7.

Varieties of Lattices

Variety is the spice of life.

A lattice equation is an expression p ≈ q where p and q are lattice terms.

Our intuitive notion of what it means for a lattice L to satisfy p ≈ q is that
p(x1 , . . . , xn ) = q(x1 , . . . , xn ) whenever elements of L are substituted for the vari-
ables. This is captured by the formal definition: L satisfies p ≈ q if h(p) = h(q) for
every homomorphism h : W (X) → L. We say that L satisfies a set Σ of equations
if L satisfies every equation in Σ. Likewise, a class K of lattices satisfies Σ if every
lattice L ∈ K does so.
As long as we are dealing entirely with lattices, there is no loss of generality in
replacing p and q by the corresponding elements of FL(X), since if terms p and
p′ evaluate the same in FL(X), then they evaluate the same for every substitution
in every lattice. In practice it is often more simple and natural to think of equa-
tions between elements in a free lattice, rather than the corresponding terms, as in
Theorem 7.2 below.
A variety (or equational class) of lattices is the class of all lattices satisfying some
set Σ of lattice equations. The class L of all lattices is defined by equations (the
idempotent, commutative, associative and absorption laws), so it forms a variety.
Contained within L are some familiar subvarieties:
(1) the variety M of modular lattices, satisfying (x∨y)∧(x∨z) ≈ x∨(z∧(x∨y));
(2) the variety D of distributive lattices, satisfying x ∧ (y ∨ z) ≈ (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z);
(3) the variety T of one-element lattices, satisfying x ≈ y (not very exciting).
If K is any class of lattices, we say that a lattice F is K-freely generated by its
subset X if
(1) F ∈ K,
(2) X generates F,
(3) for every lattice L ∈ K, every map h0 : X → L can be extended to a
homomorphism h : F → L.
A lattice is K-free if it is K-freely generated by one of its subsets, and relatively free
if it is K-free for some (unspecified) class K.
While these ideas floated around for some time before, it was Garrett Birkhoff [5]
who proved the basic theorem about varieties in the 1930’s.
Theorem 7.1. If K is a nonempty class of lattices, then the following are equiva-
lent.
(1) K is a variety.
75
 (2) K is closed under the formation of homomorphic images, sublattices and
direct products.
(3) Either K = T (the variety of one-element lattices), or for every nonempty
set X there is a lattice FK (X) that is K-freely generated by X, and K is
closed under homomorphic images.

