See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339413592

Quasicomplemented residuated lattices

Article  in  Soft Computing · May 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s00500-020-04778-y

CITATION READS

1 87

1 author:

Saeed Rasouli
Persian Gulf University
34 PUBLICATIONS   194 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

topological residuated lattices View project

Faculty of Intelligent Systems Engineering and Data Science, Persian Gulf University View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saeed Rasouli on 26 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soft Computing
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04778-y

FOUNDATIONS

Quasicomplemented residuated lattices

Saeed Rasouli1

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
In this paper, the class of quasicomplemented residuated lattices is introduced and investigated, as a subclass of residuated
lattices in which any prime filter not containing any dense element is a minimal prime filter. The notion of a disjunctive
residuated lattice is introduced, and it is observed that a residuated lattice is Boolean if and only if it is disjunctive and
quasicomplemented. Finally, some characterizations for quasicomplemented residuated lattices are given by means of the
new notion of α-filters.

Keywords Quasicomplemented residuated lattice · Disjunctive residuated lattice · α-Filter

1 Introduction via quasicomplemented residuated lattices. To keep the paper

As a generalization of distributive pseudocomplemented
lattices, Varlet (1963) studied lattices, which are just pseu-
docomplemented. He observed that a distributive lattice is
pseudocomplemented if and only if each of its annulets is
principal. By this motivation, Varlet (1968) introduced the
notion of a quasicomplemented lattice as a generalization
of a distributive pseudocomplemented lattice. Speed (1969a,
Proposition 3.4) proved that the class of quasicomplemented
lattices is equivalent to the class of -lattices, which has
been introduced by Speed (1969b) as a subclass of dis-
tributive lattices. Quasicomplemented lattices are studied
extensively by Cornish (1972, 1973), Jayaram (1986), and
Speed (1974). This notion is discussed for rings in Knox
et al. (2009). According to Evans (1972), quasiregular rings,
introduced by Endo (1961), are analogous to quasicomple-
mented lattices. In this paper, however, we shall only be
concerned with quasicomplemented residuated lattices. This
work is greatly motivated by the above works and a desire to
extend these investigations to residuated lattices. The notion
of a quasicomplemented residuated lattice is introduced and
investigated. Our findings show that the results obtained by
Cornish (1973) and Speed (1969a) can also be reproduced
Communicated by A. Di Nola.
B Saeed Rasouli
srasouli@pgu.ac.ir
1 For a residuated lattice A and a ∈ A, we put ¬a = a → 0
Department of Mathematics, Persian Gulf University,
Bushehr 75169, Iran
brief, the reader is referred to Galatos et al. (2007) for results
on residuated lattices and to Grätzer (2011) for results on
lattices.
This paper is organized into five sections as follows: In
Sect. 2, some definitions and facts about residuated lattices
are recalled and some of their propositions are proved. In
Sect. 3, the notion of a quasicomplemented residuated lattice
is introduced and some of their properties are investigated.
In Sect. 4, the notion of a (weakly) disjunctive residuated
lattice is introduced and some characterizations are derived.
It is observed that the lattice of principal filters of a residu-
ated lattice is Boolean if and only if it is weakly disjunctive
and quasicomplemented. In Sect. 5, the notion of α-filters is
introduced and some of their properties are studied. Weakly
disjunctive residuated lattices are characterized in terms of
α-filters, and it is shown that a residuated lattice is quasicom-
plemented if and only if any its prime α-filter is a minimal
prime filter. We end this section by deriving a set of equivalent
conditions for any α-filter to be principal.
2 Preliminaries
An algebra A = (A; ∨, ∧, , →, 0, 1) is called a residu-
ated lattice if (A) = (A; ∨, ∧, 0, 1) is a bounded lattice,
(A; , 1) is a commutative monoid, and (, →) is an adjoint
pair. A residuated lattice A is called non-degenerate if 0 = 1.
de f .
de f .
and a n = a  · · ·  a (n times), for any integer n. An

123
 S. Rasouli

element a ∈ A is called nilpotent, provided that a n = 0, for Table 2 The Cayley table for  0 a b c d 1
some integers n. The set of nilpotent elements of A shall be “” of A6
denoted by N(A). It is well known that N(A) is an ideal of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(A). Idziak (1984) has shown that the class of residuated a a 0 a 0 a
lattices is equational and so it forms a variety. The properties b 0 0 b b
of residuated lattices were presented in Galatos et al. (2007). c a b c
For a survey of residuated lattices, we refer to Jipsen and d d d
Tsinakis (2002). 1 1

Remark 1 (Jipsen and Tsinakis 2002, Proposition 2.2) Let A

Fig. 3 The Hasse diagram of A7
be a residuated lattice. The following assertions are satisfied
for any x, y, z ∈ A:

r1 x  (y ∨ z) = (x  y) ∨ (x  z);
r2 x ∨ (y  z) ≥ (x ∨ y)  (x ∨ z).

Example 2.1 Let A4 = {0, a, b, 1} be a lattice whose Hasse

diagram is given in Fig. 1. Routine calculation shows that
A4 = (A4 ; ∨, ∧, , →, 0, 1) is a residuated lattice where
the commutative operation “” is givenin Table 1 and the
operation “→” is defined by x → y = {a ∈ A4 |x  a ≤
y}, for any x, y ∈ A4 . Table 3 The Cayley table for  0 a b c d e 1
“” of A7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Example 2.2 Let A6 = {0, a, b, c, d, 1} be a lattice whose a a a a a a a
Hasse diagram is given in Fig. 2. Routine calculation shows
b b a b a b
that A6 = (A6 ; ∨, ∧, , →, 0, 1) is a residuated lattice
c a a c c
where the commutative operation “” is given in Table 2
 d b c d
and the operation “→” is defined by x → y = {a ∈
e e e
A6 |x  a ≤ y}, for any x, y ∈ A6 .
1 1

Fig. 1 The Hasse diagram of A4

Example 2.3 (Rasouli 2019, Example 2.2) Let A7 = {0, a,

Table 1 The Cayley table for
“” of A4
Fig. 2 The Hasse diagram of A6
b, c, d, e, 1} be a lattice whose Hasse diagram is given in
Fig. 3. Routine calculation shows that A7 = (A7 ; ∨, ∧, , →
, 0, 1) is a residuated lattice where the commutative opera-
tion “” is given in Table 3 and the operation “→” is defined

by x → y = {a ∈ A7 |x  a ≤ y}, for any x, y ∈ A7 .
 0 a b 1
Let A be a residuated lattice. A non-void subset F of A is
0 0 0 0 0 called a filter of A provided that x, y ∈ F implies x  y ∈ F,
a a 0 a and x ∨ y ∈ F, for any x ∈ F and y ∈ A. The set of
b b b filters of A is denoted by F(A). A filter F of A is called
1 1 proper if F = A. Clearly, F is proper if and only if 0 ∈ / F.
For any subset X of A, the filter of A generated by X is
denoted by F(X ). For each x ∈ A, the filter generated by
{x} is denoted by F(x) and called principal filter. The set of
principal filters is denoted by PF(A). Recall (Grätzer 2011,
§5.7) that a complete lattice A is called a frame if it satisfies
the join infinite distributive law (JID), i.e., for any a ∈ A
 
and S ⊆ A, a ∧ S = {a ∧ s | s ∈ S}. According to
Galatos et al. (2007), (F(A); ∩, , {1}, A) is a frame where
F = F(∪F), for any F ⊆ F(A).

