Lattices and Topology Lectura 4

Lattices and Topology
Guram Bezhanishvili and Mamuka Jibladze
ESSLLI’08
11-15.VIII.2008
Lecture 4: Duality
Review of lecture 3
Review of lecture 3
The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

Review of lecture 3

We defined topological spaces;
Review of lecture 3

We defined topological spaces; introduced the concepts of
open and closed sets,
Review of lecture 3

open and closed sets, and of the interior and closure of a
set.
Review of lecture 3

set.
We defined subspaces, continuous maps, and
homeomorphisms.
Review of lecture 3

set.
homeomorphisms.
We also introduced T0 , T1 , Hausdorff, and sober spaces.
Review of lecture 3

set.
homeomorphisms.
We described the specialization order of a T0 -space
Review of lecture 3

set.
homeomorphisms.
We described the specialization order of a T0 -space and
discussed the complete balance between Alexandroff
T0 -spaces and posets.
Review of lecture 3

set.
homeomorphisms.
We described the specialization order of a T0 -space and
discussed the complete balance between Alexandroff
T0 -spaces and posets. In particular, we discussed the
complete balance between finite T0 -spaces and finite
posets.
Review of lecture 3
We defined compact spaces.

Review of lecture 3

We showed that a closed subspace of a compact space is
compact,
Review of lecture 3

compact, and that the image of a compact space under a
continuous map is compact.
Review of lecture 3

We also showed that a subset of a compact Hausdorff space
is compact iff it is closed.
Review of lecture 3

In addition, we showed that each 1-1 onto continuous map
between compact Hausdorff spaces is a homeomorphism.
Review of lecture 3

We concluded the lecture by defining Stone spaces
Review of lecture 3

We concluded the lecture by defining Stone spaces and
giving some nontrivial examples of Stone spaces.
Short outline of lecture 4
Lecture 4: Duality
Lecture 4: Duality
Priestley duality for distributive lattices

Lecture 4: Duality

Stone duality for Boolean lattices
Lecture 4: Duality

Stone duality for Boolean lattices
Esakia duality for Heyting lattices
Introduction
In Lecture 2 we developed representation theory for distributive

lattices
Introduction

lattices which gave us a representation of a distributive lattice
as a sublattice of the lattice of upsets of some poset.
Introduction

In order to single out this sublattice we developed all the

necessary background from topology in Lecture 3.
Introduction

In order to single out this sublattice we developed all the

necessary background from topology in Lecture 3.
The main goal of this lecture is to take advantage of the

topological machinery which will allow us to characterize the
needed sublattice by the hybrid of order-theoretic and
topological methods.
Priestley topology
Let L be a bounded distributive lattice.

Priestley topology
Let L be a bounded distributive lattice. Recall that L is

represented as a sublattice of the lattice of all upsets of the
poset (X (L), ⊆) of prime filters of L
Priestley topology

poset (X (L), ⊆) of prime filters of L, and that the representation
is achieved by the map φ : L → U (X (L)):
Priestley topology

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.

Priestley topology

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.
There are several ways to define topology on X (L).

Priestley topology

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.
There are several ways to define topology on X (L). We start by

describing the topology introduced by Hilary Priestley back in
1970.
Priestley topology

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.
There are several ways to define topology on X (L). We start by

describing the topology introduced by Hilary Priestley back in
1970.
Consider the following collection
B = {φ(a) − φ(b) : a, b ∈ L}
of subsets of X (L).
Priestley topology
Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L),

Priestley topology
Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Priestley topology
Lemma: If U, V ∈ B, then U ∩ V ∈ B.
Priestley topology
Proof: Let U, V ∈ B.
Priestley topology
Proof: Let U, V ∈ B. Then there exist a, b, c, d ∈ L such that