Proof. It is easy to see that varieties are closed under homomorphic images, sublat-
tices and direct products, so (1) implies (2).
The crucial step in the equivalence, the construction of relatively free lattices
FK (X), is a straightforward adaptation of the construction of FL(X). Let K be
a class that
T is closed under the formation of sublattices and direct products, and
let κ = {θ ∈ Con W (X) : W (X)/θ ∈ K}. Following the proof of Theorem 6.1,
we can show that W (X)/κ is a subdirect product of lattices in K, and that it is
K-freely generated by {xκ : x ∈ X}. Unless K = T, the classes xκ (x ∈ X) will be
distinct. Thus (2) implies (3).
Finally, suppose that K is a class of lattices that is closed under homomorphic
images and contains a K-freely generated lattice FK (X) for every nonempty set
X. For each nonempty X there is a homomorphism fX : W (X) ։ FK (X) that is
the identity on X. Fix the countably infinite set X0 = {x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . }, and let Σ
be the collection of all equations p ≈ q such that (p, q) ∈ ker fX0 . Thus p ≈ q is
in Σ if and only if p(x1 , . . . , xn ) = q(x1 , . . . , xn ) in the countably generated lattice
FK (X0 ) ∼= FK (ω).
Let VΣ be the variety of all lattices satisfying Σ; we want to show that K = VΣ .
We formulate the critical argument as a sublemma.
Sublemma. Let FK (Y ) be a relatively free lattice. Let p, q ∈ W (Y ) and let fY :
W (Y ) ։ FK (Y ) with fY the identity on Y . Then K satisfies p ≈ q if and only if
fY (p) = fY (q).
Proof. If K satisfies p ≈ q, then fY (p) = fY (q) because FK (Y ) ∈ K. Conversely,
if fY (p) = fY (q), then by the mapping property (III) every lattice in K satisfies
p ≈ q.1 
Applying the Sublemma with Y = X0 , we conclude that K satisfies every equa-
tion of Σ, so K ⊆ VΣ .
Conversely, let L ∈ VΣ , and let X be a generating set for L. The identity map
on X extends to a surjective homomorphism h : W (X) ։ L, and we also have
the map fX : W (X) → FK (X). For any pair (p, q) ∈ ker fX , the Sublemma says
that K satisfies p ≈ q. Again by the Sublemma, there is a corresponding equation
in Σ (perhaps involving different variables). Since L ∈ VΣ this implies h(p) =
h(q). So ker fX ≤ ker h, and hence by the Second Isomorphism Theorem there is
1 However, if Y is finite and Y ⊆ Z, then FK (Y ) may satisfy equations not satisfied by FK (Z).
For example, for any lattice variety, FK (2) is distributive. The Sublemma only applies to equations
with at most |Y | variables.
76
a homomorphism g : FK (X) → L such that h = gfX . Thus L is a homomorphic
image of FK (X). Since K is closed under homomorphic images, this implies L ∈ K.
Hence VΣ ⊆ K, and equality follows. Therefore (3) implies (1). 
The three parts of Theorem 7.1 reflect three different ways of looking at varieties.
The first is to start with a set Σ of equations, and to consider the variety V (Σ) of all
lattices satisfying those equations. The given equations will in general imply other
equations, viz., all the relations holding in the relatively free lattices FV (Σ) (X). It
is important to notice that while the proof of Birkhoff’s theorem tells us abstractly
how to construct relatively free lattices, it does not tell us how to solve the word
problem for them. Consider the variety M of modular lattices. Richard Dedekind [6]
showed in the 1890’s that FM (3) has 28 elements; it is drawn in Figure 9.2. On the
other hand, Ralph Freese [9] proved in 1980 that the word problem for FM (5) is
unsolvable: there is no algorithm for determining whether p = q in FM (5). Christian
Herrmann [10] later showed that the word problem for FM (4) is also unsolvable. It
follows, by the way, that the variety of modular lattices is not generated by its finite
members:2 there is a lattice equation that holds in all finite modular lattices, but not
in all modular lattices.
Skipping to the third statement of Theorem 7.1, let V be a variety, and let κ be
the kernel of the natural homomorphism h : FL(X) → FV (X) with h(x) = x for all
x ∈ X. Then, of course, FV (X) ∼ = FL(X)/κ. We want to ask which congruences on
FL(X) arise in this way, i.e., for which θ ∈ Con FL(X) is FL(X)/θ relatively free?
To answer this, we need a couple of definitions.
An endomorphism of a lattice L is a homomorphism f : L → L. The set of
endomorphisms of L forms a semigroup End L under composition. It is worth
noting that an endomorphism of a lattice is determined by its action on a generating
set, since f (p(x1 , . . . , xn ) = p(f (x1 ), . . . , f (xn )) for any lattice term p. In particular,
an endomorphism f of FL(X) corresponds to a substitution xi 7→ f (xi ) of elements
for the generators.
A congruence relation θ is fully invariant if (x, y) ∈ θ implies (f (x), f (y)) ∈ θ for
every endomorphism f of L. The fully invariant congruences of L can be thought
of as the congruence relations of the algebra L∗ = (L, ∧, ∨, {f : f ∈ End L}). In
particular, they form an algebraic lattice, in fact a complete sublattice of Con L.
The answer to our question, in these terms, is again due to Garrett Birkhoff [4].
Theorem 7.2. FL(X)/θ is relatively freely generated by {xθ : x ∈ X} if and only
if θ is fully invariant.
Proof. Let V be a lattice variety and let h : FL(X) → FV (X) with h(x) = x for
all x ∈ X. Then h(p) = h(q) if and only if V satisfies p ≈ q (as in the Sublemma).

2 If a variety V of algebras (1) has only finitely many operation symbols, (2) is finitely based,
and (3) is generated by its finite members, then the word problem for FV (X) is solvable. This
result is due to A. I. Malcev for groups; see T. Evans [7].
77
Hence, for any endomorphism f and elements p, q ∈ FL(X), if h(p) = h(q) then

hf (p) = h(f (p(x1 , . . . , xn ))) = h(p(f (x1 ), . . . , f (xn )))

= h(q(f (x1 ), . . . , f (xn )))
= h(f (q(x1 , . . . , xn ))) = hf (q)