123
Quasicomplemented residuated lattices
Table 4 The sets of filters of A4 , A6 , and A7
Filters
A4 {1}, {a, 1}, {b, 1}, A4
A6 {1}, {a, c, 1}, {d, 1}, A6
A7 {1}, {b, d, 1}, {e, 1}, {a, b, c, d, e, 1}, A7
Example 2.4 Consider the residuated lattice A4 from Exam-
ple 2.1, the residuated lattice A6 from Example 2.2, and the
residuated lattice A7 from Example 2.3. The sets of their
filters are presented in Table 4.
The following proposition has a routine verification.
Proposition 2.5 Let A be a residuated lattice and F be a filter
of A. The following assertions hold, for any x, y ∈ A:
de f .
(1) F(F, x) = F  F(x) = {a ∈ A| f  x n ≤
a, for some f ∈ F and n ∈ N};
(2) x ≤ y implies F(F, y) ⊆ F(F, x);
(3) F(F, x) ∩ F(F, y) = F(F, x ∨ y);
(4) F(x)  F(y) = F(x  y) = F({x, y});
(5) PF(A) is a sublattice of F(A);
(6) if A is finite, then F(A) = PF(A).
A proper filter of a residuated lattice A is called maximal
if it is a maximal element in the set of all proper filters.
The set of maximal filters of A is denoted by Max(A). A
proper filter P of A is called prime if x ∨ y ∈ P implies
x ∈ P or y ∈ P, for any x, y ∈ A. The set of prime filters
of A is denoted by Spec(A). Since F(A) is a distributive
lattice, Max(A) ⊆ Spec(A). By Zorn’s lemma follows that
any proper filter is contained in a maximal filter and so in a
prime filter. A non-empty subset C of A is called ∨-closed
if it is closed under the join operation, i.e., x, y ∈ C implies
x ∨ y ∈ C.
Theorem 2.6 (Rasouli 2019, Theorem 3.18) If C is a ∨-
closed subset of A which does not meet the filter F, then
F is contained in a filter P which is maximal with respect to
the property of not meeting C; furthermore, P is prime.
Let A be a residuated lattice and X be a subset of A. A
prime filter P of A is called a minimal prime filter belonging
to X or X -minimal prime filter if P is a minimal element in
the set of prime filters containing X . The set of X -minimal
prime filters of A is denoted by Min X (A). A prime filter
P is called minimal prime if P ∈ Min{1} (A). The set of
minimal prime filters of A is denoted by Min(A). For the
basic facts concerning minimal prime filters of a residuated
lattice belonging to a filter, we refer to Rasouli (2019).
Theorem 2.7 (Rasouli 2019, Theorem 3.24) Let A be a resid-
uated lattice. A subset P of A is a minimal prime filter if and
Table 5 The sets of maximal, prime, and minimal prime filters of A4 ,
A6 , and A7
Prime filters
Maximal filters Minimal prime filters
A4 {a, 1}, {b, 1} {a, 1}, {b, 1}
A6 {d, 1}, {a, c, 1} {d, 1}, {a, c, 1}
A7 {a, b, c, d, e, 1} {b, d, 1}, {e, 1}
de f .
only if P c = A\P is a ∨-closed subset of A which it is
maximal with respect to the property of not containing 1.
Example 2.8 Consider the residuated lattice A4 from Exam-
ple 2.1, the residuated lattice A6 from Example 2.2, and the
residuated lattice A7 from Example 2.3. The sets of their
maximal, prime, and minimal prime filters are presented in
Table 5.
Let (A; ∨, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded lattice. Recall (Grätzer
2011, §I.6.1) that an element x ∈ A is called complemented
if there is an element y ∈ A such that x ∨y = 1 and x ∧y = 0;
y is called a complement of x. Complements in a bounded
lattice are generally not unique unless the lattice is distribu-
tive. If y is the unique complement of x, we write y = x c . If
A is a residuated lattice, the set of complemented elements of
(A) is denoted by B(A) and called the Boolean center of A.
In residuated lattices however, although the underlying lat-
tices need not be distributive, the complements are unique.
For further study about the Boolean center of a residuated
lattice, we refer to Buşneag and Piciu (2006).
Proposition 2.9 (Georgescu and Mureşan 2014, Lemma 2.5)
Let A be a residuated lattice. The following assertions hold:
(1) F(e) = {a ∈ A|e ≤ a}, for any e ∈ B(A);
(2) x ∈ B(A) if and only if x ∨ ¬x = 1, for any x ∈ A;
(3) ec = ¬e, for any e ∈ B(A).
Let A be a residuated lattice. Following by Rasouli (2018),
for any subset X of A, we write X ⊥ = {a ∈ A|a ∨ x =
1, ∀x ∈ X } and we set:
• (A) = {X ⊥ |X ⊆ A}.
Elements of (A) are called coannihilators of A. For the
basic facts concerning coannihilators and coannulets of a
residuated lattice, we refer to Rasouli (2018).
Proposition 2.10 (Rasouli 2018, Proposition 3.1) Let A be a
residuated lattice. The following assertions hold:
(1) X ⊆ Y ⊥ implies Y ⊆ X ⊥ , for any X , Y ⊆ A;
(2) X ∩ X ⊥ ⊆ {1}, for any X ⊆ A;
123

(3) X ⊆ X ⊥⊥ , for any X ⊆ A;
(4) (F(X ))⊥ = X ⊥ , for any X ⊆ A;
(5) X ⊥ is a filter of A, for any X ⊆ A;
(6) X ⊥⊥⊥ = X ⊥ , for any X ⊆ A;
 ⊥
 ⊥
(7) X ∈X X = ( X ) , for any X ⊆ P(A).
Let A be a ∧-semilattice with zero. Recall (Grätzer 2011,
§I.6.2) that an element a ∗ ∈ A is a pseudocomplement of
a ∈ A if a ∧ a ∗ = 0 and a ∧ x = 0 implies that x ≤
a ∗ . An element can have at most one pseudocomplement. A
is called pseudocomplemented if every element of A has a
pseudocomplement. The set S(A) = {a ∗ | a ∈ A} is called
the skeleton of A, and we have S(A) = {a ∈ A | a = a ∗∗ }.
Proposition 2.11 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions hold:
(1) F ⊥ is the pseudocomplement of F, for any F ∈ F(A);
(2) (F(A); ∩, {1}) is a pseudocomplemented ∧-semilattice;
(3) S(F(A)) = {F ⊥ | F ∈ F(A)} = {F ∈ F(A) | F =
F ⊥⊥ };
(4) (A) = S(F(A)).
Proof (1): Let F be a filter of A. By Proposition 2.10(2)
follows that F ∩ F ⊥ = {1}. Assume that F ∩ G = {1},
for some filter G. Let a ∈ G and b ∈ F. Since a, b ≤
a ∨ b so a ∨ b ∈ F ∩ G = {1}. Thus, a ∈ F ⊥ , and it
shows that G ⊆ F ⊥ .
(2): It follows by (1).
(3): It is evident.
(4): It is obvious that S(F(A)) ⊆ (A). Let F ∈ (A).
Thus, F = X ⊥ , for some X ⊆ A. By Proposition
2.10(5) follows that F ∈ F(A), and by Proposi-
tion 2.10(6) follows that F ⊥⊥ = F. So F ∈ S(F(A)).

