Here are some additional examples of lattices.
A familiar example
Consider the following lattice.
Does this lattice look at all familiar to you? From some other area of mathematics, perhaps?
%%hidden(Reveal the truth):
In fact, this lattice corresponds to boolean logic, as can be seen when we replace b with true and a with false in the following "truth table".
%%comment: Latex source: \begin{tabular} {| c | c | c | c |} \hline $x$ & $y$ & $x \vee y$ & $x \wedge y$ \\ \hline $a$ & $a$ & $a$ & $a$ \\ \hline $a$ & $b$ & $b$ & $a$ \\ \hline $b$ & $a$ & $b$ & $a$ \\ \hline $b$ & $b$ & $b$ & $b$ \\ \hline \end{tabular} %%
%%
Normal subgroups
Let be a group, and let be the set of all normal subgroups of . Then is a lattice where for , , and .
%%hidden(Proof):
Let . Then . We first note that is a subgroup of . For let . Since is a group, , and , we have . Likewise, . Combining these, we have , and so is satisfies the closure requirement for subgroups. Since and are groups, , and , we have and . Hence, , and so satisfies the inverses requirement for subgroups. Since and are subgroups of , we have and . Hence, we have , and so satisfies the identity requirement for subgroups.
Furthermore, is a normal subgroup, because for all , . It's clear from the definition of intersection that and do not share a common subset larger than .
For , we have .
First we will show that is a group. For , since , there is some such that . Hence, , and so is closed under 's group action. For , we have , and so is closed under inversion. Since and , we have . Finally, inherits its associativity from .
To see that is a normal subgroup of , let . Then .
There is no subgroup of smaller than which contains both and . If there were such a subgroup, there would exist some and some such that . But and , and so from 's group closure we conclude , a contradiction.
%%