Talk:Modular lattice

message: I have added three SVG images to the article. I think the first should be unproblematic. With the other two I ran into a problem with broken Unicode support. I tried to include ∧ and ∨ (using the codes ∧ and ∨), but they only displayed as boxes. Therefore I had to draw these symbols. I hope that the standard font in SVG is sufficiently standardised that this is not going to be a problem. If you are seeing unusual spacing in the formulas in these pictures, please tell me about the problem so I can address it or rethink my approach, as appropriate.
Of course, if you have a solution for using Unicode in SVG and can tell me how to do it, that's even better. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They look ok to me. You must not have a full set of unicode fonts installed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG images 

message: the lede posts a formula without defining the symbols involved first. I will probably come later to fix that but if someone wants to start already...  franklin  23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it makes much sense to define the operations here. A reader who doesn't know what a lattice is is not going to be illuminated by such an explanation. A reader who does know what a lattice is should be familiar with the notation. The lead has a prominent link to lattice (order), which of course defines the operations. Hans Adler 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

text: * It doesn't even say that those symbols are the operations of the lattice. It doesn't even read as a technical writing in math less for Wikipedia.  franklin  02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbol a remains undefined even now.  Perhaps we need to add "for any element a" to the formula?  yoyo (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  undefined symbols 

message: The article gives the modular law as 
"a ≤ b implies a ∨ (x ∧ b) = (a ∨ x) ∧ b"
which is fine. But if I hover over a link to Modular lattice, I see it as 
"a ≤ b implies a ∨ = ∧ b"
which is nonsense. I wonder if there's a way to fix this? Maproom (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a problem with "=" appearing in the short description. I would fix it, but the short description seems to be imported from god knows where. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hover link 

message: Would it be too much to ask that the N5 "Example" (and associated figure) use the same notation as the "Introduction". That is, a≤b implies forall.x ...
Same comment for the notation in the "Properties" section, where now we have a "c", instead of an "x", and the identification of {a,b,c} is an unnecessary permutation of the earlier introduced {a,b,x}.
Same comment for the labeling of the counterexample figure in the "Diamond isomorphism theorem" section, where we have x≤b, rather than a≤b.
These notational inconsistencies are a serious impediment to those who have come to the article to learn the concept. ScriboErgoSum (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent notation 

message: The article currently defines a modular element to be a right modular element.  While I am aware that certain sources make this definition, they do so in the context of geometric or semimodular lattices, where right modularity implies left modularity.  Other sources (see e.g. Stanley Supersolvable lattices or Schmidt Subgroup lattices of groups) define a modular element to be one that is both right and left modular.  Comment that since right modularity is not a self-dual property, there are two variants of any definition involving right modularity.  Perhaps it would be better to mention the inconsistency in the article, or else to avoid the terminology altogether? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Boldly implemented: changed "modular element" to "right modular element", and also defined left modular element.  I've found also authors (e.g. Orlik and Terao) that define a modular element to be a left modular one.  This portion of the article is mostly unsourced and has some other problems, which I did not try to fix just now. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your recent edit (I'm not an expert in the field of modular lattices, however). Could you add some text (footnotes) to mention the alternate terminology ("" vs.  from above; and maybe more variants you are aware of)? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , I tried to follow your suggestion, while keeping with the general style of the rest of the article.  Is this about what you were thinking?  Separately, it might also be worthwhile (and a small change) to make left modularity a little more prominent in the article; my sense is that it is the more important of the two notions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Right) modular elements