Lower-modular elements of the lattice of semigroup varieties. (Q2464347): Difference between revisions

An element \(a\) in a lattice \(L\) is `modular' if the `modular implication' \(x\leq z\rightarrow (x\vee y)\wedge z=x\vee(y\wedge z)\) holds in \(L\) whenever \(a\) plays the role of \(y\). Likewise it is `lower- [upper-] modular' if this implication holds whenever \(a\) plays the role of \(x\) [resp. \(z\)]. \textit{M. V. Volkov} [Contrib. Gen. Algebra 16, 275-288 (2005; Zbl 1090.20030)] answered the question of which semigroup varieties are both modular and lower-modular in the lattice \(L\) of semigroup varieties. \textit{B. M. Vernikov} and \textit{M. V. Volkov} [Contrib. Gen. Algebra 17, 173-190 (2006; Zbl 1108.20058)] answered the dual question. In the paper under review, the author shows that any proper semigroup variety that is lower-modular in \(L\) is necessarily periodic, and the greatest nil-variety that it contains must be 0-reduced (sometimes called `Rees'), that is, definable by identities of the form \(u=0\). As a result, the varieties of commutative semigroups that are lower-modular in \(L\) are found: apart from the trivial variety, they comprise the variety of semilattices, the variety of zero semigroups, and their join. Various open questions remain. For instance, is every proper lower-modular variety in \(L\) necessarily combinatorial?