an element xx, so xy=xz=[0](/page/0)x \wedge y = x \wedge z = [0](/page/0) and xy=xz=1x \vee y = x \vee z = 1. Then y=y1=y(xz)=(yx)(yz)=0(yz)=yzy = y \wedge 1 = y \wedge (x \vee z) = (y \wedge x) \vee (y \wedge z) = 0 \vee (y \wedge z) = y \wedge z, and dually z=yzz = y \wedge z, implying y=zy = z. This extends to relative complements in intervals, reinforcing the lattice's ordered structure.

Characteristic Properties

A lattice LL is distributive if and only if it does not contain a sublattice isomorphic to M3M_3 or N5N_5. This characterization, known as Birkhoff's theorem, provides a structural test for distributivity via forbidden sublattices. The lattice M3M_3, often called the , consists of a bottom element 00, a top element 11, and three incomparable atoms aa, bb, and cc such that ab=bc=ca=1a \vee b = b \vee c = c \vee a = 1 and ab=bc=ca=0a \wedge b = b \wedge c = c \wedge a = 0. To see that M3M_3 is non-distributive, consider x=ax = a, y=by = b, and z=cz = c: the left distributivity law gives a(bc)=a1=aa \wedge (b \vee c) = a \wedge 1 = a, while the right side yields (ab)(ac)=00=0a(a \wedge b) \vee (a \wedge c) = 0 \vee 0 = 0 \neq a. Thus, M3M_3 violates distributivity. The lattice N5N_5, known as , has elements 0<a<b<10 < a < b < 1 forming a of length 3, together with an additional element cc such that 0<c<10 < c < 1 and cc is to both aa and bb, with meets and joins determined by the order (e.g., ac=bc=1a \vee c = b \vee c = 1 and ac=0a \wedge c = 0). To verify non-distributivity, take x=bx = b, y=cy = c, and z=az = a: then b(ca)=b1=bb \wedge (c \vee a) = b \wedge 1 = b, but (bc)(ba)=0a=ab(b \wedge c) \vee (b \wedge a) = 0 \vee a = a \neq b. Hence, N5N_5 fails distributivity. 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. A lattice is distributive if and only if the join-semilattice formed by its join-irreducible elements is distributive. 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. The of a distributive lattice is a , where for any three vertices u,v,wu, v, w, there is a unique vertex mm adjacent to all three shortest paths between them, and every order interval [x,y][x, y] induces a convex subgraph. This correspondence arises because the operation in the lattice, defined as m(u,v,w)=(uv)(vw)(wu)m(u, v, w) = (u \vee v) \wedge (v \vee w) \wedge (w \vee u), aligns with the graph's medians, preserving the distributive structure. In a distributive lattice, if an element has a complement (an element bb such that ab=0a \wedge b = 0 and ab=1a \vee b = 1), then this complement is unique. To prove uniqueness, suppose bb and bb' both complement aa; then b=b(ab)=(ba)(bb)=1(bb)=bb=b(ab)=(ba)(bb)=1(bb)=bb=bb = b \vee (a \wedge b') = (b \vee a) \wedge (b \vee b') = 1 \wedge (b \vee b') = b \vee b' = b' \vee (a \wedge b) = (b' \vee a) \wedge (b' \vee b) = 1 \wedge (b' \vee b) = b' \vee b = b, using distributivity repeatedly.

