Zero divisor graph of a lattice and its unique ideal (Q2300004)

In this paper, the authors consider the zero divisor graph of a lattice with 0. The following theorem is proved?? Theorem. Let \(L\) be a nondiamond lattice with the least element 0 and having a finite set of atoms. Then there exists a finite, distributive and uniquely complemented ideal \(B\) of \(L\) such that \(A(L) = A(B)\) (where \(A(X)\) denotes the set of atoms in \(X\)). This theorem is wrong. In general, it is not true that the ideal generated by a finite number of elements is finite. It is not proved why this ideal is distributive and complemented. Even in the case of a finite lattice, the ideal generated by the set of all atoms need not be distributive and uniquely complemented. For example consider the lattice \(n_5 = \{0, 1, a, b, c\}\) with \(b < c\) and \(a\) incomparable with \(b\) and \(c\). This lattice has two atoms \(a\) and \(b\) and the ideal generated by \(\{a, b\}\) is \(n_5\), which is neither distributive nor uniquely complemented. Examples 2 and 3 are also wrong. The set \(B\) in these examples is not an ideal. Theorem 8 and 9(1) are the same and \(B = L\). The definition of \(D_n\) itself implies that it in neither distributive nor uniquely complemented. In Theorem 11, why is \(a_1\) adjacent to \(a_i \vee a_j\) for \(i,j \neq 1\)? Thus Theorem 11 is also not valid. An example can be constructed to show that the conclusion in Proposition 9 need not hold. The paper is full of errors. Even the affiliation of the authors is wrong!!! Editorial remark: The affilation is corrected in the erratum.