 follows that a filter of A is dense, provided that it contains a
By Grätzer (2011, Theorem 100) follows that if A is a
pseudocomplemented complete ∧-semilattice, then S(A) is
a complete Boolean lattice, where the meet in S(A) is cal-
culated in A, the join in S(A) is given by ∨X = (∧{x ∗ |
de f .
x ∈ X })∗ , for any X ⊆ S(A), and 1 = 0∗ . So by Proposi-
tions 2.10(7) and 2.11follows that ((A); ∩, ∨ , {1}, A) is a
complete Boolean lattice, where for any F ⊆ (A) we have
∨ F = (∪F)⊥⊥ . This gives another proof for the following
theorem:
Theorem 2.12 (Rasouli 2018, Corollary 3.14) Let A be
a residuated lattice. ((A); ∩, ∨ , {1}, A) is a complete
Boolean lattice, where for any F ⊆ (A) we have ∨ F =
(∪F)⊥⊥ .
The following corollary characterizes coannihilators of a
residuated lattice in terms of minimal prime filters.
123
S. Rasouli
Corollary 2.13 (Rasouli 2019, Proposition 5.1) Let A be a
residuated lattice. Then, for any subset X of A, we have

X⊥ = {m ∈ Min(A)| X  m}.
Proposition 2.14 (Rasouli 2018, Proposition 3.15) Let A be
a residuated lattice. The following assertions hold, for any
x, y ∈ A:
(1) x ≤ y implies x ⊥ ⊆ y ⊥ ;
(2) x ⊥ ∩ y ⊥ = (x  y)⊥ ;
(3) x ⊥  y ⊥ ⊆ x ⊥ ∨ y ⊥ = (x ∨ y)⊥ ;
(4) x ⊥⊥ ∩ y ⊥⊥ = (x ∨ y)⊥⊥ ;
(5) x ⊥⊥ ∨ y ⊥⊥ = (x  y)⊥⊥ ;
(6) e⊥ = F(¬e), for any e ∈ B(A).
Let A be a residuated lattice. We set:
• γ (A) = {x ⊥ |x ∈ A};
• λ(A) = {x ⊥⊥ |x ∈ A}.
Elements of γ (A) and λ(A) are called coannulets and dual
coannulets of A, respectively.
Proposition 2.15 Let A be a residuated lattice. Then γ (A)
and λ(A) are sublattices of (A).
Proof By Proposition 2.14((2) and (3)) follows that γ (A) is
a sublattice of (A), and by Proposition 2.14((4) and (5))
follows that λ(A) is a sublattice of (A). 

Let A be a residuated lattice. A subset X of A is called
dense if X ⊥ = {1}. The set of all dense elements of A shall
be denoted by d(A). By Proposition 2.14((1) and (3)) follows
that d(A) is an ideal of (A). Also, by Proposition 2.10(1)
dense element.
Proposition 2.16 Let A be a residuated lattice. Then, any
non-dense prime filter of A is a coannulet.
Proof Let P be a non-dense prime filter of A. So there exists
1 = x ∈ P ⊥ . This implies that P ⊆ P ⊥⊥ ⊆ x ⊥ . Otherwise,
y ∈ x ⊥ implies that x ∨ y = 1 ∈ P. But x ∈/ P since x ∈ P
states that x ∈ P ∩ P ⊥ = {1} and this means that x = 1, a
contradiction. So y ∈ P and it shows that P = x ⊥ . 

Let A be a residuated lattice. For any ideal I of (A), we
write ω(I ) = {a ∈ A|a ∨ x = 1, ∃x ∈ I } and we set:
• (A) = {ω(I )|I is an ideal of (A)}.
Elements of (A) are called ω-filters of A. By Rasouli and
Kondo (2019, Proposition 3.7) follows that ( (A); ∩, ∨ω ,
{1}, A) is a bounded distributive lattice, where F ∨ω G =
Quasicomplemented residuated lattices
ω(I F  IG ), for any F, G ∈ (A) (by , we mean the
join operation in the lattice of ideals of (A)). Also, by
Rasouli and Kondo (2019, Lemma 3.8) follows that γ (A)
is a sublattice of (A). For a prime filter P of A, we write
D(P) = ω(P c ). For the basic facts concerning ω-filters of a
residuated lattice, we refer to Rasouli and Kondo (2019).
Proposition 2.17 Any proper ω-filter in a residuated lattice
A contains no dense elements.
Proof Let F be a proper ω-filter. Assume that F contains
a dense element as d. Hence, d ∈ x ⊥ for some x ∈ I F . It
implies that x ∈ d ⊥ and it means 1 ∈ I F . So F = A, a
contradiction. 
 The following proposition characterizes quasicomple-
The following corollary characterizes minimal prime fil-
ters belonging to a filter.
Theorem 2.18 (Rasouli and Kondo 2019, Theorem 3.16) Let
A be a residuated lattice. The following assertions are equiv-
alent:
(1) P is a minimal prime filter;
(2) P = D(P);
(3) for any x ∈ A, P contains precisely one of x or x ⊥ .
Corollary 2.19 (Rasouli and Kondo 2019, Corollary 3.23)
Let A be a residuated lattice and P be a prime filter of A. We
have
 (2)⇒(3): By applying Proposition 2.14((3) and (4)), it is
D(P) = {m ∈ Min(A)|m ⊆ P}.
Let A be a residuated
 lattice. For a subset M of Min(A),
we write k(M) = {m|m ∈ M}, and for a subset X of A, we
write h(X ) = {m|X ⊆ m}. Also, let d(X ) = Min(A)\h(X ).
If the collection {h(x)|x ∈ A} is taken as a closed basis, the
resulting topology is called the hull-kernel topology, which
is denoted by τh , and if the collection {h(x)|x ∈ A} is taken
as an open basis, the resulting topology is called the dual
hull-kernel topology, which is denoted by τd . For a detailed
discussion of spaces of minimal prime filters in residuated
lattices, we refer to Rasouli and Dehghani (2018).
Corollary 2.20 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent for any x, y ∈ A:
(1) x ⊥ = y ⊥ ;
(2) h(x) = h(y);
(3) d(x) = d(y).
Proof (1)⇒(2): Let m ∈ h(x). By Theorem 2.18(3) fol-
lows that y ⊥  m and so y ∈ m. It implies that
m ∈ h(y). Thus, we have h(x) ⊆ h(y). The other
inclusion is analogous by symmetry.
(2)⇒(3): It is evident.

(3)⇒(1): By Corollary 2.13 follows that x ⊥ = d(x) =

d(y) = y ⊥ . 

3 Quasicomplemented residuated lattices
In this section, the notion of a quasicomplemented residuated
lattice is introduced and studied.
Definition 3.1 Let A be a residuated lattice. A is called qua-
sicomplemented, provided that for any x ∈ A, there exists
y ∈ A such that x ⊥⊥ = y ⊥ (i.e., λ(A) ⊆ γ (A)).
mented residuated lattices.
Proposition 3.2 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is quasicomplemented;
(2) for any x ∈ A, there exists y ∈ A such that x  y ∈ d(A)
and x ∨ y = 1;
(3) γ (A) is a Boolean lattice.
Proof (1)⇒(2): Consider x ∈ A. So there exists y ∈ A
such that x ⊥⊥ = y ⊥ . Applying Proposition 2.10(2) and
2.14(2), it follows that x  y is a dense element and
Proposition 2.10(2) shows that x ∈ x ⊥⊥ = y ⊥ and so
x ∨ y = 1.
evident.
(3)⇒(1): Let x ∈ A. So there exists some y ∈ A such
that x ⊥ ∩ y ⊥ = {1} and x ⊥ ∨ y ⊥ = A. By Proposi-
tion 2.11(1), the former states y ⊥ ⊆ x ⊥⊥ and the latter
states the reverse inclusion. 