U = φ(a) − φ(b) and V = φ(c) − φ(d).
Priestley topology

U = φ(a) − φ(b) and V = φ(c) − φ(d). Therefore
Priestley topology

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

Priestley topology

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

= (φ(a) ∩ φ(c)) ∩ (X (L) − (φ(b) ∪ φ(d)))
Priestley topology

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

= (φ(a) ∩ φ(c)) ∩ (X (L) − (φ(b) ∪ φ(d)))
= φ(a ∧ c) ∩ (X (L) − φ(b ∨ d))
Priestley topology

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

= (φ(a) ∩ φ(c)) ∩ (X (L) − (φ(b) ∪ φ(d)))
= φ(a ∧ c) ∩ (X (L) − φ(b ∨ d))
= φ(a ∧ c) − φ(b ∨ d).
Priestley topology
On the other hand, B is not closed under arbitrary unions in

general.
Priestley topology

general. Therefore B is not a topology on X (L).
Priestley topology

We simply generate a topology from B by closing B under

arbitrary unions.
Priestley topology


arbitrary unions. We refer to it as the Priestley topology and
denote it by τP .
Priestley topology


denote it by τP .
Thus from each bounded distributive lattice L we obtain the

triple L∗ = (X (L), ⊆, τP ).
Priestley topology


denote it by τP .

triple L∗ = (X (L), ⊆, τP ). The obtained triple is a hybrid of
order and topology.
Priestley topology


denote it by τP .

order and topology. Indeed (X (L), ⊆) is a poset and (X (L), τP )
is a topological space.
Priestley topology


denote it by τP .

order and topology. Indeed (X (L), ⊆) is a poset and (X (L), τP )
is a topological space.
We give an abstract characterization of such spaces.

Priestley topology
Theorem: The Priestley topology is compact.

Priestley topology
Proof: We need to show that each cover of X (L) by elements of

τP has a finite subcover.
Priestley topology

τP has a finite subcover. Since B generates τP , it is sufficient to
show that each cover of X (L) by elements of B has a finite
subcover.
Priestley topology

subcover.
Further reduction is possible thanks to the Alexander subbasis

lemma
Priestley topology

subcover.
Further reduction is possible thanks to the Alexander subbasis

lemma which states that if the topology is generated by the
unions of finite intersections of a given family S, then in order
to verify compactness of the space, it is sufficient to verify that
each cover of the space by elements of S has a finite subcover.
Priestley topology
We will not prove Alexander’s lemma here.

Priestley topology
We will not prove Alexander’s lemma here. But we will take

advantage of the lemma, by which it is sufficient to find a finite
subcover of X (L) for any cover of X (L) by elements of the
family
{φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ {X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆}.
Priestley topology
We will not prove Alexander’s lemma here. But we will take

advantage of the lemma, by which it is sufficient to find a finite
subcover of X (L) for any cover of X (L) by elements of the
family
{φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ {X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆}.
Let X (L) =
S S
{φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ {X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆}.
Priestley topology
We let F be the smallest filter containing {bδ : δ ∈ ∆} and I be

the smallest ideal containing {aσ : σ ∈ Σ}.
Priestley topology

If F ∩ I = ∅, then, by Stone’s lemma, there exists x ∈ X (L) such

that F ⊆ x and x ∩ I = ∅.
Priestley topology


that F ⊆ x and x ∩ I = ∅. Therefore x ∈ φ(bδ ) for each δ ∈ ∆ and
x∈ / φ(aσ ) for each σ ∈ Σ.
Priestley topology


x∈ S σ ) for each σ ∈ Σ.
/ φ(a S Thus
x∈ / {φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ {X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆},
Priestley topology


/ φ(a S Thus
x∈ / S{φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ S{X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆}, which means
that {φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ {X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆} is not a cover
of X (L).
Priestley topology


/ φ(a S Thus
x∈ / S{φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ S{X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆}, which means
that {φ(aσ ) : σ ∈ Σ} ∪ {X (L) − φ(bδ ) : δ ∈ ∆} is not a cover
of X (L).
The obtained contradiction proves that F ∩ I 6= ∅.

