Complete Lattice and Concept Lattice
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am taking an online course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I'm trying to understand The Basic Theorem.
Well, if $mathscr{L}$ is a complete lattice, so $mathscr{L}cong underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ (concept lattice of context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$).
And we know that:
(*) All concept lattice are complete lattice.
My question is: When we define a formal context $(G,M,I)$, the sets $G,M$ don't have 'conditions'. What happens when I take a non-complete lattice $mathscr{L}$ and define the formal context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$? Can I do this? Is yes, so $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ is not $mathscr{L}$?
For instance. Take a non-complete lattice $(mathbb{N},leq$) and the formal context $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N},leq)$. And about the concept lattice of this context?
Thanks for a help!
formal-languages lattice-orders
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am taking an online course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I'm trying to understand The Basic Theorem.
Well, if $mathscr{L}$ is a complete lattice, so $mathscr{L}cong underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ (concept lattice of context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$).
And we know that:
(*) All concept lattice are complete lattice.
My question is: When we define a formal context $(G,M,I)$, the sets $G,M$ don't have 'conditions'. What happens when I take a non-complete lattice $mathscr{L}$ and define the formal context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$? Can I do this? Is yes, so $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ is not $mathscr{L}$?
For instance. Take a non-complete lattice $(mathbb{N},leq$) and the formal context $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N},leq)$. And about the concept lattice of this context?
Thanks for a help!
formal-languages lattice-orders
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am taking an online course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I'm trying to understand The Basic Theorem.
Well, if $mathscr{L}$ is a complete lattice, so $mathscr{L}cong underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ (concept lattice of context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$).
And we know that:
(*) All concept lattice are complete lattice.
My question is: When we define a formal context $(G,M,I)$, the sets $G,M$ don't have 'conditions'. What happens when I take a non-complete lattice $mathscr{L}$ and define the formal context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$? Can I do this? Is yes, so $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ is not $mathscr{L}$?
For instance. Take a non-complete lattice $(mathbb{N},leq$) and the formal context $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N},leq)$. And about the concept lattice of this context?
Thanks for a help!
formal-languages lattice-orders
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
I am taking an online course of Introduction to Formal Concept Analysis and I'm trying to understand The Basic Theorem.
Well, if $mathscr{L}$ is a complete lattice, so $mathscr{L}cong underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ (concept lattice of context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$).
And we know that:
(*) All concept lattice are complete lattice.
My question is: When we define a formal context $(G,M,I)$, the sets $G,M$ don't have 'conditions'. What happens when I take a non-complete lattice $mathscr{L}$ and define the formal context $(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$? Can I do this? Is yes, so $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathscr{L},mathscr{L},leq)$ is not $mathscr{L}$?
For instance. Take a non-complete lattice $(mathbb{N},leq$) and the formal context $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N},leq)$. And about the concept lattice of this context?
Thanks for a help!
formal-languages lattice-orders
formal-languages lattice-orders
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
edited Dec 1 at 14:37
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
asked Dec 1 at 14:19
Na'omi
24010
24010
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Formal concepts can be identified with certain subsets of $G$ (specifically with the closed subsets in the Galois connection induced by $I$), which are closed under taking arbitrary intersections.
Note that it is happening in the already complete lattice of the power set.
The case $(mathcal L, mathcal L, le)$ with $mathcal L$ a complete lattice is special. Then, for subsets $A, Bsubseteqmathcal L$ we have
$$forall ain A,,bin B, (ale b) iff bigvee Alebigwedge B$$
so that the subsets can be represented by single elements.
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
Berci, thank you very much for the answer. I don't know if because I don't have much knowing... But I don't understand very well the relation between your answer and my doubt about, for instance, the concept lattice $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$, remembering that $(mathbb{N}, leq)$ is NOT a complete lattice. So, $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$ is a complete lattice and it's NOT similar to $(mathbb{N}, leq)$...? How can I see this...? Thank you very much.