The following proposition derives a sufficient condition
for a residuated lattice to become quasicomplemented.
Proposition 3.3 Let A be a residuated lattice. A is quasicom-
plemented, provided that in this any coannulet is principal.
Proof Consider x ∈ A. So there exists y ∈ A such that x ⊥ =
F(y). Using Proposition 2.10(4) follows that x ⊥⊥ = y ⊥ , and
so A is quasicomplemented. 

Corollary 3.4 Any finite residuated lattice is quasicomple-
mented.
Proof It follows by Proposition 2.5(6) and 3.3. 

Some necessary and sufficient conditions for a residuated
lattice to become quasicomplemented are given in the fol-
lowing proposition.
Proposition 3.5 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
123
 S. Rasouli

(1) A is quasicomplemented;
(2) any prime filter not containing any dense element is min-
imal prime;
(3) any filter not containing any dense element is contained
in a minimal prime filter.

Proof (1)⇒(2): Let P be a prime filter such that P ∩

d(A) = ∅. Consider x ∈ P. Applying Proposition 3.2(2),
there exists y ∈ A such that x  y is dense and x ∨ y = 1.
This shows that x  y ∈ / P and so y ∈ / P. Hence, x ∈
D(P) and this states that P = D(P). So the result holds
by Theorem 2.18.
(2)⇒(3): It follows by Theorem 2.6.
(3)⇒(1): Let x ∈ A. By Theorem 2.18(3) follows that
F(x)  x ⊥ cannot be contained in any minimal prime
filter and so it contains a dense element like d. Hence,
there are a ∈ F(x) and b ∈ x ⊥ such that a  b ≤ d.
So for some integer n follows that x n  b is dense. Let
u ∈ b⊥ and v ∈ x ⊥ . Thus, we have (u ∨ v) ∨ b = 1
and (u ∨ v) ∨ x n = 1, and by using r2 we deduce that
(u ∨ v) ∨ (x n  b) = 1. It shows that u ∨ v = 1 and it
means that b⊥ ⊆ x ⊥⊥ . The other inclusion is evident by
Proposition 2.10(1), and so the result holds. 
 Recalling that, if A and B are two algebras of a same
Quasicomplemented residuated lattices are characterized
under the name of -residuated lattices in Rasouli and
Dehghani (2018). The following theorem gives a topological
characterization for quasicomplemented residuated lattice.
Theorem 3.6 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is quasicomplemented;
(2) τh and τd coincide;
(3) (Min(A); τh ) is compact.
Proof It follows by Rasouli and Dehghani (2018, Theorem
4.6). 
 (7) F(1)/ = {F(1)} and F(0)/ = {F(x)|x ∈ d(A)}.
4 Disjunctive residuated lattices
Speed (1969a) introduced a certain class of distributive
lattices with zero named disjunctive lattices. This notion
has been discussed in semilattices by Büchi (1948) and in
commutative semigroups by Kist (1963). Cornish (1972,
Theorem 7.6) proved that if A is a disjunctive normal lat-
tice and Max(A), the space of maximal filters of A with
the hull-kernel topology, is a compact Hausdorff totally dis-
connected space, then A is complementedly normal. Also,
Cornish (1973, Proposition 2.3) showed that a disjunctive
normal lattice is dual isomorphic to its lattice of annulets.
Actually, disjunctive lattices are themselves important in the
study of annulets; information can be obtained by dualizing
Fig. 4 The diagram of disjunctive residuated lattices
Banaschewski’s results in Banaschewski (1964, Section 4).
In this section, we introduce and study notions of disjunctive
and weakly disjunctive residuated lattice.
Let A be a residuated lattice. We set D(A) = {d(x)|x ∈
A} and H (A) = {h(x)|x ∈ A}. By Rasouli and Dehghani
(2018, Proposition 3.6 and 3.10), it follows that (D(A); ∩,
∪, d(1) = ∅, d(0) = Min(A)) and (H (A); ∩, ∪, h(0) =
∅, h(1) = Min(A)) are bounded lattices. Consider the fol-
lowing diagram;
type and f : A −→ B is a homomorphism, then κ( f ) =
{(a1 , a2 ) ∈ A2 | f (a1 ) = f (a2 )} is a congruence relation on
A. The following remark has a routine verification.
Remark 2 (1) By Proposition 2.10(4) and Corollary 2.20 fol-
lows that f 3 , f 4 , f 5 , and f 6 are well defined.
(2) f 2 = f 4 f 1 and f 5 f 3 = f 6 f 4 .
(3) f 2 , f 3 are lattice epimorphisms and f 1 , f 4 are dual lattice
epimorphisms.
(4) f 5 is a dual lattice isomorphism and f 6 is a lattice iso-
morphism.
(5)  := κ( f 3 ) = κ( f 4 ), so f 3 is injective if and only if f 4
is injective.
(6) f 2 is injective if and only if f 1 , f 4 are injective.
(8) 1/κ( f 2 ) = {1} and 0/κ( f 2 ) = d(A).
(9) 1/κ( f 1 ) = {1} and 0/κ( f 1 ) = N(A).
Proposition 4.1 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is quasicomplemented;
(2) (A)/κ( f 2 ) is a Boolean lattice;
(3) PF(A)/ is a Boolean lattice.
Proof It is an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.2 and
Remark 2. 

Definition 4.2 Let A be a residuated lattice. With notations
of Fig. 4, A is called disjunctive, provided that f 2 is injective,
and weakly disjunctive, provided that f 3 (or, equivalently f 4 )
is injective.

123
Quasicomplemented residuated lattices
Fig. 5 The interrelation between the subclasses of quasicomplemented
and disjunctive residuated lattices
By Remark 2(6), it is evident that if a residuated lattice
is disjunctive, then it is weakly disjunctive. In the following
proposition, the interrelation between the subclasses of qua-
sicomplemented and disjunctive residuated lattices is given
(Fig. 5).
Proposition 4.3 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is quasicomplemented and disjunctive;
(2) (A) is a Boolean lattice;
(3) A is quasicomplemented, d(A) = {0} and the operation
¬ is injective as a function.
Proof (1)⇒(2): It follows by Proposition 4.1.
(2)⇒(3): By Proposition 2.9 follows that the operation ¬ is
injective as a function. By Proposition 2.5(6) and
2.14(5) follows that d(A) = {0} and so by Propo-
sition 3.2 follows that A is quasicomplemented.
(3)⇒(1): Let x ⊥ = y ⊥ . So we have (x  ¬y)⊥ = {1} and
it implies that ¬y ≤ ¬x. Analogously, we can
conclude that ¬x ≤ ¬y and it implies that ¬x =
¬y. Since ¬ is an injective operation, the result
holds. 
 of α-filters in BL algebras as the dual notion of α-ideals.
Remark 3 Let (A, ∨, ∧, , 0, 1) be a Boolean lattice and
define a → b = a  ∨ b, for all a, b ∈ A. It is well known that
(A, ∨, ∧,  = ∧, →, 0, 1) is a residuated lattice, in which
¬ = . So by Proposition 2.9(2) follows that (A) is a Boolean
lattice if and only if x ∨ ¬x = 1, for any x ∈ A. This gives a
new characterization for quasicomplemented and disjunctive
residuated lattices.
Proposition 4.4 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is quasicomplemented and weakly disjunctive;
(2) PF(A) is a Boolean lattice.
Proof (1)⇒(2): It follows by Proposition 4.1.
Table 6 Disjunctive and weakly disjunctive residuated lattices
Disjunctive Weakly disjunctive
A4  
A6 × 
A7 × ×
(2)⇒(1): Let (F(x))c = F(y). So we have F(x) ∩ F(y) = 1
and F(x)F(y) = A. By Propositions 2.10(4) and
2.11(1), the former implies F(y) ⊆ (F(x))⊥ = x ⊥
and so the latter implies F(x)  x ⊥ = A. It shows
that F(y) = x ⊥ . So A is quasicomplemented since
x ⊥⊥ = y ⊥ and A is weakly disjunctive since x ⊥ =
y ⊥ implies (F(x))c = (F(y))c and so F(x) =
F(y). 

