Timeline for What do you call a lattice whose meet operation preserves disjointness of subsets?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2010 at 10:26 | answer | added | Amit Kumar Gupta | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 9:06 | history | edited | Tunococ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Oct 29, 2010 at 8:57 | comment | added | Tunococ | I am sorry for the ambiguity. I corrected the missing braces and the definition for mutual disjointness. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 8:56 | history | edited | Tunococ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Another condition is added to the definition of mutually disjointness for correctness
|
| Oct 29, 2010 at 8:21 | answer | added | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 1:43 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Okay, thanks Mark. And you're right, maybe he means $S$ is finite. In fact that seems likely now. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 1:31 | comment | added | user6976 | @Todd: I do not know the word "supercilious". But it probably means something negative. Nothing negative was intended and I am sorry if you read it that way. I still think that the question was clear enough, but certainly you have the right to ask for clarifications. By the way, why is finiteness of $L$ needed? I thought only $S$ must be finite. In any case, the question is not answered. | |
| Oct 29, 2010 at 1:06 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Mark, the question wasn't clear; he either forgot to say the lattice (not $S$, mind you) was finite or that he meant to say sup-lattice. (And, if it wasn't clear to me, then surely you don't mind if I seek clarification? Why do you address me in such a supercilious manner?) | |
| Oct 28, 2010 at 22:31 | comment | added | user6976 | @Todd: the question is completely clear. $S$ is finite, $S-x=S\setminus\{x\}$. @Tunococ: Unfortunately I do not know the answer. I have never seen this before. I suggest that if you really need an answer, send a message to Ralph McKenzie (Vanderbilt) or to J.B. Nation (Hawaii). | |
| Oct 28, 2010 at 20:55 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I'm having trouble understanding the question. Is $S - x$ supposed to be $S - \{x\}$, i.e., the complement of $\{x\}$ relative to $S$? Are we assuming the lattice has arbitrary joins? | |
| Oct 28, 2010 at 20:29 | history | asked | Tunococ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |