3
$\begingroup$

How can I prove the following statement?

In a complemented lattice, if there exist two complements for any x then the lattice is not distributive.

I thought of showing that, in a complemented and distributive lattice, if y and z are both complements of x then y = z so they are the same thing. Would this make any sense or am I really far away from where I should be?

  • 1
    The details of the proof are escaping me at the moment, but your suggestion is the general idea. Write out everything you know about $x$, $y$, and $z$ regarding complementarity and distributivity. Bang the formulas up against each other until you get $y = z$.2011-09-08

1 Answers 1

4

We will follow the OP's strategy and prove the following contrapositive form of the statement:

If a lattice is complemented and distributive, then every element of the lattice has a unique complement.

Convince yourself that this is equivalent to the claim in the question.

A complemented and distributive lattice is a boolean algebra, so we will use $+$ and $\cdot$ in place of $\vee$ and $\wedge$ respectively. Now, of course, every element does have a complement (by definition); the real task is to show uniqueness.

Let $x$ be an arbitrary element, and let $y$ and $z$ be its complements. We want to show that $y = z$. We start from $ y = y \cdot 1, $ and replace $1$ by $x+z$. Then applying distributivity and the fact that $yx = 0$, we get $ y = y(x+z) = yx + yz = 0 + yz = yz. \tag{1} $ Repeating this argument after switching $y$ and $z$, we get $ z = zy. \tag{2} $ Comparing $(1)$ and $(2)$, we are done.

  • 0
    @amarVashishth it stands for Original Poster's strategy, and it refers to the proposal the OP (original poster) is making in their question.2016-12-16