On the representation of finite distributive lattices

Abstract: A simple but elegant result of Rival states that every sublattice $L$ of a finite distributive lattice $\mathcal{P}$ can be constructed from $\mathcal{P}$ by removing a particular family $\mathcal{I}_L$ of its irreducible intervals.Applying this in the case that $\mathcal{P}$ is a product of a finite set $\mathcal{C}$ of chains, we get a one-to-one correspondence $L \mapsto \mathcal{D}_\mathcal{P}(L)$ between the sublattices of $\mathcal{P}$ and the preorders spanned by a canonical sublattice $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ of $\mathcal{P}$.We then show that $L$ is a tight sublattice of the product of chains $\mathcal{P}$ if and only if $\mathcal{D}_\mathcal{P}(L)$ is asymmetric. This yields a one-to-one correspondence between the tight sublattices of $\mathcal{P}$ and the posets spanned by its poset $J(\mathcal{P})$ of non-zero join-irreducible elements.With this we recover and extend, among other classical results, the correspondence derived from results of Birkhoff and Dilworth, between the tight embeddings of a finite distributive lattice $L$ into products of chains, and the chain decompositions of its poset $J(L)$ of non-zero join-irreducible elements.

\section{Introduction}
  In this section we give a brief survey of  several  classical
  results about the representations of finite distributive lattices.
  We then explain how our results generalize them.

  Though we say `generalize', our ideas come very naturally from a result of Rival
  which yields a different interpretation than do the classical constructions.
  In many cases, this yields simplified proofs to the classical results, and we view
  their value as much in this natural interpretation as in the fact that they are
  generalizations.
  Indeed, this paper grew out of \cite{Si15}, in which we find a characterisation
  of the graphs admitting distributive lattice polymorphisms. In that paper,
  we found it was necessary to consider non-tight embedding of lattices into
  product of chains.  It was then that we realized they had been largely overlooked
  in the literature.
  The point of view we develop here differs from the classical one in one point in
  particular. We start from an implicit description of the different sublattices
  of a given product of chains, whereas the classical view starts by describing
  the different embeddings of a given lattice into various products of chains.

  A {\em finite lattice} $L$ is a partial ordering $\leq$ of a finite
  set $L$ such that for every pair of elements $x,y \in L$ there is a
  {\em greatest lower bound} or {\em meet} denoted $x \wedge y$ and a
  {\em least upper bound} or {\em join} denoted $x \vee y$. The lattice
  is {\em distributive} if the meet and join operations distribute over
  each other.

  \subsection{Representation as lattices of downsets}\label{sub:downsetCorr}

  The set $2^X$ of subsets of a finite set $X$ ordered under inclusion is the
  canonical first example of a distributive lattice. Indeed it is easy to check
  that `union' and `intersection'
  act as join and meet operations, respectively, and it is an elementary exercise
  in set theory that these operations distribute with each other.  More generally,
  any family of  sets, closed under union and intersection, is a distributive
  lattice under inclusion.

  In \cite{Bi}, Birkhoff proved a representation theorem for distributive lattices,
  showing that any  distributive lattice $L$ can be represented as the inclusion
  lattice of a family of sets.

  An element $x$ of $L$ is {\em join-irreducible } if $x = a \vee b$ implies that
  $x=a$ or $x = b$.  So the set $J_L$ of non-zero join-irreducible elements of
  $L$ is a poset under the partial order induced by $L$.
  A {\em downset} of a poset $P$ is a subset $S$ of $P$ such that if $x \in P$
  and $y \leq x$ then $y \in P$. It is easy to see that the set $\cD(P)$ of
  downsets of a poset $P$ is  a {\em sublattice} of $2^P$; that is, it is closed
  under its meet and join operations.
  This immediately implies that $\cD(P)$ is a distributive lattice.
  Birkhoff showed that $L \iso \cD(J_L)$. The main step of Birkhoff's
  representation theorem
  is the following theorem.
  \begin{theorem}\label{thm:birkEmb}\cite{Bi}
    The map
    \[S:  x \mapsto S_x := \{ \alpha \in J_L \mid \alpha \leq x  \} \]
   is an isomorphism of $L$ to $\cD(J_L)$.
  \end{theorem}
  The proof of this is now the simple exercise of showing that $S$ has inverse
  operation $S_x \mapsto \bigvee S_x$, and that it commutes with the join and the
  meet. (As our lattices are finite, the meet $\bigvee S$ is well
  defined for any  subset $S$ of elements.)

