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

net/publication/320212951

Minimal representations of a finite distributive lattice by principal congruences

of a lattice

Article  in  Acta Scientiarum Mathematicarum · April 2019

DOI: 10.14232/actasm-017-060-9

CITATIONS READS
4 379

2 authors, including:

George Grätzer
University of Manitoba
359 PUBLICATIONS   8,332 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Representations by principal congruences View project

All content following this page was uploaded by George Grätzer on 03 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Minimal representations of a finite distributive lattice
by principal congruences of a lattice

G. Grätzer and H. Lakser

Abstract. Let the finite distributive lattice D be isomorphic to the congruence lat-
tice of a finite lattice L. Let Q denote those elements of D that correspond to
principal congruences under this isomorphism. Then Q contains 0, 1 ∈ D and all the
join-irreducible elements of D. If Q contains exactly these elements, we say that L is
a minimal representations of D by principal congruences of the lattice L.
We characterize finite distributive lattices D with a minimal representation by
principal congruences with the property that D has at most two dual atoms.

1. Introduction

1.1. The problem. Let Princ L denote the ordered set of principal congru-
ences of the finite lattice L. Then

Princ L ⊇ {0, 1} ∪ J(Con L), (1)

since the congruences 0, 1 are principal (the congruence 1 is principal since L

is finite, hence bounded) and the join-irreducible congruences are the congru-
ences generated by prime intervals, and therefore principal. Let

Min L = {0, 1} ∪ J(Con L). (2)

Now (1) and (2) combine:

Min L ⊆ Princ L. (3)

Let us say that a finite lattice L has a minimal set of principal congruences if
we have equality in (3), that is,

Princ L = Min L (4)

and we call L a minimal representation of the distributive lattice D = Con L.

If P = J(D), we equivalently say that L is a minimal representation of the
ordered set P . In the paper G. Grätzer [10], we formulated the following
question.
Problem 4 of [10]. Let D be a finite distributive lattice. Under what
conditions does D have a minimal representation?

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 06B10. Secondary: 06A06.

Key words and phrases: finite lattice, principal congruence, ordered set.
2 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

1.2. Two illustrations. We provide two examples. The first one is from
G. Grätzer and H. Lakser [17].
Illustration 1. The eight element Boolean lattice B3 = C32 has no minimal
representation.
See [17] for a proof. Basically, if the lattice L is a minimal representation,
then on any maximal chain in L, we find two adjacent prime intervals generat-
ing distinct atoms of Con L. The two intervals together form an interval that
generates the join of two atoms of Con L, contradicting minimality.
Illustration 2. The nine element distributive lattice D = C23 has a minimal
representation.
We take N6 (see the first diagram of Figure 1) as a minimal representa-
.
tion of the chain C3 . Then the glued sum N6 + N6 (see the second diagram
of Figure 1) is a congruence representation of D = C23 but it is not minimal;
indeed, con(a, b), con(b, c) < con(a, c) so con(a, b)∨con(b, c) = con(a, c) is prin-
cipal and joint-reducible. The third diagram of Figure 1 provides a minimal
representation of D = C23 .

.
Figure 1. The lattices N6 and N6 + N6

1.3. The result. We solve Problem 4 of [10] as follows.

Theorem 3. Let D be a finite distributive lattice. Then D has a minimal
representation L iff D has at most two dual atoms.
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 3

Note that if a finite distributive lattice has a minimal representation, then

it has a minimal representation of length 10.
This results naturally splits up into three statements.

Theorem 4. Let D be a finite distributive lattice.

(i) Let D have exactly one dual atom. Then D has a minimal representa-
tion L.
(ii) Let D have exactly two dual atoms. Then D has a minimal representa-
tion L.
(iii) Let D have three or more dual atoms. Then D does not have a minimal
representation L.

The first statement is discussed in Section 1.4. The third we verify in

Section 2. The rest of the paper deals with the second statement.

1.4. Related results. This paper continues G. Grätzer [10] (see also [9, Sec-
tion 10-6] and [12, Part VI]), whose main result is the following statement.

Theorem 5. Let P be a bounded ordered set. Then there is a bounded lattice K

such that P ∼= Princ K. If the ordered set P is finite, then the lattice K can
be chosen to be finite.

The bibliography lists a number of papers related to this result.

G. Grätzer [16] states (Corollaries 15 and 16) that the lattice L for The-
orem 5 constructed in G. Grätzer [10] (and also the one in G. Grätzer [16])
provides a minimal representation, verifying Theorem 4(i).
There is a related concept. Let us call a finite distributive lattice D fully
representable, if every Q ⊆ D satisfying Min L ⊆ Q is representable.
G. Czédli [6] and [7] prove the following result.

Theorem 6. A finite distributive lattice D is fully principal congruence rep-

resentable iff it is planar and it has at most two dual atoms of which at most
one is join-reducible.

It is interesting that both full representability and minimal representability

are determined at the dual atom level.

1.5. Notation. We use the notation as in [12]. You can find the complete
Part I. A Brief Introduction to Lattices and Glossary of Notation
of [12] at
tinyurl.com/lattices101

2. Three or more dual atoms

We begin with the following result.

4 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

Lemma 7. For any finite distributive lattice D there is a one-to-one corre-

spondence between the set of dual atoms of D and the set of maximal elements
of the ordered set J(D).

Proof. By the Birkoff representation theorem for finite distributive lattices,

to each dual atom a of D corresponds a unique p ∈ J(D) with p  a, which
is perforce maximal. The inverse correspondence assigns to each maximal
element of J(D) the join of all the other elements of J(D), which is a dual
atom of D. 

In the proof of Theorem 4(iii) we use the following result.

Theorem 8. Let L be a finite lattice and x < y be elements of L. Let A

be an antichain of size at least 2 of join-irreducible congruences of L with
W
A = con(x, y). Then for each α ∈ A, there is a join-irreducible congruence β
on L such that the congruence α ∨ β is principal and join-reducible.

Proof. Let
x = c0 ≺ c1 ≺ · · · ≺ cn = y
be a (maximal) chain C in the interval [x, y] and let β i = con(ci , ci+1 ) for
0 ≤ i < n Then β i is a join-irreducible congruence of L and
_ _
( β i | 0 ≤ i < n ) = con(x, y) = A.

Let J ⊆ {0, 1, . . . n − 1} so that { con(ci , ci+1 ) | i ∈ J } are the maximal

elements in the ordered set { con(ci , ci+1 ) | 0 ≤ i < n }. Then
A = { con(ci , ci+1 ) | i ∈ J },
see for instance Corollary 111 in [9].
So let α = con(cj , cj+1 ). Let [ck , cl ], with k ≤ j and j + 1 ≤ l, be a maximal
subinterval of C with con(ck , cl ) = α. We cannot have both k = 0 and l = n,
W
otherwise, α = A, contradicting the assumptions on A. Without loss of
generality, let l < n and define β = con(cl , cl+1 ). By the definition of l, it
follows that β  α. So β is join-irreducible and α ∨ β is principal (indeed,
α ∨ β = [ck , cl+1 ]). 

Corollary 9. Let D be a finite distributive lattice with an antichain A of

W
join-irreducible elements with at least 3 elements. If A = 1, then D does
not have a minimal representation.

Proof. Assume that the finite lattice L with bounds o and i provides a minimal
representation of D, that is, Princ L = {0, 1} ∪ J(Con L) and there is an
isomorphism between D and Con L. Let Q ⊆ D correspond to Princ L under
this isomorphism.
By Theorem 8 applied to the interval [o, i], for each a ∈ A there is a b ∈
J(D), such that a ∨ b is a join-reducible element of Q. Since A has at least
3 elements, a ∨ b 6= 1, a contradiction. 
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 5

Corollary 10. Let D = B3 , the eight element Boolean lattice. Then D does
not have a minimal representation.