so that (f (p), f (q)) ∈ ker h. Thus the congruence ker h is fully invariant.
Conversely, assume that θ is a fully invariant congruence on FL(X). If θ =
1Con FL(X) , then θ is fully invariant and FL(X)/θ is relatively free for the trivial
variety T. So without loss of generality, θ is not the universal relation. Let k :
FL(X) → FL(X)/θ be the canonical homomorphism with ker k = θ. Let V be the
variety determined by the set of equations Σ = {p ≈ q : (p, q) ∈ θ}. To show that
FL(X)/θ is V-freely generated by {xθ : x ∈ X}, we must verify that
(1) FL(X)/θ ∈ V, and
(2) if M ∈ V and h0 : X → M , then there is a homomorphism h : FL(X)/θ →
M such that h(xθ) = h0 (x), i.e., hk(x) = h0 (x) for all x ∈ X.
For (1), we must show that the lattice FL(X)/θ satisfies every equation of Σ, i.e.,
that if p(x1 , . . . , xn ) θ q(x1 , . . . , xn ) and w1 , . . . , wn are elements of FL(X), then
p(w1 , . . . , wn ) θ q(w1 , . . . , wn ). Since there is an endomorphism f of FL(X) with
f (xi ) = wi for all i, this follows from the fact that θ is fully invariant.
To prove (2), let g : FL(X) → M be the homomorphism such that g(x) = h0 (x)
for all x ∈ X. Since M is in V, g(p) = g(q) whenever p ≈ q is in Σ, and thus
θ = ker k ≤ ker g. By the Second Isomorphism Theorem, there is a homomorphism
h : FL(X)/θ → M such that hk = g, as desired. 
It follows that varieties of lattices are in one-to-one correspondence with fully
invariant congruences on FL(ω). The consequences of this fact can be summarized
as follows.
Theorem 7.3. The set of all lattice varieties ordered by containment forms a lattice
Λ that is dually isomorphic to the lattice of all fully invariant congruences of FL(ω).
Thus Λ is dually algebraic, and a variety V is dually compact in Λ if and only if
V = V (Σ) for some finite set of equations Σ.
Going back to statement (2) of Theorem 7.1, the third way of looking at varieties
is model theoretic: a variety is a class of lattices closed under the operators H
(homomorphic images), S (sublattices) and P (direct products). Now elementary
arguments show that, for any class K,

PS(K) ⊆ SP(K)
PH(K) ⊆ HP(K)
SH(K) ⊆ HS(K).
78
Thus the smallest variety containing a class K of lattices is HSP(K), the class of all
homomorphic images of sublattices of direct products of lattices in K. We refer to
HSP(K) as the variety generated by K. We can think of HSP as a closure operator,
but not an algebraic one: Λ is not upper continuous, so it cannot be algebraic (see
Exercise 6). The many advantages of this point of view will soon become apparent.
Lemma 7.4. Two lattice varieties are equal if and only if they contain the same
subdirectly irreducible lattices.
Proof. Recall from Theorem 5.6 that every lattice L is a subdirect product of sub-
directly irreducible lattices L/ϕ with ϕ completely meet irreducible in Con L.
Suppose V and K are varieties, and that the subdirectly irreducible lattices of V
are all in K. Then for any X the relatively free lattice FV (X), being a subdirect
product of subdirectly irreducible lattices FV (X)/ϕ in V, is a subdirect product of
lattices in K. Hence FV (X) ∈ K and V ⊆ K. The lemma follows by symmetry. 
This leads us directly to a crucial question: If K is a set of lattices, how can
we find the subdirectly irreducible lattices in HSP(K)? The answer, due to Bjarni
Jónsson, requires that we once again venture into the world of logic.
Let us recall that a filter (or dual ideal) of a lattice L with greatest element 1 is
a subset F of L such that
(1) 1 ∈ F ,
(2) x, y ∈ F implies x ∧ y ∈ F ,
(3) z ≥ x ∈ F implies z ∈ F .
For any x ∈ L, the set ↑ x is called a principal filter. As an example of a nonprincipal
filter, in the lattice P(X) of all subsets of an infinite set X we have the filter F of all
complements of finite subsets of X. A maximal proper filter is called an ultrafilter.
We want to describe an important type of congruence relation on direct products.
Let Li (i ∈ I) be lattices, and let F be a filter on the lattice
Q of subsets P(I). We
define an equivalence relation ≡F on the direct product i∈I Li by

x ≡F y if {i ∈ I : xi = yi } ∈ F.

A routine check shows that ≡F is a congruence relation.

Lemma 7.5. (1) Let L be a lattice, F a filter on L, and a 6∈ F . Then there exists
a filter G on L maximal with respect to the properties F ⊆ G and a 6∈ G.
(2) A proper filter U on P(I) is an ultrafilter if and only if for every A ⊆ I,
either A ∈ U or I − A ∈ U .
(3) If U is an ultrafilter on P(I), then its complement P(I) − U is a maximal
proper ideal.
(4) If U is an ultrafilter and A1 ∪ · · · ∪ An ∈ U , then Ai ∈ U for some i.
(5) An ultrafilter U is nonprincipal if and only if it contains the filter of all
complements of finite subsets of I.
79
Proof. Part (1) is a straightforward Zorn’s Lemma argument. Moreover, it is clear
that a proper filter U is maximal if and only if for every A ∈ / U there exists B ∈ U
such that A ∩ B = ∅, i.e., B ⊆ I − A. For if F is a filter and A is a subset of I with
the property that A ∈ / F and A ∩ B 6= ∅ for all B ∈ F , then the filter G generated
by F ∪ {A} does not contain ∅, and G ⊃ F properly. Thus U is an ultrafilter if
and only if A ∈/ U implies I − A ∈ U , which is (2). DeMorgan’s Laws then yield
(3), which in turn implies (4). It follows from (4) that if an ultrafilter U on I
contains a finite set, then it contains a singleton {i0 }, and hence is principal with
U =↑ {i0 } = {A ⊆ I : i0 ∈ A}. Conversely, if U is a principal ultrafilter ↑ S, then
S must be a singleton. Thus an ultrafilter is nonprincipal if and only if it contains
no finite set, which by (2) means that it contains the complement of every finite
set. 
Corollary. If I is an infinite set, then there is a nonprincipal ultrafilter on P(I).
Proof. Apply Lemma 7.5(1) with L = P(I), F the filter of all complements of finite
subsets of I, and a = ∅. 
Q
If F is a filter on P(I), the quotient
Q lattice i∈I Li / ≡F is called a reduced
product. If U is an ultrafilter, then i∈I Li / ≡U is an ultraproduct. The interesting
case is when U is a nonprincipal ultrafilter. Good references on reduced products
and ultraproducts are [3] and [8].
Our next immediate goal is to investigate what properties are preserved by the
ultraproduct construction. In order to be precise, we begin with a slough of defini-
tions, reserving comment for later.
The elements of a first order language for lattices are
(1) a countable alphabet X with members denoted x, y, z, . . . ,
(2) equations p ≈ q with p, q ∈ W (X),
(3) logical connectives and, or, and ¬,
(4) quantifiers ∀x and ∃x for all x ∈ X.
These symbols can be combined appropriately to form well formed formulas (wffs)
by the following rules.
(1) Every equation p ≈ q is a wff.
(2) If α and β are wffs, then so are (¬α), (α and β) and (α or β).
(3) If γ is a wff and x ∈ X, then (∀xγ) and (∃xγ) are wffs.
(4) Only expressions generated by the first three rules are wffs.
Now let L be a lattice, let h : W (X) → L be a homomorphism, and let ϕ be a
well formed formula. We say that the pair (L, h) models ϕ, written symbolically as
(L, h) |= ϕ, according to the following recursive definition. By way of notation, for
g : W (X) → L and Y ⊆ X, g|Y denotes the restriction of g to Y .
(1) (L, h) |= p ≈ q if h(p) = h(q), i.e., if p(h(x1 ), . . . , h(xn )) = q(h(x1 ), . . . , h(xn )).
(2) (L, h) |= (¬α) if (L, h) does not model α (written (L, h) 6|= α).
(3) (L, h) |= (α and β) if (L, h) |= α and (L, h) |= β.
80
 (4) (L, h) |= (α or β) if (L, h) |= α or (L, h) |= β (or both).
(5) (L, h) |= (∀xγ) if (L, g) |= γ for every g such that g|X−{x} = h|X−{x} .
(6) (L, h) |= (∃xγ) if (L, g) |= γ for some g such that g|X−{x} = h|X−{x} .
Finally, L satisfies ϕ if (L, h) models ϕ for every homomorphism h : W (X) → L.
We are particularly interested in well formed formulas ϕ for which all the variables
appearing in ϕ are quantified (by ∀ or ∃). The set Fϕ of variables that occur freely
in ϕ is defined recursively as follows.
(1) For an equation, Fp≈q is the set of all variables that actually appear in p or
q.
(2) F¬α = Fα .
(3) Fα and β = Fα ∪ Fβ .
(4) Fα or β = Fα ∪ Fβ .
(5) F∀xα = Fα − {x}.
(6) F∃xα = Fα − {x}.
A first order sentence is a well formed formula ϕ such that Fϕ is empty, i.e., no
variable occurs freely in ϕ. It is not hard to show inductively that, for a given
lattice L and any well formed formula ϕ, whether or not (L, h) |= ϕ is true depends
only on the values of h|Fϕ , i.e., if g|Fϕ = h|Fϕ , then (L, g) |= ϕ iff (L, h) |= ϕ. So if
ϕ is a sentence, then either L satisfies ϕ or L satisfies ¬ϕ.
Now some comments are in order. First of all, we did not include the predicate
p ≤ q because we can capture it with the equation p ∨ q ≈ q. Likewise, the logical
connective =⇒ is omitted because (α =⇒ β) is equivalent to (¬α) or β. On the
other hand, our language is redundant because or can be eliminated by the use of
DeMorgan’s law, and ∃xϕ is equivalent to ¬∀x(¬ϕ).
Secondly, for any well formed formula ϕ, a lattice L satisfies ϕ if and only if it
satisfies the sentence ∀xi1 . . . ∀xik ϕ where the quantification runs over the variables
in Fϕ . Thus we can consistently speak of a lattice satisfying an equation or Whit-
man’s condition, for example, when what we really have in mind is the corresponding
universally quantified sentence.
Fortunately, our intuition about what sort of properties can be expressed as first
order sentences, and what it means for a lattice to satisfy a sentence ϕ, tends to be
pretty good, particularly after we have seen a lot of examples. With this in mind,
let us list some first order properties.
(1) L satisfies p ≈ q.
(2) L satisfies the semidistributive laws (SD∨ ) and (SD∧ ).
(3) L satisfies Whitman’s condition (W ).
(4) L has width 7.
(5) L has at most 7 elements.
(6) L has exactly 7 elements.
(7) L is isomorphic to M5 .
And, of course, we can do negations and finite conjunctions and disjunctions of
81
these. The sort of things that cannot be expressed by first order sentences includes
the following.
(1) L is finite.
(2) L satisfies the ACC.
(3) L has finite width.
(4) L is subdirectly irreducible.
Now we are in a position to state for lattices the fundamental theorem about
ultraproducts, due to J. Los in 1955 [14].
Theorem 7.6. Let ϕ be a first order lattice Q sentence, Li (i ∈ I) lattices, and U
an ultrafilter on P(I). Then the ultraproduct i∈I Li / ≡U satisfies ϕ if and only if
{i ∈ I : Li satisfies ϕ} is in U .
Q
Corollary. If each Li satisfies ϕ, then so does the ultraproduct i∈I Li / ≡U .