Remark 4 Let A be a residuated lattice. Applying Proposition
2.5, it is easy to see that PF(A) is a Boolean lattice if and only
if for any a ∈ A there exists b ∈ a ⊥ such that a  b ∈ N(A).
This gives a new characterization for quasicomplemented
and weakly disjunctive residuated lattices.
Example 4.5 Consider the residuated lattice A4 from Exam-
ple 2.1, the residuated lattice A6 from Example 2.2, and the
residuated lattice A7 from Example 2.3 (Table 6).
5 ˛-Filters
The notion of α-ideals was introduced by Cornish (1973) in
distributive lattices with 0. Jayaram (1986) generalized the
concept of α-ideals to 0-distributive lattices. Some further
properties of α-ideals for 0-distributive lattices were obtained
by Pawar and Mane (1993) and Pawar and Khopade (2010).
Haveshki and Mohamadhasani (2015) proposed the concept
Recently, Dong and Xin (2019) extended the concept of α-
filters to residuated lattices. In this section, the notion of
α-filters in a residuated lattice is investigated and some prop-
erties of them are derived.
Definition 5.1 Let A be a residuated lattice. A filter F of A
is called an α-filter if for any x ∈ F we have x ⊥⊥ ⊆ F. The
set of α-filters of A is denoted by α(A). It is obvious that
{1}, A ∈ α(A).
Example 5.2 Consider the residuated lattice A4 from Exam-
ple 2.1, the residuated lattice A6 from Example 2.2, and the
residuated lattice A7 from Example 2.3. The sets of their
α-filters are presented in Table 7.
Let A be a residuated lattice. It is obvious that α(A) is
an algebraic closed set system on A. The closure operator
123
 S. Rasouli

Table 7 The sets of α-filters of α-filters f i1  · · ·  f in ≤ x. By Proposition 2.14(1) follows

A4 , A6 , and A7 that x ⊥⊥ ⊆ ( f i1  · · ·  f in )⊥⊥ and it means a ∈ .
A4 {1}, {a, 1}, {b, 1}, A4 (3): It follows by (1).
A6 {1}, {a, c, 1}, {d, 1}, A6 (4): By Proposition 2.5(3), we have the following formulas:
A7 {1}, {b, d, 1}, {e, 1}, A7
α(F, x) ∩ α(F, y) = α(F(F, x)) ∩ α(F(F, y))
= α(F(F, x) ∩ F(F, y))
associated with this closed set system is denoted by α A : = α(F(F, x ∨ y)
P(A) −→ P(A). Thus, for any subset X of A, α A (X ) = = α(F, x ∨ y).
∩{F ∈ α(A)|X ⊆ F} is the smallest α-filter of A containing
X , which is called the α-filter of A generated by X . When (5): By Proposition 2.5(4), we have the following formulas:
there is no ambiguity, we will drop the superscript A. Hence,
α(A) is a complete compactly generated lattice where the α(F, x) ∨α α(F, y) = α(F(F, x)) ∨α α(F(F, y))
infimum is the set-theoretic intersection and the supremum = α(F(F, x)  F(F, y))
of F ⊆ α(A) is ∨α F = α(∪F). It is obvious that α(X ) = = α(F(F, x  y))
α(F(X )) for any X ⊆ A and so we have ∨α F = α(F). = α(F, x  y).

Proposition 5.3 For any residuated lattice A, (α(A); ∩, ∨α ) 


is a frame.
Let A be a residuated lattice. We set:
Proof We know that α(A) is a complete lattice. Let {F} ∪ G
be a family of α-filters. We have the following sequence of • PFα (A) = {α(x)|x ∈ A}.
formulas:
Corollary 5.5 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
F ∩ (∨α G) = α(F ∩ (G)) assertions hold:
= α(G∈G (F ∩ G))
= ∨αG∈G (F ∩ G). (1) (PFα (A); ∩, ∨α , {1}, A) is a bounded lattice;
(2) (PFα (A); ∩, ∨α , {1}, A) and (λ(A); ∩, ∨ , {1}, A) are
It shows that α(A) is a frame. 
 isomorphic lattices.
It is well known that a lattice is a frame if and only if
it is a complete Heyting algebra. So due to Proposition 5.3, Proof (1): It follows by Proposition 5.4((4) and (5)).
we deduce that for any residuated lattice A, (α(A); ∩, ∨α , (2): Routinely one can see that the mapping ρ : PFα (A) −→
→, {1}, A) is a Heyting algebra, where F → G = {H ∈ λ(A), given by ρ(α(x)) = x ⊥⊥ , is a well-defined lattice
α(A)|F ∩ H ⊆ G} for any F, G ∈ α(A). isomorphism. 


Proposition 5.4 Let {F} ∪ {Fi }i∈I be a family of filters in a The following proposition gives some equivalent asser-
residuated lattice A, and x, y ∈ A. The following assertions tions for a filter to be an α-filter.
hold: Proposition 5.6 Let A be a residuated lattice and F be a filter
of A. The following assertions are equivalent:
(1) α(F) = ∪x∈F x ⊥⊥ ;
α F = {a ∈ A|a ∈ ( f  · · ·  f )⊥⊥ , ∃n ∈
(2) ∨i∈I i i1 in (1) F is an α-filter;
N, i 1n ∈ I , f i j ∈ Fi j }; (2) if x ⊥ = y ⊥ and x ∈ F, then y ∈ F for any x, y ∈ A;
de f .
(3) α(F, x) = α(F ∪ {x}) = ∪ f ∈F,n∈N ( f  x n )⊥⊥ ; (3) if d(x) = d(y) and x ∈ F, then y ∈ F for any x, y ∈ A;
(4) α(F, x) ∩ α(F, y) = α(F, x ∨ y); (4) if h(x) = h(y) and x ∈ F, then y ∈ F for any x, y ∈ A.
(5) α(F, x) ∨α α(F, y) = α(F, x  y).
Proof By Corollary 2.20, it follows that (1), (2), and (3) are
Proof (1): It proves quite in a routine way. equivalent. So we only prove the other cases.
(2): We have ∨i∈I α F = α(
i i∈I Fi ) = {a ∈ A|a ∈
⊥⊥
x , f or some x ∈ i∈I Fi }. Let = {a ∈ A|a ∈ (1)⇒(2): Let x ⊥ = y ⊥ for some y ∈ A and x ∈ F. Then,
(it=i
n
f )⊥⊥ , ∃n, i 1 , · · · , i n ∈ N f i j ∈ Fi j }. It is obvi- y ∈ y ⊥⊥ = x ⊥⊥ ⊆ F.
1 t
ous that ⊆ ∨i∈I α F . Suppose that a ∈ ∨α F . Thus,
i (2)⇒(1): Let x ∈ F and y ∈ x ⊥⊥ . So x ⊥ ⊆ y ⊥ . By
i∈I i
a ∈ x ⊥⊥ for some x ∈ i∈I Fi . So there exist an Proposition 2.14(4) follows that y ⊥ = x ⊥ ∨ y ⊥ =
integer n, i 1 , · · · , i n ∈ I and f i j ∈ Fi j such that (x ∨ y)⊥ and it states that y ∈ F since x ∨ y ∈ F. 


