arXiv:1604.03115v2 [math.CO] 4 Apr 2017

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES
JAY SCHWEIG AND RUSS WOODROOFE
Abstract. We introduce a new class of lattices, the modernistic lattices, and their duals,
the comodernistic lattices. We show that every modernistic or comodernistic lattice has
shellable order complex. We go on to exhibit a large number of examples of (co)modernistic
lattices. We show comodernism for two main families of lattices that were not previously
known to be shellable: the order congruence lattices of finite posets, and a weighted generalization of the k-equal partition lattices.
We also exhibit many examples of (co)modernistic lattices that were already known to
be shellable. To begin with, the definition of modernistic is a common weakening of the
definitions of semimodular and supersolvable. We thus obtain a unified proof that lattices
in these classes are shellable.
Subgroup lattices of solvable groups form another family of comodernistic lattices that
were already proven to be shellable. We show not only that subgroup lattices of solvable
groups are comodernistic, but that solvability of a group is equivalent to the comodernistic
property on its subgroup lattice. Indeed, the definition of comodernistic exactly requires
on every interval a lattice-theoretic analogue of the composition series in a solvable group.
Thus, the relation between comodernistic lattices and solvable groups resembles, in several
respects, that between supersolvable lattices and supersolvable groups.

1. Introduction
Shellings are a main tool in topological combinatorics. An explicit shelling of a simplicial complex ∆ simultaneously shows the sequentially Cohen-Macaulay property, computes
homotopy type, and gives a cohomology basis. Frequently, a shelling also gives significant
insight into the homeomorphy of ∆. The downside is that shellings are often difficult to find,
and generally require a deep understanding of the complex.
In this paper, we describe a large class of lattices whose order complexes admit shellings.
The shellings are often straightforward to explicitly write down, and so give a large amount
of information about the topology of the order complex. Included in our class of lattices are
many examples which were not previously understood to be closely related.
The question that first motivated this research project involved shelling a particular family
of lattices. The order congruence lattice O(P ) of a finite poset P is the subposet of the
partition lattice consisting of all equivalence classes arising as the level sets of an orderpreserving function. Order congruence lattices interpolate between Boolean lattices and
partition lattices, as we will make precise later. Such lattices were already considered by
Sturm in [39]. More recently, Körtesi, Radeleczki and Szilágyi showed the order congruence
1

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

2

lattice of any finite poset to be graded and relatively complemented [22], while Jenča and
Sarkoci showed such lattices to be Cohen-Macaulay [21].
The Cohen-Macaulay result naturally suggested to us the question of whether every order
congruence lattice is shellable. After proving the answer to this question to be “yes”, we
noticed that our techniques apply to a much broader class of lattices. Indeed, a large number
of the lattices previously shown to be shellable lie in our class. Thus, our main result
(Theorem 1.2 below) unifies numerous results on shellability of order complexes of lattices,
in addition to proving shellability for new examples. It is our belief that our results will
be useful to other researchers. Finding a shelling of a lattice can be a difficult problem. In
many cases, showing that a lattice is in our class may be simpler than constructing a shelling
directly.
All lattices, posets, simplicial complexes, and groups considered in this paper will be finite.
1.1. Modernistic and comodernistic lattices. We now define the broad class of lattices
described in the title and introduction. Our work relies heavily on the theory of modular
elements in a lattice. Recall that an element m of a lattice L is left-modular if whenever
x < y are elements of L, then the expression x ∨ m ∧ y can be written without parentheses,
that is, that (x ∨ m) ∧ y = x ∨ (m ∧ y). An equivalent definition is that m is left-modular
if m is not the nontrivial element in the short chain of any pentagonal sublattice of L; see
Lemma 2.10 for a more precise statement.
Our key object of study is the following class of lattices.
Definition 1.1. We say that a lattice L is modernistic if every interval in L has an atom
that is left-modular (in the given interval). We say that L is comodernistic if the dual of L
is modernistic, that is, if every interval has a left-modular coatom.
Our main theorem is as follows. (We will recall the definition of a CL-labeling in Section 2.3
below.)
Theorem 1.2. If L is a comodernistic lattice, then L has a CL-labeling.
Corollary 1.3. If L is either comodernistic or modernistic, then the order complex of L is
shellable.
The CL-labeling is explicit from the left-modular coatoms, so Theorem 1.2 also gives a
method for computing the Möbius function of L. See Lemma 3.7 for details.
We find it somewhat surprising that Theorem 1.2 was not proved before now. We speculate
that the reason may be the focus of previous authors on atoms and CL-labelings, whereas
Theorem 1.2 requires dualizing exactly one of the two.
Remark 1.4. The name “modernistic” comes from contracting “atomically modular” to “atomically mod”. Since atomic was a common superlative from the the late 1940’s, and since the
mod (or modernistic) subculture was also active at about the same time, we find the name
to be somewhat appropriate, as well as short and perhaps memorable.

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

3

1.2. Examples and applications. Theorem 1.2 has a large number of applications, which
we briefly survey now. First, we can now solve the problem that motivated the project.
Theorem 1.5. If P is any poset, then the order congruence lattice O(P ) is comodernistic,
hence CL-shellable.
We also recover as examples many lattices already known to be shellable. The following
theorem lists some of these, together with references to papers where they are shown to be
shellable.
Proposition 1.6. The following lattices are comodernistic, hence CL-shellable:
(1) Supersolvable and left-modular lattices, and their order duals [2, 23, 26].
(2) Order duals of semimodular lattices [2]. (I.e., semimodular lattices are modernistic.)
(3) k-equal partition lattices [7], and their type B analogues [5].
(4) Subgroup lattices of solvable groups [33, 43].
We comment that many of these lattices are shown in the provided references to have
EL-labelings. Theorem 1.2 provides only a CL-labeling. Since the CL-labeling constructed
is explicit from the left-modular elements, Theorem 1.2 provides many of the benefits given
by an EL-labeling. We do not know if every comodernistic lattice has an EL-labeling, and
leave this interesting question open.
Experts in lattice theory will immediately recognize items (1) and (2) from Proposition 1.6
as being comodernistic. Theorem 1.2 thus unifies the theory of these well-understood lattices
with the more difficult lattices on the list. The CL-labeling that we construct in the proof
of Theorem 1.2 can moreover be seen as a generalization of the standard EL-labeling for a
supersolvable lattice, further connecting these classes of lattices.
We will prove that k-equal partition lattices and their type B analogues are comodernistic
in Section 6. In Section 6.3 we will show the same for a new generalization of k-equal
partition lattices. The proofs show, broadly speaking, that coatoms of (intervals in) these
subposets of the partition lattice inherit left-modularity from that in the partition lattice.
Although modernism and comodernism give a simple and unified framework for showing
shellability of many lattices, not every shellable lattice is (co)modernistic. For an easy
example, the face lattice of an n-gon has no left-modular elements when n > 3, so is neither
modernistic nor comodernistic.
1.3. Further remarks on subgroup lattices. We can expand on the connection with
group theory suggested by item (4) of Proposition 1.6. For a group G, the subgroup lattice
referred to in this item consists of all the subgroups of G, ordered by inclusion; and is denoted
by L(G).
Theorem 1.7. If G is a group, then G is solvable if and only if L(G) is comodernistic.
Stanley defined supersolvable lattices in [34] to abstract the interesting combinatorics of
the subgroup lattices of supersolvable groups to general lattices. Theorem 1.7 says that
comodernism is one possibility for a similar abstraction for solvable groups. A result of a