Priestley topology
Since F ∩ I 6= ∅, there exists c ∈ L such that bδ1 ∧ · · · ∧ bδn ≤ c for

some δ1 , . . . , δn ∈ ∆
Priestley topology

some δ1 , . . . , δn ∈ ∆ and
c ≤ aσ1 ∨ · · · ∨ aσk for some σ1 , . . . , σk ∈ Σ.
Priestley topology

some δ1 , . . . , δn ∈ ∆ and
But then φ(bδ1 ) ∩ · · · ∩ φ(bδn ) ⊆ φ(c) and

φ(c) ⊆ φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ).
Priestley topology

some δ1 , . . . , δn ∈ ∆ and

φ(c) ⊆ φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ).
Therefore φ(bδ1 ) ∩ · · · ∩ φ(bδn ) ⊆ φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ).

Priestley topology

some δ1 , . . . , δn ∈ ∆ and

φ(c) ⊆ φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ).
Therefore φ(bδ1 ) ∩ · · · ∩ φ(bδn ) ⊆ φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ). Thus

φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ) ∪ (X (L) − φ(bδ1 )) ∪ · · · ∪ (X (L) − φ(bδk )) =
X (L),
Priestley topology

some δ1 , . . . , δn ∈ ∆ and

φ(c) ⊆ φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ).

X (L), which implies that there is a finite subcover of X (L).
Priestley topology

some δ1 , . . . , δn ∈ ∆ and

φ(c) ⊆ φ(aσ1 ) ∪ · · · ∪ φ(aσk ).

X (L), which implies that there is a finite subcover of X (L).
Thus (X (L), τP ) is compact.
Priestley spaces
A Priestley space is a triple (X, ≤, τ ) such that (X, ≤) is a poset,
(X, τ ) is a compact space, and the order and topology are
connected by the Priestley separation axiom:
Priestley spaces
x·
·y
For any points x, y ∈ X,

Priestley spaces
y
x· 66 ·
For any points x, y ∈ X, if x 66 y,

Priestley spaces
x·
·y
For any points x, y ∈ X, if x 66 y, then there exists a clopen upset

U of X such that x ∈ U and y ∈ / U.
Priestley spaces
x·
·y

This, in particular, implies that each Priestley space is Hausdorff
and zero-dimensional
Priestley spaces
x·
·y

This, in particular, implies that each Priestley space is Hausdorff
and zero-dimensional hence a Stone space.
Priestley duality
For a bounded distributive lattice L, let L∗ = (X (L), ⊆, τP ).

Priestley duality
Theorem: If L is a bounded distributive lattice, then L∗ is a

Priestley space.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.
Proof: It is obvious that (X (L), ⊆) is a poset.

Priestley duality

Priestley space.
Proof: It is obvious that (X (L), ⊆) is a poset. We already

showed that (X (L), τP ) is a compact space.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

showed that (X (L), τP ) is a compact space. It is left to verify
that L∗ satisfies the Priestley separation axiom.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

that L∗ satisfies the Priestley separation axiom. Let x 6⊆ y.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

that L∗ satisfies the Priestley separation axiom. Let x 6⊆ y. Then
there exists a ∈ x − y.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

there exists a ∈ x − y. Therefore x ∈ φ(a) and y ∈ / φ(a).
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

there exists a ∈ x − y. Therefore x ∈ φ(a) and y ∈ / φ(a). We
already verified that φ(a) is an upset.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

already verified that φ(a) is an upset. Moreover both φ(a) and
X (L) − φ(a) belong to B.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

X (L) − φ(a) belong to B. Therefore φ(a) is clopen.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

Consequently L∗ is a Priestley space.
Priestley duality

Priestley space.

Consequently L∗ is a Priestley space.
Thus, every bounded distributive lattice L gives rise to the

Priestley space L∗ .
Priestley duality
Conversely, for each Priestley space (X, ≤, τ ), let X ∗ be the set of

clopen upsets of X.
Priestley duality

clopen upsets of X.
Lemma: (X ∗ , ∪, ∩, ∅, X) forms a bounded distributive lattice.

