Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

The model theory of metric lattices: pseudofinite partition lattices

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every infinite pseudofinite partition lattice has a Boolean core of modular elements, and the whole lattice is encoded by selector sets up to a uniform factor of four.

desk verdict Solid new framework for metric lattices with a real but fixable gap in the central estimate and a shaky definability proof in Section 5. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10932 v2 pith:3U54QN53 submitted 2025-07-15 math.CO math.FAmath.LOmath.OA

Jose Contreras-Mantilla , Thomas Sinclair This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.FAmath.LOmath.OA MSC 03C6605B3506B2306B3506C1046L10
keywords metriclatticespartitionpseudofinitemodelsmodeltheoryofstructuresgeometricmodularelementsselectorscontinuouslimits
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

This paper develops a continuous model-theoretic framework for metric lattices and applies it to finite partition lattices, with the goal of describing their infinite pseudofinite limits. Its central claim is that any such limit has a definable Boolean core: the metrically modular elements form a complete Boolean sublattice, and every element of the lattice is reconstructible from its set of modular complements, called its selectors. The reconstruction is quantitatively faithful, since the lattice distance between two elements is always at least one quarter of, and at most equal to, the Hausdorff distance between their selector sets. If this is right, it provides a model-theoretic handle on continuous limits of partition lattices and a potential route toward continuous limiting theories for matroids and submodular functions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a uniform first-order estimate with the selector map. Proposition 6.5 asserts that $d(x,\Sigma_n)\le 48\sup_y\varphi(x,y)$, where $\Sigma_n$ is the set of singular partitions (partitions with at most one block of size at least two) and $\varphi(x,y)$ measures how far the pair $(x,y)$ is from metric modularity; this turns 'approximately modular' into 'uniformly close to singular' with a constant independent of $n$. In an ultraproduct, this forces the metrically modular elements to coincide with ultraproducts of singular partitions, and therefore to form a complete Boolean sublattice. The selector map $\Gamma(x)$ picks out the singular partitions whose basic block meets each block of $x$ exactly once, and in finite partition lattices the selectors are exactly the modular complements of $x$. The final inequality comparing $d$ with the Hausdorff distance of selector sets promotes $\Gamma$ from a definable auxiliary object to a faithful representation of the whole lattice.