– Na'omi
Dec 1 at 20:22
1
Yes, in the case of $Bbb N$, it will be very similar to $Bbb N$, basically only that it's extended by an $infty$ element that makes the lattice complete, namely by the concept $(Bbb N, emptyset)$. All other concepts are of the form $({0,1,dots, n},, {n, n+1,dots})$ for some $n$, which can be identified by $Bbb N$. For a general lattice/poset, the extent is always downward closed, and the intent is upward closed.
– Berci
Dec 1 at 23:06
Oh, $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... So, the professor says: "$(mathbb{N},leq)$ is not a complete lattice because $mathbb{N}$ don't have a supremum"... So, if I understood right, the case is following: When I use sup in definition of complete lattice, I presume that this sup is ON the set (in this case, it would be $mathbb{N}$). However, this don't occur, because the unique sup I could take is $emptyset$ and $emptyset$ isn't an element of $mathbb{N}$. Altough, I can take the concept $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... It's a little confused, rs... But I thank you very much for the great help!
– Na'omi
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Formal concepts can be identified with certain subsets of $G$ (specifically with the closed subsets in the Galois connection induced by $I$), which are closed under taking arbitrary intersections.
Note that it is happening in the already complete lattice of the power set.
The case $(mathcal L, mathcal L, le)$ with $mathcal L$ a complete lattice is special. Then, for subsets $A, Bsubseteqmathcal L$ we have
$$forall ain A,,bin B, (ale b) iff bigvee Alebigwedge B$$
so that the subsets can be represented by single elements.
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
Berci, thank you very much for the answer. I don't know if because I don't have much knowing... But I don't understand very well the relation between your answer and my doubt about, for instance, the concept lattice $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$, remembering that $(mathbb{N}, leq)$ is NOT a complete lattice. So, $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$ is a complete lattice and it's NOT similar to $(mathbb{N}, leq)$...? How can I see this...? Thank you very much.
– Na'omi
Dec 1 at 20:22
1
Yes, in the case of $Bbb N$, it will be very similar to $Bbb N$, basically only that it's extended by an $infty$ element that makes the lattice complete, namely by the concept $(Bbb N, emptyset)$. All other concepts are of the form $({0,1,dots, n},, {n, n+1,dots})$ for some $n$, which can be identified by $Bbb N$. For a general lattice/poset, the extent is always downward closed, and the intent is upward closed.
– Berci
Dec 1 at 23:06
Oh, $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... So, the professor says: "$(mathbb{N},leq)$ is not a complete lattice because $mathbb{N}$ don't have a supremum"... So, if I understood right, the case is following: When I use sup in definition of complete lattice, I presume that this sup is ON the set (in this case, it would be $mathbb{N}$). However, this don't occur, because the unique sup I could take is $emptyset$ and $emptyset$ isn't an element of $mathbb{N}$. Altough, I can take the concept $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... It's a little confused, rs... But I thank you very much for the great help!
– Na'omi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Formal concepts can be identified with certain subsets of $G$ (specifically with the closed subsets in the Galois connection induced by $I$), which are closed under taking arbitrary intersections.
Note that it is happening in the already complete lattice of the power set.
The case $(mathcal L, mathcal L, le)$ with $mathcal L$ a complete lattice is special. Then, for subsets $A, Bsubseteqmathcal L$ we have
$$forall ain A,,bin B, (ale b) iff bigvee Alebigwedge B$$
so that the subsets can be represented by single elements.
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
Berci, thank you very much for the answer. I don't know if because I don't have much knowing... But I don't understand very well the relation between your answer and my doubt about, for instance, the concept lattice $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$, remembering that $(mathbb{N}, leq)$ is NOT a complete lattice. So, $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$ is a complete lattice and it's NOT similar to $(mathbb{N}, leq)$...? How can I see this...? Thank you very much.