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

4

similar flavor was earlier proved by Schmidt [30]; our innovation with comodernism is to
require a lattice-theoretic analogue of a composition series in every interval of the lattice.
We further discuss possible notions of solvability for lattices in Section 5.
Shareshian in [33] showed that a group G is solvable if and only if L(G) is shellable.
Theorems 1.2 and 1.7 give a new proof of the “only if” direction of this result. For the “if”
direction, Shareshian needed a hard classification theorem from finite group theory. Our proof
of Theorem 1.7 does not rely on hard classification theorems. On the other hand, it follows
directly from Shareshian’s proof that G is solvable if L(G) is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay.
Thus, Shareshian’s Theorem gives a topological characterization of solvable groups. The
characterization given in Theorem 1.7 is lattice-theoretic, rather than topological. It is
an interesting open problem to give a classification-free proof that if L(G) is sequentially
Cohen-Macaulay, then G is solvable.
1.4. Organization. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall some of the
necessary background material. We prove Theorem 1.2 (our main theorem) in Section 3.
In the remainder of the paper we show how to apply comodernism and Theorem 1.2
to various classes of lattices. The techniques may be illustrative for those who wish to
prove additional classes of lattices to be comodernistic. In Section 4, we examine order
congruence lattices, and prove Theorem 1.5. In Section 5 we prove Theorem 1.7, and argue
for comodernism as a notion of solvable for lattices. We close in Section 6 by showing that
k-equal partition lattices (and variations thereof) are comodernistic.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Vincent Pilaud and Michelle Wachs for their helpful remarks.
We also thank the anonymous referee for his or her thoughtful comments. The example in
Figure 5.1 arose from a question of Hugh Thomas. The second author is grateful to the
University of Miami for their hospitality in the spring of 2016, during which time a part of
the paper was written.
2. Preliminaries
We begin by recalling some necessary background and terminology. Many readers will be
able to skip or skim this section, and refer back to it as necessary.
2.1. Posets, lattices, and order complexes. A poset P is bounded if P has a unique
least element 0̂ and greatest element 1̂.
Associated to a bounded poset P is the order complex, denoted ∆P , a simplicial complex
whose faces consist of all chains (totally ordered subsets) in P \ {0̂, 1̂}. In particular, the
vertices of ∆P are the chains of length 0 in P \ {0̂, 1̂}, that is, the elements of P \ {0̂, 1̂}.
The importance of the order complex in poset theory arises since the Möbius function µ(P )
(important for inclusion-exclusion) is given by the reduced Euler characteristic χ̃(∆P ).
We often say that a bounded poset P possesses a property from simplicial topology (such
as “shellability”), by which we mean that ∆P has the same property.

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

5

We say that a poset P is Hasse-connected if the Hasse diagram of P is connected as a
graph. That is, P is Hasse-connected if and only for any x, y ∈ P , there is a sequence
x = x0 , x1 , . . . , xk = y such that xi is comparable to xi+1 for each i.
A poset L is a lattice if every two elements x, y ∈ L have a unique greatest lower bound
(the meet x ∧ y) and unique least upper bound (the join x ∨ y). It is obvious that every
lattice is bounded, hence has an order complex ∆L.
A poset is graded if all its maximal chains have the same length, where the length of a
chain is one less than its cardinality. The height of a bounded poset P is the length of the
longest chain in P , and the height of an element x is the height of the interval [0̂, x]. An
atom of a bounded poset P is an element of height 1.
The order dual of a poset P is the poset P ∗ with reversed order relation, so that x <∗ y
in P ∗ exactly when x > y in P . Poset definitions may be applied to the dual by prepending
a “co”: for example, an element x is a coatom if x is an atom in P ∗ .
For more background on poset and lattice theory from a general perspective, we refer to
[37]. For more on order complexes and poset topology, we refer to [42].
2.2. Simplicial complexes and shellings. We assume basic familiarity with homology
and cohomology, as exposited in e.g. [18, 27].
A shelling of a simplicial complex ∆ is an ordering of the facets of ∆ that obeys certain
conditions, the precise details of which will not be important to us. Not every simplicial
complex has a shelling; those that do are called shellable.
We remark that in the early history of the subject, shellings were defined only for balls
and spheres [29]. Later, shellings were considered only for pure complexes, that is, complexes
all of whose facets have the same dimension. Nowadays, shellings are studied on arbitrary
simplicial complexes [7].
Shellable complexes are useful for showing a complex to satisfy the Cohen-Macaulay (in
the pure case) or sequentially Cohen-Macaulay property (more generally). These properties
are important in commutative algebra as well as combinatorics.
We refer to [36] for more on shellable and Cohen-Macaulay complexes.
2.3. CL-labelings and EL-labelings. The definition of a shelling is often somewhat unwieldy to work with directly, and it is desirable to find tools through which to work. One
such tool is given by a CL-labeling, which we will now define.
If x and y are elements in a poset P , we say that y covers x when x < y but there is no
z ∈ P so that x < z < y. In this situation, we write x ⋖ y, and may also say that x ⋖ y is a
cover relation. Thus, a cover relation is an edge in the Hasse diagram of P . A rooted cover
relation is a cover relation x ⋖ y together with a maximal chain from 0̂ to x (called the root).
A rooted interval is an interval [x, y] together with a maximal chain r from 0̂ to x. In this
situation, we use the notation [x, y]r . Notice that every atomic cover relation of [x, y]r can
be rooted by r.
A chain-edge labeling of a bounded poset P is a function λ that assigns an element of an
ordered set (which will always for us be Z) to each rooted cover relation of P . Then λ assigns

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

6

a word over Z to each maximal chain on any rooted interval by reading the cover relation
labels in order, so e.g. the word associated with 0̂ ⋖ x1 ⋖ x2 ⋖ x3 ⋖ . . . is λ(0̂ ⋖ x1 , 0̂)λ(x1 ⋖
x2 , 0̂ ⋖ x1 )λ(x2 ⋖ x3 , 0̂ ⋖ x1 ⋖ x2 ) · · · .
Remark 2.1. Since many researchers may be less familiar with CL-labelings and the machinery behind them, it may be helpful to think of a chain-edge labeling via the following
dynamical process. Begin at 0̂, and walk up the maximal chain 0̂ = x0 ⋖ x1 ⋖ x2 ⋖ · · · ⋖ 1̂.
At each step i, assign a label to the label xi−1 ⋖ xi . In assigning the label, you are allowed
to look backwards at where you have been, but are not allowed to look forwards at where
you may go. At each step, you add the assigned label to the end of a word associated with
the maximal chain.
We say that a maximal chain c is increasing if the word associated with c is strictly
increasing, and decreasing if the word is weakly decreasing. We order maximal chains by the
lexicographic order on the associated words.
Definition 2.2. A CL-labeling is a chain-edge labeling that satisfies the following two conditions on each rooted interval [x, y]r :
(1) There is a unique increasing maximal chain m on [x, y]r , and
(2) the increasing chain m is strictly earlier in the lexicographic order than any other
maximal chain on [x, y]r .
If a CL-labeling λ assigns the same value to every x ⋖ y irrespective of the choice of root,
then we say λ is an EL-labeling.
Björner [2] and Björner and Wachs [6, 7] introduced CL-labelings, and proved the following
theorem.
Theorem 2.3. [8, Theorem 5.8] If λ is a CL-labeling of the bounded poset P , then the
lexicographic order on the maximal chains of P is a shelling order of ∆P . In this case,
a cohomology basis for ∆P is given by the decreasing maximal chains of P , and ∆P is
homotopy equivalent to a bouquet of spheres in bijective correspondence with the decreasing
maximal chains.
For this reason, bounded posets with a CL- or EL-labeling are often called CL- or ELshellable. Since the order complex of P and that of the order dual of P coincide, either a
CL-labeling or a dual CL-labeling implies shellability of ∆P .
From the cohomology basis, it is straightforward to compute Euler characteristic, hence
also Möbius number.
Corollary 2.4. [8, Proposition 5.7] If λ is a CL-labeling of the bounded poset P , then the
Möbius number of P is given by
µ(P ) = χ̃(∆P ) = #even length decreasing maximal chains in P
− #odd length decreasing maximal chains in P.