Q Li (i ∈ I) and an ultrafilter U
Proof. Suppose we have a collection of lattices
on P(I). The elements of the ultraproduct Q i∈I Li /Q ≡U are equivalence classes
of elements of the direct product.
Q Let µ : Li → Li / ≡U be the canonical
homomorphism, and let πj : Li → Lj denote the projection map. We will prove
the following claim, which includes Theorem 7.6.
Q
Claim. Let h : W Q (X) → i∈I Li be a homomorphism, and let ϕ be a well formed
formula. Then ( Li / ≡U , µh) |= ϕ if and only if {i ∈ I : (Li , πi h) |= ϕ} ∈ U .
We proceed by induction on the complexity of ϕ. In view of the observations
above (e.g., DeMorgan’s Laws), it suffices to treat equations, and, ¬ and ∀. The
first three are quite straightforward.
Q
Note that for a, b ∈ Li we have µ(a) = µ(b) if and only if {i : πi (a) = πi (b)} ∈
U . Thus, for an equation p ≈ q, we have
Y
( Li / ≡U , µh) |= p ≈ q iff µh(p) = µh(q)
iff {i : πi h(p) = πi h(q)} ∈ U
iff {i : (Li , πi h) |= p ≈ q} ∈ U.

.
For a conjunction α and β, using A ∩ B ∈ U iff A ∈ U and B ∈ U , we have
Y Y Y
( Li / ≡U , µh) |= α and β iff ( Li / ≡U , µh) |= α and ( Li / ≡U , µh) |= β
iff {i : (Li , πi h) |= α} ∈ U and {i : (Li , πi h) |= β} ∈ U
iff {i : (Li , πi h) |= α and β} ∈ U.

.
82
 For a negation ¬α, using the fact that A ∈ U iff I − A ∈
/ U , we have
Y Y
( Li / ≡U , µh) |= ¬α iff ( Li / ≡U , µh) 6|= α
iff {i : (Li , πi h) |= α} ∈
/U
iff {j : (Lj , πj h) 6|= α} ∈ U
iff {j : (Lj , πj h) |= ¬α} ∈ U.

.
Finally, we consider the case when ϕ has the Q form ∀xγ. First, assume A = {i :
(Li , πi h) |= ∀xγ} ∈ U , and let g : W (X) → Li be a homomorphism such that
µg|X−{x} = µh|X−{x} . This means that for each y ∈ X − {x}, the set By = {j :
πj g(y) = πj h(y)} ∈ T U . Since Fγ is a finite set and U is closed under intersection,
it follows that B = y∈Fγ −{x} By = {j : πj g(y) = πj h(y) for all y ∈ Fγ − {x}} ∈
U . Therefore A ∩ B = {i : (Li , πi h) |= ∀xγ and πi g|FγQ −{x} = πi h|Fγ −{x} } ∈ U .
Hence
Q {i : (L i , π i g) |= γ} ∈ U , and so by induction ( Li / ≡U , µg) |= γ. Thus
( Li / ≡U , µh) |= ∀xγ, as desired.
Conversely, suppose A = {i : (Li , πi h) |= ∀xγ} ∈ / U . Then the complement
I − A = {j : (Lj , πj h) 6|= ∀xγ} ∈ U . For each j ∈ I − A, there is a homomorphism
gj : W (X)Q→ Lj such that gj |X−{x} = πj h|X−{x} and (Lj , gj ) 6|= γ. Let g :
W (X) → Li be a homomorphismQ gj for all j ∈ I − A. Then
such that πj g = Q
µg|X−{x} = µh|X−{x} but ( Li / ≡U , µg) 6|= γ. Thus ( Li / ≡U , µh) 6|= ∀xγ.
This completes the proof of Lemma 7.6. 

To our operators H, S and P let us add a fourth: Pu (K) is the class of all
ultraproducts of lattices from K. Finally we get to answer the question: Where do
subdirectly irreducibles come from?
Theorem 7.7. Jónsson’s Lemma. Let K be a class of lattices. If L is subdirectly
irreducible and L ∈ HSP(K), then L ∈ HSPu (K).
Proof.QNow L ∈ HSP(K) means that there are lattices Ki ∈ K (i ∈ I), a sublattice
S of i∈I Ki , and a surjective homomorphism h : S ։ L. If we also assume that
L is finitely subdirectly irreducible (this suffices), then ker h is meet irreducible in
Con S. Since Con S is distributive, this makes ker h meet prime, i.e., ϕ ∧ ψ ≤ ker h
implies ϕ ≤ ker h or ψ ≤ ker h. Q
For any J ⊆ I, let πJ be the kernel of the projection of S onto j∈J Kj . Thus
for a, b ∈ S we have a πJ b iff aj = bj for all j ∈ J. Note that H ⊇ J implies
πH ≤ πJ , and that πJ∪K = πJ ∧ πK .
Let H = {J ⊆ I : πJ ≤ ker h}. By the preceding observations,
(1) I ∈ H and ∅ ∈/ H,
(2) H is an order filter in P(I),
(3) J ∪ K ∈ H implies J ∈ H or K ∈ H.
83
However, H need not be a (lattice) filter. Let us therefore consider

Q = {F ⊆ P(I) : F is a filter on P(I) and F ⊆ H}.

By Zorn’s Lemma, Q contains a maximal member with respect to set inclusion, say
U . Let us show that U is an ultrafilter.
If not, then by Lemma 7.5(2) there exists A ⊆ I such that A and I − A are both
not in U . By the maximality of U , this means that there exists a subset X ∈ U
such that A ∩ X ∈ / H. Similarly, there is a Y ∈ U such that (I − A) ∩ Y ∈
/ H. Let
Z = X ∩ Y . Then Z ∈ U , and hence Z ∈ H. However, A ∩ Z ⊆ A ∩ X, whence
A∩Z ∈ / H by (2) above. Likewise (I − A) ∩ Z ∈/ H. But