– Na'omi
Dec 1 at 20:22
1
Yes, in the case of $Bbb N$, it will be very similar to $Bbb N$, basically only that it's extended by an $infty$ element that makes the lattice complete, namely by the concept $(Bbb N, emptyset)$. All other concepts are of the form $({0,1,dots, n},, {n, n+1,dots})$ for some $n$, which can be identified by $Bbb N$. For a general lattice/poset, the extent is always downward closed, and the intent is upward closed.
– Berci
Dec 1 at 23:06
Oh, $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... So, the professor says: "$(mathbb{N},leq)$ is not a complete lattice because $mathbb{N}$ don't have a supremum"... So, if I understood right, the case is following: When I use sup in definition of complete lattice, I presume that this sup is ON the set (in this case, it would be $mathbb{N}$). However, this don't occur, because the unique sup I could take is $emptyset$ and $emptyset$ isn't an element of $mathbb{N}$. Altough, I can take the concept $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... It's a little confused, rs... But I thank you very much for the great help!
– Na'omi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Formal concepts can be identified with certain subsets of $G$ (specifically with the closed subsets in the Galois connection induced by $I$), which are closed under taking arbitrary intersections.
Note that it is happening in the already complete lattice of the power set.
The case $(mathcal L, mathcal L, le)$ with $mathcal L$ a complete lattice is special. Then, for subsets $A, Bsubseteqmathcal L$ we have
$$forall ain A,,bin B, (ale b) iff bigvee Alebigwedge B$$
so that the subsets can be represented by single elements.
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
Formal concepts can be identified with certain subsets of $G$ (specifically with the closed subsets in the Galois connection induced by $I$), which are closed under taking arbitrary intersections.
Note that it is happening in the already complete lattice of the power set.
The case $(mathcal L, mathcal L, le)$ with $mathcal L$ a complete lattice is special. Then, for subsets $A, Bsubseteqmathcal L$ we have
$$forall ain A,,bin B, (ale b) iff bigvee Alebigwedge B$$
so that the subsets can be represented by single elements.
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
answered Dec 1 at 15:25
Berci
59.2k23671
59.2k23671
Berci, thank you very much for the answer. I don't know if because I don't have much knowing... But I don't understand very well the relation between your answer and my doubt about, for instance, the concept lattice $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$, remembering that $(mathbb{N}, leq)$ is NOT a complete lattice. So, $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$ is a complete lattice and it's NOT similar to $(mathbb{N}, leq)$...? How can I see this...? Thank you very much.
– Na'omi
Dec 1 at 20:22
1
Yes, in the case of $Bbb N$, it will be very similar to $Bbb N$, basically only that it's extended by an $infty$ element that makes the lattice complete, namely by the concept $(Bbb N, emptyset)$. All other concepts are of the form $({0,1,dots, n},, {n, n+1,dots})$ for some $n$, which can be identified by $Bbb N$. For a general lattice/poset, the extent is always downward closed, and the intent is upward closed.
– Berci
Dec 1 at 23:06
Oh, $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... So, the professor says: "$(mathbb{N},leq)$ is not a complete lattice because $mathbb{N}$ don't have a supremum"... So, if I understood right, the case is following: When I use sup in definition of complete lattice, I presume that this sup is ON the set (in this case, it would be $mathbb{N}$). However, this don't occur, because the unique sup I could take is $emptyset$ and $emptyset$ isn't an element of $mathbb{N}$. Altough, I can take the concept $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... It's a little confused, rs... But I thank you very much for the great help!
– Na'omi
2 days ago
add a comment |
Berci, thank you very much for the answer. I don't know if because I don't have much knowing... But I don't understand very well the relation between your answer and my doubt about, for instance, the concept lattice $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$, remembering that $(mathbb{N}, leq)$ is NOT a complete lattice. So, $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$ is a complete lattice and it's NOT similar to $(mathbb{N}, leq)$...? How can I see this...? Thank you very much.