Examples

Classical Examples

One of the most fundamental examples of a distributive lattice is the power set lattice P(X)\mathcal{P}(X) of a set XX, consisting of all subsets of XX ordered by inclusion, where the join operation \vee is set union and the meet operation \wedge is set . This structure satisfies the distributivity laws because the operations of union and inherently distribute over each other: for any subsets A,B,CXA, B, C \subseteq X, A(BC)=(AB)(AC)A \cap (B \cup C) = (A \cap B) \cup (A \cap C) and dually, A(BC)=(AB)(AC).A \cup (B \cap C) = (A \cup B) \cap (A \cup C). This example, prototypical for distributive lattices, arises naturally in set theory and logic, where subsets represent propositions or properties. Another classical instance is the lattice formed by any totally ordered set (also called a ), 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 x,y,zx, y, z with xyzx \leq y \leq z, the expressions simplify due to comparability: for example, x(yz)=xz=x=(xy)(xz)x \wedge (y \vee z) = x \wedge z = x = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z), 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. The lattice of positive divisors of a positive nn, denoted D(n)D(n), ordered by divisibility (where aba \leq b if aa divides bb), has meet given by the (gcd) and join by the (lcm). This forms a distributive lattice if and only if nn is square-free, meaning nn is not divisible by the square of any prime; in such cases, D(n)D(n) is actually a isomorphic to the power set lattice of the set of prime factors of nn. For instance, if n=6=23n = 6 = 2 \cdot 3, the divisors {1,2,3,6}\{1, 2, 3, 6\} satisfy distributivity under gcd and lcm, but for n=12=223n = 12 = 2^2 \cdot 3, 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, , 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: Schröder demonstrated in 1890, using models from , 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 , respectively; Korselt in 1920 used geometric configurations from Euclidean and ; and 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. The of distributive lattices also yields a distributive lattice. Specifically, if Li=(Li,i,i)L_i = (L_i, \vee_i, \wedge_i) for iIi \in I are distributive lattices, then the product L=iILiL = \prod_{i \in I} L_i, with componentwise operations (ab)i=aiibi(a \vee b)_i = a_i \vee_i b_i and (ab)i=aiibi(a \wedge b)_i = a_i \wedge_i b_i, satisfies distributivity because each component does: for elements a,b,cLa, b, c \in L, a(bc)=(aii(biici))i=((aiibi)i(aiici))i=(ab)(ac),a \wedge (b \vee c) = (a_i \wedge_i (b_i \vee_i c_i))_i = ((a_i \wedge_i b_i) \vee_i (a_i \wedge_i c_i))_i = (a \wedge b) \vee (a \wedge c), 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.

Counterexamples

The smallest non-distributive lattices are the five-element lattices known as M3M_3 and N5N_5. The lattice M3M_3, also called the diamond lattice, consists of a bottom element 00, a top element 11, and three incomparable atoms aa, bb, and cc, where 0<a<10 < a < 1, 0<b<10 < b < 1, and 0<c<10 < c < 1. Its Hasse diagram forms a diamond shape with edges connecting 00 to each atom and each atom to 11. This lattice fails distributivity because a(bc)=a1=aa \wedge (b \vee c) = a \wedge 1 = a, while (ab)(ac)=00=0(a \wedge b) \vee (a \wedge c) = 0 \vee 0 = 0. The lattice N5N_5, or pentagon lattice, has elements 0,a,b,c,10, a, b, c, 1 with covering relations 0<a<b<10 < a < b < 1 and 0<c<10 < c < 1, where cc is incomparable to both aa and bb. Its resembles a pentagon. Distributivity fails here as well; for instance, since ac=1a \vee c = 1, we have b(ac)=b1=bb \wedge (a \vee c) = b \wedge 1 = b, while (ba)(bc)=a0=ab(b \wedge a) \vee (b \wedge c) = a \vee 0 = a \neq b. Both M3M_3 and N5N_5 are the minimal forbidden sublattices for distributivity, and all non-distributive lattices contain one or the other as a sublattice. An example of a modular lattice that is non-distributive is the lattice of subspaces of a over a field, ordered by inclusion. For a vector space of at least 2, this lattice is modular due to the properties of and dimension additivity in short exact sequences, but it is non-distributive because it contains an M3M_3 sublattice—for instance, taking the zero subspace, three distinct one-dimensional subspaces, and the whole space. For an infinite non-distributive example, consider the lattice of subspaces of an infinite-dimensional , 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 M3M_3 sublattices in any finite-dimensional subspace of dimension 2 or higher.

