Full does not imply strong, does it? (Q2577745): Difference between revisions
From MaRDI portal
Set profile property. |
Set OpenAlex properties. |
||
| Property / full work available at URL | |||
| Property / full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00012-005-1918-0 / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
| Property / OpenAlex ID | |||
| Property / OpenAlex ID: W1987286443 / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
Latest revision as of 23:45, 19 March 2024
scientific article
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Full does not imply strong, does it? |
scientific article |
Statements
Full does not imply strong, does it? (English)
0 references
6 January 2006
0 references
An important open question in the theory of natural dualities [cf. \textit{D. M. Clark} and \textit{B. A. Davey}, Natural dualities for the working algebraist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1998; Zbl 0910.08001)] is whether every full duality is strong. The paper shows that this is not true at the finite level. Since the counterexample is not full it also shows that there is no full duality compactness theorem (although there is a duality compactness one).
0 references
natural duality
0 references
entailment
0 references
full duality
0 references
strong duality
0 references
distributive lattices
0 references
