Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $(L,\le,\bot,\top)$ be a bounded lattice and $\neg: L \rightarrow L$ be a map that satisfies the following laws:

  1. $a \wedge b = \bot \Leftrightarrow a \le \neg b$
  2. $\neg\neg a =a$

I'd like to show distributivity, namely, $a\wedge(b\vee c) = (a \wedge b) \vee (a \wedge c)$ and $a \vee (b \wedge c) = (a \vee b) \wedge (a \vee c)$.

I've already shown the following laws:

  1. $a \wedge \neg a = \bot$, $a \vee \neg a = \top$
  2. The de Morgan's laws: $\neg (a \wedge b) = \neg a \vee \neg b$ and $ \neg (a \vee b) = \neg a \wedge \neg b$

I've also shown the distributive inequalities that hold for all lattices, and that the two forms of distributivity are equivalent. How should I use these laws to show what I'd like to?

share|improve this question
    
I wanted to say that any Heyting algebra is automatically distributive, but I'm having trouble showing that $(\lnot a \lor b)$ defines a Heyting implication precisely because we don't have the distributive law... –  Zhen Lin Aug 26 '12 at 15:17
    
@ZhenLin Yes, this should be fairly complicated. When I peeped at my peer's answer, it was somewhat lengthy. –  Pteromys Aug 26 '12 at 15:37
    
I figured it out... turns out having double negation elimination around is very handy. –  Zhen Lin Aug 26 '12 at 15:52

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

First, let's recall the notion of a Heyting implication $\to$: it is a binary operation on a lattice such that $$a \le (b \to c) \text{ if and only if } (a \land b) \le c$$ A lattice equipped with a Heyting implication $\to$ is automatically distributive. Indeed, $a \land (b \lor c) \le d$ if and only if $(b \lor c) \le (a \to d)$, so if and only if $b \le (a \to d)$ and $c \le (a \to d)$, so if and only if $a \land b \le d$ and $a \land c \le d$. Hence, $a \land (b \lor c) \le (a \land b) \lor (a \land c)$ and $(a \land b) \lor (a \land c) \le a \land (b \lor c)$.

Now, a lattice equipped with a boolean negation automatically has a Heyting implication: take $(a \to b) = \lnot (b \land \lnot c)$, as usual. This works, because $a \land b \le c = \lnot \lnot c$ implies $a \land b \land \lnot c = \bot$, so $a \le \lnot (b \land \lnot c)$; why $a \le \lnot (b \land \lnot c)$ implies $a \land b \land \lnot c = \bot$, so $a \land b \le \lnot \lnot c = c$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.