Representation Theory

Finite Representations

In finite distributive lattices, a fundamental representation theorem provides a constructive isomorphism to the lattice of order ideals of a (poset). An element jj in a lattice LL is defined as join-irreducible if jj is not the bottom element and whenever j=abj = a \vee b for a,bLa, b \in L, then either j=aj = a or j=bj = b. Birkhoff's representation theorem states that every finite distributive lattice LL is isomorphic to the lattice of lower sets (down-sets or order ideals) of the poset PP formed by the join-irreducible elements of LL, ordered by the restriction of the lattice order. The poset PP is unique up to isomorphism, and the isomorphism maps each down-set IPI \subseteq P to the join I\bigvee I in LL (with the empty set mapping to the bottom element). The construction is algorithmic: first, identify the join-irreducible elements of LL and induce the poset structure on them; then, generate all down-sets of this poset and map them back to LL via joins, yielding a 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. A of the 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 nn generators equals the nn-th M(n)M(n), which counts the number of down-sets in the lattice on n atoms (though full of all finite distributive lattices is deferred to other contexts). The dual version of Birkhoff's 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 mm is meet-irreducible if mm is not the top element and m=abm = a \wedge b implies m=am = a or m=bm = b.

General Representations

Distributive lattices admit topological representations that generalize Stone's classical duality for 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 , with the topology generated by the prime ideals of the lattice under the . 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 , establishing a categorical equivalence between the category of bounded distributive lattices and the category of Priestley spaces. A Priestley space is a compact ordered 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 s 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. 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 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 . Canonical extensions offer an algebraic for distributive lattices into . Introduced by Bjarni Jónsson and in their 1951 work on algebras with operators and later generalized to distributive lattices, this construction embeds a distributive lattice into its canonical extension, a 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 facilitates duality proofs and operator extensions without relying solely on topological duals.

Free Distributive Lattices

Construction

The free distributive lattice on a set XX, denoted FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X), is generated by the elements of XX using the binary operations of meet (\wedge) and join (\vee), subject only to the relations imposed by the axioms of bounded distributive lattices, including commutativity, associativity, , absorption, and the distributive laws x(yz)=(xy)(xz)x \wedge (y \vee z) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z) and its dual. This structure is constructed as the quotient of the term on XX—the absolutely free formed by all finite expressions built from elements of XX using \wedge and \vee—by the smallest congruence that enforces these axioms, ensuring universality: any map from XX to another distributive lattice extends uniquely to a lattice from FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X). Adjoining bottom element 00 and top element 11 bounds the lattice, with 00 as the empty meet and 11 as the empty join. Elements of FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X) admit a unique canonical representation as irredundant join words, expressed as finite joins of meets of generators: i=1kxjSixj\bigvee_{i=1}^k \bigwedge_{x_j \in S_i} x_j, where each SiS_i is a nonempty finite of XX, the SiS_i are pairwise 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. 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 adapted to lattices without negation. A fundamental theorem characterizes FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X) via its join-irreducible elements: these are precisely the meets xjSxj\bigwedge_{x_j \in S} x_j for nonempty finite subsets SXS \subseteq X, forming a poset JJ isomorphic to the poset of such subsets ordered by reverse inclusion (STS \leq T if STS \supseteq T). Then FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X) is freely generated as the distributive lattice of all order ideals of JJ, with no additional relations beyond those enforced by distributivity; every distributive lattice is a homomorphic image of some FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X). Equivalently, FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X) is isomorphic to the lattice of all join-closed subsets (up-sets) of the lattice 2X2^{|X|}. For X=1|X|=1, say X={a}X=\{a\}, FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X) is the chain 0<a<10 < a < 1. For X=2|X|=2, say X={a,b}X=\{a,b\}, the six elements are 00, aba \wedge b, aa, bb, aba \vee b, and 11, with aba \wedge b below both aa and bb, and aba \vee b above both. In , FD(X)\mathrm{FD}(X) is the free algebra in the variety of bounded distributive lattices generated by XX.