123
Quasicomplemented residuated lattices
Let A = (A; ≤) and B = (B; ) be two posts. We recall
that a pair ( f , g) is called an adjunction (or isotone Galois
connection) between posets A and B, where f : A −→ B
and g : B −→ A are two functions such that for all a ∈ A
and b ∈ B, f (a)  b if and only if a ≤ g(b). It is well known
that ( f , g) is an adjunction connection if and only if g f is
inflationary, f g is deflationary and f , g are isotone (García-
Pardo et al. 2013, Theorem 2). It is well known Cg f = g(B),
where Cg f is the set of fixed points of the closure operator
gf .
Theorem 5.7 Let A be a residuated lattice. We define
 : F(A) −→ F(γ (A))  : F(γ (A)) −→ F(A)
F −→ {x ⊥ |x ∈ F}, F −→ {x ∈ A|x ⊥ ∈ F}.
Then, the pair (, ) is an adjunction and we have
(F) = α(F) for any F ∈ F(A). In particular, we have
C = α(A).
Proof Quite in a routine way, we can show that the pair
(, ) forms an adjunction. Let F be a filter of A. We have
the following formulas:
(F) = ((F))
= {a ∈ A|a ⊥ ∈ (F)}
= {a ∈ A|a ⊥ = x ⊥ , ∃x ∈ F}
= {a ∈ A|a ∈ x ⊥⊥ , ∃x ∈ F} = ∪x∈F x ⊥⊥ = α(F).
The rest is evident.
The next theorem should be compared with Theorem 2.6.
Theorem 5.8 Let C be a ∨-closed subset of A which does not
meet the α-filter F. Then, F is contained in an α-filter P
which is maximal with respect to the property of not meeting
C; furthermore, P is prime.
Proof Let
= {G ∈ α(A)|F ⊆ G, G ∩C = ∅}. It is easy to
= {F ∈ F(A)|y ∈ F, x ∈ / F}.
see that
satisfies the conditions of Zorn’s lemma. Let P be
and
satisfies the conditions of Zorn’s
a maximal element of
. Assume that x ∨ y ∈ P and neither lemma. Let P be the maximal element of
. Let
x ∈
/ P nor y ∈ / P. By maximality of P, we have α(P, x) ∩
C = ∅ and α(P, y) ∩ C = ∅. Suppose ax ∈ α(P, x) ∩ C
and a y ∈ α(P, y) ∩ C. By Proposition 5.4(3), there exist
px , p y ∈ P and integers n, m such that ax ∈ ( px  x n )⊥⊥
and a y ∈ ( p y  y m )⊥⊥ . It follows that
ax ∨ a y ∈ ( px  x n )⊥⊥ ∩ ( p y  y m )⊥⊥
= (( px  x n ) ∨ ( p y  y m ))⊥⊥
⊆ (( px ∨ p y )  ( px ∨ y m ))  (x n ∨ p y )
(x ∨ y)nm )⊥⊥
⊆ P.
It is a contradiction. So x ∈ P or y ∈ P and it shows that P
is a prime filter. 
 assertions hold:
In the sequel for any residuated lattice A, we set Specα (A)
= Spec(A) ∩ α(A).
Corollary 5.9 Let F be an α-filter of a residuated lattice A
and X be a non-empty subset of A. The following assertions
hold:
(1) If X  F, then there exists P ∈ Specα (A) such that
F ⊆ P and P is maximal with respect to the property
X  P; 
(2) α(X ) = {P ∈ Specα (A)|X ⊆ P}.
Proof (1): Let x ∈ X − F. By taking C = {x}, it follows by
Theorem 5.8.
(2): Set σ X = {P ∈ Specα (A)|X ⊆ P}. Obviously, we have

α(X ) ⊆ σ X . Now, let a ∈ / α(X ). By (1) follows that
there exits an α-prime filter
P containing α(X ) such that
a∈/ P. It shows that a ∈ / σX . 

The following proposition characterizes weakly disjunc-
tive residuated lattices by using of α-filters.
Proposition 5.10 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is weakly disjunctive;
(2) any filter of A is an α-filter;
(3) any prime filter of A is an α-filter.


Proof (1)⇒(2): Let F be a filter of A. Consider x, y ∈ A
such that x ⊥ = y ⊥ and x ∈ F. Since A is weakly
disjunctive, F(x) = F(y) and this implies that y ∈
F(y) = F(x) ⊆ F. Hence, F is an α-filter due to
Proposition 5.6(2).
(2)⇒(3): It is trivial.
(3)⇒(1): Let x ⊥ = y ⊥ and F(x) = F(y) for some x, y ∈ A.
Without loss of generality, suppose that F(x) 
F(y). Let
F(y) ∈
a ∨b ∈ P and a, b ∈ / P. So F(P, a), F(P, b) ∈ /
and this states that x ∈ F(P, a) ∩ F(P, b). By
Proposition 2.5(3) follows that x ∈ F(P, a) ∩
F(P, b) = F(P, a ∨ b) = P and this leads us
to a contradiction. Thus, P is a prime filter, and
this implies that x ∈ x ⊥⊥ = y ⊥⊥ ⊆ P, a contra-
diction. 

Remark 5 For the sake of more clarity of Proposition 5.10,
see Examples 4.5 and 5.2.
In the following proposition, we show that any coannihi-
lator filter and any ω-filter is an α-filter.
Proposition 5.11 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
123

