Why aren't these lattices isomorphic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twoflower
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The lattices defined as (\mathbb{N} \mbox{ u } \left\{-\infty, +\infty\right\}, \le) and (\mathbb{N} \mbox{ u } \left\{-\infty, +\infty\right\}, \le)^{inverse} are not isomorphic due to the presence of the element -\infty in the first lattice, which lacks a corresponding element in the second lattice. The discussion clarifies that while the lattices involving only positive integers (\mathbb{N}) and their inverses are not isomorphic, if the set includes all integers (\mathbb{Z}), the lattices become isomorphic. This distinction is crucial for understanding lattice isomorphism.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of lattice theory and isomorphism
  • Familiarity with the notation of sets and order relations
  • Knowledge of the properties of the natural numbers (\mathbb{N}) and integers (\mathbb{Z})
  • Basic concepts of inverse relations in ordered sets
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of lattice isomorphism in detail
  • Explore the concept of inverse lattices and their characteristics
  • Learn about the implications of including negative infinity in ordered sets
  • Investigate examples of isomorphic and non-isomorphic lattices
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in advanced lattice theory and its applications.

twoflower
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I can't see why these lattices aren't isomorphic:

[tex] (\mathbb{N} \mbox{ u } \left\{-\infty, +\infty\right\}, \le) \mbox{ and } (\mathbb{N} \mbox{ u } \left\{-\infty, +\infty\right\}, \le)^{inverse}<br /> [/itex]<br /> <br /> I thought that this isomorphism would straightforwardly map an element <b>x</b> onto <b>-x</b> in the second lattice, so why aren't these isomorphic please?<br /> <br /> I see why <b>these</b> two lattices aren't isomorphic:<br /> <br /> [tex] (\mathbb{N}, \le) \mbox{ and } (\mathbb{N}, \le)^{inverse}<br /> [/itex]<br /> <br /> because the element <b>0</b> from the first one has no equivalent in the inversed lattice, but the first couple of lattices seems ok to me.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Thank you for clarification.[/tex][/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
N consists only of positive integers. If you meant Z, all integers, the first pair are isomorphic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K