Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
That first bullet point doesn’t really make sense in the context of the paragraph, which was to define a lattice as an algebraic structure (on bare sets, not posets).
I don’t quite see what you are driving at about the symmetry. Yes, the axioms could interchange ∧ and ∨ and you’d get the same thing. So? (Cf. the fact that the notion of lattice is self-dual.) But starting from the algebraic axioms before your edit, the standard partial order ≤ is defined through a≤b iff a=a∧b, which is equivalent to b=a∨b by absorption, and this restores the asymmetry.
1 to 3 of 3