MHB Proving Boolean Lattice Complementarity in [a,b]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aryth1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lattice
Aryth1
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
The problem is this:

Let $L$ be a Boolean lattice. For all $a<b\in L$, prove that the interval $[a,b] = \uparrow a \cap \downarrow b$ is a Boolean lattice under the partial ordering inherited from $L$.

What I've managed to do so far:

I used the fact that $[a,b]$ was a poset and showed that, for any $x,y\in [a,b]$, $x\vee y\in [a,b]$ and $x\wedge y\in [a,b]$ which proved that $[a,b]$ was a sublattice of $L$. From this we get that $[a,b]$ is distributive for free, since if $L$ had a sublattice that wasn't distributive, then $L$ would not be distributive. All that remains is to show that $[a,b]$ is complemented. I cannot seem to figure this out. I know that, if we take some $x\in [a,b]$ then a complement exists in $L$ since $L$ is a Boolean lattice, but I don't know how to show that that complement is in $[a,b]$ also.

Any hints would be greatly appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nevermind, I figured it out. Close or delete if you like.
 
Aryth said:
Nevermind, I figured it out. Close or delete if you like.

If you want, and it is entirely up to you, you could post your solution for the benefit of others who might gain from your solution. :D
 
MarkFL said:
If you want, and it is entirely up to you, you could post your solution for the benefit of others who might gain from your solution. :D

Ah, OK then.

I'll limit the problem to proving that $[a,b]$ is complemented.

Let $x\in [a,b]$. Then, since $L$ is a Boolean lattice, $x$ has a complement in $L$, call it $y$. We claim that the complement of $x$ in $[a,b]$ is $z = (y\vee a)\wedge b$. To see this, observe that:
$x\wedge z = x\wedge (y\vee a)\wedge b = [(x\wedge y)\vee (x\wedge a)]\wedge b = (\bot\vee a)\wedge b = a$​
Similarly, $x\vee z = b$ and $z$ suffices as a complement for $x$ in $[a,b]$. Since $x$ was arbitrary, $[a,b]$ is complemented.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.
Back
Top