What would settle it

Compute, for all partitions $x$ of a small set with $[x]\le 48$, the ratio $d(x,\Sigma_n)/\sup_y\varphi(x,y)$; if any ratio exceeds 48, Proposition 6.5 is false and the equivalence between modular elements and ultraproducts of singular partitions collapses. Separately, search finite partition lattices for a pair $x,y$ violating $d(x,y)\le 4\,d_{\mathrm{Haus}}(\Gamma(x),\Gamma(y))$; Proposition 6.34 predicts no such pair exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that in any infinite pseudofinite partition lattice $M$, the metrically modular elements form a complete Boolean sublattice, and $M$ is faithfully represented by the selector map $\Gamma$ that sends each element $x$ to its set of modular complements. The load-bearing quantitative statement is Proposition 6.34: for all $x,y\in M$, $$d(x,y)\le 4\,d_{\mathrm{Haus}}(\Gamma(x),\Gamma(y))\le 4\,d(x,y).$$ This is reached through a finite combinatorial estimate, Proposition 6.5, which bounds the distance from any partition to the singular partitions by $48\sup_y\varphi(x,y)$, where $\varphi$ measures a first-order modularity defect. That estimate makes the modular elements definable in the theory $T_{\mathrm{FPL}}$ and identifies them, in ultraproducts, with ultraproducts of singular partitions; the selector sets then become a definable representation of the whole lattice.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the finite estimate $d(x,\Sigma_n)\le 48\sup_y\varphi(x,y)$ for every partition $x$, whose proof as written covers only partitions with more than 48 non-singleton blocks; if the missing small case fails, the identification of modular elements with singular partitions in ultraproducts, and hence the Boolean-core structure, collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In every infinite pseudofinite partition lattice, the metrically modular elements form a definable complete Boolean sublattice, so the Boolean core is a first-class object of the theory $T_{\mathrm{FPL}}$.
  • Every element of a pseudofinite partition lattice has at least one selector, meaning a modular complement; this property holds uniformly across all finite partition lattices and transfers to their limits.
  • The Hausdorff inequality implies that the correspondence $x\mapsto\Gamma(x)$ is a bi-Lipschitz embedding up to a uniform factor of 4, so distances between arbitrary elements can be computed from selector sets with bounded distortion.
  • The theory $T_{\mathrm{FPL}}$ admits a partial transfer to the continuous partition lattice: every $\forall\exists$ sentence of $T_{\mathrm{FPL}}$ holds in that continuous limit, even though the standard embeddings of finite partition lattices into it are not elementary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the selector representation suggests a converse characterization along the lines of Question 6.48: a complete metric lattice satisfying the Boolean-core, selector-existence, and Hausdorff inequalities could plausibly be axiomatized as a pseudofinite partition lattice; testing that characterization on explicit examples would decide whether the representation is also a recogniti
  • Editorial inference: the constant 48 in Proposition 6.5 is likely not optimal, and the first place to look is the omitted small case $[x]\le 48$; a computational search over all partitions of small sets could establish the true worst-case ratio and sharpen the definability bound.
  • Editorial inference: the description of $\Gamma(x)$ as subsets of a Boolean algebra points toward a continuous limiting theory of matroids, since matroid lattices are geometric lattices carrying analogous rank metrics; the same framework may transfer to those families if uniform estimates like Proposition 6.5 hold there.
  • Editorial inference: the operator-algebra-inspired property $\Gamma$ is left unresolved for the continuous partition lattice, so constructing or ruling out a nontrivial almost modular net in that lattice would be a concrete testable extension of the paper's framework.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a continuous model-theoretic framework for metric lattices, axiomatizing complete metric lattices through a join-only language and studying definability of the meet in the metrically modular case. It then introduces the theory T_FPL of finite partition lattices and studies infinite pseudofinite partition lattices. The central structural claims are that the metrically modular elements form a definable Boolean sublattice; that every element admits a modular complement (a selector); and that the selector map Γ(x) is definable and gives a bi-Lipschitz Hausdorff representation of the pseudofinite partition lattice by subsets of its Boolean core. The paper also connects these results with Björner–Lovász continuous partition lattices and raises several natural open questions.

