Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:49:06.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards Minimal Binding Varieties of Lattices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Václav Koubek
Václav Koubek*
Affiliation:
Computational Centre of Charles University, Malostranské nám. 25, Praha 1, Czechoslovakia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

By classical results of Ambrust and Schmidt, every monoid is isomorphic to the endomorphism monoid of an algebra. Thus if we want to investigate in which varieties (or generally, in a concrete category) each monoid is isomorphic to the endomorphism monoid of an algebra in this variety (or an object of this category) then the important role is played by the concept of a binding category (see the definition below). Moreover, as shows the Hedrlín-Kučera Theorem [13] if the set-theoretical assumption (M) holds (i.e., there is an infinite cardinal α such that each ultrafilter closed under α intersections is trivial) every concrete category can be fully embedded into any binding category. Other properties of binding categories are in [7, 11, 13]. A list of the most important binding categories and the properties of binding categories can be found in an excellent monograph [13].

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Mathematics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1984 , pp. 263 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Mathematical Society 1984

References

1. Adams, M. E. and Sichler, J., Cover set lattices, Can. J. Math. 32 (1980), 1177–1205.Google Scholar
2. Adams, M. E., Day, A. and Sichler, J., Small lattice varieties generated by cover set lattices, to appear.Google Scholar
3. Adams, M. E., Pigozzi, D. and Sichler, J., Endomorphisms of direct unions of bounded lattices, Archiv. Math. 36 (1981), 221–229.Google Scholar
4. Grätzer, G., General lattice theory (Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Grätzer, G. and Sichler, J., On the endomorphism semigroup (and category) of bounded lattices, Pacif. J. Math. 35 (1970), 639–647.Google Scholar
6. Hedrlm, Z. and Pultr, A., On full embeddings of categories of algebras, Illinois J. Math. 10 (1966), 392–406.Google Scholar
7. Hedrlín, Z. and Sichler, J., Any boundable binding category contains a proper class of mutually disjoint copies of itself Algebra Universalis 7 (1971), 97–103.Google Scholar
8. Jónsson, B., Algebras whose congruence lattices are distributive, Math. Scan. 21 (1967), 110–121.Google Scholar
9. Koubek, V., Graphs with given subgraphs represent all categories, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 18 (1977), 115–127.Google Scholar
10. Koubek, V., Graphs with given subgraphs represent all categories II, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 79 (1978), 249–264.Google Scholar
11. Koubek, V. and Sichler, J., Preservation properties of full embeddings, to appear.Google Scholar
12. Mendelsohn, E., On technique for representing semigroups and endomorphism semigroups oj graphs with given properties, Semigroup Forum 4 (1972), 283–294.Google Scholar
13. Pultr, A. and Trnková, V., Combinatorial, algebraic and topological representations of groups, semigroups and categories (North Holland, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar