Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 36 references

On the $E$-base of Finite Lattices: Semidistributive, Modular, and Geometric Lattices

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For finite semidistributive closure lattices, the E-base—a minimal subset of the D-base of implications—is always a valid implicational base and, once aggregated, has the minimum number of implications.

desk verdict Solid lattice-theory paper that settles the E-base validity question for semidistributive lattices and characterizes modular and geometric cases; the main proofs check out, with a few compressed steps worth expanding. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04146 v2 pith:KEFGR3VK submitted 2025-02-06 math.CO cs.DM

Kira Adaricheva , Simon Vilmin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COcs.DM MSC 06C0506C1005B35
keywords E-baseimplicationalbasesclosurespacessemidistributivelatticesmodulargeometricmatroidscanonicalbase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Every finite closure space has many implicational bases, sets of rules 'if A then x' that reproduce its closure operator. The E-base is a refinement of the D-base that keeps only those generators whose closures are minimal, and unlike the D-base it does not always encode the closure space faithfully. This paper asks for which lattices the E-base is valid. It proves that semidistributive lattices always have a valid E-base, and that in aggregated form the E-base has as few implications as the canonical base; it characterizes exactly when modular and geometric lattices have valid E-bases; and it shows that every finite lattice is a sublattice of one whose E-base is valid. The payoff is a shorter, direct implicational base that is guaranteed to be faithful for a large classical class of lattices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the E-generator: a D-generator $A$ of $x$ whose closure $\phi(A)$ is inclusion-minimal among closures of D-generators of $x$. Lemma 1 characterizes E-generators as $\phi_b$-minimal spanning sets of $\phi(A)$ that non-trivially generate $x$ while making $x$ almost prime just below $\phi(A)$; this ties the E-base to almost-prime elements and, through Theorem 9, to pseudo-closed sets of the canonical base. The semidistributive proof uses the unique $\phi_b$-minimal spanning set of each closed set together with the arrow-relation bijection between join-irreducible and meet-irreducible elements; the modular proof uses the diamond-shaped interval $[C_*, C]$ of an essential set and its quasi-closed sets as unions of predecessors; the geometric proof uses the matroid base-exchange axiom to select a base containing as many almost-prime elements as possible and then shows a spanning set that the E-base fails to close.

What would settle it

Compute the aggregated E-base of a finite standard semidistributive closure space and forward-chain from every subset: if any subset $Y$ has $\Sigma_E(Y)$ strictly contained in $\phi(Y)$, Theorem 1 fails. For the modular characterization, build a modular lattice with a non-join-irreducible essential set $C$ and a predecessor $C'$ with $|C' \setminus C_*| = 2$ whose E-base is nonetheless valid, which would refute Theorem 2. For the geometric characterization, find a geometric lattice whose essential sets are pairwise incomparable but whose E-base fails to close some pseudo-closed set, which would refute Theorem 3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the E-base is a complete and minimum encoding for semidistributive lattices: Theorem 1 states that the aggregated E-base of a standard closure space with semidistributive lattice is valid and minimum. For modular lattices, Theorem 2 gives a precise condition: the E-base is valid exactly when, for every essential set $C$ and every predecessor $C'$ of $C$, $|C' \setminus C_*| = 1$, where $C_*$ is the intersection of all predecessors of $C$. For geometric lattices, Theorem 3 says validity holds exactly when all essential sets are incomparable, and, as a corollary, closure spaces of binary matroids have E-base equal to the canonical base. Finally, Theorem 4 shows that any standard closure space embeds as a sublattice of one whose E-base is valid, so lattices with valid E-base cannot be characterized by forbidden sublattices or universal sentences.

Load-bearing premise

The entire framework assumes the closure space is finite and standard (for every element, removing that element from its closure leaves a closed set), so ground-set elements correspond one-to-one with join-irreducible closed sets; the geometric-lattice theorem additionally rests on a compressed forward-chaining claim in Lemma 9 that every minimal derivation must consume each almost-prime element through a non-E implication.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any finite standard closure space with a semidistributive lattice, the aggregated E-base and the canonical base have the same number of implications, so the E-base is a shortest possible implicational base at no extra size cost.
  • In modular lattices, validity of the E-base becomes a local condition on essential sets: one inspects each essential set and checks whether every predecessor differs from the intersection of all predecessors by exactly one element.
  • In geometric lattices, a valid E-base is equivalent to the essential closed sets forming an antichain, which in matroid language means no essential closed set contains another; binary matroids satisfy this and therefore have E-base equal to the canonical base.
  • Because every finite lattice embeds into a lattice with valid E-base, the property of having a valid E-base is not expressible by forbidden sublattices or universal first-order sentences.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Theorem 3 is right, the natural next test is to classify matroids over fields other than GF(2) by whether their essential closed sets form an antichain; this is the matroidal characterization the paper leaves open.
  • The iterative lifting construction in Theorem 4 suggests a quantitative measure of how far a lattice is from having a valid E-base, namely the number of lifting rounds needed, and makes the paper's own question about minimal extension size concrete.
  • The three distinct ways an essential set can be faulty in the paper's examples point to intermediate degrees of validity that weaker classes such as join-distributive or meet-semidistributive lattices might still enjoy, even when the full E-base fails.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the E-base, a recently introduced implicational base for finite closure spaces that refines the D-base. The central question is for which classes of closure lattices the E-base is valid, i.e., faithfully represents the closure space. The main results are: Theorem 1, stating that every standard closure space with semidistributive lattice has a valid and minimum (aggregated) E-base; Theorem 2, characterizing modular lattices with valid E-base by the condition that for every essential set C and every predecessor C' of C, |C' \ C*| = 1; Theorem 3, characterizing geometric lattices with valid E-base by pairwise incomparability of all essential sets; and Theorem 4, stating that every finite standard closure space embeds as a sublattice of one with valid E-base. The paper also contains several examples showing different ways in which the E-base can fail to be valid, and connects the geometric case to matroids, yielding validity for binary matroids.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution to the theory of implicational bases. The E-base is a structurally interesting refinement of the D-base, and the paper settles a natural question from [ANR13] for three important classes of lattices. Theorem 1 is particularly strong: it extends the known lower-bounded case to all semidistributive lattices and establishes minimality via a bijection with the canonical base. The characterizations in Theorems 2 and 3 are clean and are supplemented by instructive examples showing that the E-base can fail in several distinct ways. Theorem 4, showing that every lattice embeds into a lattice with valid E-base, is a useful non-definability result and opens the door to Questions 7 and 8. The proofs use standard external characterizations (Wild, Gorbunov, Jónsson-Kiefer, Freese-Ježek-Nation) in a coherent way, and the numerous examples check boundary cases. The compressed spots in Lemma 5 and Lemma 9 are reconstructable with a bit of work, and I found no internal inconsistency in the main theorems.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2, closure operator definition] Property (2) of the closure operator is stated as phi(phi(X)) = X, which is incorrect; it should be phi(phi(X)) = phi(X).
  2. [Theorem 1, proof, case (1)] The phrase 'C is not essential (hence not join-irreducible)' is logically inverted: a join-irreducible closed set is not essential, so 'not essential' does not imply 'not join-irreducible'. The intended case distinction is clear, but the parenthetical should be corrected to 'C is neither essential nor join-irreducible'.
  3. [Lemma 5, only-if direction] In the step 'As x in phi(y) by definition of Q, x = y must hold', the argument is too compressed. Standardness gives that the join-irreducible closed set phi(y) has a unique generating element y, but one also needs to justify that no other element of C1 \ C* can lie in phi(y); this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Lemma 9, proof] The assertion 'Because x is not almost prime in (C, subseteq), we deduce A' -> x is not in Sigma_E' relies on the fact, argued earlier in the same lemma, that an E-generator of a non-almost-prime element cannot have closure S. Since this is a load-bearing point, it would help to spell out the reference to that argument.
  5. [Section 7, termination argument after Lemma 14] The termination measure is described only informally as 'the maximal size of a maximal chain from Ti to a faulty essential closed set'. Please define the measure precisely and explain why it strictly decreases after each lifting round; as written, the direction of the inequality is not immediately clear.
  6. [Example 9] In the displayed canonical base, the implication 'ef -> e' appears where 'ef -> f' is clearly intended; this looks like a typo.
  7. [Lemma 14, proof] The sentence 'Therefore, Cj is in L and Fj is in F_L' presupposes that L contains all faulty sets, whereas the algorithm lifts only the inclusion-minimal faulty sets. The proof should be phrased in terms of minimal faulty sets: if Cj is faulty then either it is minimal (hence lifted) or it contains a minimal faulty set Fi, giving Fi subset Fj.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the E-base theorems are proved from independent lattice-theoretic results and in-paper lemmas.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Theorems 1-4) are derived in-paper. The E-base definition is imported from the authors' own [ANR13], but as a definition, not as an assumption of validity; the new results explicitly extend the lower-bounded case proved there. Proposition 1, cited from [AN14], is the only load-bearing self-citation: it supplies uniqueness of the pseudo-closed set spanning an essential set in join-semidistributive lattices. This is a parameter-free external theorem whose stated assumptions (finite closure space, join-semidistributive lattice) do not include the validity or minimality of the E-base, so it is independent support rather than a circular premise. The proofs of Theorem 1 use Lemma 4, Theorem 5 (Jónsson-Kiefer/Gorbunov), Theorem 6 (Freese-Ježek-Nation), and Theorem 8 (Wild) to establish validity and the canonical-base bijection; Theorems 2 and 3 are built on Wild's modular-lattice characterization [Wil00] and on in-paper Lemmas 5-9; Theorem 4 is a self-contained lifting construction with appendix proofs. No step was found in which a prediction is fitted from data, a result is assumed via self-citation, or a definition is equivalent to its own conclusion. The compressed exchange argument in Lemma 9 is the densest step, but it does not assume Theorem 3; it reconstructs from matroid exchange and minimality of the derivation set.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical fits or invented physical entities appear; this is pure combinatorics. The Section 7 construction introduces new ground-set elements y_{i,j}, but these are part of a mathematical embedding construction, not independently evidenced entities, so they are not inventoried. The listed axioms are the main external results and domain restrictions that the central proofs depend on.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption All closure spaces are finite and standard (Remark 1): phi(x) without x is closed for every x in S, and phi bijects S with the join-irreducible closed sets.
    Stated at the start of Section 2 and used throughout, for example to label join-irreducible elements by their unique generator and in Corollary 8. Without standardness the E-base definitions and the bijections in Theorems 1 through 3 are not guaranteed.
  • standard math Theorem 5 from Jonsson-Kiefer and Gorbunov: join-semidistributivity is equivalent to each closed set having a unique phi_b-minimal spanning set.
    Invoked in Lemma 4 and Theorem 1 to identify the canonical spanning set and to count E-generators against pseudo-closed sets.
  • standard math Theorem 6 from Freese-Jezek-Nation: semidistributivity of a lattice is equivalent to the double arrow relation being a bijection between S and meet-irreducible closed sets.
    Used in Lemma 4, Claim 3, to rule out two distinct meet-irreducible closed sets related to the same element and force a contradiction.
  • standard math Theorem 7 from Gorbunov: in a join-semidistributive lattice, the canonical spanning set of the top element consists of prime elements dual to the coatoms.
    Used in Lemma 4 to show that elements of canonical spanning sets are prime inside the relevant order ideals, which is needed to verify the E-generator conditions.
  • standard math Proposition 2 from Wild 2000: in modular lattices, a non-join-irreducible essential set has a diamond interval and its quasi-closed spanning sets are exactly unions of predecessors.
    This is the structural backbone of the modular characterization in Theorem 2 and of Lemmas 5 through 7.
  • standard math Theorem 8 from Wild 1994: every implicational base of a closure space contains, for each pseudo-closed set P, an implication whose premise is contained in P and has the same closure as P.
    Used to compare the E-base with the canonical base and to prove both validity and minimality in Theorem 1.
  • standard math Theorem 10 from Wild 1994: in a simple binary matroid, a closed set is essential if and only if it is a closed circuit.
    Used to derive Corollary 7, that binary matroids have valid E-base equal to the canonical base.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the $E$-base of Finite Lattices: Semidistributive, Modular, and Geometric Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KEFGR3VK

@misc{pith2026250204146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the $E$-base of Finite Lattices: Semidistributive, Modular, and Geometric Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KEFGR3VK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04146}
}
abstract

Implicational bases are a well-known representation of closure spaces and their closure lattices. This representation is not unique, though, and a closure space usually admits multiple bases. Among these, the canonical base, the canonical direct base as well as the $D$-base aroused significant attention due to their structural and algorithmic properties. Recently, a new base has emerged from the study of free lattices: the $E$-base. It is a refinement of the $D$-base that, unlike the aforementioned implicational bases, does not always accurately represent its associated closure space. This leads to an intriguing question: for which classes of (closure) lattices do closure spaces have valid $E$-base? Lower-bounded lattices are known to form such a class. In this paper, we prove that for semidistributive lattices, the $E$-base is both valid and minimum. We also characterize those modular and geometric lattices that have valid $E$-base. Finally, we prove that any lattice is a sublattice of a lattice with valid $E$-base.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The closure lattice of Example 1. A shaded dot indicates a join-irreducible closed set. The element of which it is the closure is underlined in the label, e.g., ϕ(f) = acf . The lattice is semidistributive. Example 2 (Example 27 in [ANR13]). Let S = {a, b, c, d} and consider the closure space (S, ϕ) whose closure lattice is given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The convex geometry of Example 2. Square dots are the essential sets: abc, bcd and abcd. Among them, abc and bcd (highlighted in yellow) are non-faulty. On the other hand, abcd (circled in purple) is faulty since it is not spanned by any E-generator. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The closure lattice of Example 3. The essential sets are abc, cd, ce and abcde (square nodes). All are spanned by some E-generator. Yet, the pseudo-closed set cde spanning abcde does not include any E-generator, while abce includes ae and be. This is shown in the box on the right picturing the spanning sets of abcde. In the previous example, the E-base fails to describe the closure space because one of the pseudo-cl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The lattice of Example 4 where abcdef is faulty and abcd is not. Even though the pseudo-closed set cde is subsumed by the E-generator de, it remains faulty. Lemma 1. A subset A of S is a E-generator of x if and only if the following conditions hold: (1) A is a ϕ b -min…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The E-generators of x in a closure space (S, ϕ). On the left, the lattice (C, ⊆) associated with (S, ϕ) is partitioned according to Corollary 1, i.e., according to the filter of closed sets above which x is not prime. The minimal members of this filter are the closure …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The meet-semidistributive lattice of Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An upper-bounded join-distributive closure lattice where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A modular lattice where the E-base is non-valid (Example 7). While the non-ji essential set abc is not faulty, abcde is because de is not a E-generator of a or b. Example 7 is in fact a minimal representative of a configuration that characterizes the validity of the E-…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A modular closure lattice where the essential set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A geometric closure lattice where E-base is not valid as abcdef is not spanned by any E-generator. We will prove that the E-base of a geometric lattice is in fact valid if and only if all its essential sets are incomparable. Note that the if part already follows from …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A geometric closure lattice where E-base is not valid. The pseudo-closed sets ade, bde and cde are not captured by the E-base. Hence, let A = {a1, . . . , ak} be the set of almost prime elements of (C, ⊆). The subsequent remark will be useful. It is a consequence of t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scheming lifting operation. On the left, a lattice where the three closed sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Lifting the faulty essential set of the closure space of Example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The closure lattice on the left does not have valid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: An upper-semimodular lattice with valid E-base that has comparable essentials, and where the (set-)difference between an essential set and one of its predecessors can be greater than one. non-essential ji essential ji non-faulty essential faulty essential [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Lifting only some predecessors of a faulty essential set can lead to a smaller extension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: On the left a distributive lattice with two elements to lift (in black). The resulting lattice, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Importance of overnight parameters to predict Sea Breeze on Long Island

    Kira Adaricheva, Jase Bernhardt, Wenxin Liu, and Brianna Schmidt. Importance of overnight parameters to predict sea breeze on Long Island , 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01803 arXiv:2309.01803

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Kira Adaricheva and J. B. Nation. On implicational bases of closure systems with unique critical sets . Discrete Applied Mathematics , 162:51--69, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2013.08.033 doi:10.1016/j.dam.2013.08.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dam.2013.08.033 2014

  3. [3]

    Kira Adaricheva and J. B. Nation. Discovery of the D -basis in binary tables based on hypergraph dualization. Theoretical Computer Science , 658:307--315, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2015.11.031 doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2015.11.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2015.11.031 2017

  4. [4]

    Kira Adaricheva, J. B. Nation, Gordon Okimoto, Vyacheslav Adarichev, Adina Amanbekkyzy, Shuchismita Sarkar, Alibek Sailanbayev, Nazar Seidalin, and Kenneth Alibek. Measuring the Implications of the D -basis in Analysis of Data in Biomedical Studies . In Formal Concept Analysis (ICFCA 2015) , pages 39--57. Springer, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19545-2_3 2015

  5. [5]

    Kira Adaricheva, J. B. Nation, and Robert Rand. Ordered Direct Implicational Basis of a Finite Closure System . Discrete Applied Mathematics , 161(6):707--723, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2012.08.031 doi:10.1016/j.dam.2012.08.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dam.2012.08.031 2013

  6. [6]

    Computing the D -base and D -relation in finite closure systems

    Kira Adaricheva, Lhouari Nourine, and Simon Vilmin. Computing the D -base and D -relation in finite closure systems . Theoretical Computer Science , 1052:115459, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2025.115459 doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2025.115459

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Hypergraph horn functions

    Krist\' o f B\' e rczi, Endre Boros, and Kazuhisa Makino. Hypergraph horn functions. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , 38(2):1417--1437, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1137/23M1569162 doi:10.1137/23M1569162

    work page doi:10.1137/23m1569162 2024

  8. [8]

    Lattices, closures systems and implication bases: A survey of structural aspects and algorithms

    Karell Bertet, Christophe Demko, Jean-Fran c ois Viaud, and Cl \'e ment Gu \'e rin. Lattices, closures systems and implication bases: A survey of structural aspects and algorithms . Theoretical Computer Science , 743:93--109, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2016.11.021 doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2016.11.021

    doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2016.11.021 2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Independence of Essential Sets in Finite Implication Bases , 2023

    Todd Bichoupan. Independence of Essential Sets in Finite Implication Bases , 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06837 arXiv:2304.06837

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    On the Structure of Abstract Algebras

    Garrett Birkhoff. On the Structure of Abstract Algebras . Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society , 31(4):433--454, 1935. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100013463 doi:10.1017/S0305004100013463

    1935 doi

  3. [11]

    The multiple facets of the canonical direct unit implicational basis

    Karell Bertet and Bernard Monjardet. The multiple facets of the canonical direct unit implicational basis . Theoretical Computer Science , 411(22-24):2155--2166, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2009.12.021 doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2009.12.021

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    Boolean functions: Theory, algorithms, and applications

    Yves Crama and Peter Hammer. Boolean functions: Theory, algorithms, and applications . Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511852008 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511852008

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Characterizations of Finite Lattices that are Bounded-Homomorphic Images or Sublattices of Free Lattices

    Alan Day. Characterizations of Finite Lattices that are Bounded-Homomorphic Images or Sublattices of Free Lattices . Canadian Journal of Mathematics , 31(1):69--78, 1979. https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1979-008-x doi:10.4153/CJM-1979-008-x

    1979 doi

  6. [14]

    The lattice theory of functional dependencies and normal decompositions

    Alan Day. The lattice theory of functional dependencies and normal decompositions. International Journal of Algebra and Computation , 2(4):409--432, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218196792000256 doi:10.1142/S0218196792000256

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    On the complexity of enumerating pseudo-intents

    Felix Distel and Bar s Sertkaya. On the complexity of enumerating pseudo-intents. Discrete Applied Mathematics , 159(6):450--466, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2010.12.004 doi:10.1016/j.dam.2010.12.004

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    The core of finite lattices

    Vincent Duquenne. The core of finite lattices. Discrete Mathematics , 88(2):133--147, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-365X(91)90005-M doi:10.1016/0012-365X(91)90005-M

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    Ralph Freese, Jaroslav Je z ek, and J. B. Nation. Free Lattices , volume 42 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society , 1995

    1995

  10. [18]

    Familles Minimales d'implications Informatives R\'esultant d'un Tableau de Donn\'ees Binaires

    Jean-Louis Guigues and Vincent Duquenne. Familles Minimales d'implications Informatives R\'esultant d'un Tableau de Donn\'ees Binaires . Math\'ematiques et Sciences Humaines , 95:5--18, 1986

    1986

  11. [19]

    Canonical decompositions in complete lattices

    Viktor Gorbunov. Canonical decompositions in complete lattices. Algebra and Logic , 17(5):323--332, 1978. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01673824 doi:10.1007/BF01673824

    1978 doi

  12. [20]

    a tzer. Lattice theory: foundation . Birkh \

    George Gr \"a tzer. Lattice theory: foundation . Birkh \"a user Basel, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-0018-1 doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-0018-1

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations

    Bernhard Ganter and Rudolf Wille. Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations . Springer, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59830-2 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-59830-2

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    A polynomial algorithm for testing congruence modularity

    Christian Herrmann and Marcel Wild. A polynomial algorithm for testing congruence modularity. International Journal of Algebra and Computation , 6(4):379--388, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218196796000210 doi:10.1142/S0218196796000210

    1996 doi

  15. [23]

    Finite Sublattices of a Free Lattice

    Bjarni J \'o nsson and James Kiefer. Finite Sublattices of a Free Lattice . Canadian Journal of Mathematics , 14:487--497, 1962. https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1962-040-1 doi:10.4153/CJM-1962-040-1

    1962 doi

  16. [24]

    Greedoids , volume 4 of Algorithms and Combinatorics

    Bernhard Korte, L \'a szl \'o Lov \'a sz, and Rainer Schrader. Greedoids , volume 4 of Algorithms and Combinatorics . Springer, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-58191-5 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-58191-5

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Minimum covers in relational database model

    David Maier. Minimum covers in relational database model. Journal of the ACM , 27(4):664--674, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1145/322217.322223 doi:10.1145/322217.322223

    1980

  18. [26]

    Primes, Irreducibles and Extremal Lattices

    George Markowsky. Primes, Irreducibles and Extremal Lattices . Order , 9(3):265--290, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383950 doi:10.1007/BF00383950

    1992 doi

  19. [27]

    The design of relational databases

    Heikki Mannila and Kari-Jouko R \"a ih \"a . The design of relational databases . Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    J. B. Nation. Finite sublattices of a free lattice. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 269(1):311--337, 1982. https://doi.org/10.2307/1998606 doi:10.2307/1998606

    1982 doi

  21. [29]

    Nation, Justin Cabot-Miller, Oren Segal, Robert Lucito, and Kira Adaricheva

    J.B. Nation, Justin Cabot-Miller, Oren Segal, Robert Lucito, and Kira Adaricheva. Combining algorithms to find signatures that predict risk in early stage stomach cancer. Journal of Computational Biology , 28(310):985--1006, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1089/cmb.2020.0568 doi:10.1...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Matroid theory , volume 3

    James G Oxley. Matroid theory , volume 3. Oxford University Press, USA, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566946.001.0001 doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566946.001.0001

    2006

  23. [31]

    Yeast graphs and fermentation of algebraic lattices

    Pavel Pudl \'a k and Ji r \' T u ma. Yeast graphs and fermentation of algebraic lattices. Colloquia Mathematica Societatis J \'a nos Bolyai , 14:301--341, 1974

    1974

  24. [32]

    Every finite lattice can be embedded in a finite partition lattice

    Pavel Pudl \'a k and Ji r \' T u ma. Every finite lattice can be embedded in a finite partition lattice. Algebra Universalis , 10:74--95, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02482893 doi:10.1007/BF02482893

    1980 doi

  25. [33]

    Lattices, equivalence relations, and subgroups

    Philip Whitman. Lattices, equivalence relations, and subgroups. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 52:507--522, 1946. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1946-08602-4 doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1946-08602-4

    1946 doi

  26. [34]

    A theory of finite closure spaces based on implications

    Marcel Wild. A theory of finite closure spaces based on implications. Advances in Mathematics , 108(1):118--139, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1006/aima.1994.1069 doi:10.1006/aima.1994.1069

    1994

  27. [35]

    Optimal implicational bases for finite modular lattices

    Marcel Wild. Optimal implicational bases for finite modular lattices. Quaestiones Mathematicae , 23(2):153--161, 2000. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073600009485964 doi:10.2989/16073600009485964

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    The joy of implications, aka pure Horn formulas: mainly a survey

    Marcel Wild. The joy of implications, aka pure Horn formulas: mainly a survey . Theoretical Computer Science , 658:264--292, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2016.03.018 doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2016.03.018

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.