arXiv:1709.08869v2 [] 29 Nov 2017

Special elements of the lattice
of monoid varieties
Sergey V. Gusev
Abstract. We completely classify all neutral and costandard elements in
the lattice MON of all monoid varieties. Further, we prove that an arbitrary upper-modular element of MON except the variety of all monoids
is either a completely regular or a commutative variety. Finally, we verify
that all commutative varieties of monoids are codistributive elements of
MON. Thus, the problems of describing codistributive or upper-modular
elements of MON are completely reduced to the completely regular case.
Mathematics Subject Classification. 20M07, 08B15.
Keywords. Monoid, variety, lattice of varieties, neutral element of a lattice, costandard element of a lattice, codistributive element of a lattice,
upper-modular element of a lattice.

1. Introduction and summary
The lattice of all semigroup varieties denoted hereinafter by SEM has been
the subject of an intensive research over the last five decades. An extensive and quite diverse material has been accumulated in this direction. It
is systematically presented in the survey [14]. In sharp contrast, the lattice
MON of all monoid varieties has received much less attention over the years
(when referring to monoid varieties, we consider monoids as algebras with
an associative binary operation and the nullary operation that fixes the unit
element). Up to the recent time, the latest lattice have been considered in
the articles [6, 12, 21] only. However, recently interest in the lattice MON has
grown. This is confirmed by the fact that several papers devoted principally
to an examination of identities of monoids contain some non-trivial results
about lattices of varieties (see [7, 8, 10, 11], for instance).
The work is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 17-0100551) and by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (project
1.6018.2017/8.9).

2

S. V. Gusev

Many questions about the lattice SEM are formulated in terms of identities. It is proved in the early 1970’s in [1, 2] that the lattice SEM does
not satisfy any non-trivial identity. A similar fact for the lattice MON was
established quite recently in [4]. In view of this result, it seems natural to
study varieties of monoids with different identities in subvariety lattice. The
most important lattice identities are the distributive and modular laws. The
problem of describing monoid varieties with distributive subvariety lattice
seems to be quite difficult. Indeed, it turns out that even the examination
of a much more stronger restriction “to be a chain” to lattices of monoid
varieties required very considerable efforts (see [5]).
In this paper, we study several restrictions on the monoid varieties related to the distributive and modular laws. More exactly, we consider special
elements of several types in the lattice MON. Let us recall definitions of those
of them which will be used below. An element x of a lattice L is called
neutral if

∀ y, z ∈ L : (x ∨ y) ∧ (y ∨ z) ∧ (z ∨ x)
= (x ∧ y) ∨ (y ∧ z) ∨ (z ∧ x);

costandard if

∀ y, z ∈ L :

(x ∧ y) ∨ z = (x ∨ z) ∧ (y ∨ z);

codistributive if

∀ y, z ∈ L :

x ∧ (y ∨ z) = (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z);

modular if

∀ y, z ∈ L :

y ≤ z −→ (x ∨ y) ∧ z = (x ∧ z) ∨ y;

upper-modular if

∀ y, z ∈ L :

y ≤ x −→ x ∧ (y ∨ z) = y ∨ (x ∧ z).

Lower-modular elements are defined dually to upper-modular once. It is well
known that an element x ∈ L is neutral if and only if, for any y, z ∈ L, the elements x, y and z generate a distributive sublattice of L (see [3, Theorem 254],
for instance). Note that neutral elements play an important role in the general theory of lattices. In particular, it is well known that if a is a neutral
element in a lattice L then L is decomposable into a subdirect product of the
principal ideal and the principal filter of L generated by a (see [3, Theorem
254], for instance). Thus, the knowledge of which elements of a lattice are
neutral gives essential information on the structure of the lattice as a whole.
It is evident that a neutral element is both lower-modular and costandard; a
costandard element is modular; a codistributive element is upper-modular. It
is well known also that a costandard element is codistributive (see [3, Theorem 253], for instance). Some information about special elements in arbitrary
lattices can be found in [3, Section III.2] and [13, Chapter 1].
There are many interesting and deep results about special elements of
the mentioned above types in the lattice SEM (see the surveys [14, Section
14] and [18]). In particular, neutral elements of the lattice SEM have been
completely described in [20, Proposition 4.1], while in [17, Theorem 1.3] it is
proved that a semigroup variety is a costandard element of the lattice SEM
if and only if it is a neutral element of this lattice. Codistributive elements
of SEM were examined in [17], while upper-modular elements of SEM were
considered in [15, 16].

Special elements of the lattice of monoid varieties

3

Special elements in the lattice MON were not studied so far. The main
results of this work give a complete descriptions of neutral and costandard
elements of the lattice MON. Besides that, we obtain a valuable information
about codistributive and upper-modular elements of MON.
In order to formulate the first main result of the article, we fix notation
for a few concrete varieties. The trivial variety of monoids is denoted by T,
while MON denotes the variety of all monoids. We denote by SL the variety
of all semilattice monoids. Our first main result is the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1. For a monoid variety V, the following are equivalent:
(i) V is a modular, lower-modular and upper-modular element of the lattice
MON;
(ii) V is a neutral element of the lattice MON;
(iii) V is one of the varieties T, SL or MON.
In order to formulate the second main result of the article, we need
some notation. We denote by F 1 the free monoid over a countably infinite
alphabet. The words (i.e., elements of F 1 ) unlike letters are written in bold.
Two sides of identities we connect by the symbol ≈, while the symbol =
denotes the equality relation on F 1 . For an identity system Σ, we denote by
var Σ the variety of monoids given by Σ. Put
Cn = var{xn ≈ xn+1 , xy ≈ yx}
where n ≥ 2. Our second main result is the following theorem.
Theorem 1.2. For a monoid variety V, the following are equivalent:
(i) V is a modular and upper-modular element of the lattice MON;
(ii) V is a costandard element of the lattice MON;
(iii) V is one of the varieties T, SL, C2 or MON.
As we have already mentioned above, an element of SEM is neutral if
and only if it is costandard. Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 show that in the lattice
MON these properties are not equivalent.
The following assertion gives a valuable information about upper-modular elements of the lattice MON. A variety of monoids is called proper if it
differs from the variety of all monoids. A variety of monoids is said to be
completely regular if it consists of completely regular monoids (i.e., unions of
groups).
Proposition 1.3. If a proper monoid variety V is an upper-modular element
of the lattice MON then V is either commutative or completely regular.
This proposition immediately implies that any proper monoid variety
that is a codistributive element of MON also is either commutative or completely regular. To determine codistributive elements in the completely regular case, we need to consider, in particular, periodic group varieties. The
lattice of periodic group varieties is modular but not distributive. Therefore,
it contains the 5-element modular non-distributive sublattice. It is evident

4

S. V. Gusev

that all three pairwise non-comparable elements of this sublattice are noncodistributive elements of MON. We see that the problem of describing codistributive elements of MON in the completely regular case is closely related
to the problem of describing periodic group varieties with distributive subvariety lattice. The latter problem seems to be extremely difficult (see [14,
Subsection 11.2] for more detailed comments), whence the former problem
is extremely difficult too. Fortunately, out of the completely regular case,
the problem of describing codistributive and even upper-modular elements of
MON possesses the complete decision. Proposition 1.3 shows that, to achieve
this goal, it suffices to consider commutative varieties. It tuns out that the
following assertion is true.
Proposition 1.4. Every commutative monoid variety is a codistributive element of the lattice MON.
We note that Propositions 1.3 and 1.4 play an important role in the
proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2.
The article consists of four sections. Section 2 contains definitions, notation and auxiliary results. In Section 3 several auxiliary results about modular
or lower-modular elements of the lattice MON are collected. Finally, Section 4
is devoted to the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 and Propositions 1.3 and 1.4.

2. Preliminaries
We start with the fact that is a part of the semigroup folklore (it is noted
in [8, Section 1.1], for instance).
Proposition 2.1. Let M be a monoid. We denote by V the monoid variety
generated by M and by W the semigroup variety generated by this monoid.
Then the map V 7→ W is an injective homomorphism of the lattice MON
into the lattice SEM.
Obviously, the varieties T and MON are neutral elements of the lattice
MON. It is proved in [20, Proposition 2.4] that SL is a neutral element of
the lattice SEM. Using Proposition 2.1 we have that the following statement
is true.
Lemma 2.2. The varieties T, SL and MON are neutral elements of the
lattice MON.
The variety of all Abelian groups whose exponent divides n is denoted
by An . We note that A1 = T. We need the following result obtained in [6].
Lemma 2.3. If V is a periodic commutative monoid variety then V = An ∨M
where n is some natural number and M is one of the varieties T, SL or Cm
for some m ≥ 2.
The content of a word w, i.e., the set of all letters occurring in w is
denoted by con(w). The following statement is well known and can be easily
verified (see [5, Lemma 2.1], for instance).

Special elements of the lattice of monoid varieties

5

Lemma 2.4. For a monoid variety V, the following are equivalent:
a) V is a group variety;
b) V satisfies an identity u ≈ v with con(u) 6= con(v);
c) SL * V.
A letter is called simple in a word w if it occurs in w only once. The
following fact is well known and may be easily verified.
Lemma 2.5. A non-trivial identity u ≈ v holds in the variety C2 if and only
if con(u) = con(v) and the set of all simple in u letters coincides with the
set of all simple in v letters.
Put D = var{x2 ≈ x3 , x2 y ≈ xyx ≈ yx2 }.
Lemma 2.6 ([5, Lemma 2.14]). If a variety of monoids V is non-completely
regular and non-commutative then D ⊆ V.
To avoid a confusion, we note that, in [5], the variety D is denoted by
D1 , while D denotes another variety.
Lemma 2.7 ([15, Lemma 2.6]). If V is a semigroup variety that satisfies the
identity xn ≈ xn+1 for some n and G is a variety of periodic groups then G
is the largest group subvariety of G ∨ X.

3. On modular and lower-modular elements
in the lattice MON
The assertions provided in this section will be used in the proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 and Proposition 1.3. The following assertion was communicated to the author by M.V. Volkov. But the proof given above is found by
the author.
Lemma 3.1. Let V be a non-commutative completely regular monoid variety.
Then
C2 ∨ (D ∧ V) = C2 ⊂ D = D ∧ (C2 ∨ V).
In particular, V is not a modular element of the lattice MON and C2 is not
a lower-modular element of this lattice.
Proof. It easily follows from Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5(ii) of [7], for instance, that
the subvariety lattice of the variety D is the chain T ⊂ SL ⊂ C2 ⊂ D. This
fact implies that the variety SL is a maximal completely regular subvariety of
the variety D. The variety V ∧ D is completely regular. Hence D ∧ V ⊆ SL.
Thus, C2 ∨ (D ∧ V) = C2 . On the other hand, the variety C2 ∨ V is noncompletely regular and non-commutative because V is non-commutative and
C2 is non-completely regular. Then Lemma 2.6 implies that D ⊆ V ∨ C2 ,
whence D = D ∧ (C2 ∨ V).


6

S. V. Gusev

A word w is called an isoterm for a class of monoids if each monoid in
the class does not satisfy any non-trivial identity of the form w ≈ w′ . The
empty word (i.e., the unit element of the monoid F 1 ) is denoted by λ. Let us
fix notation for the following two words:
s = yxyzxz and t = yxzxyxz.
2

Put B2,3 = var{x ≈ x3 } and Q = var{s ≈ t}. Clearly, Q ⊂ B2,3 .
Lemma 3.2. If V is a commutative monoid variety containing a non-trivial
group then
Q ∨ (B2,3 ∧ V) ⊂ B2,3 ∧ (Q ∨ V).
In particular, V is not a modular element of the lattice MON and Q is not
a lower-modular element of this lattice.
Proof. In view of Lemma 2.5, C2 ⊆ Q. Since is V is commutative, we have
that B2,3 ∧ V ⊆ C2 . Therefore,
Q ∨ (B2,3 ∧ V) = Q ⊆ B2,3 ∧ (Q ∨ V).
We are going to verify that this inclusion is strict. It suffices to establish that
B2,3 ∧ (Q ∨ V) violates s ≈ t. If, otherwise, B2,3 ∧ (Q ∨ V) satisfies s ≈ t
then there is a sequence of pairwise distinct words w0 , w1 , . . . , wk such that
w0 = s, wk = t and the identity wi ≈ wi+1 holds either in B2,3 or in Q ∨ V
for every 0 ≤ i < k. We note that the identity s ≈ w1 does not hold in the
variety B2,3 because s is an isoterm for B2,3 . Thus, this identity holds in
Q ∨ V. In particular, it holds in Q, whence there exists a deduction of the
identity s ≈ w1 from the identity s ≈ t, i.e., a sequence of pairwise distinct
words
v0 , v1 , . . . , vm
(3.1)
such that v0 = s, vm = w1 and, for any 0 ≤ i < m, there exist words ai ,
bi and endomorphism ξi of F 1 such that ether vi = ai ξi (s)bi and vi+1 =
ai ξi (t)bi or vi = ai ξi (t)bi and vi+1 = ai ξi (s)bi . We can assume without loss
of generality that the sequence (3.1) is the shortest deduction of the identity
s ≈ w1 from s ≈ t.
Let η be an arbitrary endomorphism of the monoid F 1 . If η maps at
least one of the letters x, y or z into the empty word then the words η(s)
and η(t) have one of the forms given in Table 1. We see that in all cases η(s)
and η(t) contain a subword of the form w2 . We note that the words s and
t are square-free. This fact and the information collected in Table 1 imply
that if the equality a = cη(b)d holds where a, b ∈ {s, t}, c, d ∈ F 1 and η is
an endomorphism of F 1 that maps at least one of the letters x, y and z into
the empty word then η(b) = λ. This fact will be repeatedly used below to
obtain a contradiction.
Suppose first that s = v0 = a0 ξ0 (s)b0 and v1 = a0 ξ0 (t)b0 . If the words
a0 and b0 are empty then ξ0 (a) = a for each a ∈ {x, y, z}. Then v1 = t.
Suppose now that at least one of the words a0 and b0 is non-empty. Then
the endomorphism ξ0 maps one of the letters x, y and z into the empty word.
We have verified in the previous paragraph that ξ0 (s) = ξ0 (t) = λ, whence

Special elements of the lattice of monoid varieties

7

Table 1. The forms of the words η(s) and η(t) depending
on the endomorphism η
The form of the word if
The word η(x) = λ η(y) = λ η(z) = λ
η(s)
p2 q2
(pq)2
(pq)2
2
2
η(t)
(pq)
pqp q
pq2 pq
v0 = v1 = a0 b0 in this case. We obtain a contradiction with the fact that
the words v0 and v1 are distinct.
Suppose now that s = v0 = a0 ξ0 (t)b0 and v1 = a0 ξ0 (s)b0 . Since the
length of s is less than the length of t, the endomorphism ξ0 maps one of the
letters x, y and z into the empty word. As we have seen above, ξ0 (t) = λ
in this case. This contradicts with the inequality v0 6= v1 . Thus, we have
verified that v1 = t.
Suppose that t = v1 = a1 ξ1 (s)b1 and v2 = a1 ξ1 (t)b1 . Note that the
number of occurrences of the letter x in ξ1 (s) is not equal to 3, whence
x ∈ con(a1 b1 ). Since neither the first nor the last letter of the word t does
not coincide with x, the length of the word a1 b1 is more than 1. Then the
endomorphism ξ1 maps one of the letters x, y and z into the empty word.
Then ξ1 (s) = λ, whence v1 = v2 , a contradiction.
Suppose now that t = v1 = a1 ξ1 (t)b1 and v2 = a1 ξ1 (s)b1 . If the words
a1 and b1 are empty then ξ1 (a) = a for each a ∈ {x, y, z}. Then v2 = s.
But this is impossible because the sequence (3.1) is the shortest deduction of
the identity s ≈ w1 from the identity s ≈ t. So, at least one of the words a1
and b1 is non-empty. Then the endomorphism ξ1 maps one of the letters x,
y and z into the empty word. Then ξ1 (t) = λ, whence v1 = v2 . We obtain
a contradiction with the fact that the words v2 and v1 are distinct. Thus,
we have proved that m = 1 and v1 = w1 = t. Therefore, the identity s ≈ t
holds in the variety Q ∨ V. Then this variety satisfies the identity x2 ≈ x3 .
But this is impossible because V contains a non-trivial group.

Put F = var{xyx ≈ xyx2 , x2 y 2 ≈ y 2 x2 , x2 y ≈ x2 yx, xytxy ≈ yxtxy}.
Clearly, F ⊂ B2,3 .
Lemma 3.3. If n > 2 then
(Cn ∧ B2,3 ) ∨ F ⊂ (Cn ∨ F) ∧ B2,3 .
In particular, Cn with n > 2 is not a modular element of the lattice MON
and F is not a lower-modular element of this lattice.
Proof. Evidently, (Cn ∧ B2,3 ) ∨ F ⊆ (Cn ∨ F) ∧ B2,3 . We are going to verify
that this inclusion is strict. Lemma 2.5 implies that C2 ⊆ F. Then
(Cn ∧ B2,3 ) ∨ F = C2 ∨ F = F.
Thus, we need to verify that F ⊂ (Cn ∨ F) ∧ B2,3 . It suffices to establish that
(Cn ∨ F) ∧ B2,3 violates xyx ≈ xyx2 . If, otherwise, (Cn ∨ F) ∧ B2,3 satisfies

8

S. V. Gusev

xyx ≈ xyx2 then there is a sequence of pairwise distinct words (3.1) such
that v0 = xyx, vm = xyx2 and, for any 0 ≤ i < m, the identity vi ≈ vi+1
holds either in B2,3 or in Cn ∨ F. We note that the identity xyx ≈ v1 does
not hold in the variety B2,3 because xyx is an isoterm for B2,3 . On the other
hand, the identity xyx ≈ v1 holds in Cn if and only if this identity follows
from commutativity. Then v1 ∈ {x2 y, yx2 }. Put
E = var{x2 ≈ x3 , x2 y ≈ xyx, x2 y 2 ≈ y 2 x2 }.
It is evident that E ⊆ F. Comparison of Propositions 4.2 and 6.9(i) of the
article [5] shows that this inclusion is strict. Thus,
E⊂F

(3.2)

(we note that in [5] the variety F is denoted by F1 ). If v1 = x2 y then F
satisfies the identity x2 y ≈ xyx. We obtain a contradiction with (3.2). If
v1 = yx2 then F satisfies the identities
xyx ≈ v1 = yx2 ≈ yx3 ≈ xyx2 ≈ x2 yx ≈ x2 y,
and we have a contradiction with (3.2) again. So, (Cn ∨ F) ∧ B2,3 violates
xyx ≈ xyx2 , whence F ⊂ (Cn ∨ F) ∧ B2,3 .


4. Proofs of the main results
Proof of Proposition 1.3. Let V be a proper non-commutative non-completely regular monoid variety that is an upper-modular element of the lattice
MON. Then D ⊆ V by Lemma 2.6. It is proved in [15, Lemma 2.16] that the
variety of all semigroups is generated by all minimal non-Abelian varieties
of groups. This fact and Proposition 2.1 imply that there exists a minimal
non-Abelian group variety G such that G * V. Then V ∧ G = An for some
positive integer n, whence C2 ∨ (V ∧ G) = C2 ∨ An . On the other hand,
D ⊆ C2 ∨ G by Lemma 3.1. Taking into account the fact that D ⊆ V, we
have that D ⊆ V ∧ (C2 ∨ G). The variety An ∨ C2 is commutative, while D
is non-commutative, whence
C2 ∨ (V ∧ G) 6= V ∧ (C2 ∨ G).
Since C2 ⊂ D ⊆ V, we obtain a contradiction with the fact that the variety
V is an upper-modular element of the lattice MON.

Proof of Proposition 1.4. Let V be a commutative monoid variety and Y, Z
be arbitrary monoid varieties. Put X = V ∧ (Y ∨ Z) and W = (V ∧ Y) ∨
(V ∧ Z). Evidently, W ⊆ X. We need to verify that X ⊆ W. If V ⊆ Y then
X = V ∧ (Y ∨ Z) = V = V ∨ (V ∧ Z) = (V ∧ Y) ∨ (V ∧ Z) = W,
and we are done. Therefore, we may assume that V * Y. By symmetry,
V * Z. If V is periodic then X is periodic too. If V is non-periodic then
V is the variety of all commutative monoids. Since V * Y and V * Z, the
varieties Y and Z are periodic, whence Y ∨ Z is periodic too. Thus, X is a
periodic commutative variety. Then Lemma 2.3 imply that X = M ∨ As for

Special elements of the lattice of monoid varieties

9

some s where M is one of the varieties T, SL or Cn with n ≥ 2. Evidently,
M ⊆ V and M ⊆ Y ∨ Z. Now we are going to prove that either M ⊆ Y
or M ⊆ Z. If M = T then we are done. If M = SL then the required fact
follows from Lemma 2.4. Let now M = Cn with n ≥ 2. Suppose that M * Y
and M * Z. It is proved in [5, Lemma 2.5] that if a monoid variety does not
contain Cn then this variety satisfies the identity xn−1 ≈ xn−1+ℓ for some
natural ℓ. This fact implies that there are natural numbers i and j such that
xn−1 ≈ xn−1+i holds in Y and xn−1 ≈ xn−1+j holds in Z. Then the variety
Y ∨ Z satisfies the identity xn−1 ≈ xn−1+ij . We obtain a contradiction with
the fact that M ⊆ Y ∨ Z. Thus, we have proved that either M ⊆ Y or
M ⊆ Z. Since M ⊆ V, we get that either M ⊆ V ∧ Y or M ⊆ V ∧ Z.
Therefore, M ⊆ W.
Now we are going to verify that As ⊆ W. We note also that W is a
periodic commutative variety. Then Lemma 2.3 applies with the conclusion
that W = M′ ∨ Ar for some r where M′ is one of the varieties T, SL or
Cn with n ≥ 2. Suppose that s does not divide r. Then there exist a prime
number p and a positive integer k such that pk divides s but does not divide
r. Put q = pk . Then Aq ⊆ As ⊆ X but Aq * Ar . It is easy to see that any
group subvariety of the variety W = M′ ∨ Ar is contained in Ar (this follows
from Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 2.7, for instance). Therefore, Aq * W.
Since Aq ⊆ X, we have that Aq ⊆ Y ∨ Z. It is proved in [17, Theorem 1.2]
that every variety of periodic Abelian groups is a codistributive element of
the lattice SEM. This fact and Proposition 2.1 imply that
Aq = Aq ∧ (Y ∨ Z) = (Aq ∧ Y) ∨ (Aq ∧ Z).
Since the subvariety lattice of the variety Aq is a chain, we have that Aq
coincides with one of the varieties Aq ∧ Y or Aq ∧ Z, whence either Aq ⊆ Y
or Aq ⊆ Z. Taking into account that Aq ⊆ X ⊆ V, we obtain a contradiction
with the fact that Aq * W. Thus, s divides r. Then As ⊆ Ar ⊆ W.
Therefore, X = M ∨ As ⊆ W. Proposition 1.4 is proved.

Propositions 1.3 and 1.4 completely reduce the problems of describing codistributive or upper-modular elements in MON to consideration of
completely regular varieties. As we have noted in Section 1, there are noncodistributive elements of MON among periodic group varieties. But the
following question is open.
Question 4.1. Is every completely regular monoid variety an upper-modular
element of MON?
The lattice SEM contains upper modular but not codistributive elements (see [18, Subsection 3.9]). On the other hand, in the lattice of all
commutative semigroup varieties the properties to be upper-modular and
codistributive elements are equivalent [19, Theorem 1.1]. The following question is open so far.
Question 4.2. Does there exist an upper-modular but not codistributive element of the lattice MON?

10

S. V. Gusev

Clearly, the negative answer to Question 4.2 immediately implies the
negative answer to Question 4.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. The implication (ii) ⇒ (i) is obvious. It remains to
prove the implications (i) ⇒ (iii) and (iii) ⇒ (ii).
(i) ⇒ (iii). Let V be a proper monoid variety that is a modular and
upper-modular element of the lattice MON. Then Proposition 1.3 implies
that V is either completely regular or commutative. The case when V is
completely regular and non-commutative is impossible by Lemma 3.1. Therefore, V is commutative. Further, Lemma 3.2 implies that all groups of V are
trivial. Then V satisfies the identity xn ≈ xn+1 for some n, whence V ⊆ Cn .
By Lemma 2.3 (see also [5, Proposition 5.1], for instance), V coincides with
one of the varieties T, SL or Ck for some k ≤ n. Finally, Lemma 3.3 implies
that the case V = Ck with k ≥ 3 is impossible.
(iii) ⇒ (ii). In view of Lemma 2.2, the varieties T, SL and MON are
neutral elements of the lattice MON. Then these varieties are costandard elements of MON as well. It remains to prove that the variety C2 is a costandard
element of this lattice too.
It is easy to verify that an element of a lattice is costandard whenever it is modular and codistibutive. This claim readily follows from [3,
Theorem 253] or [13, Proposition 1.7], for instance (to avoid a confusion,
we note that, in [13], modular elements are called s-modular once, while
“a modular element” means the same as “a lower-modular element” in our
terminology). In view of the mentioned fact and Proposition 1.4, it suffices
to prove that C2 is a modular element of the lattice MON. Assume the
contrary. Then [9, Proposition 2.1] implies that there exist the varieties U
and W such that U ⊂ W, U ∧ C2 = W ∧ C2 and U ∨ C2 = W ∨ C2 .
If C2 ⊆ U then W ∧ C2 = U ∧ C2 = C2 , whence C2 ⊆ W. But then
U = C2 ∨ U = C2 ∨ W = W. This contradicts the choice of U and W.
Thus, C2 * U. Analogously, C2 * W. It is proved in [5, Corollary 2.6] that
a monoid variety X is completely regular if and only if C2 * X. Therefore,
the varieties U and W are completely regular.
Suppose that U is a group variety. Then SL * U. If W is a non-group
variety then SL ⊆ W by Lemma 2.4. Then U ∧ C2 = T but SL ⊆ W ∧ C2 .
We obtain a contradiction with the equality U ∧ C2 = W ∧ C2 . Therefore,
W is a group variety. Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 2.7 imply that U is the
largest group subvariety of the variety U ∨ C2 . But this is impossible because
W is a group variety and
U ⊂ W ⊂ W ∨ C2 = U ∨ C2 .
We see that U is a non-group variety. Then SL ⊆ U by Lemma 2.4. In this
case SL ⊆ U∧C2 = W ∧C2 ⊆ W. Therefore, W is also a non-group variety.
Since U is completely regular, it satisfies x ≈ xn+1 for some positive integer
n. Let n be the least number with such a property, while Σ be an identity
basis of the variety U. We denote by ζ the endomorphism of the monoid F 1

Special elements of the lattice of monoid varieties

11

which maps each letter x into the word xn+1 . Put
Σ∗ = {ζ(u) ≈ ζ(v) | u ≈ v ∈ Σ}.
Obviously, U = var{x ≈ xn+1 , Σ∗ }. If p ≈ q ∈ Σ∗ then con(p) = con(q)
by Lemma 2.4. According to Lemma 2.5, the variety C2 satisfies the identity
system Σ∗ . Taking into account that U ∨ C2 = W ∨ C2 , we obtain that W
satisfies the identity system Σ∗ too. Since the identity x2 ≈ x3 holds in C2
and the identity x ≈ xn+1 holds in U, the variety U ∨ C2 = W ∨ C2 satisfies
x2 ≈ xn+2 . Taking into account that W is completely regular, we get that
x ≈ xn+1 holds in W. Then W ⊆ U. We obtain a contradiction with the
choice of the varieties U and W. Thus, we have proved that C2 is a modular,
and therefore, a costandard element of the lattice MON.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. The implication (iii) ⇒ (ii) follows from Lemma 2.2,
while the implication (ii ⇒ (i) is obvious. It remains to prove the implication
(i) ⇒ (iii). Let V be a modular, lower-modular and upper-modular element
of the lattice MON. Theorem 1.2 implies that V coincides with one of the
varieties T, SL, C2 or MON. Lemma 3.1 implies that V 6= C2 , and we are
done.

Acknowledgments
The author is sincerely grateful to Professor B.M. Vernikov for his great
assistance in the improvement of the initial version of the manuscript and to
Professor M.V. Volkov for helpful discussions.

References
[1] Burris, S., Nelson, E.: Embedding the dual of Π∞ in the lattice of equational
classes of semigroups. Algebra Universalis 1, 248–254 (1971)
[2] Burris, S., Nelson, E.: Embedding the dual of Πm in the lattice of equational
classes of commutative semigroups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 30, 37–39 (1971)
[3] Grätzer, G.: Lattice Theory: Foundation. Birkhäuser, Springer Basel AG (2011)
[4] Gusev, S.V.: On the lattice of overcommutative varieties of monoids.
Izv. VUZ Matem. (in press) (Russian; Engl. translation is available at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08749)
[5] Gusev, S.V., Vernikov, B.M: Chain varieties of monoids. Dissertationes Math.
(in press); available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05530
[6] Head, T.J.: The varieties of commutative monoids. Nieuw Arch. Wiskunde.
III Ser. 16, 203–206 (1968)
[7] Jackson, M.: Finiteness properties of varieties and the restriction to finite algebras. Semigroup Forum 70, 154–187 (2005)
[8] Jackson, M., Lee, E.W.H.: Monoid varieties with extreme properties. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. (in press); doi: https://doi.org/10.1090/tran/7091
[9] Ježek, J.: The lattice of equational theories. Part I: modular elements. Czechosl.
Math. J. 31, 127–152 (1981)
[10] Lee, E.W.H.: Varieties generated by 2-testable monoids. Studia Sci. Math.
Hungar. 49, 366–389 (2012)

12

S. V. Gusev

[11] Lee, E.W.H.: Inherently non-finitely generated varieties of aperiodic monoids
with central idempotents. Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov POMI (Notes of Scientific Seminars of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Math. Institute of the
Russ. Acad. of Sci.) 423, 166–182 (2014)
[12] Pollák, Gy.: Some lattices of varieties containing elements without cover. Quad.
Ric. Sci. 109, 91–96 (1981)
[13] Šešelja B., Tepavčević A.: Weak Congruences in Universal Algebra. Institute
of Mathematics, Symbol, Novi Sad (2001)
[14] Shevrin, L.N., Vernikov, B.M., Volkov, M.V.: Lattices of semigroup varieties.
Izv. VUZ Matem. No. 3, 3–36 (2009) (Russian; Engl. translation: Russian
Math. (Iz. VUZ) 53, No. 3, 1–28 (2009))
[15] Vernikov, B.M.: Upper-modular elements of the lattice of semigroup varieties.
Algebra Universalis 59, 405–428 (2008)
[16] Vernikov, B.M.: Upper-modular elements of the lattice of semigroup varieties.
II. Fundamental and Applied Math. 14, No. 7, 43–51 (2008) (Russian; Engl.
translation: J. Math. Sci. 164, 182–187 (2010))
[17] Vernikov, B.M.: Codistributive elements of the lattice of semigroup varieties.
Izv. VUZ Matem. No. 7, 13–21 (2011) (Russian; Engl. translation: Russian
Math. (Iz. VUZ) 55, No. 7, 9–16 (2011))
[18] Vernikov, B.M.: Special elements in lattices of semigroup varieties. Acta Sci.
Math. (Szeged) 81, 79–109 (2015)
[19] Vernikov, B.M.: Upper-modular and related elements of the lattice of commutative semigroup varieties. Semigroup Forum 94, 696–711 (2017)
[20] Volkov, M.V.: Modular elements of the lattice of semigroup varieties. Contrib.
General Algebra 16, 275–288 (2005)
[21] Wismath, S.L.: The lattice of varieties and pseudovarieties of band monoids.
Semigroup Forum 33, 187–198 (1986)
Sergey V. Gusev
Institute of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Ural Federal University, Lenina str.
51, 620000 Ekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: sergey.gusb@gmail.com