Significance. If the main results are correct, the paper would provide a substantial bridge between continuous model theory and the asymptotic theory of partition lattices and matroid-like structures. The manuscript contains many genuinely detailed proofs, explicit finite combinatorial estimates, and a serious attempt to use continuous-logic definability criteria (Beth definability, ultraproducts) in a new setting. The definable-selector package and the quantitative Hausdorff representation of Proposition 6.34 are original and, if made fully rigorous, would be a meaningful contribution. However, two load-bearing arguments are currently not valid as written, so the central claims are not yet supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6, Proposition 6.5, around Eq. (23)] The proof of the key estimate d(x,Σ_n) ≤ 48 sup_y φ(x,y) is invalid as written. The proof claims in Eq. (23) that for the constructed partition x*, φ(x,x*) ≥ ([x]−1)/(48(n−1)). This claim is false. For n=6 and x={{1,2},{3,4},{5,6}}, we have [x]=3, d(x,Σ_6)=2/5, and the construction gives x*={{1,4},{2,3},{5,6}}. Taking z = x∧x* = {{1},{2},{3},{4},{5,6}}, the three terms in the definition of φ vanish: |x|+|x*| = |x+x*|+|z|, and z ≤ x,x*, so d(x+z,x)=d(x*+z,x*)=0. Hence φ(x,x*)=0, contradicting the lower bound 1/120. The proof also assumes m=floor(([x]−1)/48) ≥ 1, which omits the case [x]≤48, and the proposed witness fails exactly there. Since Corollary 6.7 and Lemma 6.12 depend on Proposition 6.5, and the definability of the selector sets in Corollary 6.28 depends on those, the Boolean-core and selector results are not yet established.
  2. [Section 5, Proposition 5.6] The proof that the meet is definable in TM M L does not correctly axiomatize the expanded class. The displayed theory T' = T_ML ∪ {sup_x sup_y(d(0,x+y)+P(x,y,0)−d(x,0)−d(y,0))} only constrains the predicate P on the slice z=0. In a metrically modular lattice, the constant predicate P≡0 is compatible with this displayed inequality, but P_M(x,y,0)=|xy| is not constant. Thus the expanded structures (M,P_M) are not the only models of T', and Corollary 2.3 cannot be applied as stated. Additional axioms are needed to force P(x,y,z)=d(xy,z) for all z (for instance, P(x,y,xy)=0 and suitable Lipschitz or triangle conditions). This gap affects Proposition 5.7, Proposition 5.20, and the appeal to definability of the Boolean sublattice in Proposition 6.14.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Corollary 6.6] The labels "if" and "only if" in the proof appear reversed: the sentence "The 'if' direction follows directly from Proposition 6.5" is followed by a proof that singular partitions are metrically modular. Please correct the terminology to match the logic of the argument.
  2. [Section 6, Lemma 6.20] The proof switches between the lattice P_{n+1} and denominators of size n without explanation; the indexing should be made consistent (either all computations in P_{n+1} or a clear relabeling of n).
  3. [Section 6, Proposition 6.29] In the displayed chain computing d(z,Γ(y)), the right-hand side appears to omit the denominator n−1 in the final equality; this is presumably a typo, but as printed it is confusing.
  4. [Section 6.2] There are several notational typos in the discussion of approximations by Π∞, including "PBjorn" in the displayed formula and inconsistent subscripts in ψΠ∞_N and φ2n_n; these should be cleaned up before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the structural results are derived from finite partition-lattice combinatorics via ultraproducts and definability transfer, not from their conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are genuine consequences of finite combinatorial estimates transferred to pseudofinite limits. The theory T_FPL is defined as the set of sentences true in all finite partition lattices Pn, so proving that modular elements form a definable Boolean core (Proposition 6.5, Corollary 6.7, Lemma 6.12, Proposition 6.14) reduces to establishing uniform finite estimates such as d(x, Sigma_n) <= 48 sup_y phi(x,y), and then applying Łoś's theorem and the external definability criterion (Theorem 2.1 from Hart [20]). No parameter is fitted to the target conclusion, and no load-bearing self-citation appears: the cited works by Sinclair ([45], [32]) are contextual and not used to justify the pseudofinite partition-lattice theorems. The continuous-limit comparison to Björner and Lovász is framed as an open connection, not as an input. The only flagged issue is a correctness gap in the proof of Proposition 6.5: the proof assumes m = floor(([x]-1)/48) >= 1 and omits the small case [x] <= 48, and the proposed witness x* may fail for [x]=3, as the reviewer's example suggests. That is a mathematical correctness concern about an unhandled case, not circularity: the claim does not reduce to its own input by definition or by self-citation. Accordingly, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit parameters to data. Its central load is carried by standard continuous model theory, the concrete definition of the finite partition lattice metric, and a collection of finite counting lemmas. The only ad hoc numerical choice flagged is the factor 48 in Proposition 6.5. The reconstruction of the meet from the join in complete metric semilattices is proven, not assumed.