Priestley duality

clopen upsets of X.
Proof: Clearly ∅ and X are clopen upsets, and the union and
intersection of two clopens is again clopen.
Priestley duality

clopen upsets of X.
Proof: Clearly ∅ and X are clopen upsets, and the union and
intersection of two clopens is again clopen. Since ∪ and ∩
distribute over each other, it follows that (X ∗ , ∪, ∩, ∅, X) forms a
bounded distributive lattice.
Priestley duality
Thus, we have the following correspondences:

Priestley duality
L 7→ L∗ 7→ L∗ ∗
and
X 7→ X ∗ 7→ X ∗ ∗
Priestley duality
L 7→ L∗ 7→ L∗ ∗
and
X 7→ X ∗ 7→ X ∗ ∗
Lemma: φ : L → L∗ ∗ is an isomorphism.
Priestley duality
L 7→ L∗ 7→ L∗ ∗
and
X 7→ X ∗ 7→ X ∗ ∗
Proof: We already saw that φ is a 1-1 bounded lattice

homomorphism.
Priestley duality
L 7→ L∗ 7→ L∗ ∗
and
X 7→ X ∗ 7→ X ∗ ∗

homomorphism. It is left to be shown that it is onto.
Priestley duality
L 7→ L∗ 7→ L∗ ∗
and
X 7→ X ∗ 7→ X ∗ ∗

Let U be a clopen upset of L∗ and x ∈ U.

Priestley duality
L 7→ L∗ 7→ L∗ ∗
and
X 7→ X ∗ 7→ X ∗ ∗

Let U be a clopen upset of L∗ and x ∈ U. We show that there

exists a ∈ L such that x ∈ φ(a) ⊆ U.
Priestley duality
Since U is an upset, for each y ∈

/ U we have x 6⊆ y.
Priestley duality
Since U is an upset, for each y ∈/ U we have x 6⊆ y. Therefore

there exist ay such that ay ∈ x and ay 6∈ y.
Priestley duality

there exist ay such that ay ∈ x and ay 6∈ y. Thus x ∈ φ(ay ) and
y∈/ φ(ay ).
Priestley duality

y∈/ φ(ay ). This means that x ∈/ X (L) − φ(ay ) and
y ∈ X (L) − φ(ay ).
Priestley duality

y ∈ X (L) − φ(ay ). Therefore {X (L) − φ(ay ) : y ∈/ U} is a cover
of X (L) − U.
Priestley duality

of X (L) − U.
Since U is clopen, so is X (L) − U.

Priestley duality

of X (L) − U.
Since U is clopen, so is X (L) − U. Thus it is compact.

Priestley duality

of X (L) − U.
Since U is clopen, so is X (L) − U. Thus it is compact. Therefore

there exists a finite subcover of X (L) − U.
Priestley duality

of X (L) − U.

there exists a finite subcover of X (L) − U. This means that
there exist y1 , . . . , yn ∈ X (L) − U such that
X (L) − U ⊆ (X (L) − φ(ay1 )) ∪ · · · ∪ (X (L) − φ(ayn )).
Priestley duality

of X (L) − U.

X (L) − U ⊆ (X (L) − φ(ay1 )) ∪ · · · ∪ (X (L) − φ(ayn )).
Consequently x ∈ φ(ay1 ) ∩ · · · ∩ φ(ayn ) ⊆ U.
Priestley duality

of X (L) − U.

X (L) − U ⊆ (X (L) − φ(ay1 )) ∪ · · · ∪ (X (L) − φ(ayn )).
Consequently x ∈ φ(ay1 ) ∩ · · · ∩ φ(ayn ) ⊆ U. This implies
x ∈ φ(ay1 ∧ · · · ∧ ayn ) ⊆ U.
Priestley duality
Therefore there exists a = ay1 ∧ · · · ∧ ayn in L such that

x ∈ φ(a) ⊆ U.
Priestley duality

x ∈ φ(a) ⊆ U.
S
This means that U = {φ(a) : φ(a) ⊆ U}.
Priestley duality

x ∈ φ(a) ⊆ U.
S
This means that U = {φ(a) : φ(a) ⊆ U}. Since U is closed, it is
compact.
Priestley duality

x ∈ φ(a) ⊆ U.
S
compact.
As {φ(a) : φ(a) ⊆ U} is an open cover of U, there is a finite

subcover.
Priestley duality

x ∈ φ(a) ⊆ U.
S
compact.

subcover. But a finite union of elements of the form φ(a) is
again of the same form.
Priestley duality

x ∈ φ(a) ⊆ U.
S
compact.

subcover. But a finite union of elements of the form φ(a) is
again of the same form.
Therefore there is a ∈ L such that φ(a) = U and so φ is onto.

Priestley duality
As a result, we obtain the following representation of bounded

distributive lattices:
Priestley duality

Priestley’s representation of bounded distributive lattices:

Each bounded distributive lattice is isomorphic to the lattice of
all clopen upsets of a Priestley space.
Priestley duality


Going the other way, we would like to show that X is

order-homeomorphic to X ∗ ∗ .
Priestley duality



Define ψ : X → X ∗ ∗ by
ψ(x) = {U ∈ X ∗ : x ∈ U}
Priestley duality



Define ψ : X → X ∗ ∗ by
ψ(x) = {U ∈ X ∗ : x ∈ U}
Then it is straightforward to verify that ψ is well-defined.

Priestley duality
Moreover, one can also show that ψ is a continuous

order-isomorphism.
Priestley duality

order-isomorphism. We will skip the details because this result
is not absolutely necessary for our purposes.
Priestley duality

We only mention that since we work with compact Hausdorff
spaces, it follows that ψ : X → X ∗ ∗ is an order-homeomorphism.
Priestley duality

This implies that each Priestley space arises up to
order-homeomorphism as the Priestley space of some bounded
distributive lattice.
Priestley duality

This establishes complete balance between bounded distributive
lattices and Priestley spaces.
Priestley duality

lattices and Priestley spaces. In fact it can also be extended to a
complete balance between bounded lattice homomorphisms and
order-preserving continuous maps.
Priestley duality

order-preserving continuous maps. We refer to it as the Priestley
duality.
Priestley duality

order-preserving continuous maps. We refer to it as the Priestley
duality. Because of the lack of time, we will not address the
details here.
Birkhoff’s duality as a particular case of the Priestley
duality
It is worth pointing out that in the finite case the Priestley

duality yields the Birkhoff duality.
duality

To see this it is sufficient to observe that the Priestley topology

becomes discrete in the finite case.
duality


becomes discrete in the finite case. Therefore clopen upsets
become simply upsets.
duality


In addition, in the finite case, as we saw, prime filters are in 1-1

correspondence with join-prime elements
duality


In addition, in the finite case, as we saw, prime filters are in 1-1

correspondence with join-prime elements and the Birkhoff
duality follows.
The Stone duality for Boolean lattices
Now suppose that L is a Boolean lattice.

Now suppose that L is a Boolean lattice. Then it is easy to show

that the poset of prime filters of L is discrete.

Therefore the triple (X (L), ⊆, τP ) boils down to the pair

(X (L), τP ), which is a Stone space.


Conversely, we can view each Stone space (X, τ ) as the Priestley

space (X, ≤, τ ) with the discrete ≤.


Conversely, we can view each Stone space (X, τ ) as the Priestley

space (X, ≤, τ ) with the discrete ≤. Then X ∗ becomes simply the
lattice of clopen subsets of X, which is clearly a Boolean lattice
because it is closed under set-theoretic complement.
As a result, we obtain a complete balance between Boolean

lattices and Stone spaces,

lattices and Stone spaces, which is part of the celebrated Stone
duality,

duality, established by Stone back in the 1930ies.

In particular, we obtain the following representation theorem

for Boolean lattices.