(1) (A) ⊆ α(A);
(2) (A) ⊆ α(A).
Proof (1): Let F ∈ (A) and x ∈ F. By Proposition 2.11,
we have x ⊥⊥ ⊆ F ⊥⊥ = F and this shows that F is an
α-filter.
(2): Let F ∈ (A). So there exists a lattice ideal I of A such
that F = ω(I ). Consider y ∈ F. So there exists x ∈ I
such that y ∈ x ⊥ and it follows that x ∈ y ⊥ . Assume
z ∈ y ⊥⊥ . Thus, y ⊥ ⊆ z ⊥ and it follows that x ∈ z ⊥ . So
we observe that z ∈ x ⊥ ⊆ F.
Corollary 5.12 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions hold:
(1) Any non-dense prime filter is an α-filter;
(2) any minimal prime filter is an α-filter.
Proof (1): It is an immediate consequence of Proposi-
tion 2.16 and Proposition 5.11(1).
(2): It is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.18 and
Proposition 5.11(2). 
 (2)
In the following proposition, we give some equivalent con-
ditions for each α-filter to be a coannihilator.
Proposition 5.13 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) Any proper α-filter is non-dense;
(2) any dense filter contains a dense element;
(3) any α-filter is a coannihilator;
(4) for any proper α-filter F, there exists a proper α-filter G
such that F∩G = {1} (i.e., α(A) is semi-complemented);
(5) α(A) has a unique dense element.
Moreover, any of the above assertions implies that A is qua-
sicomplemented.
Proof (1)⇒(2): Let F be a dense filter of A. It implies that
α(F) is a dense filter and it means that α(F) = A. Therefore,
0 ∈ α(F) and it means that x ⊥ = 1 for some element x ∈ F.
(2)⇒(3): Let F be an α-filter. F, F ⊥ ⊆ F  F ⊥ and so
(F  F ⊥ )⊥ ⊆ F ⊥ ∩ F ⊥⊥ = {1}. So F  F ⊥ is a dense
filter and so it contains a dense element. Assume that x is a
dense element in F  F ⊥ . So there exist a ∈ F and b ∈ F ⊥
such that a  b ≤ x. It implies that a ⊥ ∩ b⊥ ⊆ x ⊥ = {1}
and since a ⊥⊥ is the pseudocomplement of a ⊥ , it follows
that b⊥ ⊆ a ⊥⊥ ⊆ F as F is an α-filter. On the other hand,
b ∈ F ⊥ implies that F ⊥⊥ ⊆ b⊥ and it states that F ⊥⊥ ⊆ F.
The other inclusion is evident.
(3)⇒(4): Since the set of all coannihilators forms a Boolean
lattice, it follows that α(A) is semi-complemented.
123
S. Rasouli
(4)⇒(5): A is a dense element of α(A). Now, if F is a proper
dense α-filter, then there exists a filter G = {1} such that
F ∩ G = {1} and this implies that G ⊆ F ⊥ = {1} due to
Proposition 2.11(1). So G = {1} and it is a contradiction.
(5)⇒(1): It is trivial.
Now, let A satisfy (1) and x ∈ A. Set F = x ⊥  x ⊥⊥ .
It implies that α(F)⊥ ⊆ x ⊥ ∩ x ⊥⊥ = {1} and it means
that α(F) is a dense filter. So α(F) = A and it states that
0 ∈ α(F). It follows that y ⊥ = 1 for some element y ∈ F.
Hence, there exist a ∈ x ⊥ and b ∈ x ⊥⊥ such that a 

 b ≤ y. Therefore, a ⊥ ∩ b⊥ = {1} and it shows that a ⊥ ⊆
b⊥⊥ ⊆ x ⊥⊥ . On the other hand, a ∈ x ⊥ gives x ⊥⊥ ⊆
a ⊥ . Combining both the inclusions follows that x ⊥⊥ = a ⊥ .
Hence, A is quasicomplemented. 

In the following proposition we give some equivalent con-
ditions for each α-filter to be an ω-filter.
Theorem 5.14 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is quasicomplemented;
every α-filter is an ω-filter;
(3) every coannihilator is an ω-filter;
(4) For any x ∈ A, x ⊥⊥ is an ω-filter.
Proof (1)⇒(2): Let F be an α-filter and set I F = {a ∈
A| f ⊥ ⊆ a ⊥⊥ , f or some f ∈ F}. It is obvious that
0 ∈ I F . Let a1 , a2 ∈ I F . So f 1⊥ ⊆ a1⊥⊥ and f 2⊥ ⊆ a2⊥⊥
for some f 1 , f 2 ∈ F. By Proposition 2.14 follows that
( f 1  f 2 )⊥ ⊆ (a1 ∨ a2 )⊥⊥ and it states that a1 ∨ a2 ∈ I F .
Now let a1 ≤ a2 and a2 ∈ I F . So there exists f ∈ F
such that f ⊥ ⊆ a2⊥⊥ and on the other hand we have
a2⊥⊥ ≤ a1⊥⊥ . Hence, we have f ⊥ ⊆ a1⊥⊥ and it means
that a1 ∈ I F . Thus, I F is a lattice ideal of A. Now, let
x ∈ ω(I F ). Consequently, x ∈ a ⊥ for some a ∈ I F and
so x ∈ f ⊥⊥ for some f ∈ F. Since F is an α-filter,
it follows that x ∈ F. Otherwise, let x ∈ F. Since A
quasicomplemented, it follows that x ⊥⊥ = a ⊥ for some
a ∈ A. It means that a ∈ I F . Therefore, x ∈ x ⊥⊥ =
a ⊥ ⊆ ω(I F ) and it shows that F ⊆ ω(I F ).
(2)⇒(3): It is obvious, since any coannihilator is an α-
filter.
(3)⇒(4): It is obvious, since for any x ∈ A, x ⊥⊥ is a
coannihilator.
(4)⇒(1): Let x ∈ A. So there exists a lattice ideal I such
that x ⊥⊥ = ω(I ). So x ∈ ω(I ) and it implies that x ∈ y ⊥
for some y ∈ I . Thus, x ⊥⊥ ⊆ y ⊥ ⊆ ω(I ) = x ⊥⊥ . 

Lemma 5.15 Let F be a filter of a residuated lattice A. Then,
α(F) is proper if and only if F contains no dense element.
Proof Let F ∩ d(A) = ∅. So there exists a dense element d
in F. By Proposition 5.4(1), we get that A = d ⊥⊥ ⊆ α(F)
Quasicomplemented residuated lattices
and it implies α(F) = A. Otherwise, if α(F) = A, then 0 ∈
α(F). So there exists x ∈ F such that 0 ∈ x ⊥⊥ . Therefore,
x ⊥ ⊆ 0⊥ = {1} and it means that x is a dense element.  
Lemma 5.16 Let A be a quasicomplemented residuated lat-
tice and P be a prime filter. The following assertions are
equivalent:
(1) P is an α-filter;
(2) P contains no dense element;
(3) P is minimal prime;
(4) P contains precisely one of x, y ∈ A such that x ⊥⊥ =
y⊥.
Proof (1)⇒(2) follows by Lemma 5.15 and (2)⇒(3) follows
by Proposition 3.5(2).
(3)⇒(4): Let x and y be any pair of elements for which
x ⊥⊥ = y ⊥ . Since x ∨ y = 1 and P is prime so either
x ∈ P or y ∈ P. Also, x ⊥ ∩ y ⊥ = {1} implies that
x ⊥ ⊆ P or y ⊥ ⊆ P. Now we can deduce the result by
Theorem 2.18(3).
(4)⇒(1): Let x ∈ P and y be an element such that x ⊥⊥ =
y ⊥ . Since y ∈
/ P, y ⊥ ⊆ P and it shows that P is an α-
filter. 
 that  satisfies the conditions of Zorn’s lemma.
In the next corollary, we characterize the quasicomple-
mented residuated lattice in terms of α-filters. This result
should be compared with Proposition 3.5.
Corollary 5.17 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) A is quasicomplemented;
(2) any prime α-filter is minimal prime;
(3) any proper α-filter is the intersection of minimal
prime filters;
(4) any proper α-filter is contained in a minimal prime
filter.
Proof (1)⇒(2) is followed by Proposition 3.5 and Lemma
5.16, (2)⇒(3) is followed by Corollary 5.9(2) and (3)⇒(4)
is obvious.
(4)⇒(1): Let F be a filter such that F ∩ d(A) = ∅. By
Lemma 5.15, α(F) is proper and so it is contained in
a minimal prime filter. It means that F is contained in
a minimal prime filter. Hence, the result is followed by
Proposition 3.5(3). 
 (1) Any α-filter is principal;
We end this paper by deriving a set of equivalent assertions
for any α-filter of a residuated lattice to become principal.
Lemma 5.18 Let A be a residuated lattice, F be an α-filter
and a ∈ F. If for any prime α-filter P which contains a we
have F ⊆ P, then F = α(a).
Proof It is a direct consequence of Corollary 5.9(2). 