  Further one can show that $P \iso J_{\cD(P)}$ by observing that a downset in
  $\cD(P)$ is join-irreducible if and only if it has a unique maximal element.
  Thus Theorem \ref{thm:birkEmb} gives the following, which completes a one-to-one
  correspondence between finite posets and  finite distributive lattices.
  \begin{corollary}\label{cor:revBirkEmb}
   If $\cD(P) \iso \cD(P')$ then $P \iso P'$.
  \end{corollary}

  A totally ordered lattice is called a {\em chain}.  The {\em $n$-chain} denoted
 $Z_n$ is the chain on the set $[n]_0 = \{0\} \cup [n] =  \{0,\dots,n \}$ with the
  usual ordering $0 \leq \dots  \leq n$.
  A {\em product of chains} will be written as $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} = \prod_{i = 1}^d C_i$ where
  $C_i$ is the chain isomorphic to $Z_{n_i}$ for the implicitly defined integer
  $n_i$. Where elements of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ are the $d$-tuples
  $x = (x_1, \dots, x_d)$ in the Cartesian product $\prod_{i = 1}^d [n_i]_0$ of sets,
  the product ordering on $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ is as follows.

     \[ x \geq y \iff \forall i \in [d], x_i \geq y_i \]

  It is a simple task to show that $2^X$ is isomorphic to the product of $|X|$
  copies of the chain  $Z_1$, so Theorem \ref{thm:birkEmb} yields the following
  well known fact.

  \begin{fact}
    Any finite distributive lattice $L$ can be embedded into a product of chains.
  \end{fact}

  Recall that an {\em embedding} of one lattice into another is an isomorphism
  of the first to a sublattice of the second.

  For a chain $C_i \iso Z_{n_i}$ let $C_i^* \iso Z_{n_{i-1}}$ be the chain on the set
  $[n_i] = \{1, \dots, n_i\}$ that we get from $C_i$ removing the element $0$.

  A {\em subchain} of a poset is
  a subposet isomorphic to a chain. A {\em decomposition} of a poset $P$
  into subchains is a partition of its elements into a set $\cC^*$ of

 chains $C^*_1, \dots, C^*_d$.

  In \cite{Di50}, Dilworth proved the following embedding theorem
   whose proof is now a simple exercise.
  \begin{theorem}\label{thm:dilEmb}\cite{Di50}
     For any decomposition $\cC^* = \{C^*_1, \dots, C^*_d\}$ of a poset $P$
     into chains $C^*_1, \dots, C^*_d$,
     the map
                \[ S_x \mapsto (|S_x \cap C^*_1|, \dots, |S_x \cap C^*_d|) \]
    is an embedding of $\cD(P)$ into the product $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} = \prod_{i  = 1}^d C_i$.
  \end{theorem}

  With Theorem \ref{thm:birkEmb}, this gives the following.

  \begin{corollary}\label{cor:birkEmb}
  For any decomposition $\cC^* = \{C^*_1, \dots, C^*_d\}$
  of $J_L$ into $d$ chains, the map
      \[ E_\cC: L \to \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}: x \mapsto (|S_x \cap C^*_1|, \dots,|S_x \cap C^*_d| )\]
  is an embedding of $L$ into $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
  \end{corollary}

  We mention here that Dilworth proved Theorem \ref{thm:dilEmb} in showing
  that the minimum number $d$ of chains such that $L$ embeds into a product
  of $d$ chains, is equal to the size $w(L)$ of the largest {\em antichain}
  of $L$: the largest set of pairwise incomparable elements.
  This also required his famous Decomposition Theorem, which we will use at the end
  of Section \ref{sec:antichains}.

   \begin{theorem}\label{thm:dilDec}\cite{Di50}
     For any poset $P$ having maximum antichain of size $d$, there is a
     decomposition of $P$ into $d$ chains.
   \end{theorem}

  In \cite{Di60} Dilworth writes the following with regards Theorem
  \ref{thm:dilEmb} and its corollary.
  \begin{quote}
    Now it is easily shown that subdirect union representations
    \footnote{Here `subdirect union representation' is not defined but seems to
       refer to the result in \cite{Di50} in which a lattice is represented as a
       sublattice of the direct union of chains.  The use of the word
      'subdirect' is less restrictive than the modern usage of the word which
       we assume in this paper.  }
     of a finite
    distributive lattice in terms of chains correspond to the decompositions
    of the partially ordered set of join irreducibles into a set union of chains.
  \end{quote}

  One might interpret this as the statement that a converse to
  Corollary \ref{cor:birkEmb} is easily shown.  However without some
  quantification, which was perhaps implicit at the time, this cannot be the case:
  the lattice $Z_1$ embeds into, say $Z_1^2$, in several ways, but there is only
  one decomposition of the poset $J_{Z_1}$ of a single element into chains, this
  decomposition corresponds to the embedding of $Z_1$ into $Z_1$.
  In \cite{La98}, Larson makes explicit a converse to Corollary
  \ref{cor:birkEmb}.

  The minimum or {\em zero} element of the lattice $L$ is denoted $\mathbf{0}$ or $\mathbf{0}_L$
  and the maximum or {\em one} element is denoted $\mathbf{1}$ or $\mathbf{1}_L$.
  A {\em cover} of a lattice $L$ is a pair $x \geq y$ of elements such that
  there is no element $z$ different from $x$ and $y$ with $x \geq z \geq y$.
  An embedding $L \leq \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ of a lattice into a product of chains is {\em tight}
  if preserves $\mathbf{0}$ and $\mathbf{1}$ and maps covers to covers.  Larson shows, essentially,
  the following.
  \begin{theorem}\label{thm:La}
    The embeddings $E_\cC$ are tight, and for every tight embedding $E$ there
    is some chain decomposition $\cC^*_E$ of $J_L$ such that $E = E_{\cC_E}$.
  \end{theorem}

  It was not mentioned, but it is a trivial observation that different chain
  decompositions of $J_L$ yield different embeddings of $L$ into products of
  chains, so with Corollary \ref{cor:birkEmb}, this yield the following
  correspondence.
  \begin{corollary}\label{cor:La}
    There is a one-to-one correspondence between the chain decompositions
    $\cC^*$ of $J_L$ and the tight embeddings $E$ of $L$ into products
    of chains.
  \end{corollary}

  It was not made explicit in the above papers, but from their proofs, one can
  see that the chain decomposition $\cC^*_E$ of $J_L$ corresponding to an
   embedding $E$ of $L$ into $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ is as follows.
   An element $x \in J_L$ is identified with the unique irreducible element $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ in
   $S_{E(x)} - S_{E(x')}$, where $x'$ is the unique element covered by $x$ in $L$.

  We now explain our results that are related to the above discussion.
  In Section \ref{sec:TermSets} we generalize the poset $\cD(P)$ of downsets of
  a poset $P$ to the poset $\D(D)$ of terminal sets of a reflexive digraph
  $D$. Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoDownsets}, our first main theorem, gives a
  correspondence between the sublattices of a product of chains $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, and the
  supergraphs $D$ of a digraph $\cC^\infty$ defined by $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
  We see this as a generalization of
  Theorems \ref{thm:birkEmb} and \ref{thm:dilEmb}, and
  Corollary \ref{cor:MainTermRev} as an extension of
  Corollary \ref{cor:birkEmb} from tight
  embeddings to all embeddings.  In our extension, we loose
  the `one-to-one'-ness of Corollary \ref{cor:La}.
  In Section \ref{sect:Koh} we recover this by taking a quotient of our digraph
  $D$, to get in Theorem \ref{thm:one2one5} a one-to-one correspondence
  between embeddings of a lattice $L$ into products of chains, and {\em loose
  chain covers} of a canonical extension $J_L^\infty$ of $J_L$.
  Finally, with Corollary \ref{cor:one2one5} we restrict ourselves to full
  embeddings to make it very clear that we have an extension of Corollary \ref{cor:La}.
  Section \ref{sec:char} further corrects some mistakes in \cite{La98}, and extends the
  results of that same paper, to give a more comprehensive
  relation between the type of embedding and the corresponding properties of
  $D$ (and so $J_L$).

  \subsection{Representation as lattice of maximal antichains}

  The correspondence taking a downset of a poset $P$ to its subset
  of maximal elements gives one-to-one correspondence between the downsets
  $\cD(P)$ of $P$ and the antichains $\c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}(P)$ of $P$.
  It is not hard to see that by defining the following ordering on
  $\c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}(P)$, the correspondence can be extended to a lattice isomorphism:
  for antichains $I,I' \in \c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}(P)$, set $I \leq I'$ if for all $a \in I$ there
  is some $a' \in I'$ such that $a \leq a'$.

  In \cite{Di60}, Dilworth showed the following
  \begin{theorem}\label{thm:dilMaxAnt}\cite{Di60}
    The poset $\c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}_m(P) \leq \c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}(P)$ of all maximum sized antichains of a poset $P$
    is a distributive lattice.
  \end{theorem}

  This proof takes some work.  As does the complementing representation theorem,
  proved by Koh in \cite{Ko83}.

  \begin{theorem}\label{thm:koh}\cite{Ko83}
     For every finite distributive lattice $L$, and every chain
     decomposition $\cC^*$ of $J_L$
     there is a poset $P_\cC$ such that $L \iso \c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}_m(P_\cC)$.
  \end{theorem}

   Through the correspondence to chain decompositions of $J_L$, each of the posets
   $P_\cC$ given by Koh, corresponds to a tight embedding of $L$ into a product
   of chains.  However, there are other posets $P$ such that $\c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}_m(P) = L$, that do not
   arise from Koh's results.

   Replacing the poset $P$ with a more general digraph $A$ and generalizing
   antichains to {\em independent sets} we generalize this by showing, in our second
   main theorem, Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoAntichain}, that
   the  poset ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_m(A)$ of maximal independent sets of a digraph $A$ is
   a distributive lattice. Further, by a  simple alteration of our construction
   of the digraph $D$, we associate to every sublattice of
   a product of chains $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ a digraph $A$ and show in
   Corollary \ref{cor:antialldig} that for any digraph
   $A$ with ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_m(A) = L$, the digraph $A$ corresponds to some sublattice
   of a product of chains $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.

   The proof of these results uses Theorem \ref{thm:duality} which
   relates the digraphs $A$ and $D$ corresponding to a sublattice
   $L$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, through a construction $K_\cC$, defined in Section
   \ref{sec:setup}.  This construction arises very naturally from Rival's result,
   and is essentially  Koh's construction $(J_L, \cC^*) \to P_\cC$. The
   only difference is that it removes loops from $P_\cC$.  We view
   Theorem \ref{thm:duality} as the `essence' of Koh's paper \cite{Ko83}.

  \subsection{Representation through irreducible intervals}

  Let $J_L^+ = J_L \cup \{ \mathbf{0} \}$ denote the full set of join-irreducible elements of a
  lattice $L$ and let $M_L^+$ analogously denote the set of all meet-irreducible elements
  of $L$.
  An {\em irreducible interval} of $L$ is the set
      \[ [\alpha,\beta] = \{ x \in L \mid \alpha \leq x \leq \beta \} \]
  for some $\alpha \in J_L^+$ and $\beta \in M_L^+$.
  For a set $\cI$ of irreducible intervals of $L$ we let $\cup \cI = \cup_{I \in \cI} I$.
  The set $\cI$ is called {\em closed} if $I \subset \cup\cI$ implies $I \in \cI$.

 In \cite{Ri74}, Rival showed the following.
  \begin{theorem}\label{thm:rival}
    If $L$ is a sublattice of a lattice $L'$ of finite length, then
            \[ L = L' -  \cup \cI \]
    for some family $\cI$ of irreducible intervals of $L$.
    Further, $\cI$ may be assumed to be closed.
  \end{theorem}

  For a product $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ of chains, it is easy to  see that $J_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}^+$ consists of those
  elements that are non-zero in at most one coordinate, and $M_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}^+$
  consists of those elements $x = (x_1, \dots, x_d)$ such that
  $x_i < n_i$ for at most one $i \in [d]$.
  Thus the  irreducible intervals of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ are sets of the form
     \[ \II{i}j\alpha\beta = \{ x \in L \mid \alpha \leq x_i \mbox{ and } x_j \leq \beta \} \]
  for $\alpha \in [n_i]_0$ and $\beta \in [n_j]_0$.

   We depict a poset by its {\em Hasse Diagram}, the digraph on its vertices
  where $(a,b)$ is an  arc if $a$ is a {\em cover} of $b$; that is, if
 $a \geq b$ but there is no
  $x$ different from $a$ and $b$ with  $a \geq x \geq b$. In our figures,
 the arcs of a Hasse
  diagram will always go down,  so we omit the arrows.
  Figure \ref{fig:RivEx1}(i) shows a lattice $L$ represented as the sublattice
  $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \II{2}{1}{3}{2}$  of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} = Z_4 \times Z_5$.

 \begin{figure}
  \setlength{\unitlength}{250pt}%
   \begin{picture}(1,0.46874999)%
    \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{./Fig1a.pdf}}%
    \put(0.20,0.06){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$(0,0)$ }}}%
    \put(-0.020,0.218){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$(4,0)$}}}%
    \put(0.10,0.105){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$(1,0)$}}}%
    \put(0.07621444,0.18345691){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.11527693,0.151){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.2890625,0.11718753){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.32600344,0.14754999){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.36395645,0.19){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.40140343,0.22396194){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{4}}}%
    \put(0.442,0.265){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$(0,5)$}}}%
    \put(0.732,0.05858484){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$(0,0)$}}}%
    \put(0.50,0.120){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$\longrightarrow$}}}%
    \put(0.66,0.1424234){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.580,0.225){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$4$}}}%
    \put(0.86796699,0.14452262){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.97734198,0.28514765){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$5$}}}%
    \put(-0.05,0.42058956){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{i)}}}%
    \put(0.160,0.000){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} = Z_4 \times Z_5$}}}%
    \put(0.67,0.000){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \II{2}{3}{3}{2}$}}}%
  \end{picture}%

  \vspace{.5cm}

   \setlength{\unitlength}{250pt}%
   \begin{picture}(1,0.46874999)%
 \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{./Fig1b.pdf}}%
    \put(0.06,0.34374993){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$4e_1$
}}}%
    \put(0.06,0.10937497){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$1e_1$}}}%
    \put(0.0859375,0.26562499){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.0859375,0.18749991){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.31093482,0.42275634){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$5e_2$}}}%
    \put(-0.05,0.42058956){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{ii)}}}%
    \put(0.625,0.03){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$D_\cC(\{\II2332\})$}}}%
    \put(0.105,0.03){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$\cC^* = Z^*_4 \cup Z^*_5$}}}%
    \put(0.31093482,0.11025643){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$1e_2$}}}%
    \put(0.31225098,0.18549395){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.31194739,0.26380636){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.31199257,0.34191838){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{4}}}%
    \put(0.45,0.24){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$\longrightarrow$}}}%
    \put(0.61,0.34374993){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$4e_1$}}}%
    \put(0.61,0.10937497){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$1e_1$}}}%
    \put(0.63281251,0.26562499){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.63281251,0.18749991){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.85780982,0.42275634){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$5e_2$}}}%
    \put(0.85780982,0.11025643){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$1e_2$}}}%
    \put(0.85912602,0.18549395){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.85882242,0.26380636){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.85886757,0.34191838){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{4}}}%
  \end{picture}%

