I'm studying from Michael Carter's "Foundations", and on page 29 he makes the comment, "Note that the requirement of being a sublattice is more stringent than being a complete lattice in its own right".

This seems counterintuitive. Some lattice $L$ is complete if every nonempty subset $S\subseteq L$ has a least upper bound and greatest lower bound in $L$. This is a more stringent requirement than merely needing bounds for every combination of two points in $L$. By the same token, requiring that all subsets $T \subseteq S$ have meets and joins in $S$ (thereby making $S$ complete) ought to be more stringent than merely requiring $S$ to be a lattice, right? In what sense are the requirements for being a sublattice more stringent on $S$?

One more related question – suppose $X= \{ (1,1),(2,1),(3,1),(1,2),(1,3),(3,3) \}$. The book says $X$ is a complete lattice, but not a sublattice of $\{1,2,3\}\times \{1,2,3\}$. The point $(3,3)$ is an upper bound for all pairs of points in $X$, so shouldn't that be enough to qualify $X$ as a sublattice of the set above? Why is $X$ not considered a sublattice?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Take $\mathcal{L} = [0,2]$ with the usual total order on the reals, which is a complete lattice. Let $L=[0,1)\cup\{2\}$; this is a lattice under the usual order of the reals, and as a lattice it is a sublattice of $\mathcal{L}$; it is also a complete lattice, but it is not a sublattice of $\mathcal{L}$ because the least upper bound of $[0,1)$ in $\mathcal{L}$ does not agree with the least upper bound in $L$. $\endgroup$ May 16, 2011 at 0:36
  • $\begingroup$ @ArturoMagidin I don't get from this comment if L is a sublattice or not of [0,2]? You first say : "...is a lattice under the usual order of the reals, and as a lattice it is a sublattice of [0,2]" and then " ..it is not a sublattice because....". $\endgroup$ Jan 31, 2019 at 12:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GabrieleScarlatti: Lattices only require finite joins and meets; so $L$ is a sublattice (it is a lattice under the induced operations); it is not a complete sublattice because it does not respect the infinite joins and meets: the join of all of $[0,1)$ in $L$ is different from the joint of $[0,1]$ in $\mathcal{L}$. $\endgroup$ Jan 31, 2019 at 17:03

1 Answer 1


The meet and join operations in a sublattice must agree with the meet and join operations in the lattice. Consider your example. The least upper bound, in $X$, of $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ is $(3,3)$. In the space $\{ 1,2,3 \} \times \{ 1, 2, 3 \} $ the least upper bound of $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ is $(2,2)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh wow, that's a pretty big difference. Thanks for the help. $\endgroup$ May 16, 2011 at 0:36
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This is a very common point of confusion: there is a difference between being a sublattice and being a subposet that happens to be a lattice. The same problem comes up in the context of subtrees. $\endgroup$ May 16, 2011 at 0:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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