Advertisement

Ordered Sets pp 227-253 | Cite as

Truncated Lattices

  • Bernd Schröder
Chapter
  • 1.1k Downloads

Abstract

How much does a (finite) lattice change when we remove the (trivially always present) elements 0 and 1? With only the top and bottom elements gone, the picture does not change much at all. However, in terms of order-theoretical properties there is a significant change. Note that both the proof of reconstructibility of finite lattices (Corollary  8.6) as well as the characterization of the fixed point property for lattices (Theorem  8.10) heavily relied on the existence of the smallest (or the largest) element. The smallest element was important in Theorem  8.34, which settles the automorphism conjecture for finite lattices, too (see Exercise 9-8). Thus, in terms of three of our main open questions, the loss of 0 and 1 is significant. The question arises what “intrinsic” parts of the lattice structure can be used to tackle problems such as reconstruction or the fixed point property. To this end, in this chapter we investigate lattices from which top and bottom element have been removed.

Keywords

Simplicial Complex Algebraic Topology Comparability Graph Point Property Finite Lattice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 10.
    Baclawski, K. (1977). Galois connections and the Leray spectral sequence. Advances in Mathematics, 25, 191–215.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 11.
    Baclawski, K. (2012). A combinatorial proof of a fixed point property. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 119, 994–1013.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 12.
    Baclawski, K., & Björner, A. (1979). Fixed points in partially ordered sets. Advances in Mathematics, 31, 263–287.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 17.
    Benedetti, B., & Lutz, F. (2013). The dunce hat in a minimal non-extendably collapsible 3-ball. Electronic Geometry Model No. 2013.10.001. Available at http://www.eg-models.de/models/Polytopal_Complexes/2013.10.001/_direct_link.html and at http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3723
  5. 22.
    Björner, A. (1981). Homotopy type of posets and lattice complementation. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 30, 90–100.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 48.
    Constantin, J., & Fournier, G. (1985). Ordonnés escamotables et points fixes. Discrete Mathematics, 53, 21–33.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 65.
    Donalies, M., & Schröder, B. (2000). Performance guarantees and applications for Xia’s algorithm. Discrete Mathematics, 213, 67–86 (Proceedings of the Banach Center Minisemester on Discrete Mathematics, Week on Ordered Sets).Google Scholar
  8. 79.
    Edelman, P. (1979). On a fixed point theorem for partially ordered sets. Discrete Mathematics, 15, 117–119.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 100.
    Frías-Armenta, M. E., Neumann-Lara, V., & Pizaña, M. A. (2004). Dismantlings and iterated clique graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 282, 263–265.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 107.
    Gikas, M. (1986). Fixed points and structural problems in ordered sets. Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University.Google Scholar
  11. 124.
    Hatcher, A. (2002). Algebraic topology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.math.cornell.edu/~hatcher/AT/ATpage.html zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 127.
    Hazan, S., & Neumann-Lara, V. (1995). Fixed points of posets and clique graphs. Order, 13, 219–225.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 146.
    Ille, P., & Rampon, J.-X. (1997). Reconstruction of posets with the same comparability graph. Journal of Combinatorial Theory (B), 74, 368–377.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 159.
    Kinoshita, S. (1953). On some contractible continua without fixed point property. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 40, 96–98.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 181.
    Larrión, F., Neumann-Lara, V., & Pizaña, M. (2004). Clique divergent clockwork graphs and partial orders. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 141, 195–207.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 224.
    Pouzet, M. (1979). Relations non reconstructible par leurs restrictions. Journal of Combinatorial Theory (B), 26, 22–34.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 227.
    Prisner, E. (1992). Convergence of iterated clique graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 103, 199–207.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 262.
    Rutkowski, A. (1986). Cores, cutsets and the fixed point property. Order, 3, 257–267.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 271.
    Schröder, B. (1995). On retractable sets and the fixed point property. Algebra Universalis, 33, 149–158.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 286.
    Schröder, B. (2015). Homomorphic constraint satisfaction problem solver. http://www.math.usm.edu/schroeder/software.htm Google Scholar
  21. 289.
    Schröder, B. (2016). The use of retractions in the fixed point theory for ordered sets. In M. Alfuraidan, & Q. H. Ansari (Eds.), Fixed point theory and graph theory – Foundations and integrative approaches (pp. 365–417). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Chapter in the Proceedings of the Workshop on Fixed Point Theory and Applications, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, December 2014, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.Google Scholar
  22. 295.
    Spanier, E. H. (1966). Algebraic topology. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 297.
    Stanley, R. P. (1979). Balanced Cohen-Macauley complexes. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 249, 139–157.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 305.
    Tancer, M. (2010). d-Collapsibility is NP-complete for d ≥ 4. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, 2010, 28 pp. Article 3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Schröder
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations