Skip to main content

Timeline for Lattice Flatness Measure

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 2, 2015 at 16:37 comment added Gerhard Paseman It should be clear. M_n is flat with one maximal antichain of n elements (and ratio of n/n+2). The sublattice induced by taking the Boolean lattice of subsets of a (2k+1) element set and identifying all the subsets of size less than k, and then identifying all the subsets of size greater than k+1, is pretty flat, with all but two of its elements belonging to one of two disjoint maximal antichains, giving a measure of m/m+2 for m a quantity nearly exponential in k. You need to think about what flat "means" . Gerhard "Go And Play With It" Paseman, 2015.09.02
Sep 2, 2015 at 16:26 comment added malaverdiere @GerhardPaseman mind elaborating on 'disjoint union of all disjoint antichains of maximal length?'
Sep 2, 2015 at 16:25 comment added malaverdiere @ThomasKahle The difference is that a lattice composed of n antichains of size 1 and 1 complex sublattice of size s gives us a height of s. I want a measure that shows that (for a n > s), the lattice is flat.
Aug 31, 2015 at 21:26 comment added Gerhard Paseman For finite lattices, one could consider a ratio such as length of a maximal antichain to the number of all lattice members, or a similar ratio involving a disjoint union of all disjoint antichains of maximal length. The latter means that a chain is also very flat. Gerhard "Lay It On Its Side" Paseman, 2015.08.31
Aug 31, 2015 at 19:47 history edited Eric Wofsey
edited tags
Aug 31, 2015 at 19:01 comment added Thomas Kahle Can you give some more examples: How should that flatness measure be different from just height?
Aug 31, 2015 at 18:51 history edited R W
the measure-theory tag is out of place here
Aug 31, 2015 at 18:48 review First posts
Aug 31, 2015 at 20:04
Aug 31, 2015 at 18:42 history asked malaverdiere CC BY-SA 3.0