free parameters (1)
  • constant 48 in the estimate of Proposition 6.5 = 48
    Chosen as the universal factor in d(x,Sigma_n) <= 48 sup_y phi(x,y). The proof's case split m=floor(([x]-1)/48)>=1 fails for [x]<=48, so the constant is not justified for that range.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Ben Yaacov, Berenstein, Henson, and Usvyatsov continuous model theory framework, including the Beth definability theorem and Los's theorem.
    Used throughout; Section 2 quotes Theorem 2.1, Theorem 2.2, Corollary 2.3, and Los's theorem is used implicitly in ultraproduct arguments such as Corollary 6.7 and Proposition 6.46.
  • domain assumption Every model of T_FPL embeds elementarily into an ultraproduct of finite partition lattices, cited to Goldbring [16, Lemma 16.2.4].
    Used in Proposition 6.14 to transfer the Boolean-core result from ultraproducts to all pseudofinite partition lattices of density character at least aleph_0.
  • domain assumption The finite partition lattice P_n with the normalized block-count metric satisfies the metric lattice axioms and has the stated block-count formulas for join and meet.
    Basic setup in Example 4.2 and Section 6; all subsequent computations use Lemma 6.2 and the formulas for #(x+y) and #xy.
  • standard math Standard facts about Möbius inversion on finite semilattices and the Lindstrom-Wilf identity [25,48].
    Used in Proposition 4.12 to characterize positive semidefinite functions on finite semilattices via measures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The model theory of metric lattices: pseudofinite partition lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3U54QN53

@misc{pith2026250710932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The model theory of metric lattices: pseudofinite partition lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3U54QN53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10932}
}
read the original abstract

We initiate the study of general metric lattices in the context of the model theory of metric structures. As an application we develop a theory of pseudo-finite limits of partition lattices and connect this theory with the theory of continuous limits of partition lattices due to Bj\"orner and Lov\'asz.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    234, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1979

    Martin Aigner,Combinatorial theory, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, vol. 234, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1979. MR0542445

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Ando,Totally positive matrices, Linear Algebra Appl.90 (1987), 165–219, DOI 10.1016/0024- 3795(87)90313-2

    T. Ando,Totally positive matrices, Linear Algebra Appl.90 (1987), 165–219, DOI 10.1016/0024- 3795(87)90313-2. MR0884118

    doi:10.1016/0024- 1987

  3. [3]

    Itaï Ben Yaacov,Fraïssé limits of metric structures, J. Symb. Log.80 (2015), no. 1, 100–115, DOI 10.1017/jsl.2014.71. MR3320585

    work page doi:10.1017/jsl.2014.71 2015

  4. [4]

    Ward Henson, and Alexander Usvyatsov,Model theory for metric structures, Model theory with applications to algebra and analysis

    Itaï Ben Yaacov, Alexander Berenstein, C. Ward Henson, and Alexander Usvyatsov,Model theory for metric structures, Model theory with applications to algebra and analysis. Vol. 2, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 350, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 315–427, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511735219.011. MR2436146

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511735219.011 2008

  5. [5]

    Kristóf Bérczi, Márton Borbényi, László Lovász, and László Márton Tóth,Quotient-convergence of submodular setfunctions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08942 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Ward Henson,Model theory of probability spaces, Model theory of operator algebras, De Gruyter Ser

    Alexander Berenstein and C. Ward Henson,Model theory of probability spaces, Model theory of operator algebras, De Gruyter Ser. Log. Appl., vol. 11, De Gruyter, Berlin, [2023]©2023, pp. 159–

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Garrett Birkhoff,Lattice theory, 3rd ed., American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. Vol. XXV, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1967. MR0227053

    work page 1967

  8. [8]

    Anders Björner,Continuous partition lattice, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.84 (1987), no. 18, 6327– 6329, DOI 10.1073/pnas.84.18.6327. MR0907833

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.84.18.6327 1987

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    , Continuous matroids revisited, Building bridges II—mathematics of László Lovász, Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., vol. 28, Springer, Berlin, [2019]©2019, pp. 17–28, DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-59204- 5_2. MR4297778 THE MODEL THEORY OF METRIC LATTICES: PSEUDOFINITE PARTITION LATTICES 55

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    231, Springer, New York, 2005

    Anders Björner and Francesco Brenti,Combinatorics of Coxeter groups, Graduate Texts in Math- ematics, vol. 231, Springer, New York, 2005. MR2133266

    2005

  3. [11]

    Björner and L

    A. Björner and L. Lovász, Pseudomodular lattices and continuous matroids, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 51 (1987), no. 3-4, 295–308. MR0940934

    1987

  4. [12]

    Gustave Choquet,Theory of capacities, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)5 (1953/54), 131–295 (1955). MR0080760

    1955

  5. [13]