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

7

2.4. Order congruence lattices. If P and Q are posets, then a map ϕ : P → Q is orderpreserving if whenever x ≤ y, it also holds that ϕ(x) ≤ ϕ(y). The level set partition of a
map ϕ : P → Q is the partition with blocks of the form ϕ−1 (q). If π is the level set partition
of an order preserving map ϕ : P → Q, then π is an order partition of P . Since every poset
has a linear extension, it is easy to see that it would be equivalent to restrict the definition
of order partition to the case where Q = Z.
As previously defined, the order congruence lattice O(P ) is the subposet of the partition
lattice ΠP consisting of all order partitions of P . The cover relations in O(P ) correspond to
merging blocks in an order partition, subject to a certain compatibility condition.
Example 2.5. Consider P = [3] with the usual order. Then the function mapping 1, 2 to 1
and 3 to 2 is order-preserving, so 12 | 3 ∈ O([3]). Similarly, the partition 1 | 23 ∈ O([3]). It
is not difficult to see, however, that there is no order-preserving map with level set partition
13 | 2. Thus, the lattice O([3]) is isomorphic to the Boolean lattice on 2 elements.
More generally, an elementary argument shows that the order congruence lattice of a chain
on n elements is isomorphic to a Boolean lattice on n − 1 elements. It is obvious that the
order congruence lattice of an antichain is the usual partition lattice. Thus, order congruence
lattices interpolate between Boolean lattices and partition lattices.
It is easy to confuse O(P ) with another closely related lattice defined on a poset P . We
say that a subset S ⊆ P is order convex if whenever a ≤ b ≤ c with a, c ∈ S, then also
b ∈ S. The order convexity partition lattice of P , denoted Oconv (P ), consists of all partitions
where every block is order convex. There is some related literature on the related lattice of
all order convex subsets of a poset, going back to [1].
We do not know if order convexity lattices must always be comodernistic or shellable, as
intervals of the form [π, 1̂] in Oconv seem difficult to describe.
Example 2.6. Consider the bowtie poset B, with elements a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 and relations ai < bj
(for i, j ∈ {1, 2}). As B has height 1, all subsets are order convex, so that Oconv (B) ∼
= Π4 .
However, the partitions a1 b1 | a2 b2 and a1 b2 | a2 b1 are not order congruence partitions, so are
not in O(B).
We additionally caution the reader that the notion of order congruence considered here
is less restrictive than that considered in [28], where congruences are required to respect
lower/upper bounds.
In another point of view, it is straightforward to show that order-preserving partitions are
in bijective correspondence with certain quotient objects of P . Thus, the order congruence
lattice assigns a lattice structure to quotients of P . See [21, Section 3] for more on the
quotient view of O(P ).
For our purposes, it will be enough to understand intervals above atoms in O(P ). Say
that elements x, y of poset P are compatible if either x ⋖ y, y ⋖ x, or x, y are incomparable.
If x, y are compatible in P , then Px∼y is the poset obtained by identifying x and y. That is,
Px∼y is obtained from P by replacing x, y with w, subject to the relations z < w whenever

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

8

z < x or z < y, and z > w whenever z > x or z > y. We remark in passing that this
identification is an easy special case of the quotienting viewpoint discussed above.
Lemma 2.7. Let P be a poset. A partition π of P is an atom of O(P ) if and only if π has
exactly one non-singleton block consisting of compatible elements {x, y}. In this situation,
we have the lattice isomorphism [π, 1̂]O(P ) ∼
= O(Px∼y ).
Repeated application of Lemma 2.7 allows us to understand any interval of the form [π, 1̂]
in O(P ).
Although we will not use need this, intervals of the form [0̂, π] are also not difficult to
understand. Let π have blocks B1 , B2 , . . . , Bk . It is well-known (see e.g. [37, Example
3.10.4]) that an interval of this form in the full partition lattice is isomorphic to the product
of smaller partition lattices ΠB1 × · · · × ΠBk . It is straightforward to see via the orderpreserving mapping P → Z definition that a similar result holds in the order congruence
lattice. That is, [0̂, π] in O(P ) is lattice-isomorphic to O(B1 ) × · · · × O(Bk ), where Bi refers
to the induced subposet on Bi ⊆ P . Combining this observation with Lemma 2.7 allows
us to write any interval in O(P ) as a product of order congruence lattices of quotients of
subposets. We find it simpler to give more direct arguments, but readers familiar with poset
products may appreciate this connection.
2.5. Supersolvable and semimodular lattices. We previously defined an element m of
a lattice L to be left-modular if (x ∨ m) ∧ y = x ∨ (m ∧ y) for all pairs x < y.
A lattice is modular if every element is left-modular. A lattice L is usually defined to be
semimodular if whenever a ∧ b ⋖ a in L, then b ⋖ a ∨ b. We prefer the following equivalent
definition, which highlights the close connection between semimodularity and comodernism:
Lemma 2.8 (see e.g. [38, essentially Theorem 1.7.2]). A lattice L is semimodular if and only
for every interval [x, y] of L, every atom of [x, y] is left-modular (as an element of [x, y]).
Thus, the definition of a modernistic lattice is obtained from that of a semimodular lattice
by weakening a single universal quantifier to an existential quantifier.
An M-chain in a lattice is a maximal chain consisting of left-modular elements. A lattice
is left-modular if it has an M-chain, and supersolvable if it is graded and left-modular.
Supersolvable lattices were originally defined by Stanley [34], in a somewhat different form.
The theory of left-modular lattices was developed in a series of papers [10, 23, 24, 26], and
it was only in [26] that it was noticed that Stanley’s original definition of supersolvable is
equivalent to graded and left-modular.
There is an explicit cohomology basis for a supersolvable lattice, which does not seem
to be as well-known as is deserved. A chain of complements to an M-chain m = {0̂ =
m0 ⋖ m1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ mn = 1̂} is a chain of elements c = {0̂ = cn ⋖ cn−1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ c0 = 1̂} so that
each ci is a complement to mi , that is, so that ci ∨ mi = 1̂ and ci ∧ mi = 0̂. A less explicit
form of the following appears in [2, 34], and a special case in [41].

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

9

Theorem 2.9. If L is a supersolvable lattice with a fixed M-chain m, then a cohomology
basis for ∆L is given by the chains of complements to m. In particular, the Möbius number
of L is (up to sign) the number of such chains.
A (strong form of a) homology basis for supersolvable lattices appears in [32].
2.6. Left-modularity. We now recall some additional basic properties of left-modular elements. First, we state more carefully the equivalent “no pentagon” condition mentioned in
the Introduction.
Lemma 2.10. [24, Proposition 1.5] An element m of the lattice L is left-modular if and
only if for every a < c in L, we have a ∧ m 6= c ∧ m or a ∨ m 6= c ∨ m.
The pentagon lattice (usually notated as N5 ) consists of elements 0̂, 1̂, a, b, c with the only
nontrivial relation being a < c. Lemma 2.10 says exactly that m is left-modular if and only
if m never plays the role of b in a sublattice of L isomorphic to N5 . Thus, Lemma 2.10 is a
pleasant generalization of the characterization of modular lattices as those with no pentagon
sublattices.
Another useful fact is:
Lemma 2.11. [23, Proposition 2.1.5] If m is a left-modular element of the lattice L, and
x < y in L, then x ∨ m ∧ y is a left-modular element of the interval [x, y].
Finally, we give an alternate characterization of left-modularity of coatoms, in the flavor
of Lemma 2.8. This characterization will be useful for us in the proof of Theorems 1.2 and
3.5, and is also often easy to check.
Lemma 2.12 (Left-modular Coatom Criterion). Let m be a coatom of the lattice L. Then
m is left-modular in L if and only if for every y such that y 6≤ m we have m ∧ y ⋖ y.
Proof. If m ∧ y < z < y, then z < y violate the condition of Lemma 2.10 with m, hence m
is not left-modular. Conversely, if z < y violate the condition of Lemma 2.10, then y 6≤ m,
and m ∧ y = m ∧ z < z < y.

Corollary 2.13. If L is a lattice and m a left-modular coatom of L, then for any x < y in
L either x ∨ m ∧ y = y or else x ∨ m ∧ y ⋖ y.
Proof. If x 6≤ m or y ≤ m, then x ∨ m ∧ y = y. Otherwise, apply Lemmas 2.11 and 2.12. 
2.7. Group theory. We recall that a group G is said to be solvable if either of the following
equivalent conditions is met:
(1) There is a chain 1 = N0 ⊂ N1 ⊂ N2 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Nk = G of subgroups in G, so that each
Ni is normal in G, and so that each factor Ni /Ni−1 is abelian.
(2) There is a chain 1 = H0 ⊂· H1 ⊂· H2 ⊂· · · · ⊂· Hn = G of subgroups in G, so that
each Hi is normal in Hi+1 (but is not necessarily normal in G). Note that it follows
in this case that each factor Hi /Hi−1 is cyclic of prime order.
Since every subgroup of a solvable group is solvable, an alternative form of the latter is:

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

10

(2’) For every subgroup H ⊆ G, there is a subgroup K ⊂· H such that K ⊳ H.
A subgroup H of G is said to be subnormal if there is a chain H ⊳ L1 ⊳ L2 ⊳ · · · ⊳ G. Thus,
Condition (2) says a group is solvable if and only if G has a maximal chain consisting of
subnormal subgroups.
A group is supersolvable if there is a maximal chain in L(G) consisting of subgroups
normal in G. Thus, a group is supersolvable if there is a chain which simultaneously meets
the conditions in (1) and (2). One important fact about the subgroup lattice of supersolvable
groups is:
Theorem 2.14. [20] For a group G, the subgroup lattice L(G) is graded if and only if G is
supersolvable.
Subgroup lattices were one of the motivations for early lattice theorists in making the
definition of (left-)modularity. It follows easily from the Dedekind Identity (see Lemma 5.3)
that if N ⊳ G, then N is left-modular in L(G). In particular, if G is a supersolvable group,
then L(G) is a supersolvable lattice.
Moreover, a normal subgroup N satisfies a stronger condition. An element m of a lattice
is said to be modular (or two-sided-modular ) if it neither plays the role of b nor of a in any
pentagon sublattice, where a, b are as in the discussion following Lemma 2.10. A second
application of the Dedekind Identity shows any normal subgroup to be modular in L(G).
The following lemma, whose proof is immediate from the definitions, says that leftmodularity and two-sided-modularity are essentially the same for the purpose of comodernism arguments.
Lemma 2.15. If L is a lattice, and m is a maximal left-modular element, then m is modular.
We refer to e.g. [12, Chapter A] for further general background on group theory, and to
[31] for the reader interested in further background on lattices of subgroups.
3. Proof of Theorem 1.2
3.1. sub-M-chains. As discussed in Section 2.5, a lattice is left-modular if it has an Mchain, that is, a maximal chain consisting of left-modular elements. The reader may be
reminded of the maximal chain consisting of normal elements in the definition of a supersolvable group.
We extend the notion of M-chain to comodernistic lattices. A maximal chain 0̂ = m0 ⋖
m1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ mn = 1̂ in L is a sub-M-chain if for every i, the element mi is left-modular in
the interval [0̂, mi+1 ]. The reader may be reminded of the maximal subnormal chain in a
solvable group. It is straightforward to show that a lattice is comodernistic if and only if
every interval has a sub-M-chain.
Stanley [35] and Björner [2] showed that any supersolvablen lattice has an EL-labeling, and
o
(ss)
(ss)
(ss)
(ss)
Liu [23] extended this to any left-modular lattice. If m
= 0̂ = m0 ⋖ m1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ mn = 1̂

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

11

is an M-chain, then the EL-labeling is defined as follows:
(3.1)

(ss)

λss (x ⋖ y) = max{i : x ∨ mi−1 ∧ y = x}
(ss)

= min{i : x ∨ mi

∧ y = y}.

The essential observation involved in proving Theorem 1.2 is that, if we replace the Mchain used for λss with a sub-M-chain, then we can still label the atomic cover relations of
L in the same manner as in λss . More precisely, if m is a sub-M-chain in a lattice L, then
let
(3.2)

λ(0̂ ⋖ a) = 1 + max{i : mi ∧ a = 0̂}.

Adding 1 is not essential, and we do so only so that the labels will be in the range 1 through
n, rather than 0 through n − 1.
3.2. The CL-labeling. We construct the full CL-labeling recursively from (3.2).
We say that a chain c is indexed by a subset S = {i1 < · · · < ik } of the integers if
c = {ci1 < · · · < cik }. That is, we associate an index or label with each element of the chain.
Notice that we require the indices to (strictly) respect order.
We will need the following somewhat-technical lemma to handle non-graded lattices.
Lemma 3.1. Let L be a lattice with a sub-M-chain m of length n. Then no chain of L has
length greater than n.
Proof. We proceed by induction on n. The base case is trivial. Suppose that 0̂ = c0 ⋖ c1 ⋖
· · · ⋖ cℓ = 1̂ is some chain in L. Let mn−1 ⋖ 1 be the unique coatom in m, and i be the
greatest index such that ci ≤ mn−1 . Then cj ∨ mn−1 = 1̂ for any j > i, so by the left-modular
property
ci+1 ∧ mn−1 < ci+2 ∧ mn−1 < · · · < cℓ ∧ mn−1 = mn−1 .
Thus,
0̂ = c0 ⋖ c1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ ci = ci+1 ∧ mn−1 < ci+2 ∧ mn−1 < · · · < cℓ ∧ mn−1 = mn−1
is a chain of length ℓ − 1 on [0̂, mn−1 ], and by induction ℓ − 1 ≤ n − 1.



Definition 3.2. Let L be a comodernistic lattice of height n. Take a fixed sub-M-chain m
given as 0̂ = m0 ⋖ m1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ mn = 1̂ as the starting point for a recursive construction.
Let x ⋖ a, r be a rooted cover relation. Assume by recursion that we are given a subM-chain m(r) on [x, 1̂]. Further assume that the elements of m(r) are indexed by a subset
(r)
S ⊆ [n] ∪ {0}, and that 1̂ = mn . Label x ⋖ a as in (3.2) that is, as
(3.3)

(r)

λ(x ⋖ a) = 1 + max{i : mi ∧ a = x}.

To continue the recursion, it remains to construct an indexed sub-M-chain m(r∪a) on [a, 1̂].
(r)
Suppose that λ(x ⋖ a) = 1 + i. It is clear that mi is the greatest element of m(r) such
(r)
(r)
(r)
that a 6≤ mi . By abuse of notation, let m>i be the portion of m that is greater than mi ,

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

12
(r)

and let S>i be the indices greater than i on m(r) . Thus, the labels of m>i are exactly S>i .
Let S<i = S \ (S>i ∪ i) similarly be the indices less than i on m(r) .
(r)
Now by construction, all elements of m>i are greater than a. By the comodernistic
(r)
property, the submodular chain m>i may be completed to a sub-M-chain m(r∪a) for [a, 1̂].
(r)
Preserve the indices on m>i , and index the elements of m(r∪a) \ m(r) by elements of S<i . It
follows by applying Lemma 3.1 on [0̂, mi+1 ] that there are enough indices available in S<i to
perform such indexing.
The recursion can now continue, which completes the definition of the CL-labeling.
Notation 3.3. Throughout the remainder of Section 3, we fix L to be a comodernistic lattice
of height n, with a sub-M-chain m = {0̂ = m0 ⋖ m1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ mn = 1̂}. Indeed, we select
a sub-M-chain on every interval, which uniquely determines a chain-edge labeling λ as in
Definition 3.2.
Remark 3.4. By repeated application of Lemma 2.11, it follows that if L has an M-chain
m = {0̂ = m0 ⋖ m1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ mn = 1̂}, then the set {u ∨ mi ∧ v} is an M-chain for the interval
[u, v]. With this choice of (sub)-M-chain on each interval, the labeling λ of Notation 3.3
coincides with λss .
We are now ready to prove the following refinement of Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 3.5. The labeling λ of Notation 3.3 is a CL-labeling.
Proof. It is clear from construction that λ is a chain-edge labeling. By the recursive construction, it suffices to show that an interval of the form [0̂, y] has a unique increasing maximal
chain, and that every lexicographically first maximal chain on [0̂, y] is increasing.
Let m = {0̂ = m0 ⋖ m1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ mn = 1̂} be the sub-M-chain used to define the labeling.
Let ℓ = 1 + max{i : mi ∧ y < y}. It is clear from the construction that every atomic cover
relation on [0̂, y] receives a label that is at most ℓ. Since the elements greater than mℓ−1 are
preserved until the corresponding labels are used, no chain on [0̂, y] receives any label greater
than ℓ.
Similarly, the mℓ−1 element in the sub-M-chain is by construction preserved until the ℓ
label is used, and a chain receives an ℓ label when it leaves the interval [0̂, mℓ−1 ]. Since
y ∈
/ [0̂, mℓ−1 ], we see that every maximal chain on [0̂, y] receives an ℓ label. Thus, an
increasing chain must have the ℓ label on its last cover relation.
But Corollary 2.13 gives mℓ−1 ∧ y to be a coatom of [0̂, y]. It follows by the definition
of the labeling that every increasing chain on [0̂, y] must end with mℓ−1 ∧ y ⋖ y. An easy
induction now yields the only increasing chain to be 0̂ = m0 ∧ y ≤ m1 ∧ y ≤ · · · ≤ mℓ−1 ∧ y,
the “projection” of the sub-M-chain to [0̂, y]. As mℓ−1 ∧ y ⋖ y, the projection chain is in
particular maximal.
We now show that this chain is the unique lexicographically first chain. In the construction,
the least label of an atomic cover relation on [0̂, y] corresponds with the least mi+1 such that

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

13

1̂
3

2

1 or 2

m2
2

c
1

m1

3

3
a

1

2

1
b

3

0̂

Figure 3.1. A comodernistic labeling of a lattice
mi+1 ∧ y > 0̂. But this is the (unique) first non-0̂ element of the increasing chain. The
desired follows.

3.3. More details about the CL-labeling. Any chain-edge labeling assigns a word to
each maximal chain of L. Since when we label a cover relation with i according to λ, we
remove i from the index set (used for available labels), we obtain a result extending one
direction of [25, Theorem 1].
Lemma 3.6. The chain-edge labeling λ assigns a word with no repeated labels to each maximal chain in L.
Thus, if L is graded of height n, then λ assigns a permutation in Sn to each maximal
chain.
The decreasing chains are also easy to (recursively) understand. Recall that if x and y are
lattice elements, then x is a complement to y if x ∨ y = 1̂ and x ∧ y = 0̂. The following is an
extension of Theorem 2.9 for comodernistic lattices.
Lemma 3.7. If 0̂ ⋖ c1 ⋖ · · · ⋖ 1̂ is a decreasing chain of L with respect to λ, then c1 is a
complement to mn−1 .
Proof. As in the proof of Theorem 3.5, every maximal chain on [0̂, 1̂] contains an n label.
Thus λ(0̂ ⋖ c1 ) = n, so mn−1 ∧ c1 = 0̂. The result follows.

It is natural to ask whether theorems about supersolvable geometric lattices (see e.g. [34])
extend to comodernistic geometric lattices. The answer to this question is positive, but for
rather uninteresting reasons:
Proposition 3.8. If L is a geometric lattice, then any sub-M-chain of L is also an Mchain. Thus, a lattice L is geometric and comodernistic if and only if L is geometric and
supersolvable.

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

14

Proof. A result of Brylawski [11, Proposition 3.5] says that if m is modular in a geometric
lattice L, and x is modular in [0̂, m], then x is also modular in L. The result now follows
from Lemma 2.15 and an inductive argument.

In contrast to Proposition 3.8, lattices that are not geometric may have sub-M-chains
which are not M-chains. We close this section by working out a small example in detail.
Example 3.9. We consider the lattice C in Figure 3.1, which we obtained by removing
a single cover relation from the Boolean lattice on 3 elements. It is easy to check that
m2 is modular in C, but that m1 is not modular in C. (Indeed, m1 together with b < c
generate a pentagon sublattice.) Since any lattice of height at most 2 is modular, the chain
0̂ ⋖ m1 ⋖ m2 ⋖ 1̂ is a sub-M-chain, though not an M-chain.
With the exception of c ⋖ 1̂, the label of every cover relation in C is independent of the
choice of root. We have indicated these labels in the diagram. But we notice that the interval
[a, 1̂] inherits the sub-M-chain a ⋖ m2 ⋖ 1̂, while the interval [b, 1̂] has unique maximal (subM-)chain b ⋖ c ⋖ 1. Thus, the edge c ⋖ 1̂ receives a label of 1 with respect to root 0̂ ⋖ a ⋖ c,
but a label of 2 with respect to root 0̂ ⋖ b ⋖ c.
The reader may have noticed that the atom a is indeed left-modular. Thus, although we
have shown the comodernistic labeling determined by the given sub-M-chain, there is also a
supersolvable EL-labeling of C. We will see in Example 4.7 and Figure 4.1 a lattice that is
neither geometric nor supersolvable, but that is comodernistic.
4. Order congruence lattices
In this section, we examine the order congruence lattices of posets, as considered in the
introduction and in Section 2.4. We prove Theorem 1.5, and apply Lemma 3.7 to calculate
the Möbius number of O(P ).
4.1. Order congruence lattices are comodernistic. A useful tool for showing certain
lattices to be comodernistic is given by the following lemma.
Lemma 4.1. Let L be a meet subsemilattice of a lattice L+ . If m ∈ L+ is a left-modular
coatom in L+ , and m ∈ L, then m is also left-modular in L.
Proof. Since m is a coatom in L+ and therefore in L, the join of x and m is either m (if
x ≤ m) or 1̂ (otherwise) in both lattices. In particular, the join operations in L and L+ agree
on m, and we already know the meet operations agree by the subsemilattice condition. The
result now follows by Lemma 2.10.

The following theorem follows immediately.
Theorem 4.2. If L is a meet subsemilattice of the partition lattice ΠS , and m ∈ L is a
partition x | (S \ x) for some element x ∈ S, then m is a left-modular coatom of L.
We now show:

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

15

Lemma 4.3. If P is any poset, then the order congruence lattice O(P ) is a meet subsemilattice of ΠP .
Proof. It is clear from definition that O(P ) is a subposet of ΠP . It suffices to show that if
π1 , π2 are in O(P ), then their meet π1 ∧ π2 also is in O(P ). Let f1 , f2 : P → Z be such that
π1 and π2 are the level sets of f1 and f2 . But then the product map f1 × f2 : P → Z × Z
(where Z × Z is taken with the product order) has the desired level set partition.

That order congruence lattices are comodernistic now follows easily.
Proof (of Theorem 1.5). Let P be a poset, and let x be a maximal element of P . Assume by induction that the result holds for all smaller posets. It is straightforward to
see m = x | (P \ x) is the level set partition of an order preserving map. By Theorem 4.2
and Lemma 4.3, the element m is a left-modular coatom on the interval [0̂, 1̂]. Since [0̂, m] is
lattice-isomorphic to O(P \ x), we get by induction that [0̂, π] is comodernistic when π < m.
If π is incomparable to m, then π ∧ m is a left-modular coatom of [0̂, π] by Corollary 2.13.
Finally, repeated application of Lemma 2.7 and induction gives that intervals of the form
[π ′ , 1̂] are comodernistic. The result follows for general intervals [π ′ , π].

4.2. The Möbius number of an order congruence lattice. We now use the comodernism of the order congruence lattice O(P ) to recover the Möbius number calculation due
to Jenča and Sarkoci. Denote by Compat(x) the set of all y ∈ P that are compatible with
x. That is, Compat(x) consists of all y such that either y ⋖ x, x ⋖ y, or y is incomparable to
x.
Our proof is short and simple.
Theorem 4.4. [21, Theorem 3.8] For any poset P with maximal element x, the Möbius
function of the order congruence lattice satisfies the recurrence
X
µ(O(P )) = −
µ(O(Px∼y ).
y∈Compat(x)

Proof. By Lemma 3.7 together with the proof of Theorem 1.5, every decreasing chain of O(P )
begins with a complement to the (left-modular) order partition x | P \ x. Such complements
are easily seen to be atoms a whose non-singleton block is {x, y}, where y ∈ P is compatible
with x. The result now follows by Lemma 2.7.

Jenča and Sarkoci also show in [21] that if P is a Hasse-connected poset, then the number
of linear extensions of P satisfies the same recurrence as µ(O(P )). We give a short bijective
proof of the same, which has the same flavor as the proof of the main result in [13]. Let
LE(P ) denote the set of linear extensions of P .
Lemma 4.5. Let P be a poset and x a maximal element of P . If x is not also minimal,
then there is a bijection
[
LE(P ) →
LE(Px∼y ).
y∈Compat(x)

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

16

Proof. Since x is not minimal, it cannot be the first element in any linear extension L of P .
If y is the element immediately preceding x in L, then it is clear that x and y are compatible.
Then Lx∼y is a linear extension of Px∼y .
To show this map is a bijection, we notice that the process is reversible. If L is a linear
extension of Px∼y , replace the element corresponding to the identification of x and y with x
followed by y to get a linear extension of P .

Corollary 4.6. If P is a Hasse-connected poset, then the decreasing chains of O(P ) are in
bijective correspondence with the linear extensions of P .
In particular, |µ(O(P )| is the number of linear extensions of P , and ∆O(P ) is homotopy
equivalent to a bouquet of this number of (|P | − 3)-dimensional spheres.
Proof. Since P is Hasse-connected, a maximal element x cannot also be minimal. Moreover, if
P is Hasse-connected then Px∼y is also Hasse-connected. The result now follows immediately
by Theorem 4.4 and Lemma 4.5.

In the case where P is not Hasse-connected, a similar approach can be followed. Indeed, the
same argument as in Lemma 4.5 applies, except that we must discard the linear extensions
that begin with x in each recursive step where they arise. This argument identifies the
decreasing chains of O(P ) with a recursively-defined subset of the linear extensions of P .
We do not have a non-recursive description of this subset. Jenča and Sarkoci give a somewhat
different description of |µ(O(P ))| for a non-Hasse-connected poset P in [21, Theorem 4.5].
4.3. An order congruence lattice that is neither geometric nor supersolvable.
Example 4.7. Consider the pentagon lattice N5 , obtained by attaching a bottom and top
element 0̂ and 1̂ to the poset with elements a, b, c and relation a < c. In this case, O(N5 )
and Oconv (N5 ) coincide, and are pictured in Figure 4.1.
The reader can verify by inspection that no atom of O(N5 ) is left-modular, thus, the lattice
O(N5 ) is comodernistic but neither geometric nor supersolvable. As some of the coatoms of
O(N5 ) are not left-modular, the dual of O(N5 ) also fails to be geometric. We remark that
order congruence lattices that fail to be geometric were examined earlier in [22].
5. Solvable subgroup lattices
In this section, we discuss applications to and connections with the subgroup lattice of a
group.
5.1. Known lattice-theoretic analogues of classes of groups. Since the early days of
the subject, a main motivating object for lattice theory has been the subgroup lattice of a
finite group. Indeed, a (left-)modular element may be viewed as a purely lattice-theoretic
analogue or extension of a normal subgroup. Focusing on the normal subgroups characterizing a class of groups then typically gives in a straightforward way an analogous class of
lattices with interesting properties. For example, every subgroup of an abelian (or more

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

17

01abc

0ab|1c

0b|1ac

0b|1c|a

0b|1|ac

0ab|1|c

0b|1|a|c

0|1ac|b

0|1c|a|b

0abc|1

0|1c|ab

0a|1c|b

0|1|ab|c

0a|1bc

0|1abc

0|1|abc

0|1|ac|b

0a|1|bc

0|1|a|bc

0ac|1|b

0ac|1b

0|1bc|a

0a|1|b|c

0|1b|ac

0a|1b|c

0|1b|a|c

0|1|a|b|c

Figure 4.1. The order congruence lattice O(N5 ) of the pentagon lattice N5 .
Nontrivial left-modular elements are shown with rectangles.
Group class

Lattice class
for L(G)

Characterizes Self-dual?
group class?

cyclic

distributive

Yes

Yes

abelian,
Hamiltonian

modular

No

Yes

nilpotent

lower semimodular

No

No

supersolvable

supersolvable

Yes

Yes

solvable

???

Table 1. Classes of groups and related classes of lattices.

generally Hamiltonian) group is normal, so a corresponding class of lattices is that of the
modular lattices.
We summarize some of these analogies in Table 1.
We remark that, although every normal subgroup is modular in the subgroup lattice,
not every modular subgroup is normal. Similarly, although every nilpotent group has lower

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

18

semimodular subgroup lattice, group that are not nilpotent may also have lower semimodular
subgroup lattice. For example, the subgroup lattice of the symmetric group on 3 elements
L(S3 ) has height 2, hence is modular (despite being neither abelian nor nilpotent). As L(S3 )
is lattice isomorphic to L(Z23 ), a subgroup lattice characterization of these classes of groups
is not possible.
It may then be surprising that a group G is supersolvable if and only if L(G) is a supersolvable lattice. The reason for this is more superficial than one might hope: Iwasawa proved
in [20] that a group is supersolvable if and only if its subgroup lattice is graded. However,
the definition of supersolvable lattice seems to capture the pleasant combinatorial properties
of supersolvable groups much better than the definition of graded lattice does.
Semimodular and supersolvable lattices have been of great importance in algebraic and
topological combinatorics. In particular, both classes of lattices are EL-shellable, and the
EL-labeling gives an efficient method of computing homotopy type, Möbius invariants, etc.
5.2. Towards a definition of solvable lattice. After the previous subsection, it may
come as some surprise that there is no widely-accepted definition of solvable lattice. It is
the purpose of this subsection to make the case for the definition of comodernistic lattices
as one good candidate.
It was independently proved by Suzuki in [40] and Zappa in [45] that solvable groups are
characterized by their subgroup lattices. Later Schmidt gave an explicit characterization:
Proposition 5.1 (Schmidt [30]; see also [31, Chapter 5.3]). For a group G, the following
are equivalent:
(1) G is solvable.
(2) L(G) has a chain of subgroups 1 = G0 ( G1 ( · · · ( Gk = G such that each Gi is
modular in L(G), and such that each interval [Gi , Gi+1 ] is a modular lattice.
(3) L(G) has a chain of subgroups 1 = G0 ⊂· G1 ⊂· · · · ⊂· Gn = G such that each Gi is
modular in the interval [1, Gi+1 ].
The reader will recognize the conditions in Proposition 5.1 as direct analogues of the
conditions from Section 2.7. Despite this close correspondence, proving that Conditions (2)
and (3) of the proposition imply solvability is not at all trivial.
Although Proposition 5.1 combinatorially characterizes solvable subgroup lattices, we find
it somewhat unsatisfactory. We don’t know how to use the implicit lattice conditions to
calculate Möbius numbers. And, as the following example will show, lattices satisfying the
implicit conditions need not be shellable.
Example 5.2. Consider the lattice whose Hasse diagram is pictured in Figure 5.1. The
element M is easily verified to be modular in this lattice, and the interval [0̂, M] is a Boolean
lattice, hence modular. But since the interval [C, 1̂] is disconnected, the lattice is not shellable
or Cohen-Macaulay.
It is our opinion that a good definition of “solvable lattice” should be equivalent to solvability on subgroup lattices, and obey as many of the useful properties possessed by supersolvable

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

19

1

M

C

0

Figure 5.1. A non-shellable lattice satisfying Conditions (2) and (3) of Proposition 5.1.
lattices as possible. Among these are: EL-shellability, efficient computation of homotopy
type and/or homology bases and/or Möbius numbers, and self-duality of the property. Perhaps even more importantly, such a definition should have many combinatorial examples.
We believe comodernistic lattices to be an important step towards understanding a definition or definitions of “solvable lattice”. As Theorem 1.7 states, comodernism is equivalent to
solvability on subgroup lattices. While we do not know if a comodernistic lattice is always
EL-shellable, we have shown such a lattice to be CL-shellable. The CL-labeling allows efficient calculation of homotopy type, and consequences thereof. Perhaps most importantly,
there are many natural examples of comodernistic lattices.
Unfortunately, comodernism is not a self-dual property, as is made clear by Example 4.7.
5.3. Proof of Theorem 1.7. We begin the proof by reviewing a few elementary facts about
groups and subgroup lattices, all of which can be found in [31], or easily verified by the reader.
We say that H permutes with K if HK = KH.
Lemma 5.3. Let H, K, and L be subgroups of a group G.
(1) If H permutes with K, then HK = KH is the join in L(G) of H and K.
(2) If N ⊳ G, then N permutes with every subgroup of G.
(3) (Dedekind Identity) If H ⊆ K, then H(K ∩ L) = K ∩ HL and (K ∩ L)H = K ∩ LH.
Corollary 5.4. If K ⊃ H permutes with every subgroup on the interval [H, G], then K is a
modular element of this interval.
By Lemma 2.15, the elements of a sub-M-chain of a comodernistic lattice satisfy the
modularity condition as in part (3) of Proposition 5.1. It follows immediately by the same
proposition that G is solvable if L(G) is comodernistic.
For the other direction, every subgroup of a solvable group is solvable. Thus, it suffices
to find a modular coatom in the interval [H, G] over any subgroup H. Let 1 = N0 ( N1 (

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

20

· · · ( Nk = G be a chief series. It follows that each HNi is a subgroup for each i. Let ℓ be
the maximal index such that HNℓ < G, and let K be any coatom of the interval [HNℓ , G].
We will show that K permutes with every subgroup L on [H, G], hence is modular on the
same interval. For any such L, we have
H(L ∩ Nℓ+1 ) = L ∩ HNℓ+1 = L ∩ G = L, and similarly
(L ∩ Nℓ+1 )H = L ∩ Nℓ+1 H = L ∩ G = L,
so that H permutes with L ∩ Nℓ+1 . Moreover, Nℓ ⊆ K ∩ Nℓ+1 ⊆ Nℓ+1 , and since Nℓ+1 /Nℓ is
abelian, the Correspondence Theorem gives that K ∩ Nℓ+1 ⊳ Nℓ+1 . Thus, K ∩ Nℓ+1 permutes
with L ∩ Nℓ+1 . Now
KL = H(K ∩ Nℓ+1 )H(L ∩ Nℓ+1 ) = H(L ∩ Nℓ+1 )H(K ∩ Nℓ+1 ) = LK,
as desired.
5.4. Homotopy type of the subgroup lattice of a solvable group. It is immediate
from Lemma 5.3 that if N ⊳ G then HN permutes with all subgroups on the interval [H, G].
Thus, a chief series {Ni } lifts to a chain of left-modular elements {HNi } on the interval
[H, G]. In a solvable group we can (by the proof of Theorem 1.7) complete the chain {HNi }
to a sub-M-chain. Let λ be constructed according to this choice of sub-M-chain in all
applicable intervals, and consider the decreasing chains of λ.
It is immediate by basic facts about left-modular elements that a decreasing maximal
chain on L(G) contains as a subset a chain of complements to the chief series {Ni }. Since
a chain of complements to {Ni } in a solvable group is a maximal chain [12, Lemma 9.10],
such chains are exactly the decreasing maximal chains.
The order complex of a CL-shellable poset is a bouquet of spheres, where the spheres are
in bijective correspondence with the decreasing chains of the poset. Thus, we recover the
homotopy-type calculation of [41] (see also [43, 44]).
6. k-equal partition and related lattices
In this section, we will show that the k-equal partition lattices are comodernistic. We’ll
also show two related families of lattices to be comodernistic.
6.1. k-equal partition lattices. Recall that the k-equal partition lattice Πn,k is the subposet of the partition lattice Πn consisting of all partitions whose non-singleton blocks have
size at least k.
Theorem 6.1. For any 1 ≤ k ≤ n, the k-equal partition lattice Πn,k is comodernistic.
Proof. Consider an interval [π ′ , π] in Πn,k . Let π be C1 | C2 | . . . | Cm , and assume without loss
of generality that C1 is not a block in π ′ . Then C1 is formed by merging blocks B1 , . . . , Bℓ of
π ′ . Suppose that the Bi ’s are ordered by increasing size, so that |B1 | ≤ |B2 | ≤ · · · . Consider
the element
m = B1 | B2 ∪ · · · ∪ Bℓ | C2 . . . | Cm .

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

21

Suppose that σ is some partition on [π ′ , π], and D is the block of σ containing B1 . If D = B1 ,
then σ ∧ m = σ. Otherwise, there are two cases:
Case 1: |B1 | > 1. Then σ ∧ m is formed by splitting D into blocks B1 , D \ B1 . Notice
that |D \ B1 | ≥ |B1 | ≥ k by the ordering of the Bi ’s.
Case 2: |B1 | = 1. Then if |D| > k, then σ ∧ m is formed by splitting D into smaller
blocks B1 , D \ B1 . Otherwise, we have |D| = k, and σ ∧ m is formed by splitting D into k
singletons.
In either situation, we have σ ∧ m ⋖ σ, so Lemma 2.12 gives m to be left-modular on the
desired interval.

We recover from Theorem 6.1 a weaker form of the result [7, Theorem 6.1] that k-equal
partition lattices are EL-shellable. Repeated application of Lemma 3.7 recovers the same
set of decreasing chains for the comodernistic labeling as in [7, Corollary 6.2]. See also [9].
6.2. k, h-equal partition lattices in type B. By a sign pattern of a set S, we refer to an
assignment of + or − to each element of S, considered up to reversing the signs of every
element of S. Thus, if S has an order, an equivalent notion is to assign a + to the first
element of S and either + or − to each remaining element.
A signed partition of {0, 1, . . . , n} then consists of a partition of the set, together with a
sign pattern assignment for each block not containing 0. The block containing 0 is called
the zero block, and other blocks are called signed blocks. The signed partition lattice ΠB
n
consists of all signed partitions of {0, 1, . . . , n}. The cover relations in ΠB
are
of
two
types:
n
merging two signed blocks, and selecting one of the two possible patterns of the merged set;
or merging a signed block with the zero block (thereby ‘forgetting’ the sign pattern on the
signed block).
The signed partition lattice is well-known to be supersolvable. Indeed, if π is a signed
partition where every signed block is a singleton, then π is left-modular in ΠB
n.
Björner and Sagan [5] considered the signed k, h-equal partition lattice, where 1 ≤ h <
k ≤ n. This is the subposet ΠB
n,k,h consisting of all signed partitions whose non-singleton
signed blocks have size at least k, and whose zero block is either a singleton or has size at
least h + 1.
Theorem 6.2. For any 1 ≤ h < k ≤ n, the signed k, h-equal partition lattice ΠB
n,k,h is
comodernistic.
Proof. We proceed similarly to the proof of Theorem 6.1. Let [π ′ , π] be an interval in ΠB
n,k,h ,
and π be C1 | C2 | . . . | Cm. Assume without loss of generality that C1 is not a block in π ′ .
Then C1 is formed by merging blocks B1 , . . . , Bℓ of π ′ . Let B1 be the smallest signed block
in this list, and consider the element
m = B1 | B2 ∪ · · · ∪ Bℓ | C2 . . . | Cm .
Now let σ be some partition in the interval [π ′ , π], and D be the block of σ containing B1 .
If D = B1 , then σ ∧ m = σ. Otherwise, there are two cases:

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

22

Case 1: |B1 | > 1. Since σ is on [π ′ , π], we see that D ⊆ C1 . If D is a signed block, then
|D \ B1 | ≥ |B1 | ≥ k by the ordering of the blocks. Otherwise, by choice of B1 , no part of
σ ∧ m is a signed singleton block contained in C1 . It follows that |D \ B1 | ≥ h + 1. In either
situation, it follows that σ ∧ m is formed by splitting D into blocks B1 , D \ B1 .
Case 2: |B1 | = 1. If |D| > k, then σ ∧ m is formed by splitting D into smaller blocks
B1 , D \ B1 . Similarly if 0 ∈ D and |D| > h + 1. Otherwise, we have |D| = k or |D| = h
(depending on whether 0 ∈ D), and σ ∧ m is formed by splitting D into singletons.
In either case, we have σ ∧ m ⋖ σ, hence that m is left-modular on the desired interval by
Lemma 2.12.

Björner and Sagan [5, Theorem 4.4] showed ΠB
n,k,h to be EL-shellable. We recover from
Theorem 6.2 the weaker result of CL-shellability. However, we remark that our proof is
significantly simpler, and still allows easy computation of a cohomology basis, etc.
There is also a “type D analogue” of Πn,k and ΠB
n,k,h . Björner and Sagan considered this
lattice in [5], but left the question of shellability open. Feichtner and Kozlov gave a partial
answer to the type D shellability question in [16].
Our basic technique in the proofs of Theorems 6.1 and 6.2 is to show that left-modularity of
B
coatoms in Πn and ΠB
n is sometimes inherited in the join subsemilattices Πn,k and Πn,k,h . It is
easy to verify from the (here omitted) definition that the type D analogue of Πn and ΠB
n has
no left-modular coatoms, see also [19]. For this reason, the straightforward translation of our
techniques will not work in type D. We leave open the question of under what circumstances
the type D analogue of Πn,k has left-modular coatoms, or is comodernistic.
6.3. Partition lattices with restricted element-block size incidences. The k-equal
partition lattices admit generalizations in several directions. One such generalization, examined in [7], is that of the subposet of partitions where the size of every block is in some set
T . Further generalizations in similar directions are studied in [14, 15].
We consider here a different direction. Motivated by the signed k, h-equal partition lattices,
Gottlieb [17] examined a related sublattice of the (unsigned) partition lattice. In Gottlieb’s
lattice, the size of a block is restricted to be at least k or at least h, depending on whether
or not the block contains a distinguished element.
We further generalize to allow each element to have a different block-size restriction associated to it. More formally, we consider a map aff : [n] → [n], which we consider as providing
an affinity to each element x of [n]. We consider two subposets of the partition lattice Πn :
Π∀aff , {π ∈ Πn : every nonsingleton block B has |B| ≥ aff(x) for every x ∈ B} , and
Π∃aff , {π ∈ Πn : every nonsingleton block B contains some x such that |B| ≥ aff(x)} .
It is clear that both subposets are join subsemilattices of Πn , hence lattices.
Theorem 6.3. For any selection of affinity map aff, the lattices Π∃aff and Π∀aff are comodernistic.

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

23

Proof. As in the proof of Theorem 6.1, consider an interval [π ′ , π]. Let some block of π split
nontrivially into blocks B1 , B2 , . . . , Bℓ of π ′ . As in Theorem 6.1, assume that the blocks are
sorted by increasing size, and in particular that |B1 | ≤ |Bi | for all i.
Now, if there are multiple singleton blocks
B1 = {x1 }, B2 = {x2 }, . . . Bj = {xj },
then sort these by affinity. In the case of Π∃aff , let aff(x1 ) ≥ aff(x2 ) ≥ . . . ; while for Π∀aff
reverse to require aff(x1 ) ≤ aff(x2 ) ≤ . . . .
The remainder of the proof now goes through entirely similarly to that of Theorems 6.1
and 6.2.

Theorem 6.3 has applications to lower bounds of the complexity of a certain computational
problem, directly analogous to the work in [3, 4] with Πn,k .
References
[1] Garrett Birkhoff and M. K. Bennett, The convexity lattice of a poset, Order 2 (1985),
no. 3, 223–242.
[2] Anders Björner, Shellable and Cohen-Macaulay partially ordered sets, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 260 (1980), no. 1, 159–183.
[3] Anders Björner and László Lovász, Linear decision trees, subspace arrangements and
Möbius functions, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 7 (1994), no. 3, 677–706.
[4] Anders Björner, László Lovász, and Andrew C. C. Yao, Linear decision trees: Volume estimates and topological bounds, Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual ACM
Symposium on Theory of Computing (New York, NY, USA), STOC ’92, ACM, 1992,
pp. 170–177.
[5] Anders Björner and Bruce E. Sagan, Subspace arrangements of type Bn and Dn , J.
Algebraic Combin. 5 (1996), no. 4, 291–314.
[6] Anders Björner and Michelle L. Wachs, On lexicographically shellable posets, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 277 (1983), no. 1, 323–341.
[7]
, Shellable nonpure complexes and posets. I, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 348 (1996),
no. 4, 1299–1327.
, Shellable nonpure complexes and posets. II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 349
[8]
(1997), no. 10, 3945–3975.
[9] Anders Björner and Volkmar Welker, The homology of “k-equal” manifolds and related
partition lattices, Adv. Math. 110 (1995), no. 2, 277–313.
[10] Andreas Blass and Bruce E. Sagan, Möbius functions of lattices, Adv. Math. 127 (1997),
no. 1, 94–123, arXiv:math/9801009.
[11] Tom Brylawski, Modular constructions for combinatorial geometries, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 203 (1975), 1–44.
[12] Klaus Doerk and Trevor Hawkes, Finite soluble groups, de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol. 4, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1992.

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

24

[13] Paul Edelman, Takayuki Hibi, and Richard P. Stanley, A recurrence for linear extensions, Order 6 (1989), no. 1, 15–18.
[14] Richard Ehrenborg and JiYoon Jung, The topology of restricted partition posets, J.
Algebraic Combin. 37 (2013), no. 4, 643–666.
[15] Richard Ehrenborg and Margaret A. Readdy, The Möbius function of partitions with
restricted block sizes, Adv. in Appl. Math. 39 (2007), no. 3, 283–292.
[16] Eva Maria Feichtner and Dmitry N. Kozlov, On subspace arrangements of type D, Discrete Math. 210 (2000), no. 1-3, 27–54, Formal power series and algebraic combinatorics
(Minneapolis, MN, 1996).
[17] Eric Gottlieb, The h, k-equal partition lattice is EL-shellable when h ≥ k, Order 31
(2014), no. 2, 259–269.
[18] Allen Hatcher, Algebraic topology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002,
http://www.math.cornell.edu/∼hatcher/AT/ATpage.html.
[19] Torsten Hoge and Gerhard Röhrle, Supersolvable reflection arrangements, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 142 (2014), no. 11, 3787–3799.
[20] Kenkichi Iwasawa, Über die endlichen Gruppen und die Verbände ihrer Untergruppen,
J. Fac. Sci. Imp. Univ. Tokyo. Sect. I. 4 (1941), 171–199.
[21] Gejza Jenča and Peter Sarkoci, Linear extensions and order-preserving poset partitions,
J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 122 (2014), 28–38, arXiv:1112.5782.
[22] Péter Körtesi, Sándor Radeleczki, and Szilvia Szilágyi, Congruences and isotone maps
on partially ordered sets, Math. Pannon. 16 (2005), no. 1, 39–55.
[23] Larry Shu-Chung Liu, Left-modular elements and edge labellings, Ph.D. thesis, Michigan
State University, 1999.
[24] Shu-Chung Liu and Bruce E. Sagan, Left-modular elements of lattices, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 91 (2000), no. 1-2, 369–385, arXiv:math.CO/0001055, In memory of GianCarlo Rota.
[25] Peter McNamara, EL-labelings, supersolvability and 0-Hecke algebra actions on posets,
J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 101 (2003), no. 1, 69–89, arXiv:math/0111156.
[26] Peter McNamara and Hugh Thomas, Poset edge-labellings and left modularity, European
Journal of Combinatorics 27 (2006), no. 1, 101–113, arXiv:math.CO/0211126.
[27] James R. Munkres, Elements of algebraic topology, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, CA, 1984.
[28] Nathan Reading, Lattice congruences of the weak order, Order 21 (2004), no. 4, 315–344
(2005).
[29] D. E. Sanderson, Isotopy in 3-manifolds. I. Isotopic deformations of 2-cells and 3-cells,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1957), 912–922.
[30] Roland Schmidt, Eine verbandstheoretische Charakterisierung der auflösbaren und der
überauflösbaren endlichen Gruppen, Arch. Math. (Basel) 19 (1968), 449–452.
[31]
, Subgroup lattices of groups, de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, vol. 14,
Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1994.

A BROAD CLASS OF SHELLABLE LATTICES

25

[32] Jay Schweig, A convex-ear decomposition for rank-selected subposets of supersolvable
lattices, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 23 (2009), no. 2, 1009–1022.
[33] John Shareshian, On the shellability of the order complex of the subgroup lattice of a
finite group, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), no. 7, 2689–2703.
[34] Richard P. Stanley, Supersolvable lattices, Algebra Universalis 2 (1972), 197–217.
[35]
, Finite lattices and Jordan-Hölder sets, Algebra Universalis 4 (1974), 361–371.
[36]
, Combinatorics and commutative algebra, second ed., Progress in Mathematics,
vol. 41, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1996.
[37]
, Enumerative combinatorics. Volume 1, second ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 49, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
[38] Manfred Stern, Semimodular lattices, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications,
vol. 73, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, Theory and applications.
[39] Teo Sturm, Verbände von Kernen isotoner Abbildungen, Czechoslovak Math. J. 22(97)
(1972), 126–144.
[40] Michio Suzuki, On the lattice of subgroups of finite groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 70
(1951), 345–371.
[41] Jacques Thévenaz, The top homology of the lattice of subgroups of a soluble group,
Discrete Math. 55 (1985), no. 3, 291–303.
[42] Michelle L. Wachs, Poset topology: Tools and applications, Geometric combinatorics, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., vol. 13, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007,
arXiv:math/0602226, pp. 497–615.
[43] Russ Woodroofe, An EL-labeling of the subgroup lattice, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136
(2008), no. 11, 3795–3801, arXiv:0708.3539.
[44]
, Chains of modular elements and shellability, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 119
(2012), no. 6, 1315–1327, arXiv:1104.0936.
[45] Guido Zappa, Sulla risolubilità dei gruppi finiti in isomorfismo reticolare con un gruppo
risolubile, Giorn. Mat. Battaglini (4) 4(80) (1951), 213–225.
Department of Mathematics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74078
E-mail address: jay.schweig@okstate.edu
URL: https://math.okstate.edu/people/jayjs/
Department of Mathematics & Statistics, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS
39762
E-mail address: rwoodroofe@math.msstate.edu
URL: http://rwoodroofe.math.msstate.edu/

