Isomorphism between Order Ideals and Distributive Lattices

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter I<3Gauss
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isomorphism
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the isomorphism between order ideals of a poset and distributive lattices, specifically addressing a statement from Richard Stanley's book regarding the existence of a poset P such that the lattice of order ideals L(P) is isomorphic to a given distributive lattice L. Participants explore the implications of this statement and seek to understand the proof behind it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the poset of order ideals of a poset p, denoted L(p), is a distributive lattice due to the distributive nature of union and intersection.
  • Another participant questions the assumption that a distributive lattice should be isomorphic to its own set of order ideals, expressing uncertainty about the validity of this assumption.
  • A different participant expresses hesitation in making assumptions about the isomorphism, indicating a lack of confidence in their understanding.
  • One participant suggests considering a mapping from elements of the poset to their corresponding order ideals as a potential approach to the problem.
  • A participant reflects on the relationship between a poset P and the join irreducible elements of a lattice L, proposing that if P is isomorphic to the join-irreducibles of L(P), it might imply an isomorphism between L and L(P), but they express confusion about how this leads to the desired conclusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the proof of the isomorphism or the assumptions involved. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in their understanding of the concepts involved, particularly regarding the assumptions necessary for establishing the isomorphism and the implications of join irreducibility.

I<3Gauss
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
The poset on the set of order ideals of a poset p, denoted L(p), is a distributive lattice, and it is pretty clear why this is since the supremum of two order ideals and the infimum of 2 order ideals are just union and intersection respectively, and we know that union and intersection are distributive operations. However, Richard Stanley, in his book Enumerative Combinatorics, states that for any distributive lattice L, there exists a poset P such that L(P) is isomorphic to L. I was wondering what the proof is for this particular statement is since I have been trying to prove this to no avail. I appreciate the responses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At first glance, it seems like it should be isomorphic to its own set of order ideals. I feel like that's too easy of an answer though, and I'm making an assumption that's not true
 
That's an interesting idea but however, i also do not have the guts yet or the know how to make such an assumption.
 
Think about the map

[tex]x\mapsto I_x[/tex] where [tex]I_x[/tex] is the order ideal of x.
 
thanks for the tip, i think i kind of see why this is now. I guess if a poset P was the join irreducible set of some Lattice L, and this particular poset P is isomorphic to the join-irreducibles of L(P), which is the set of all Ix, then L would be isomorphic to L(P)?

The tip that you gave would easily prove that a poset P would be isomorphic to the join-irreducibles of J(P), but I guess what I still don't understand is the following:

How does proving P is the subposet of join-irreducibles of L is isomorphic to the join-irreducibles of L(P) help us in proving that L is indeed isomorphic to L(P)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K