    Gábor Elek and Balázs Szegedy,A measure-theoretic approach to the theory of dense hypergraphs, Adv. Math. 231 (2012), no. 3-4, 1731–1772, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2012.06.022. MR2964622

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Ilijas Farah, Bradd Hart, Martino Lupini, Leonel Robert, Aaron Tikuisis, Alessandro Vignati, and Wilhelm Winter,Model theory ofC∗-algebras, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.271 (2021), no. 1324, viii+127, DOI 10.1090/memo/1324. MR4279915

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    C. M. Fortuin, P. W. Kasteleyn, and J. Ginibre,Correlation inequalities on some partially ordered sets, Comm. Math. Phys.22 (1971), 89–103. MR0309498

    1971

  8. [16]

    220, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2022]©2022

    Isaac Goldbring,Ultrafilters throughout mathematics, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 220, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2022]©2022. MR4454845

    2022

  9. [17]

    11, De Gruyter, Berlin, [2023]©2023

    (ed.), Model theory of operator algebras, De Gruyter Series in Logic and its Applications, vol. 11, De Gruyter, Berlin, [2023]©2023. Edited by Isaac Goldbring. MR4654487

    2023

  10. [18]

    Math.199(2014), no

    Isaac Goldbring and Henry Towsner,An approximate logic for measures, Israel J. Math.199(2014), no. 2, 867–913, DOI 10.1007/s11856-013-0054-3. MR3219561

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    continuous partition lattice

    Mark D. Haiman,On realization of Björner’s “continuous partition lattice” by measurable partitions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.343 (1994), no. 2, 695–711, DOI 10.2307/2154737. MR1211408

    1994 doi

  12. [20]

    Bradd Hart,An Introduction To Continuous Model Theory(2023), available at2303.03969

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson,Matrix analysis, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. MR2978290

    2013

  14. [22]

    Pure Appl

    Tapani Hyttinen and Gianluca Paolini, Beyond abstract elementary classes: on the model theory of geometric lattices , Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 169 (2018), no. 2, 117–145, DOI 10.1016/j.apal.2017.10.003. MR3725203

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Combin.59 (2017), 150–168, DOI 10.1016/j.ejc.2016.08.005

    František Kardoš, Daniel Král’, Anita Liebenau, and Lukáš Mach,First order convergence of ma- troids, European J. Combin.59 (2017), 150–168, DOI 10.1016/j.ejc.2016.08.005. MR3546908

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Krivine and B

    J.-L. Krivine and B. Maurey,Espaces de Banach stables, Israel J. Math.39 (1981), no. 4, 273–295, DOI 10.1007/BF02761674 (French, with English summary). MR0636897

    1981 doi

  17. [25]

    Bernt Lindström,Determinants on semilattices, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.20 (1969), 207–208, DOI 10.2307/2035991. MR0238738

    1969 doi

  18. [26]

    László Lovász,Submodular functions and convexity, Mathematical programming: the state of the art (Bonn, 1982), Springer, Berlin, 1983, pp. 235–257. MR0717403

    1982

  19. [27]

    60, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012

    ,Large networks and graph limits,AmericanMathematicalSocietyColloquiumPublications, vol. 60, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012. MR3012035

    2012

  20. [28]

    , Submodular setfunctions on sigma-algebras, version 2, ArXiv preprint, posted on 2023, DOI https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.04704

    2023 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    , The matroid of a graphing , J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 169 (2024), 542–560, DOI 10.1016/j.jctb.2024.08.001. MR4792434

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Russell Lyons,Determinantal probability measures, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci.98 (2003), 167–212, DOI 10.1007/s10240-003-0016-0. MR2031202

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    MR3188982

    Mika Mattila and Pentti Haukkanen,On the positive definiteness and eigenvalues of meet and join matrices, Discrete Math.326 (2014), 9–19, DOI 10.1016/j.disc.2014.02.018. MR3188982

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Garrett Mulcahy and Thomas Sinclair,Malnormal matrices, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.150 (2022), no. 7, 2969–2982, DOI 10.1090/proc/15821. MR4428882

