Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $A=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ and let's consider the usual order relation given by $\leq$. My textbook includes an image representing this structure:

enter image description here

Given the definition of lattice, I don't understand how this isn't it. When I am looking for the supremum and the infimum for every pair it is obvious that $\forall (a,b)\in A$

$$\begin{aligned} \;a\leq6 \text{ and } b\leq6, 1\leq a \text{ and } 1\leq b\end{aligned}$$

so what is that I don't take into account?

share|cite|improve this question
I think 2,3 don't have a join, and 4,5 don't have a meet? – sperners lemma Nov 13 '12 at 18:13
@spernerslemma I'm trying to figure out this thing myself... and it's kind of confusing. I don't know why they aren't joined! – haunted85 Nov 13 '12 at 18:15
Sperners observation is correct. Both $4$ and $5$ are upper bounds for $2$ and $3$. There is no least upper bound. Similarly there is no greatest lower bound for $4$ and $5$. – Jay Nov 13 '12 at 18:23
up vote 3 down vote accepted

The problem is that $2$ and $3$ have $2$ "smallest possible upperbounds" but they are not comparable so they don't have a join. Similarly, $4$ and $5$ don't have a meet.

Hope that helps,

share|cite|improve this answer

Remember for example that $4\wedge 5$ will be the unique greatest lower bound for 4 and 5. Now 2 and 3 are both lower bounds, so $4\wedge 5 $ above those.. but how could that be possible? There isn't such a node...

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.