In particular, we obtain the following representation theorem

for Boolean lattices.
Stone’s representation of Boolean lattices: Each Boolean

lattice can be represented as the lattice of clopen subsets of a
Stone space.
The Esakia duality for Heyting lattices
Let L be a Heyting lattice and let (X (L), ⊆, τP ) be the Priestley

space of L. Then we have
φ(a → b) = X (L) − ↓[φ(a) − φ(b)]


φ(a → b) = X (L) − ↓[φ(a) − φ(b)]
Here, for any subset S of a poset P, we denote by ↓S the

downset of S:
↓S = {p ∈ P : ∃ s ∈ S with p 6 s}

φ(a → b) = X (L) − ↓[φ(a) − φ(b)]

downset of S:
↓S = {p ∈ P : ∃ s ∈ S with p 6 s}
The left to right inclusion is relatively easy to see.


φ(a → b) = X (L) − ↓[φ(a) − φ(b)]

downset of S:
↓S = {p ∈ P : ∃ s ∈ S with p 6 s}
The left to right inclusion is relatively easy to see. The right to

left inclusion requires more work.

φ(a → b) = X (L) − ↓[φ(a) − φ(b)]

downset of S:
↓S = {p ∈ P : ∃ s ∈ S with p 6 s}

left inclusion requires more work. We skip the details.

φ(a → b) = X (L) − ↓[φ(a) − φ(b)]

downset of S:
↓S = {p ∈ P : ∃ s ∈ S with p 6 s}

This allows us to give a nice characterization of dual spaces of

Heyting lattices,

φ(a → b) = X (L) − ↓[φ(a) − φ(b)]

downset of S:
↓S = {p ∈ P : ∃ s ∈ S with p 6 s}

This allows us to give a nice characterization of dual spaces of

Heyting lattices, which was first done by Esakia in 1974.
Esakia spaces
L∗
Theorem: If L is a Heyting lattice, then for each clopen U of L∗

Esakia spaces
↓U
L∗
Theorem: If L is a Heyting lattice, then for each clopen U of L∗

the downset ↓U is also clopen.
Esakia spaces
Proof: Let U be clopen in L∗ .
Esakia spaces
Proof: Let U be clopen in L∗ . Then there exist
a1 , . . . , an , b1 , . . . , bn ∈ L such that
n
[
U= (φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1
Esakia spaces
n
[
U= (φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1
Therefore
n n
!
[ [
↓U = ↓ (φ(ai ) − φ(bi )) = ↓(φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1 i=1
Esakia spaces
n
[
U= (φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1
Therefore
n n
!
[ [
↓U = ↓ (φ(ai ) − φ(bi )) = ↓(φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1 i=1
Since ↓(φ(ai ) − φ(bi )) = X (L) − φ(ai → bi ),

Esakia spaces
n
[
U= (φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1
Therefore
n n
!
[ [
↓U = ↓ (φ(ai ) − φ(bi )) = ↓(φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1 i=1
Since ↓(φ(ai ) − φ(bi )) = X (L) − φ(ai → bi ), we obtain

n
[
↓U = (X (L) − φ(ai → bi ))
i=1
Esakia spaces
n
[
U= (φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1
Therefore
n n
!
[ [
↓U = ↓ (φ(ai ) − φ(bi )) = ↓(φ(ai ) − φ(bi ))
i=1 i=1
Since ↓(φ(ai ) − φ(bi )) = X (L) − φ(ai → bi ), we obtain

n
[
↓U = (X (L) − φ(ai → bi ))
i=1
Thus ↓U is clopen.
Conversely if (X, ≤, τ ) is a Priestley space in which for each

clopen U we have ↓U is clopen,

clopen U we have ↓U is clopen, then we can define → on X ∗ by
U → V = X − ↓(U − V)
for each U, V ∈ X ∗ .

U → V = X − ↓(U − V)
for each U, V ∈ X ∗ . Thus X ∗ is a Heyting lattice.