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    F. J. Murray and J. von Neumann,On rings of operators. IV, Ann. of Math. (2)44 (1943), 716–808, DOI 10.2307/1969107. MR0009096 56 CONTRERAS MANTILLA AND SINCLAIR

    1943 doi

  26. [34]

    Jaroslav Ne˘ set˘ ril and Patrice Ossona de Mendez,A unified approach to structural limits and limits of graphs with bounded tree-depth, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.263 (2020), no. 1272, v + 108, DOI 10.1090/memo/1272. MR4069241

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    John von Neumann,Approximative properties of matrices of high finite order, Portugal. Math. 3 (1942), 1–62. MR0006137

    1942

  28. [36]

    , Continuous geometry, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. No. 25, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1960. Foreword by Israel Halperin. MR0120174

    1960

  29. [37]

    335, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    Alexandru Nica and Roland Speicher,Lectures on the combinatorics of free probability, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 335, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. MR2266879

    2006

  30. [38]

    Niculescu,Old and New on Strongly Subadditive/Superadditive Functions, arXiv e- prints, posted on 2025, arXiv:2501.13695, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13695

    Constantin P. Niculescu,Old and New on Strongly Subadditive/Superadditive Functions, arXiv e- prints, posted on 2025, arXiv:2501.13695, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2501.13695

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    21, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011

    James Oxley, Matroid theory, 2nd ed., Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 21, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011. MR2849819

    2011

  32. [40]

    Razborov, Flag algebras, J

    Alexander A. Razborov, Flag algebras, J. Symbolic Logic 72 (2007), no. 4, 1239–1282, DOI 10.2178/jsl/1203350785. MR2371204

    2007

  33. [41]

    31, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003

    John Roe,Lectures on coarse geometry, University Lecture Series, vol. 31, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. MR2007488

    2003

  34. [42]

    Gian-Carlo Rota, On the foundations of combinatorial theory. I. Theory of Möbius functions, Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete2 (1964), 340–368 (1964), DOI 10.1007/BF00531932. MR0174487

    1964 doi

  35. [43]

    Math.11 (1961), 325–345

    David Sachs,Partition and modulated lattices, Pacific J. Math.11 (1961), 325–345. MR0122742

    1961

  36. [44]

    217 (2000), no

    Rodica Simion, Noncrossing partitions, Discrete Math. 217 (2000), no. 1-3, 367–409, DOI 10.1016/S0012-365X(99)00273-3 (English, with English and French summaries). Formal power se- ries and algebraic combinatorics (Vienna, 1997). MR1766277

    2000 doi

  37. [45]

    Thomas Sinclair, Model theory of operator systems and C∗-algebras, Model theory of operator algebras, De Gruyter Ser. Log. Appl., vol. 11, De Gruyter, Berlin, [2023]©2023, pp. 343–386. MR4654496

    2023

  38. [46]

    Alessandro Vignati, Fraïssé theory in operator algebras, Model theory of operator algebras, De Gruyter Ser. Log. Appl., vol. 11, De Gruyter, Berlin, [2023]©2023, pp. 453–478. MR4654499

    2023

  39. [47]

    L. R. Wilcox and M. F. Smiley,Metric lattices, Ann. of Math. (2)40 (1939), no. 2, 309–327, DOI 10.2307/1968920. MR1503459

    1939 doi

  40. [48]

    Wilf,Hadamard determinants, Möbius functions, and the chromatic number of a graph, Bull

    Herbert S. Wilf,Hadamard determinants, Möbius functions, and the chromatic number of a graph, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.74 (1968), 960–964, DOI 10.1090/S0002-9904-1968-12104-4. MR0229532

    1968 doi

  41. [49]

    21(1969),489–506,DOI10.1007/BF02532273

    Takemi Yanagimoto and Masashi Okamoto,Partial orderings of permutations and monotonicity of a rank correlation statistic,Ann.Inst.Statist.Math. 21(1969),489–506,DOI10.1007/BF02532273. MR0258209 Mathematics Department, Purdue University, 150 N. University Street, West Laf ayett...

    1969

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.