This corollary is Theorem 4 in G. Grätzer and H. Lakser [17].

From Corollary 9 we get the following.

Theorem 11. Let D be a finite distributive lattice with more than two dual
atoms. Then D does not have a minimal representation.

Proof. Let M be the set of maximal elements of J(D). Then M is an antichain

W
in D and M = 1. By Lemma 7, M has at least three elements. Thus by
Corollary 9, D does not have a minimal representation. 

We have thus proved Theorem 4(iii).

3. Exactly two dual atoms, the construction

3.1. Preliminaries. We will need the Technical Lemma for Finite Lattices,
see G. Grätzer [11].

Lemma 12. Let L be a finite lattice. Let δ be an equivalence relation on L

with intervals as equivalence classes. Then δ is a congruence relation iff the
following condition:
if x is covered by y, z ∈ L and x ≡ y (mod δ), then z ≡ y ∨ z (mod δ) (C∨ )
and its dual holds.

3.2. The construction. Let P be a finite ordered set. Our construction is

based on the frame lattice, Frame P , of G. Grätzer [10], see Figure 2 with the
chains Cp = {0, ap , bp , 1} for p ∈ P . See [10] for a detailed description; the
diagram should suffice.
Then we consider the lattice W (p, q) for p < q ∈ P introduced in G. Grätzer
[16], see Figure 3. (Note that the lattice S(p, q) used in [10] would cause
difficulties in the present construction.) For all p < q ∈ P , we insert W (p, q)
into Frame P , to form FrameW P , the frame lattice with W , see Figure 4 for
an illustration.
Let D be a finite distributive lattice with exactly two dual atoms and let
P = J(D). By Lemma 7, the ordered set P has exactly two maximal elements,
p0 , p1 . Let P0 =↓ p0 and P1 =↓ p1 .
Let L0 be the lattice FrameW P0 , with zero o and unit i, and let L1 , with
zero i0 and unit o0 , be the dual of the lattice FrameW P1 , where we denote by
x0 that element of L1 corresponding to x ∈ FrameW P1 under the duality.
.
Now we are ready to construct the base lattice for P , Base P , as L0 + L1 ,
see Figure 5. That is, Base P = L0 ∪ L1 , with i identified with i0 and with
x ≤ i = i0 ≤ y for x ∈ L0 and y ∈ L1 .
6 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

br

a0 = b0 a1 = b1
ar

Figure 2. The frame lattice, Frame P , with the chain Cp for

p∈P

We then show that Base P is a minimal representation of the ordered set

P0 ∪P ˙ 1 , the free union of P0 and P1 with p k q for p ∈ P0 and q ∈ P1 . This is
easy since con(x, y) = 1Base P if x < i < y.
Now each element r ∈ P0 ∩P1 determines two distinct congruences of Base P ,
one con(ar , br ), due to the sublattice L0 , and the other con(a0r , b0r ), due to the
sublattice L1 . Our main task will be to identify these two congruences, which
we do with a bridge construction.
A bridge lattice, Bridge, is C23 with an additional element m, turning the
covering square of the right corner into an M3 , see the first diagram in Figure 6.
An r-bridge lattice, Bridge(r), for r ∈ P0 ∩ P1 , is a bridge lattice with the
elements subscripted with r, see the second diagram of Figure 6.
We then obtain the desired lattice L for Theorem 4(ii) by adding a bridge
for each r ∈ P0 ∩ P1 to the base lattice Base P by forming the disjoint union
of Base P and Bridge(r), and then identifying the five elements ar , br , i =
i0 , b0r , a0r , see Figure 7. We, of course, first must show that adding a bridge
results in a lattice. Then it is clear that adding a bridge will identify con(ar , br )
with con(a0r , b0r ) for each r ∈ P0 ∩ P1 . Our major task will then be to show
that no other congruences collapse and that all principal congruences distinct
from 1L remain join-irreducible. We do this in the remainder of the paper.

3.3. L is a lattice. In Sections 4–8, we present the computations showing

that L provides a minimal representation for D, as stated in Theorem 4(ii).
We conclude the present section by pointing out that L is, indeed, a lattice.
We start with the frame lattice Frame P , which is obviously a lattice. In
the next step, we add W (p, q) to Frame P , for p < q ∈ P , to obtain FrameW P .
It was proved in G. Grätzer [16] that FrameW P is a lattice (see also G. Grätzer
[10]). Now we need an easy statement from the folklore:

Lemma 13. Let K be a lattice and let a ≺ c ≺ b in K. Let K + = K ∪ {u}

and define u ∧ b = a and u ∨ b = c. Then K + is a lattice extension of K and,
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 7

fp,q

dp,q hp,q
ep,q

c ∗p,q
cp,q gp,q

Figure 3. The lattice W (p, q) for p < q ∈ P

br

a0 = b0 a1 = b1
ar

Figure 4. FrameW P : adding W (p, q) to Frame P for p <

q∈P
o′

a′r
a′q a′p

a′1 = b′1
a′0 = b′0

b′q b′p
b′r

i = i′

br

a1 = b1
a0 = b0
ar

Figure 5. The base lattice of P , Base P

 8 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

a′ a′r

b′ u′ b′r u′r

i = i′ t m s i = i′ tr mr sr

b br ur
u

a ar

Figure 6. The bridge, Bridge, and the r-bridge, Bridge(r)

for r ∈ P

o′

a′r
b′q a′p

a′1 = b′1
a′0 = b′0 u′r
a′q b′p b′r

i = i′ sr
tr mr

br

ur
a1 = b1
a0 = b0

ar

Figure 7. The base lattice of P , Base P , with the r-bridge, Bridge(r)

for x ∈ K,
(
u for x ≤ a;
u∨x=
b ∨ x, otherwise,
and dually.
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 9

We apply Lemma 13 five times for each r ∈ R, that is, we add tr , ur , u0r , sr ,
and mr successively, to conclude that the lattice L obtained for Theorem 4(ii)
in the previous section is a lattice.

4. Fusion and splitting in ordered sets

We present two constructions on ordered sets that will enable us to apply

the Bridge Theorem.
The first construction, fusion, is applicable to any ordered set. The sec-
ond construction, splitting, is applicable only to ordered sets of a very special
kind—including those that occur here.

4.1. Fusion. Let P be an arbitrary ordered set, and let A be a nonempty

convex subset of P . We define an ordered set Fuse(P, A) that is obtained in
a natural manner by fusing the subset A to a single element ιA ; if there is no
danger of confusion, we write ι for ιA . That is, we let
F = Fuse(P, A) = (P − A) ∪ {ι}
and define an order on F . We work with the strict order <F rather than ≤F ,
to make the definition easier to state. For x ∈ P − A, we set
ι <F x if a <P x for some a ∈ A, (5)

x <F ι if x <P a for some a ∈ A, (6)

and, for x, y ∈ P − A,
(
if x <P y
x <F y (7)
or if x <P a1 and a2 <P y for some a1 , a2 ∈ A.
We define a mapping ψA : P → Fuse(P, A) by setting ψA (a) = ι for a ∈ A
and ψA (x) = x for x ∈
/ A.

Lemma 14. The relation <F is a strict order relation on F = Fuse(P, A) and
ψA : P → Fuse(P, A) is an isotone map.

Proof. Clearly, <F is antireflexive.

We first show that <F is antisymmetric. Let x 6= y ∈ F ; we show that
x <F y and y <F x cannot both hold.
First, if x = ι, then y ∈ P − A, and there exist a1 ∈ A with a1 <P y and
a2 ∈ A with y <P a2 . Since y ∈ / A, these contradict the convexity of A.
If y = ι, we have the same argument with x and y interchanged.
We are then left with the cases x 6= ι and y 6= ι. Now if x <P y, then by
the antisymmetry of <P , we cannot have y <P x. Then there are a1 , a2 ∈ A,
with y <P a1 and a2 <P x, that is, with a2 <P x <P y <P a1 , contradicting
the convexity of A, since x, y ∈
/ A.
If y <P x, we just exchange the roles of x and y.
10 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

We are finally left with the case where x ≮P y and y ≮P x. Then there are
a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 ∈ A with x <P a1 , a2 <P y, y <P a3 , and a4 <P x. Then for
instance, a4 <P x <P a1 , again contradicting the convexity of A.
Consequently, <F is antisymmetric.
Finally, we establish transitivity. So let x, y, z ∈ F with x <F y <F z.
We first consider the case x = ι. Then y, z ∈ / A and there is an a ∈ A with
a <P y. By the convexity of A, y <F z cannot follow from the second case
in (7). Then y <P z and so a <P z, that is, x = ι <F z.
If z = ι, we use the dual argument.
If y = ι, then by (5), (6), and the second case in (7), we get x <F z.
If one of x, y, z is ι, we then have transitivity. So let x, y, z all differ from
ι. If x <P y and y <P z, then x <P z, and so x <F z. On the other hand,
if, say, x ≮P y, then the second case of (7) holds, and so x <F ι <F y <F z.
By transitivity whenever one of the three entries is ι, we get first ι <F z, and
then x <F z. Similarly, x <F z if y ≮P z.
Thus transitivity has been established, concluding the proof that <F is an
order relation.
It is immediate that ψA is isotone. Indeed, let x, y ∈ P with x <P y.
If x, y ∈ A, then ψA (x) = ι = ψA (y). If x ∈ A and y ∈ / A, then by (5),
ψA (x) = ι <F y = ψA (y). Similarly, ψA (x) <F ψA (y) if y ∈ A and x ∈ / A. If
x, y ∈/ A, then by the first case of (7), ψA (x) = x <F y = ψA (y). 
The ordered set Fuse(P, A) is the ”freest” ordered set with the convex subset
A fusing to a single element. This is formalized by the following Universal
Mapping Property.
Lemma 15. Let P, Q be ordered sets, let A be a nonempty convex subset of P ,
and let ϕ : P → Q be an isotone map with ϕ(a1 ) = ϕ(a2 ) for all a1 a2 ∈ A.
Then there is an isotone map ϕ0 : Fuse(P, A) → Q with
ϕ0 ψA = ϕ, (8)
0
and ϕ is determined uniquely by (8).
Proof. Let a ∈ A be arbitrary. Then we must have ϕ0 (ι) = ϕ(a). For x ∈/ A,
we must have ϕ0 (x) = ϕ(x). So the isotone property for ϕ0 follows from (5),
(6) and (7). 
Lemma 16. Let P and Q be ordered sets, and let A be a nonempty convex
subset of P . Let ϕ : P → Q be a surjective isotone map with ϕ(a1 ) = ϕ(a2 )
for all a1 , a2 ∈ A. Assume that, for all x, y ∈ P with x P y and with
ϕ(x) ≤ ϕ(y), there are a1 , a2 ∈ A with x ≤P a1 and a2 ≤P y. Then the
isotone map ϕ0 : Fuse(P, A) → Q determined by the condition ϕ0 ψA = ϕ is an
isomorphism.
Proof. As before, we set F = Fuse(P, A). The map ϕ0 is surjective since the
map ϕ is. Thus we need only show that, for x, y ∈ F , whenever ϕ0 (x) ≤ ϕ0 (y),
then x ≤F y. We may assume that x, y are distinct.
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 11

We first consider the case x = ι. Let a be any element of A. Then ϕ0 (x) =

ϕ(a) and ϕ0 (y) = ϕ(y). So either a ≤P y or there is an a2 ∈ A with a2 ≤P y.
In either event, we have ι ≤F y.
A similar argument applies if y = ι: either x ≤P a or there is an a1 ∈ A
with x ≤P a1 . Then x ≤F ι.
Otherwise, x, y ∈ P − A. Then ϕ0 (x) = ϕ(x) and ϕ0 (y) = ϕ(y). So
ϕ(x) ≤ ϕ(y). If x ≤P y, then x ≤F y. If x P y, then by our assumption
on ϕ, there are a1 , a2 ∈ A with x ≤P a1 and a2 ≤P y. Then again, x ≤F y,
concluding the proof. 

4.2. Splitting. We now turn to splitting. Let P = P0 ∪ P1 be an ordered set

where P0 , P1 are downsets of P , neither a subset of the other. Let us assume
that the subset P0 ∩ P1 has a maximal element a.
We then split a into two incomparable elements a0 , a1 , as follows.
Set S = Split(P, a) = (P − {a}) ∪ {a0 , a1 }. Define the (strict) order < on S
by setting, for j = 0, 1,
x <S aj if x ∈ P − {a} and x <P a, (9)
and
aj <S x if x ∈ Pj − {a} and a <P x, (10)
and by setting
x <S y if x, y ∈ P − {a} and x <P y. (11)
We define the mapping ηa : Split(P, a) → P by setting ηa : aj 7→ a for j = 0, 1
and ηa : x 7→ x if x 6= a0 , a1 .
Lemma 17. The relation <S is a strict order relation on S = Split(P, a) and
ηa : Split(P, a) → P is an isotone map.
Proof. Clearly, <S is antirelexive.
We first show that <S is antisymmetric. Let x 6= y ∈ S; we show that
x <S y and y <S x cannot both hold. This is clear if both x, y ∈ / {a0 , a1 }. So
without loss of generality, we may assume that x = aj for j = 0 or 1, and that
y ∈ P − {a}. Then by (10), a <P y, and, by (9), y <P a, an impossibility.
Thus <S is antisymmetric.
We now establish transitivity; let x, y, z ∈ S with x <S y <S z. If none
of x, y, or z is an element of {a0 , a1 }, then x <P y <P z by (11), and so
x <P z, that is, x <S z. If y ∈ {a0 , a1 }, then by (9) and (10), x, z ∈ P − {a}
and x <P a <P z, that is, x <P z and so x <S z. If z ∈ {a0 , a1 }, we get
x <P y <P a, and so x <P a, whereby x <S z.
We are then left only with the case y, z ∈ P − {a} and x = aj for j ∈ {0, 1}.
Then y ∈ Pj and a <P y by (10). Furthermore, y <P z by (11). Thus
a <P z. We now observe that we cannot have z ∈ P1−j , for, in that event, we
would have y ∈ P0 ∩ P1 , contradicting the maximality of a. Thus z ∈ Pj and
x = aj <S z by (10), establishing transitivity.
It is clear that ηa is isotone from the definition of <S . 
12 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

Now if P = P0 ∪ P1 is as above, and a is maximal in P0 ∩ P1 , then the

subset A = {a0 , a1 } of Split(P, a) is convex. We can then fuse A, getting the
ordered set Fuse(Split(P, a), A). We have the mapping
η 0 : Fuse(Split(P, a), A) → P
with η 0 : ι 7→ a and η 0 : x 7→ x if x 6= ι. We have the isotone
ψA : Split(P, a) → Fuse(Split(P, a), A),
satisfying
η 0 ψA = ηa : Split(p, a) → P.
We apply Lemma 16 to show that η 0 is an order isomorphism. We only have
to show that ηa : Split(P, a) → P satisfies the condition assumed there for ϕ.
So assume that x, y ∈ S = Split(P, a) with x S y and ηa (x) ≤P ηP (y).
Then x ∈ A = {a0 , a1 }; indeed, otherwise, by (9) and (11), x = ηa (x) ≤P ηa (y)
implies that x ≤S y. If y ∈ A also, then x = aj and y = a1−j , for some
j ∈ {0, 1}, establishing the hypothesis. If y ∈ / A, then aj ≤S y, for some
j ∈ {0, 1}, by (10), and x = a1−j since x S y, again establishing the condition
for ηa . We thus have:
Lemma 18. Setting A = {a0 , a1 }, the mapping
η 0 : Fuse(Split(P, a), A) → P,
whereby η 0 : ι 7→ a and η 0 : x 7→ x, otherwise, is an order isomorphism.

5. Admissible congruences and extensions

Let K be a finite lattice, and let a ≺ c ≺ b be three elements of K. As in

Lemma 13, we extend K to the lattice K + by adjoining a new element u as a
relative complement of c in the interval [a, b].
We start with an easy and well-known statement.
Lemma 19. For the lattice K above, K is a congruence-determining sublattice
of K + .
Proof. Let α be a congruence relation on K + . We show that α is determined
by αeK. We need only consider the congruence class of u.
Let x > u. Then x ∈ K and x ≥ b. So u ≡ x (mod α) iff b ≡ x (mod αeK)
and u ≡ b (mod α) iff b ≡ x (mod αeK) and a ≡ c (mod αeK), the latter
because u is a relative complement of c in [a, b].
Dually, if x < u, then u ≡ x (mod α) iff a ≡ x (mod αeK) and u ≡ a
(mod α) iff a ≡ x (mod αeK) and b ≡ c (mod αeK).
Thus α is indeed determined by αeK. 
We now determine which congruence relations on K extend to K + .
Definition 20. For the lattice K above, a congruence relation α on K is
admissible, if it satisfies the following four conditions.
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 13

(i) If x  a and x ≡ a (mod α), then c ≡ a (mod α).

(ii) If a is meet-reducible in K and c ≡ b (mod α), then a ≡ b (mod α)
(iii) If x ≺ b and x ≡ b (mod α), then c ≡ b (mod α).
(iv) If b join-reducible in K and a ≡ c (mod α), then a ≡ b (mod α).

Note that admissibility is a self-dual concept: (iii) is the dual of (i), and
(iv) is the dual of (ii).

Theorem 21. For the lattice K above, a congruence relation α on K can be

extended to the lattice L = K + iff it is admissible.

Proof. We first assume that α has an extension β to L. We show that α is

admissible.
We first show that (i) holds for α. Let x ∈ K with x  a and x ≡ a
(mod α). Then x ≡ a (mod β) and so
x ∨ b = x ∨ u ≡ a ∨ u = u (mod β).
Taking the meet with c, we conclude that c ≡ a (mod β), that is, c ≡ a
(mod α), thereby establishing (i).
The dual argument establishes (iii).
Next we show that (ii) holds for α. Assume that a is meet-reducible in K,
and so there is an x > a in K with x ∧ c = a. Assume, furthermore, that
c≡b (mod α).
Then c ≡ b (mod β) (in L), and so u ≡ a (mod β). So
b ∨ x = u ∨ x ≡ a ∨ x = x (mod β),
that is, b ∨ x ≡ x (mod α), and thus
c = (b ∨ x) ∧ c ≡ x ∧ c = a (mod α).
Thus a ≡ b (mod α), thereby establishing (ii).
The dual argument establishes (iv).
Therefore, any congruence relation on K that extends to L is admissible.
Now let α be an admissible congruence on K. We construct a congruence β
on L that is an extension of α.
We first define β as an equivalence relation on L, and then show that it is
indeed a congruence relation. We need only describe the equivalence class of u.
If a ≡ c (mod α), we put u in the equivalence class of b, and if c ≡ b (mod α)
we put u in the equivalence class of a. If both equivalences hold, there is no
contradiction, since then a ≡ b (mod α). If neither equivalence holds, we let
u be in its own singleton equivalence class {u}. Then clearly,
βeK = α.
Note that β is a self-dual equivalence relation.
In order to show that β is a congruence relation, we apply Lemma 12, the
Technical Lemma for Finite Lattices.
14 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

We first show that all of the equivalence classes of β are intervals in L.

We first consider the equivalence classes that do not contain u. Let X be
such an equivalence class. Then X ⊆ K and is an interval [x, y]K for some
x ≤ y in K. We claim that X = [x, y]L . For otherwise, u ∈ [x, y]L and so
x ≤ a < u < b ≤ y. It would then follow that a ≡ b (mod α) and so by the
definition of β, that u ≡ a (mod β) and u ≡ b (mod β), contradicting our
assumption that u ∈ / X, since a, b ∈ X. Thus any equivalence class of β that
does not contain u is an interval in L.
Now let X be the equivalence class of β that contains u. If a 6≡ c (mod α)
and c 6≡ b (mod α), then by the definition of β, X = {u}, an interval in L.
Otherwise, by duality, we may assume that
c ≡ b (mod α).
Then by definition of β, u ≡ a (mod β), that is, a ∈ X. Since βeK = α, it
follows that X ∩ K is the α-congruence class of a, that is, X ∩ K = [x, y]K for
some x, y ∈ K with x ≤ a ≤ y. So
X = [x, y]K ∪ {u}.
If a < y, then there is a z ∈ K with a ≺ z ≤ y, and so z ≡ a (mod α). By
condition (i), a ≡ c (mod α). Thus a ≡ b (mod α), that is, y ≥ b. Then
u ∈ [x, y]L , and so X = [x, y]L .
If, on the other hand, a = y, then X = [x, u]L , since u  a in L.
Consequently, all the equivalence classes of β are intervals in L.
We now verify (C∨ ) of Lemma 12 for β. Since (C∨ ) hold trivially if y = z,
let x, y, z be distinct elements of L with x ≺ y, z and with x ≡ y (mod β).
We show that z ≡ y ∨ z (mod β).
Since u is meet-irreducible, x 6= u.
If both y, z 6= u, then we are in K with x ≡ y (mod α). Then z ≡ y ∨ z
(mod α), and so z ≡ y ∨ z (mod β). Otherwise, either z = u or y = u, and so
x = a, the unique lower cover of u.
If z = u, then y ≡ a (mod α). By (i), a ≡ c (mod α). Thus
u ≡ b (mod β),
by definition. Furthermore, y ∨ z = y ∨ u = y ∨ b ≡ b (mod α), that is,
y ∨ z ≡ b (mod β).
So y ∨ z ≡ u = z (mod β) since β is transitive.
If y = u, that is, if a ≡ u (mod β), then c ≡ b (mod α) by definition of β.
If z = c, then
z =c≡b=u∨c=y∨z (mod α),
that is, z ≡ y ∨ z (mod β).
If z 6= c, then a is meet-reducible; since c ≡ b (mod α), we conclude by (ii)
that a ≡ b (mod α). Then
z =a∨z ≡b∨z =u∨z =y∨z (mod α),
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 15

that is, again that z ≡ y ∨ z (mod β).

Thus for all distinct x, y, z ∈ L, with x ≺ y, z and with x ≡ y (mod β), it
follows that z ≡ y ∨ z (mod β), verifying (C∨ ).
The dual argument verifies the dual of (C∨ ).
Consequently, by Lemma 12, β is a congruence relation on L, and by its
definition, is the extension of α to L. 

Corollary 22. For the lattice K above, let α be a congruence relation on K

and let L = K + .
(a) If α is admissible, then conL (α)eK = α.
(b) If b is join-irreducible in K and only 20(i) fails for α, then
conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (a, c).
(c) If a is meet-irreducible in K and only 20(iii) fails for α, then
conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (b, c).
(d) Otherwise, conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (a, b).

Proof. If α is admissible, then conL (α) is its extension to L, and so we have

conL (α)eK = α.
Now for any congruence α on K, the congruence α∨conK (a, b) is admissible.
Thus for any α,
conL (α)eK ≤ conL (α ∨ conK (a, b))eK = α ∨ conK (a, b).
Now assume that b is join-irreducible, and that only 20(i) fails for α, that
is, there is a cover x of a distinct from c with a ≡ x (mod α) and a 6≡ c
(mod α). It is easy to see that, in this case, α ∨ conK (a, c) is admissible. Thus
conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (a, c).
If on the other hand, b is join-reducible, then α∨conK (a, c) is not admissible
unless
c ≡ b (mod α ∨ conK (a, c)),
in which case
α ∨ conK (a, c) = α ∨ conK (a, b).
If 20(iii) fails for α, we are in the dual situation.
Finally, if 20(ii) or (iv) fail, any admissible extension γ of α satisfies a ≡ b
(mod γ). Thus if 20(ii) or (iv) fails, then conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (a, b). 

Although we make no use of it in this paper, observe that the Tab Lemma
(G. Czédli, G. Grätzer, and H. Lakser [8, Lemma 12]) easily follows.

Corollary 23 (Tab Lemma). Let L be any finite lattice and let u be a tab
of L in the covering multidiamond [a, b]. Set K = L − {u}, a sublattice of L.
Let α be a congruence relation on K, and set β = conL (α).
If a 6≡ b (mod β), then βeK = α.
If a ≡ b (mod β), then βeK = α ∨ conK (a, b).
16 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

Proof. Let c and c0 be two other atoms of the multidiamond [a, b]. The lattice
L then is obtained by adding a relative complement of c in [a, b]K . Thus
Corollary 22 applies.
The element a is meet-reducible in K and b is join-reducible because of the
element c0 . By Corollary 22, if α is not admissible, then βeK = α∨conK (a, b).
Furthermore, a ≡ b (mod β). So if α is not admissible, then a ≡ b (mod β)
and βeK = α ∨ conK (a, b).
On the other hand, if α is admissible, then βeK = α which is α∨conK (a, b)
exactly when a ≡ b (mod α) exactly when a ≡ b (mod β).
Summarizing, if a 6≡ b (mod β), then α is admissible, and βeK = α, and if
a ≡ b (mod β), then βeK = α∨conK (a, b) whether or not α is admissible. 

6. Preliminaries for the bridge construction

We present three results that serve as the foundation of the bridge construc-
tion.

Lemma 24. Let K be a finite lattice containing the elements a, b, c with a ≺

c ≺ b, such that a is meet-irreducible and b is join-irreducible. Let K be
extended to the lattice K + by adjoining a relative complement u of c in the
interval [a, b]. Then K + is a congruence preserving extension of K

Proof. Let α be any congruence relation on K. Then it is easy to see that α

is admissible. Indeed, 20(ii) and (iv) do not apply, and 20(i) and (iii) apply
trivially, since the only possible z in each is c. Thus by Theorem 21, any
congruence of K extends to K + . By Lemma 19 it follows that K + is indeed
a congruence preserving extension of K. 

Henceforth, in this section, K will be a finite lattice with elements a, c, c0 , b,

with a ≺ c ≺ b, with a ≺ c0 ≺ b, with a having no upper cover other than
c and c0 , and with b having no lower cover other than c and c0 . We adjoin a
relative complement u of c (and so also of c0 ) in the interval [a, b] to get the
extension L = K + of K. In this section, L will always refer to K + .

Lemma 25. If the congruence α of K is not admissible, then either

conK (a, c) ≤ α and conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (b, c)

or
conK (b, c) ≤ α and conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (a, c).

Proof. If a 6≡ c (mod α) and b 6≡ c (mod α), then 20(ii) and (iv) hold.
Now a ≡ c0 (mod α) iff b ≡ c (mod α) and b ≡ c0 (mod α) iff a ≡ c
(mod α). Since c0 and c are the only upper covers in K of a and the only
lower covers in K of b, 20(i) and (iii) also hold. Thus if a 6≡ c (mod α) and
b 6≡ c (mod α), then α is admissible.
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 17

So if α is not admissible, then either a ≡ c (mod α) or b ≡ c (mod α).

Furthermore, by Corollary 22,
conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (a, b) = α ∨ conK (a, c) ∨ conK (b, c).
So if a ≡ c (mod α), that is, if conK (a, c) ≤ α, then
conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (b, c),
and if b ≡ c (mod α), that is, if conK (b, c) ≤ α, then
conL (α)eK = α ∨ conK (a, c),
concluding the proof. 

We note the following triviality that will be useful in our calculations.

Lemma 26. Let the lattice K0 be a sublattice of the lattice K1 , and let
x, y, z, w ∈ K0 . If conK0 (x, y) ≤ conK0 (z, w), then conK1 (x, y) ≤ conK1 (z, w).

Proof. Let α and β be congruence relations on K0 with α ≤ β. Then

conK1 (α) ≤ conK1 (β). Furthermore, conK1 (s, t) = conK1 (conK0 (s, t)) for
s, t ∈ K0 . So for the elements x, y, z, w ∈ K0 , if conK0 (x, y) ≤ conK0 (z, w),
then conK1 (x, y) ≤ conK1 (z, w). 

With K, L, a, b, c, c0 , u as above, we have:

Lemma 27. Let x0 , y0 , x1 , y1 ∈ K with x0 ≺ y0 in K and x1 < y1 . Then

conL (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conL (x1 , y1 ) iff at least one of the following three conditions
holds:
(a) conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ).
(b) conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (a, c) and conK (b, c) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ).
(c) conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (b, c) and conK (a, c) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ).

Proof. We first show that each of (a), (b), (c) implies

conL (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conL (x1 , y1 ). (12)
0
It is immediate from Lemma 26 that (a) implies (12). Since {a, c, u, c , b} is
an M3 , it follows that conL (a, c) = conL (b, c). Then it is also immediate that
each of (b), (c) implies (12).
We now assume (12) and show that at least one of (a), (b), (c) holds. To
accomplish this, we assume that (a) fails:
conK (x0 , y0 )  conK (x1 , y1 ), (13)
and show that at least one of (b), (c) holds.
By (12), we have
conL (x0 , y0 )eK ≤ conL (x1 , y1 )eK,
and so
conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conL (x1 , y1 )eK. (14)
18 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

Now there are three possibilities for conL (x1 , y1 )eK. Either conK (x1 , y1 ) is
admissible, and so we have
conL (x1 , y1 )eK = conK (x1 , y1 ), (15)
or either
conK (a, c) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ) and conL (x1 , y1 )eK = conK (x1 , y1 ) ∨ conK (b, c)
or
conK (b, c) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ) and conL (x1 , y1 )eK = conK (x1 , y1 ) ∨ conK (a, c)
holds by Lemma 25. Thus by (14), either
conK (a, c) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ) and conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ) ∨ conK (b, c) (16)
or
conK (b, c) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ) and conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 )∨conK (a, c). (17)
Since x0 ≺ y0 , conK (x0 , y0 ) is a join-irreducible congruence relation. By (13),
(16) implies
conK (b, c) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ) and conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (a, c),
that is, implies (b).
Similarly, (17) implies (c).
Thus if (a) fails, then (12) implies that either (b) or (c) holds. Consequently,
(12) implies that at least one of (a), (b), (c) holds, concluding the proof. 

7. The Bridge Theorem

We start with the Bridge Theorem, which examines how the congruences
of a bridge extension behave.

Theorem 28. Let K be a finite lattice and let a ≺ b ≺ i ≺ b0 ≺ a0 in K.

We assume that a and b are meet-irreducible, and a0 and b0 are join-irreducible.
Let the lattice L result from attaching to K, between [a, b] and [b0 , a0 ], the bridge
Bridge = {a, b, i, b0 , a0 , t, u, u0 , s, m}
depicted in Figure 6.
Then the following hold:
(i) If x ≺ y in K, then x ≺ y in L.
(ii) If x ∈ K is meet-irreducible in K and it differs from a and b, then x is
meet-irreducible in L.
(iii) If x ∈ K is join-irreducible in K and it differs from a0 and b0 , then x is
join-irreducible in L.
(iv) The sublattice L − {m} of L is a congruence preserving extension of K.
(v) Each join-irreducible congruence of L is of the form conL (x, y) for some
x, y ∈ K with x ≺ y in K.
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 19

(vi) For any x0 , y0 , x1 , y1 ∈ K with x0 ≺ y0 in K and x1 < y1 , the congruence

inequality
conL (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conL (x1 , y1 )
holds iff at least one of the following three conditions holds:

conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ), (18)

0 0
conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (a, b) and conK (a , b ) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ), (19)
conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (a0 , b0 ) and conK (a, b) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ). (20)

Proof. We get to L from K by successively adjoining relative complements

and observing that (i), (ii), and (iii) hold at each stage (for each new lattice,
rather than just L). Thus (i), (ii), and (iii) are verified.
Now we first adjoin the relative complement t of i in [b, b0 ] to get the lattice
K1 . By Lemma 24, K1 is a congruence preserving extension of K. Now a is
still meet-irreducible in K1 and t is doubly-irreducible in K1 . So K2 = K1 ∪{u}
is a congruence preserving extension of K1 , where u is doubly-irreducible, t is
now meet-irreducible and a0 is still join-irreducible. Then K3 = K2 ∪ {u0 }
is a congruence preserving extension of K2 , where u and u0 are both doubly-
irreducible. Then
K4 = K3 ∪ {s} = L − {m}
is a congruence preserving extension of K3 . Thus statement (iv) is verified.
Now the only prime intervals in L that are not in K4 are [u, m] and [m, u0 ],
and
conL (u.m) = conL (u0 , m) = conL (a, b).
Thus each join-irreducible congruence of L is conL (x0 , y 0 ) for some x0 ≺ y 0 in
K4 . But K4 is a congruence preserving extension of K; thus conK4 (x0 , y 0 ) =
conK4 (x, y) for some x ≺ y in K. Then
conL (x0 , y 0 ) = conL (conK4 (x0 , y 0 )) = conL (conK4 (x, y)) = conL (x, y),
verifying (v).
We now verify statement (vi). The lattice L is obtained by adding a relative
complement m of s in the interval [u, u0 ] of K4 . In K4 , t and s are the only
upper covers of u and the only lower covers of u0 . The hypotheses of Lemma 27
thus apply to the lattice K4 and its extension L. So
conL (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conL (x1 , y1 )
iff either
conK4 (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK4 (x1 , y1 )
or
conK4 (x0 , y0 ) ≤conK4 (u, t) = conK4 (a, b)
and conK4 (a0 , b0 ) = conK4 (u0 , t) ≤ conK4 (x1 , y1 )
20 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

or

conK4 (x0 , y0 ) ≤conK4 (u0 , t) = conK4 (a0 , b0 )

and conK4 (a, b) = conK4 (u, t) ≤ conK4 (x1 , y1 ).

Since K4 is a congruence preserving extension of K, we conclude that

conL (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conL (x1 , y1 )

iff either
conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 )
or
conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (a, b) and conK (a0 , b0 ) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 )
or
conK (x0 , y0 ) ≤ conK (a0 , b0 ) and conK (a, b) ≤ conK (x1 , y1 ),
thereby verifying (vi) and concluding the proof of the theorem. 

Let K and L be as in Theorem 28, and let conK (a, b) k conK (a0 , b0 ). Then
we can fuse the set A = {conK (a, b), conK (a0 b0 )} and get the ordered set
Fuse(J(Con K), A). Applying Lemma 16, we get an immediate corollary:

Corollary 29. Assume that conK (a, b) k conK (a0 , b0 ) and set

A = {conK (a, b), conK (a0 b0 )}.

Then the mapping ϕ0 : Fuse(J(Con K), A) → J(Con L), with

ϕ0 : ι 7→ conL (a, b) = conL (a0 , b0 )

and
ϕ0 : conK (x, y) 7→ conL (x, y),
otherwise, is an order isomorphism.

We now state sufficient conditions on K to guarantee that attaching a bridge

preserves having a minimal set of principal congruences.

Theorem 30. Let the finite lattice K be as in Theorem 28 and let K further-
more satisfy the following five conditions:
(i) If x < i, then con(x, i) = con(b, i).
(ii) If x > i, then con(x, i) = con(b0 , i).
(iii) If x < y, then either con(x, y) = 1 or con(x, y) is a join-irreducible
congruence.
(iv) If x < b and x 6= a, then con(x, b) = con(b, i).
(v) If x > b0 and x 6= a0 , then con(x, b0 ) = con(b0 , i).
Let L be obtained by attaching the bridge Bridge depicted in Figure 6 to K as
in Theorem 28. Then L satisfies conditions (i), (ii), and (iii).
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 21

Proof. Let x ∈ L with x < i. Then x ∈ K and so, by (i) for K, conK (x, i) =
conK (b, i). Then conL (x, i) = conL (b, i), verifying (i) for L.
(ii) is just the dual of (i).
Now let us denote by o the zero of K, and so of L, and by o0 the unit of K,
and so of L. By (i) and (ii), which were assumed for K and verified for L, we
note that if x < i < y, then, whether we are referring to K or L, con(x, y) = 1.
Indeed,
con(x, y) = con(x, i) ∨ con(y, i) = con(b, i) ∨ con(b0 , i)
= con(o, i) ∨ con(o0 , i) = con(o, o0 ) = 1.
We now verify (iii) for L.
Assume first that x, y ∈ K. By (iii) for K, either
conK (x, y) = 1K = conK (o, o0 )
and so
conL (x, y) = conL (o, o0 ) = 1L ,
or there are v, w ∈ K with v ≺ w in K and with conK (x, y) = conK (v, w).
Then conL (x, y) = conL (v, w) and, by Theorem 28(i), v ≺ w in L, that is,
conL (x, y) is join-irreducible.
Otherwise, by duality, we can assume that y ∈
/ K. If x ≺ y in L, we are
done. So we may assume that y does not cover x in L Then x ∈ K, and so
x ≤ b.
Assume, first, that x = b. Then y = u0 . So
conL (x, y) = conL (b, t) ∨ conL (t, u0 ) = conL (i, b0 ) ∨ conL (a0 , b0 ) = conL (i, b0 ),
since
conL (a0 , b0 ) ≤ conL (a0 , i) = conL (i, b0 )
by (ii). Thus if x = b, then conL (x, y) is join-irreducible.
Thus we are left with the case when x < b.
Assume further that x = a. Then y, not covering x, must be one of
t, m, s, u0 . Then conL (u, y) = conL (a0 , b0 ), and so
conL (x, y) = conL (a, u) ∨ conL (u, y) = conL (i, b0 ) ∨ conL (a0 , b0 ) = conL (i, b0 )
since conL (a0 , b0 ) ≤ con(i, b0 ). Thus again, conL (x, y) is join-irreducible.
We are then left with the case x < b and x 6= a.
By (iv) for K, conK (x, b) = conK (b, i). Therefore, conL (x, b) = conL (b, i).
Since y ∈
/ K, y ≥ t. Then
1L = conL (b, b0 ) = conL (b, i)∨conL (b0 , i) = conL (x, b)∨conL (b, t) ≤ conL (x, y),
since b < i < b0 . So in this final case, we have conL (x, y) = 1L .
We have thus verified (iii) for L, concluding the proof. 

In order to repeatedly attach bridges, we state the following easy lemma.

22 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

Lemma 31. Let the finite lattice K be as in Theorem 28, and let L be obtained
by attaching the bridge Bridge depicted in Figure 6. Assume further that there
are elements a0 , b0 ∈ K, with a0 6= a, b0 6= b, with a0 ≺ b0 ≺ i in K, such that
for any x ∈ K with x 6= a0 and x < b0 , we have conK (x, b0 ) = conK (b0 , i).
Then for any x ∈ L with x 6= a0 and x < b0 , we have conL (x, b0 ) = conL (b0 , i).

Proof. Since x < i, it follows that x ∈ K. Thus all elements considered

are elements of K, and so conL (x, b0 ) = conL (b0 , i), since conK (x, b0 ) =
conK (b0 , i). 

8. Proving Theorem 4(ii)

8.1. Some technical results. We first summarize the properties of the lat-
tice FrameW P of G. Grätzer [16].

Lemma 32. Let P be a finite ordered set with a greatest element p0 and let
L = FrameW P . There is an order isomorphism ζP : P → J(Con L) such that
ζP (p0 ) = 1 and such that the following five statements hold.
(i) α ∈ J(Con L) for all α ∈ Princ L.
(ii) conL (x, i) = 1 = ζP (p0 ) for all x ∈ L distinct from i.
(iii) For each p ∈ P distinct from p0 , there are ap , bp ∈ L with ap ≺ bp ≺ i
such that conL (ap , bp ) = ζP (p).
(iv) ap and bp are meet-irreducible for each p ∈ P distinct from p0 .
(v) For each p ∈ P distinct from p0 and each x ∈ P distinct from ap , if
x < bp , then conL (x, bp ) = 1 = ζP (p0 ).

Let P be a finite ordered set with exactly two maximal elements, p0 and p1 .
To prove Theorem 4(ii), we proceed by mathematical induction on the size of
the subset ↓ p0 ∩ ↓ p1 . First, the result that provides the base of the induction.

Lemma 33. Let P be a finite ordered set with exactly two maximal elements
p0 and p1 , and let ↓ p0 ∩ ↓ p1 = ∅. Then there is a finite lattice L with
zero o, unit o0 , and element i distinct from o and o0 , and there is an order
isomorphism ζP : P → J(Con L) such that the following nine statements hold.
(i) If α ∈ Princ L and α 6= 1, then α ∈ J(Con L).
(ii) conL (x, i) = ζP (p0 ) for all x ∈ L with x < i.
(iii) conL (x, i) = ζP (p1 ) for all x ∈ L with x > i.
(iv) For each p ∈ P with p < p0 , there are ap , bp ∈ L with ap ≺ bp ≺ i such
that conL (ap , bp ) = ζP (p).
(v) For each p ∈ P with p < p1 , there are a0p , b0p ∈ L with i ≺ b0p ≺ a0p such
that conL (a0p , b0p ) = ζP (p).
(vi) For each p ∈ P − {p0 , p1 }, if p  p1 , that is, if p < p0 , then ap and bp
are meet-irreducible in L.
(vii) For each p ∈ P − {p0 , p1 }, if p  p0 , that is, if p < p1 , then a0p and b0p
are join-irreducible in L.
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 23

(viii) For each p ∈ P − {p0 , p1 } and each x ∈ L − {ap }, if x < bp , then

conL (x, bp ) = ζP (p0 ).
(ix) For each p ∈ P − {p0 , p1 } and each x ∈ L − {a0p }, if x > b0p , then
conL (x, b0p ) = ζP (p1 ).
Proof. We let L be the base lattice for P , Base P , as defined in section 3.2.
That is, setting P0 =↓ p0 and P1 =↓ p1 , our ordered set P is then the free union
.
of P0 and P1 . The lattice L is then L0 + L1 , where L0 is the lattice FrameW P0
and L1 is the dual of the lattice FrameW P1 —see the details in section 3.2.
By Lemma 32, there are order isomorphisms ζ0 : P0 → J(Con L0 ) and
ζ1 : P1 → J(Con L1 ) such that statements (i)–(v) of Lemma 32 hold for ζ0 ,
P0 , L0 and their duals (with i0 , a0p , b0p replacing i, ap , bp , respectively) hold for
ζ1 , P1 , L1 . Now, J(Con L) is the free union of the ordered sets J(Con L0 ) and
J(Con L1 ) and so we have the order isomorphism ζP : P → J(Con L) which is
ζ0 on P0 and ζ1 on P1 , and thus satisfies our statements (ii)–(ix).
Only statement (i) is left to verify. So let x, y ∈ L with x < y. If x, y
are both in L0 or both in L1 , then conL (x, y) ∈ J(Con L) by the self-dual
statement Lemma 32(i). On the other hand, if x ∈ L0 and y ∈ L1 , then
x ≤ i = i0 ≤ y and conL (x, i) = conL (o, i) and conL (i0 , y) = conL (i0 , o0 ) by
statement (ii) and its dual of Lemma 32. Then conL (x, y) = conL (o, o0 ) = 1L .
Thus statement (i) is verified, concluding the proof. 
We then have:
Theorem 34. Let P be a finite ordered set with exactly two maximal elements
p0 and p1 . Then there is a finite lattice L with zero o, unit o0 , and element i
distinct from o and o0 , and there is an order isomorphism ζP : P → J(Con L)
such that the following nine statements hold.
(i) If α ∈ Princ L and α 6= 1, then α ∈ J(Con L).
(ii) conL (x, i) = ζP (p0 ) for all x ∈ L with x < i.
(iii) conL (x, i) = ζP (p1 ) for all x ∈ L with x > i.
(iv) For each p ∈ P with p < p0 , there are ap , bp ∈ L with ap ≺ bp ≺ i such
that conL (ap , bp ) = ζP (p).
(v) For each p ∈ P with p < p1 , there are a0p , b0p ∈ L with i ≺ b0p ≺ a0p such
that conL (a0p , b0p ) = ζP (p).
(vi) For each p ∈ P − (↓ p1 )P distinct from p0 , the elements ap and bp are
meet-irreducible in L.
(vii) For each p ∈ P − (↓ p0 )P distinct from p1 , the elements a0p and b0p are
join-irreducible in L.
(viii) For each p ∈ P − {p0 , p1 } and each x ∈ L − {ap }, if x < bp , then
conL (x, bp ) = ζP (p0 ).
(ix) For each p ∈ P − {p0 , p1 } and each x ∈ L − {a0p }, if x > b0p , then
conL (x, b0p ) = ζP (p1 ).
Proof. We proceed by mathematical induction on the size of
P 0 = (↓ p0 )P ∩ (↓ p1 )P .
24 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

a′q1

b′q1 u′q0 ,q1

i tq0 ,q1 mq0 ,q1 sq0 ,q1

bq0 uq0 ,q1

aq0

Figure 8. Notation for the bridge, Bridge(q0 , q1 )

If P 0 = ∅, then Lemma 33 applies.

So let P 0 contain at least one element. By finiteness, there is a maximal
element q ∈ P 0 . We split q into q0 and q1 and set Q = Split(P, q) with q0 <Q p0
and q1 <Q p1 . Then
(↓ p0 )Q ∩ (↓ p1 )Q = P 0 − {q}.
So we may assume that there is a finite lattice K with zero o and unit o0 and
with an element i with o < i < o0 , and that there is an order isomorphism
ζQ : Q → J(Con K) such that statements (i)–(ix), with P replaced by Q and
L replaced by K, hold.
By statements (iv) and (v) for Q and K, there are aq0 , bq0 , a0q1 , b0q1 in K
with aq0 ≺ bq0 ≺ i ≺ b0q1 ≺ a0q1 and with conK (aq0 , bq0 ) = ζQ (q0 ) and
conK (a0q1 , b0q1 ) = ζQ (q1 ). By statements (vi) and (vii) for Q, K, aq0 , bq0 are
meet irreducible and a0q1 , b0q1 are join-irreducible. We attach to K the bridge
Bridge(q0 , q1 ) = {aq0 , bqo , i, b0q1 , a0q1 , tq0 ,q1 , uq0 ,q1 , u0q0 ,q1 , sq0 ,q1 , mq0 ,q1 }
(see Figure 8; this construct is a generalization of the bridge, Bridge(p), of
Section 3.3—in fact, Bridge(p) = Bridge(p, p)) between [aq0 , bq0 ] and [b0q1 , a0q1 ],
thereby getting the lattice L. By Theorem 28(i), we have an isotone mapping
ϕ : J(Con K) → J(Con L)
with
ϕ : conK (x, y) 7→ conL (x, y)
for each pair x, y ∈ K with x ≺K y.
Now conK (aq0 , bq0 ) k conK (a0q1 , b0q1 ) since q0 kQ q1 and ζQ is an order iso-
morphism. Thus we fuse the two congruences; setting
A = {conK (aq0 , bq0 ), conK (a0q1 , b0q1 )},
we get the ordered set Fuse(J(Con K), A). Now
ϕ(conK (aq0 , bq0 )) = ϕ(conK (a0q1 , b0q1 ))
Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 25

since conL (aq0 , bq0 ) = conL (a0q1 , b0q1 ). By Lemma 15, we get
ϕ0 : Fuse(J(Con K), A) → J(Con L),
where
ϕ0 : ι 7→ conL (aq0 , bq0 ) = conL (a0q1 , b0q1 )
and
ϕ0 : conK (x, y) 7→ conL (x, y),
otherwise.
By Theorem 28(v), ϕ is surjective, and so
ϕ0 : Fuse(J(Con K), A) → J(Con L)
is an order isomorphism, by Theorem 28(vi) and Lemma 16. The order iso-
morphism
ζQ : Q → J(Con K)
yields an order isomorphism
ζ 0 : Fuse(Q, {q0 , q1 }) → Fuse(J(Con K), A)
with ζ 0 : ι{q0 ,q1 } 7→ ιA and ζ 0 : p 7→ ζQ (p) otherwise. We then have the order
isomorphism
ϕ0 ζ 0 : Fuse(Q, {q0 , q1 }) → J(Con L)
with
ι{q0 ,q1 } 7→ conL (aq0 , bq0 ) = conL (a0q1 , b0q1 )
and p 7→ ϕζQ (p) otherwise. By Lemma 18, there is an order isomorphism
P → Fuse(Q, {q0 , q1 }) with q 7→ ι{ q0 , q1 } and p 7→ p otherwise. We then get
the desired order isomorphism
ζP : P → J(Con L)
with
ζP : p 7→ ϕ(ζQ (p)) = conL (ζQ (p)) (21)
for p 6= q and
ζP : q 7→ conL (aq0 , bq0 ) = conL (a0q1 , b0q1 ).
and, by (21) and statements (iv) and (v) for Q and K, if p 6= q,
(
ϕ(conK (ap , bp )) = conL (ap , bp ) for p ≤ p0 ,
ζP : p 7→ 0 0 0 0
ϕ(conK (ap , bp )) = conL (ap , bp ) for p ≤ p1 .
Thus statements (iv) and (v) hold for Q and L.
We now verify the other seven statements for Q and L.
By statements (ii), (iii), (i), (viii), and (ix) for Q, K, and Theorem 30, it
follows that statements (i), (ii), and (iii) hold for P , L.
Now let p ∈ P − (↓ p1 )P be distinct from p0 . Then p ∈ Q − (↓ p1 )Q , and is
distinct from q0 as well. Then by statement (vi) for Q, K, the elements ap , bp
are meet-irreducible in K. Then by Theorem 28(ii), ap , bp are meet-irreducible
26 G. Grätzer and H. Lakser Algebra univers.

in L, establishing statement (vi) for P , L. Similarly, by Theorem 28(iii), we

get statement (vii) for P , L.
Finally, statements (viii) and (ix) for P , L follow from the corresponding
statements for Q, K and from Lemma 31 and its dual.
By mathematical induction, the proof of the theorem is thus concluded. 

8.2. An application. As an application of the results in Section 8.1, we

obtain Theorem 4(ii):

Theorem 35. Let D be a finite distributive lattice with exactly two dual atoms.
Then D has a minimal representation L.

Proof. By Lemma 7, P = J(D) has exactly two maximal elements. By Theo-

rem 34, there is an a finite lattice L satisfying statement Theorem 34(i) and an
order isomorphism P → J(Con L). We then have our required representation,
and it is minimal by Theorem 34(i). 

References
[1] Czédli, G.: Representing a monotone map by principal lattice congruences. Acta
Mathematica Hungarica 147, 12–18 (2015)
[2] Czédli, G.: An independence theorem for ordered sets of principal congruences and
automorphism groups of bounded lattices. Acta Sci. Math (Szeged) 82, 3–18 (2016)
[3] Czédli, G.: The ordered set of principal congruences of a countable lattice. Algebra
Universalis 75, 351–380 (2016)
[4] Czédli, G.: Representing some families of monotone maps by principal lattice
congruences. Algebra Universalis 77, 51–77 (2017)
[5] Czédli, G.: Cometic functors and representing order-preserving maps by principal
lattice congruences. Algebra Universalis (2017, in press)
[6] Czédli, G.: Characterizing fully principal congruence representable distributive
lattices. Algebra Universalis (2017, in press)
[7] Czédli, G.: On the set of principal congruences in a distributive congruence lattice of
an algebra. Acta Sci. Math (Szeged), submitted.
[8] Czédli, G., Grätzer, G., Lakser, H.: Congruence structure of planar semimodular
lattices: The General Swing Lemma. Algebra Universalis (2017, in press)
[9] Grätzer, G.: Lattice Theory: Foundation. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2011)
[10] Grätzer, G.: The order of principal congruences of a bounded lattice. Algebra
Universalis 70, 95–105 (2013)
[11] Grätzer, G.: A technical lemma for congruences of finite lattices. Algebra Universalis
72, 53 (2014)
[12] Grätzer, G.: The Congruences of a Finite Lattice. A ”Proof-by-Picture” Approach.
Second edition. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2016)
[13] Grätzer, G.: Homomorphisms and principal congruences of bounded lattices. I.
Isotone maps of principal congruences. Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 82, 353–360 (2016)
[14] Grätzer, G.: Homomorphisms and principal congruences of bounded lattices. II.
Sketching the proof for sublattices. Algebra Universalis (2017, in press)
[15] Grätzer, G.: Homomorphisms and principal congruences of bounded lattices. III. The
Independence Theorem. Algebra Universalis (2017, in press)
[16] Grätzer, G.: Characterizing representability by principal congruences for finite
distributive lattices with a join-irreducible unit element. Acta Math Szeged (2017, in
press)
[17] Grätzer, G., Lakser, H.: Some preliminary results on the set of principal congruences
of a finite lattice. Algebra Universalis (2017, in press)
 Vol. 00, XX Minimal representations by principal congruences 27

[18] Grätzer, G. and Wehrung, F. eds., Lattice Theory: Special Topics and Applications.
Volume 1. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2014)

G. Grätzer and H. Lakser

Department of Mathematics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
e-mail, G. Grätzer: gratzer@me.com
e-mail, H. Lakser: hlakser@gmail.com
URL, G. Grätzer: http://server.math.umanitoba.ca/~gratzer/

View publication stats