(A ∩ Z) ∪ ((I − A) ∩ Z) = Z ∈ H,

contradicting (3). Thus

Q U is an ultrafilter.
Now ≡U ∈ Con Ki , and its restriction
Q is a congruence on S. Moreover, S/ ≡U
is (isomorphic to) a sublattice of Ki / ≡U . If a, b are any pair of elements of S
such that a ≡U b, then J = {i : ai = bi } ∈ U . This implies J ∈ H and so πJ ≤ ker h,
whence h(a) = h(b). Thus the restriction of ≡U to S is below ker h, wherefore
L = h(S) is a homomorphic image of S/ ≡U . We conclude that L ∈ HSPu (K). 
The proof of Jónsson’s Lemma [12] uses the distributivity of Con L in a crucial
way, and its conclusion is not generally true for varieties of algebras that do not have
distributive congruence lattices. This means that varieties of lattices are more well-
behaved than varieties of other algebras, such as groups and rings. The applications
below will indicate some aspects of this.
Lemma 7.8. Let U be an ultrafilterQ on P(I) and J ∈ U . Then VQ= {B ⊆ J : B ∈
U } is an ultrafilter on P(J), and j∈J Lj / ≡V is isomorphic to i∈I Li / ≡U .
Proof. V is clearly a proper filter. Moreover, if A ⊆ J and A ∈ / V , then I − A ∈ U
and hence J − A = J ∩ (I − A) ∈ U . It follows by Lemma 7.5(2) that V is an
ultrafilter. Q Q
The projection ρJ : i∈I Li ։ j∈J Lj is a surjective homomorphism. As A ∩
Q
J ∈ UQif and only if A ∈ U , it induces a (well defined) isomorphism of i∈I Li / ≡U
onto j∈J Lj / ≡V . 
Theorem 7.9. Let K = {K1 , . . . , Kn } be a finite collection of finite lattices. If L
is a subdirectly irreducible lattice in the variety HSP(K), then L ∈ HS(Kj ) for some
j.
Proof. ByQJónsson’s Lemma, L is a homomorphic image of a sublattice of an ultra-
product i∈I Li / ≡U with each Li isomorphic to one of K1 , . . . , Kn . Let Aj = {i ∈
I : Li ∼
= Kj }. As A1 ∪ · · · ∪ An = I ∈ U , by Lemma 7.5(4) there is a j such that
Aj ∈ U . But then Lemma 7.8 says that there is an ultrafilter V on P(Aj ) such that
84
 Q
the original ultraproduct is isomorphic to k∈Aj Lk / ≡V , wherein each Lk ∼ = Kj .
However, for any finite lattice K there is a first order sentence ϕK suchQthat a lattice
M satisfies ϕK if and only if M ∼ = K. Therefore, by Los’ Theorem, k∈Aj Lk / ≡V
is isomorphic to Kj . Hence L ∈ HS(Kj ), as claimed. 
Since a variety is determined by its subdirectly irreducible members, we have the
following consequence.
Corollary. If V = HSP(K) where K is a finite collection of finite lattices, then V
contains only finitely many subvarieties.
Note that HSP({K1 , . . . , Kn }) = HSP(K1 × · · · × Kn ), so w.l.o.g. we can talk
about the variety generated by a single finite lattice. The author has shown that
the converse of the Corollary is false [18]: There is an infinite, subdirectly irreducible
lattice L such that HSP(L) has only finitely many subvarieties, each of which is
generated by a finite lattice.
There are many other consequences of Jónsson’s Lemma, especially for varieties
of modular lattices. Many contributors combined to develop an elegant theory of
lattice varieties, which we will not attempt to survey. The standard reference on
the subject is the book of Peter Jipsen and Henry Rose [11].
Let us call a variety V finitely based if V = V (Σ) for some finite set of equations
Σ. These are just the varieties that are dually compact in the lattice Λ of lattice
varieties. Ralph McKenzie [15] proved the following nice result.
Theorem 7.10. The variety generated by a finite lattice is finitely based.
Kirby Baker [1] generalized this result by showing that if A is any finite algebra
in a variety V such that (i) V has only finitely many operation symbols, and (ii)
the congruence lattices of algebras in V are distributive, then HSP(A) is finitely
based. It is also true that the variety generated by a finite group is finitely based
(S. Oates and M. B. Powell [19]), and likewise the variety generated by a finite
ring (R. Kruse [13]). See R. McKenzie [16] for a common generalization of these
finite basis theorems. There are many natural examples of finite algebras that do
not generate a finitely based variety; see, e.g., G. McNulty [17]. A good survey of
finite basis results is R. Willard [20].
We will return to the varieties generated by some particular finite lattices in the
next chapter.
If V is a lattice variety, let Vsi be the class of subdirectly irreducible lattices in
V. The next result is proved by a straightforward modification of the first part of
the proof of Theorem 7.9.
Theorem 7.11. If V and W are lattice varieties, then (V ∨ W)si = Vsi ∪ Wsi .
Corollary. Λ is distributive.
Theorem 7.11 does not extend to infinite joins. For example, finite lattices gen-
erate the variety of all lattices (see Exercise 6) but there are infinite subdirectly
85
irreducible lattices. We already knew the Corollary by Theorem 7.3, because Λ
is dually isomorphic to a sublattice of Con FL(ω), which is distributive, but this
provides an interesting way of looking at it.
In closing let us consider the lattice I(L) of ideals of L. An elementary argument
shows that the map x →↓ x embeds L into I(L). A classic theorem of Garrett
Birkhoff [4] says that I(L) satisfies every identity satisfied by L, i.e., I(L) ∈ HSP(L).
The following result of Kirby Baker and Alfred Hales [2] goes one better.
Theorem 7.12. For any lattice L, we have I(L) ∈ HSPu (L).
This is an ideal place to stop.

