Timeline for Are all monomorphisms in the category of bounded lattices regular?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 4 at 20:46 | history | edited | Keith Kearnes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 927 characters in body
|
| Sep 3 at 20:31 | history | bounty ended | Gejza Jenča | ||
| Sep 2 at 17:56 | comment | added | Jochen Wengenroth | Thanks a lot for adding all the details. | |
| Sep 2 at 15:11 | history | edited | Keith Kearnes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 215 characters in body
|
| Sep 2 at 15:01 | history | edited | Keith Kearnes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4745 characters in body
|
| Sep 2 at 12:51 | comment | added | Jochen Wengenroth | There are no references given on math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/structures and after superficially reading the article of Jónsson it seems to me that his argument is similar to the one in the deleted answer of Gejza Jenca: Condider an equalizer in the category POS of posets and take the Dedekind-MacNeill completion to get a lattice. The question is whether the morphisms constructed in POS making $f$ an equalizer are lattice morphisms. This seems to be similar to the problem in the deleted answer of Pietro Majer. | |
| Sep 1 at 18:11 | vote | accept | Dominic van der Zypen | ||
| Sep 1 at 16:00 | history | answered | Keith Kearnes | CC BY-SA 4.0 |