1
$\begingroup$

In Order Theory, what is the exact definition of a dual statement? And what is the duality principle for posets/lattices? I haven't been able to find an exact statement or definition in this regard.

2 Answers 2

2

Here's an example that might help you see what Hagen meant by "translates" in his answer.

Let $X = \{a,b,c\}$. Let $\leq$ denote the binary relation $\{(a,a), (a,b), (b,b), (c,b), (c,c)\}$. Then $\langle X, \leq \rangle$ is a poset, and the nontrivial pairs in the $\leq$ relation are $a\leq b$ and $c\leq b$.

If $\preceq$ denotes the binary relation $\{(a,a), (b,a), (b,b), (b,c), (c,c)\}$, then the nontrivial pairs are $b\preceq a$ and $b\preceq c$. The relation $\preceq$ is dual to the relation $\leq$, and the poset $\langle X, \preceq\rangle$ is the dual of $\langle X, \leq \rangle$.

Here's a picture of these two posets.

The dual of the statement

"$b$ is the largest element of $\langle X, \leq \rangle$"

is the statement

"$b$ is the smallest element of $\langle X, \preceq\rangle$".

The first statement (about $\langle X, \leq \rangle$) can be "translated" into a dual statement (about $\langle X, \preceq\rangle$).

  • 0
    Also, $\langle X, \leq \rangle$ is a join-semilattice. Thus, $\langle X, \preceq \rangle$ is a meet-semilattice. And results about lattices also follow.2017-01-29
  • 0
    Alright.Further, what is the principle of duality for lattices? I haven't been able to find a comprehensive statement yet.2017-01-29
  • 0
    @RaghavTalwar The duality principle for lattices is the same as that for posets. After all, lattices are posets. If it helps, you could add to the example above a bottom element $d$ to make it a lattice. Then $d$ will be the top element in the dual lattice.2017-01-30
0

If $(X,\le)$ is a poset, then so is $(X,\preceq)$ with $a\preceq b\iff b\le a$. Any statement about the former translates into a statement of the latter

  • 0
    What do you mean by translates?2017-01-28