Enumerative Properties

The number of elements in the free distributive lattice generated by nn elements is given by the nnth M(n)M(n). These numbers also count the antichains in the power set of an nn-element set ordered by inclusion. The free distributive lattice on nn 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 nn are as follows:
nnM(n)M(n)
02
13
26
320
4168
The Dedekind numbers grow rapidly, with no known . shows that logM(n)(nn/2)\log M(n) \sim \binom{n}{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}, reflecting the dominance of antichains contained within the middle rank of the Boolean lattice. Recent computations up to n=9n=9 in 2023 confirm this explosive growth, with M(9)M(9) exceeding 104110^{41}. The connection to monotone Boolean functions further underscores this enumeration: M(n)M(n) equals the number of monotone functions from {0,1}n\{0,1\}^n to {0,1}\{0,1\}, forming a distributive lattice under pointwise operations that is free on the nn projection functions. Computing the Dedekind numbers presents significant challenges due to their size and the combinatorial explosion. While M(5)=7581M(5) = 7581 was first calculated in 1940 by Randolph Church, generating the full set of elements for n8n \geq 8 remains infeasible on standard hardware, requiring supercomputers and years of effort for higher values like n=9n=9.

Relations and Applications

Comparisons to Other Structures

Distributive lattices satisfy the stronger distributive laws, which imply the modular laws but not conversely. The modular law states that for all elements x,y,zx, y, z in the lattice with xzx \leq z, x(yz)=(xy)zx \vee (y \wedge z) = (x \vee y) \wedge z. A classic example of a modular lattice that is not distributive is the lattice of subspaces of a finite-dimensional over a field with dimension at least 2, where meet and join correspond to and span, respectively; this structure satisfies modularity due to the dimension additivity but fails distributivity as it contains sublattices isomorphic to the non-distributive pentagon N5N_5. Boolean algebras form a special subclass of distributive lattices that are complemented, meaning they are bounded lattices (with bottom element 0 and top element 1) where every element xx has a complement xx' such that xx=0x \wedge x' = 0 and xx=1x \vee x' = 1, and this complement is unique. Heyting algebras are bounded distributive lattices equipped with relative pseudocomplements, where for any elements x,yx, y, the implication xyx \to y is defined as the maximum element zz such that zxyz \wedge x \leq y; these structures provide the algebraic semantics for intuitionistic propositional logic. Associated to distributive lattices are Hibi rings, which are toric rings serving as coordinate rings for affine semigroup varieties determined by the lattice; however, this connection is primarily definitional and arises from the combinatorial structure rather than a universal algebraic embedding. In the hierarchy of lattice varieties, chains (totally ordered lattices) are the minimal distributive lattices, properly contained within all distributive lattices, which in turn are properly contained within modular lattices, and these are properly contained within the class of all lattices.

Applications

Distributive lattices play a fundamental role in formal logic, particularly through their special cases as and Heyting algebras. algebras model classical propositional logic, where elements represent truth values under operations of conjunction (meet), disjunction (join), and , forming the algebraic semantics for two-valued sentential connectives. Heyting algebras, as bounded distributive lattices with an additional implication operation, provide the algebraic counterpart to intuitionistic propositional logic, where the absence of the reflects requirements. In , lattices—distributive structures formed by subsets of a set under union and —underpin abstract data types such as sets and serve as models for permission systems in , enabling hierarchical policy enforcement through lattice operations. Additionally, distributive lattices facilitate query optimization in relational databases by representing query plans as lattice elements, where joins correspond to meet or join operations, allowing efficient reduction of search spaces for equivalent query evaluations under functional dependencies. Within , distributive lattices support problems by modeling domains of possible assignments, where the distributivity property ensures effective propagation of constraints through iterative meet and join computations to prune inconsistent partial solutions. In and , spectral spaces, which are compact sober topological spaces dual to distributive lattices, characterize the prime spectra of rings, providing a foundational duality for scheme where affine schemes arise as spaces associated to distributive lattice-ordered structures.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.