U → V = X − ↓(U − V)
This together with the Priestley duality establishes that there is

a complete balance between Heyting lattices and those Priestley
spaces in which the downset of each clopen is clopen.

U → V = X − ↓(U − V)
This together with the Priestley duality establishes that there is

a complete balance between Heyting lattices and those Priestley
spaces in which the downset of each clopen is clopen.
We call such spaces Esakia spaces.

Example
In the first lecture we had an example of a distributive lattice L
which is not Heyting.
Example
which is not Heyting. Thus L∗ must fail to be an Esakia space.
Example
1
. ..
a2
a1 b2
a b1
L
Example
1 ↑b1
. ..
a2 ↑b2
a1 b2 ↑b3
a b1 ↑a ..
.
0 {1}
L L∗
Example
1 ↑b1
. ..
a2 ↑b2
a1 b2 ↑b3
a b1 ↑a ..
.
0 {1}
L L∗
{↑a} is clopen;
Example
1 ↑b1
. ..
a2 ↑b2
a1 b2 ↑b3
a b1 ↑a ..
.
0 {1}
L L∗
{↑a} is clopen; ↓ ({↑a}) = {{↑a}, {1}} is not

Thus there’s a complete balance between Heyting lattices and

Esakia spaces,

Esakia spaces, which is part of the Esakia duality.

In particular, we obtain the following representation of Heyting

lattices:

In particular, we obtain the following representation of Heyting

lattices:
Esakia’s representation of Heyting lattices: Each Heyting

lattice can be represented as the lattice of clopen upsets of an
Esakia space.
Three dualities
To summarize, we have arrived at the following picture:

Three dualities
To summarize, we have arrived at the following picture:
Boolean lattices ⊂ Heyting lattices ⊂ Distributive lattices

l l l
Stone spaces ⊂ Esakia spaces ⊂ Priestley spaces

Lattices and Topology Lectura 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lattices and Topology Lectura 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lattices and Topology

Guram Bezhanishvili and Mamuka Jibladze

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

The previous lecture was dedicated to topology.

We defined compact spaces.

We defined compact spaces.

We defined compact spaces.

We defined compact spaces.

We defined compact spaces.

We defined compact spaces.

We defined compact spaces.

Priestley duality for distributive lattices

Priestley duality for distributive lattices

Priestley duality for distributive lattices

In Lecture 2 we developed representation theory for distributive

In Lecture 2 we developed representation theory for distributive

In Lecture 2 we developed representation theory for distributive

In order to single out this sublattice we developed all the

In Lecture 2 we developed representation theory for distributive

In order to single out this sublattice we developed all the

The main goal of this lecture is to take advantage of the

Let L be a bounded distributive lattice.

Let L be a bounded distributive lattice. Recall that L is

Let L be a bounded distributive lattice. Recall that L is

Let L be a bounded distributive lattice. Recall that L is

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.

Let L be a bounded distributive lattice. Recall that L is

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.

There are several ways to define topology on X (L).

Let L be a bounded distributive lattice. Recall that L is

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.

There are several ways to define topology on X (L). We start by

Let L be a bounded distributive lattice. Recall that L is

φ(a) = {x ∈ X (L) : a ∈ x}.

There are several ways to define topology on X (L). We start by

Consider the following collection

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L),

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Proof: Let U, V ∈ B. Then there exist a, b, c, d ∈ L such that

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Proof: Let U, V ∈ B. Then there exist a, b, c, d ∈ L such that

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Proof: Let U, V ∈ B. Then there exist a, b, c, d ∈ L such that

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Proof: Let U, V ∈ B. Then there exist a, b, c, d ∈ L such that

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Proof: Let U, V ∈ B. Then there exist a, b, c, d ∈ L such that

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

Since φ(0) = ∅ and φ(1) = X (L), both ∅ and X (L) belong to B.

Proof: Let U, V ∈ B. Then there exist a, b, c, d ∈ L such that

U∩V = (φ(a) − φ(b)) ∩ (φ(c) − φ(d))

On the other hand, B is not closed under arbitrary unions in