Exercises for Chapter 7

1. Show that fully invariant congruences form a complete sublattice of Con L.
2. Let L be a lattice and V a lattice variety. Show that there is a unique minimum
congruence ρV on L such that L/ρV ∈ V.
3. (a) Prove that if L is a subdirectly irreducible lattice, then HSP(L) is (finitely)
join irreducible in the lattice Λ of lattice varieties.
(b) Prove that if a variety V is completely join irreducible in Λ, then V = HSP(K)
for some finitely generated, subdirectly irreducible lattice K. Q
4. Show that if F is a filter on P(I), then ≡F is a congruence relation on i∈I Li .
5. (a) Show that if F is a filter on P(I), then F is the intersection of the
ultrafilters U such that U ⊇ F . Q
(b) Then prove that the congruence ≡F on i∈I Li is the intersection of congru-
ences ≡U with U an ultrafilter. Q
(c) Conclude Q that the reduced product i∈I Li / ≡F is a subdirect product of
ultraproducts i∈I Li / ≡U .
6. Prove that every lattice equation that does not hold in all lattices fails in some
finite lattice. (Let p 6= q in FL(X).
V Then there exist a finite join subsemilattice S of
FL(X) containing p, q and 0 = X, and a lattice homomorphism h : FL(X) → S,
such that h(p) = p and h(q) = q.)
The standard solution to Exercise 6 involves lattices which turn out to be lower
bounded (see Exercise 11 of Chapter 6). Hence they satisfy SD∨ , and any finite
collection of them generates a variety not containing M3 , while all together they
generate the variety of all lattices. On the other hand, the variety generated by M3
contains only the variety D of distributive lattices (generated by 2) and the trivial
variety T. It follows that the lattice Λ of lattice varieties is not join continuous.
7. Give a first order sentence characterizing each of the following properties of a
lattice L (i.e., L has the property iff L |= ϕ).
(a) L has a least element.
(b) L is atomic.
(c) L is strongly atomic.
86
 (d) L is weakly atomic.
(e) L has no covering relations.
8. A lattice L has breadth n if L contains n elements whose join is irredundant,
but every join of n + 1 elements of L is redundant.
(a) Give a first order sentence characterizing lattices of breadth n (for a fixed
finite integer n ≥ 1).
(b) Show that the class of lattices of breadth ≤ n is not a variety.
(c) Show that a lattice L and its dual Ld have the same breadth.
9. Give a first order sentence ϕ such that a lattice L satisfies ϕ if and only if L
is isomorphic to the four element lattice 2 × 2.
10. Prove Theorem 7.11.
11. Prove that I(L) is distributive if and only if L is distributive. Similarly, show
that I(L) is modular if and only if L is modular.

References
1. K. Baker, Finite equational bases for finite algebras in a congruence-distributive equational
class, Advances in Math. 24 (1977), 207–243.
2. K. Baker and A. W. Hales, From a lattice to its ideal lattice, Algebra Universalis 4 (1974),
250–258.
3. J. L. Bell and A. B. Slomson, Models and Ultraproducts: an Introduction, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1971.
4. G. Birkhoff, On the lattice theory of ideals, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40 (1934), 613–619.
5. G. Birkhoff, On the structure of abstract algebras, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 31 (1935),
433–454.
6. R. Dedekind, Über die drei Moduln erzeugte Dualgruppe, Math. Annalen 53 (1900), 371–403.
7. T. Evans, Some connections between residual finiteness, finite embeddability and the word
problem, J. London. Math. Soc. (2) 2 (1969), 399–403.
8. T. Frayne, A. Morel and D. Scott, Reduced direct products, Fund. Math. 51 (1962), 195–228.
9. R. Freese, Free modular lattices, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 261 (1980), 81–91.
10. C. Herrmann, Uber die von vier Moduln erzeugte Dualgruppe, Abh. Braunschweig. Wiss. Ges.
33 (1982), 157–159.
11. P. Jipsen and H. Rose, Varieties of Lattices, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1533, Springer,
Berlin-New York, 1991.
12. B. Jónsson, Algebras whose congruence lattices are distributive, Math. Scand. 21 (1967), 110–
121.
13. R. Kruse, Identities satisfied by a finite ring, J. Algebra 26 (1973), 298–318.
14. J. Los, Quelques remarques, théorèmes et problèmes sur le classes définissables d’algèbras,
Mathematical interpretations of formal systems, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1955.
15. R. McKenzie, Equational bases for lattice theories, Math. Scand. 27 (1970), 24–38.
16. R. McKenzie, Finite equational bases for congruence modular varieties, Algebra Universalis
24 (1987), 224-250.
17. G. McNulty, How to construct finite algebras which are not finitely based, Universal Algebra
and Lattice Theory (Charleston, S.C., 1984), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1149, Springer,
Berlin-New York, 1985, pp. 167–174.
18. J. B. Nation, A counterexample to the finite height conjecture, Order 13 (1996), 1–9.
19. S. Oates and M. B. Powell, Identical relations in finite groups, J. Algebra 1 (1964), 11–39.
87
20. R. Willard, The finite basis problem, Contributions to General Algebra, vol. 15, Heyn, Kla-
genfurt, 2004, pp. 199–206.

88