– Na'omi
Dec 1 at 20:22
1
Yes, in the case of $Bbb N$, it will be very similar to $Bbb N$, basically only that it's extended by an $infty$ element that makes the lattice complete, namely by the concept $(Bbb N, emptyset)$. All other concepts are of the form $({0,1,dots, n},, {n, n+1,dots})$ for some $n$, which can be identified by $Bbb N$. For a general lattice/poset, the extent is always downward closed, and the intent is upward closed.
– Berci
Dec 1 at 23:06
Oh, $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... So, the professor says: "$(mathbb{N},leq)$ is not a complete lattice because $mathbb{N}$ don't have a supremum"... So, if I understood right, the case is following: When I use sup in definition of complete lattice, I presume that this sup is ON the set (in this case, it would be $mathbb{N}$). However, this don't occur, because the unique sup I could take is $emptyset$ and $emptyset$ isn't an element of $mathbb{N}$. Altough, I can take the concept $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... It's a little confused, rs... But I thank you very much for the great help!
– Na'omi
2 days ago
Berci, thank you very much for the answer. I don't know if because I don't have much knowing... But I don't understand very well the relation between your answer and my doubt about, for instance, the concept lattice $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$, remembering that $(mathbb{N}, leq)$ is NOT a complete lattice. So, $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$ is a complete lattice and it's NOT similar to $(mathbb{N}, leq)$...? How can I see this...? Thank you very much.
– Na'omi
Dec 1 at 20:22
Berci, thank you very much for the answer. I don't know if because I don't have much knowing... But I don't understand very well the relation between your answer and my doubt about, for instance, the concept lattice $(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$, remembering that $(mathbb{N}, leq)$ is NOT a complete lattice. So, $underline{mathfrak{B}}(mathbb{N},mathbb{N}, leq)$ is a complete lattice and it's NOT similar to $(mathbb{N}, leq)$...? How can I see this...? Thank you very much.
– Na'omi
Dec 1 at 20:22
1
1
Yes, in the case of $Bbb N$, it will be very similar to $Bbb N$, basically only that it's extended by an $infty$ element that makes the lattice complete, namely by the concept $(Bbb N, emptyset)$. All other concepts are of the form $({0,1,dots, n},, {n, n+1,dots})$ for some $n$, which can be identified by $Bbb N$. For a general lattice/poset, the extent is always downward closed, and the intent is upward closed.
– Berci
Dec 1 at 23:06
Yes, in the case of $Bbb N$, it will be very similar to $Bbb N$, basically only that it's extended by an $infty$ element that makes the lattice complete, namely by the concept $(Bbb N, emptyset)$. All other concepts are of the form $({0,1,dots, n},, {n, n+1,dots})$ for some $n$, which can be identified by $Bbb N$. For a general lattice/poset, the extent is always downward closed, and the intent is upward closed.
– Berci
Dec 1 at 23:06
Oh, $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... So, the professor says: "$(mathbb{N},leq)$ is not a complete lattice because $mathbb{N}$ don't have a supremum"... So, if I understood right, the case is following: When I use sup in definition of complete lattice, I presume that this sup is ON the set (in this case, it would be $mathbb{N}$). However, this don't occur, because the unique sup I could take is $emptyset$ and $emptyset$ isn't an element of $mathbb{N}$. Altough, I can take the concept $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... It's a little confused, rs... But I thank you very much for the great help!
– Na'omi
2 days ago
Oh, $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... So, the professor says: "$(mathbb{N},leq)$ is not a complete lattice because $mathbb{N}$ don't have a supremum"... So, if I understood right, the case is following: When I use sup in definition of complete lattice, I presume that this sup is ON the set (in this case, it would be $mathbb{N}$). However, this don't occur, because the unique sup I could take is $emptyset$ and $emptyset$ isn't an element of $mathbb{N}$. Altough, I can take the concept $(mathbb{N},emptyset)$... It's a little confused, rs... But I thank you very much for the great help!
– Na'omi
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021399%2fcomplete-lattice-and-concept-lattice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
