On a characterization of distributive lattices by the betweenness relation (Q1913873): Difference between revisions

\textit{M. Kolibiar} [Z. Math. Logik Grundl. Math. 4, 89-100 (1958; Zbl 0087.26002)] gave a characterization of (distributive) lattices in terms of a ternary relation. More precisely, he proved that a ternary relation \(R\) on a set \(L\) is a betweenness relation on \(L\) if and only if \(R\) satisfies conditions \((A)\), \((B)\), \((C)\), \((F)\) (and \((D)\)) given in his paper. \textit{J. Hedlíková} and the reviewer [Algebra Univers. 28, 389-400 (1991; Zbl 0757.06003)] showed that these conditions are independent. The conditions \((A)\), \((B)\), \((C)\) and \((D)\) are first-order properties, but \((F)\) is not. J. Hedlíková and the reviewer formulated a new condition \((F_1)\), which is a first-order property. Moreover, they asked whether the betweenness relation on (distributive) lattices is first-order axiomatizable, and in particular, whether \((A)\), \((B)\), \((C)\), \((F_1)\) (and \((D)\)) do axiomatize this relation in (distributive) lattices. The author gives a negative answer in the second case constructing a counterexample.