Proposition 5.19 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:

(1) For any P ⊆ Specα (A) and any α-filter F, F ⊆ P
implies F ⊆ P for some P ∈ P;
 any P ⊆ Specα (A) and any prime α-filter Q, Q ⊆
(2) for
P implies Q ⊆ P for some P ∈ P;
(3) any prime α-filter is principal;
(4) any α-filter is principal.
Proof (1)⇒(2): It is obvious.
(2)⇒(3): Let Q be a prime α-filter which is not principal.
By Lemma 5.18, for any a ∈ Q there exists a
prime
 α-filter Pa such that Q  Pa . We have Q ⊆
{Pa |a ∈ Q} and so Q ⊆ Pa for some a ∈ Q, a
contradiction.
(3)⇒(4): It is obvious that A is a principal α-filter. Set  be
the set of all proper non-principal α-filters of A.
Let  be not empty. In a routine way, we can show
Let M be a maximal element of . Let a ∨ b ∈ M
and a, b ∈/ M. Thus, there exist x, y ∈ A such that
α(M, a) = α(x) and α(M, b) = α(y). Applying
Proposition 5.4, it follows that M = α(x ∨ y), a
contradiction. Thus, M is a prime α-filter and so it
is principal, a contradiction. Hence,  = ∅ and it
gets the result.
(4)⇒(1): Let F be an α-filter such that F ⊆ ∪P for some
P ⊆ Specα (A). By hypothesis, F = α(a) for
some a ∈ A. So there exists P ∈ P such that a ∈
P. Hence, F ⊆ P and it proves the implication.  
Lemma 5.20 If any coannulet of a residuated lattice is prin-
cipal, then any its prime α-filter is a minimal prime filter.
Proof Let P be a prime α-filter of A. By Proposition 5.6(2),
it is obvious that P has no any dense element. Let x ∈ P.
By hypothesis x ⊥ = F(y) for some y ∈ A. So we have
(x  y)⊥ = x ⊥ ∩ y ⊥ = x ⊥ ∩ x ⊥⊥ = {1} and so x  y ∈ / P.
Hence, y ∈ / P and so x ∈ D(P). By Theorem 2.18, the result
holds. 

Proposition 5.21 Let A be a residuated lattice. The following
assertions are equivalent:
(2) any ω-filter is principal;
(3) any coannulet is principal and any minimal prime filter
is non-dense;
123

(4) any prime α-filter is principal.
Further, any of the above assertions implies that A is quasi-
complemented.
Proof (1)⇒(2): It is obvious, by Proposition 5.11(2).
(2)⇒(3): By γ (A) ⊆ (A) follows that any coannulet is
principal. Let m be a minimal prime filter. So m is
an ω-filter and it means that m = F(x) for some
x ∈ A. If m is dense, follows that x ⊥ = 1 and it
contradicts with Proposition 2.17.
(3)⇒(4): Let P be a prime α-filter. By Lemma 5.20, P is
a minimal prime filter and so it is non-dense. By
proposition 2.16, P is a coannulet and this means
that P is principal.
(4)⇒(1): It follows by Proposition 5.19.
The rest is evident by Proposition 3.3. 
 Knox M, Levy R, McGovern WW, Shapiro J (2009) Generalizations
Acknowledgements The author is highly grateful to referees for their
valuable comments and suggestions which were helpful in improving
this paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no conflict of inter-
est. This article does not contain any studies with human participants
or animals performed by any of the authors.
References
Banaschewski B (1964) On lattice-ordered groups. Fundamenta Math-
ematicae 55(2):113–122
Büchi JR (1948) Die boolesche partialordnung und die paarung von
gefuegcn. Port Math 7:80–119
Buşneag D, Piciu D (2006) Residuated lattice of fractions relative to a ∧-
closed system. Bulletin mathématique de la Société des Sciences
Mathématiques de Roumanie 49(97)(1):13–24
Cornish WH (1972) Normal lattices. J Aust Math Soc 14(2):200–215
Cornish WH (1973) Annulets and α-ideals in a distributive lattice. J
Aust Math Soc 15(1):70–77
Dong YY, Xin XL (2019) α-filters and prime α-filter spaces in residu-
ated lattices. Soft Comput 23(10):3207–3216
Endo S (1961) On semi-hereditary rings. J Math Soc Jpn 13(2):109–119
Evans M (1972) On commutative pp rings. Pac J Math 41(3):687–697
123
View publication stats
S. Rasouli
Galatos N, Jipsen P, Kowalski T, Ono H (2007) Residuated Lattices:
An Algebraic Glimpse at Substructural Logics, vol 151. Elsevier,
Amsterdam
García-Pardo F, Cabrera IP, Cordero P, Ojeda-Aciego M (2013) On
Galois connections and soft computing. In: International work-
conference on artificial neural networks. Springer, pp 224–235
Georgescu G, Mureşan C (2014) Boolean lifting property for residuated
lattices. Soft Comput 18(11):2075–2089
Grätzer G (2011) Lattice Theory: Foundation. Springer, Berlin
Haveshki M, Mohamadhasani M (2015) On α-filters of BL-algebras. J
Intell Fuzzy Syst 28(1):373–382
Idziak PM (1984) Lattice operations in BCK-algebras. Math Jpn
29:839–846
Jayaram C (1986) Prime α-ideals in a 0-distributive lattice. Indian J
Pure Appl Math 17(3):331–337
Jipsen P, Tsinakis C (2002) A survey of residuated lattices. In: Martinez
J (ed) Ordered Algebraic Structures. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, pp 19–56
Kist J (1963) Minimal prime ideals in commutative semigroups. Proc
Lond Math Soc 3(1):31–50
of complemented rings with applications to rings of functions. J
Algebra App 8(01):17–40
Pawar Y, Khopade S (2010) ‘α-ideals and annihilator ideals in 0-
distributive lattices’. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis
Facultas Rerum Naturalium. Mathematica 49(1):63–74
Pawar Y, Mane D (1993) α-ideals in 0-distributive semilattices and o-
distributive lattices. Indian J Pure Appl Math 24(7–8):435–443
Rasouli S (2018) Generalized co-annihilators in residuated lattices. Ann
Univ Craiova-Math Comput Sci Ser 45(2):190–207
Rasouli S (2019) The going-up and going-down theorems in residuated
lattices. Soft Comput 23(17):7621–7635. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00500-019-03780-3
Rasouli S, Dehghani A (2018) The hull-kernel topology on residuated
lattices. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.11510
Rasouli S, Kondo M (2019) n-normal residuated lattices. Soft Comput.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04346-z
Speed T (1969a) Some remarks on a class of distributive lattices. J Aust
Math Soc 9(3–4):289–296
Speed T (1969b) Two congruences on distributive lattices. Bulletin de
la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège 38:86–95
Speed T (1974) Spaces of ideals of distributive lattices II. Minimal
prime ideals. J Aust Math Soc 18(1):54–72
Varlet J (1963) Contribution à l’étude des treillis pseudocomplémentés
et des treillis de stone. Mem de la Soc R des Sci de Liege, 5eme
series 8(4):1–17
Varlet J (1968) A generalization of the notion of pseudo-
complementedness. Bull Soc R Sci Liege 37:149–158
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.