  \vspace{.5cm}

   \setlength{\unitlength}{250pt}%
   \begin{picture}(1,0.46874999)%
    \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{./Fig1c.pdf}}%
    \put(0.06,0.36718748){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$4e_1$
}}}%
    \put(0.06,0.05556891){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$0e_1$}}}%
    \put(0.08593751,0.28906254){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.08593751,0.21093746){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.31093482,0.44619389){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$5e_2$}}}%
    \put(-0.05,0.42058956){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{iii)}}}%
    \put(0.125,0.0){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cC = Z_4 \cup Z_5$}
    \put(0.625,0.0){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$A_\cC(\{\II2332\})$}}%
    \put(0.31093482,0.0633816){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$0e_2$}}}%
    \put(0.31225098,0.2089315){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.31194739,0.28724391){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.31199257,0.36535593){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{4}}}%
    \put(0.45,0.24270071){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$\longrightarrow$}}}%
    \put(0.61,0.36718748){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$4e_1$}}}%
    \put(0.61,0.0633816){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$0e_1$}}}%
    \put(0.63281251,0.28906254){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.63281251,0.21093746){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.85780982,0.44619389){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$5e_2$}}}%
    \put(0.84999732,0.0633816){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$0e_2$}}}%
    \put(0.85912602,0.2089315){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.85882242,0.28724391){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{3}}}%
    \put(0.85886757,0.36535593){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{4}}}%
    \put(0.85853813,0.13098097){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.6319756,0.13098097){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.30385064,0.13098097){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.08510063,0.13098097){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
  \end{picture}%

   \caption{ A sublattice $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \II{2}{3}{3}{2}$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} = Z_4 \times Z_5$}
    \label{fig:RivEx1}
  \end{figure}

  \subsection{The idea of our approach}\label{sub:outline}

  For a product of chains $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} = \prod_{i = 1}^d C_i$ we let $\cC = \cup_{i=1}^d C_i$
  be the disjoint union of the chains $C_1, \dots, C_d$ and $\cC^* = \cup_{i=1}^d C_i^*$
  be the disjoint union of the chains $C_i^*$.  We let $\alpha e_i$ represent the element
  $\alpha$ of $C_i$, and let $x = (x_1, \dots, x_d)$ represent the $d$-tuple
  $(x_1e_1, \dots x_de_d)$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.

  Though $\cC$ is clearly isomorphic to $J_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}^+$, we view elements of $\cC$ as `coordinates'
  of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, rather than join-irreducible elements of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$: an element $x = (x_1, \dots, x_d)$
  of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ is uniquely determined by its (antichain of) coordinates $\{x_1e_1, \dots x_de_d\}$. Further, it
  is uniquely determined by the (downset of) coordinates below it.
  In fact, it is easy to show, and is shown upto change of notation, in Lemmas
   \ref{lem:baseTermSetIso} and  \ref{lem:baseIndSetIso}, that
  \begin{enumerate}
    \item the map
    $x \mapsto T_x := \{ \alpha e_i \mid \alpha \leq x_i \}$
    is an isomorphism of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ to $\cD(\cC^*)$, and
   \item the map $x \mapsto \{ x_1e_1, \dots, x_de_d \}$
          is an isomorphism of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ to $\c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}_m(\cC)$.
  \end{enumerate}

   The main idea behind our results comes from the simple observation of
   what we must
   do to $\cC^*$ and $\cC$ so that these statements remain true
   when we remove an irreducible interval $\II{i}j\alpha\beta$ from
   $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.

  Using the example in Figure \ref{fig:RivEx1}, we see that to keep statement (i) true
  when we remove $\II{2}{1}{3}{2}$,
  we should add the edge $3e_2 \to 3e_1$ to $\cC^*$, as in
  Figure \ref{fig:RivEx1}(ii).
  This ensures that, for example, the set
  $T_{(2,3)} = \{2e_1, 1e_1, 3e_2, 2e_2, 1e_2 \}$ is no longer a downset.
  In general it `kills' any downset $T$ containing $3e_2$
  but not $3e_1$. These are exactly $T_x$ for $x \in \II{2}{1}{3}{2}$.
  Our digraph $D$ will be defined from $\cC^*$ by adding this arc
  for every irreducible interval that is removed.

  Similarly, to keep statement (ii) true,  we should add the edge $3e_2 \to 2e_1$ to $\cC$, as in Figure \ref{fig:RivEx1}(iii),
  so that ${(2,3)} = \{2e_1, 3e_2 \}$ is no longer an antichain. We `kill' any antichain containing an element
  above $3e_2$ and
  an element below $2e_1$. These are exactly the antichains  $\{x_1e_1, x_2e_2\}$
   for $x \in \II{2}{1}{3}{2}$.
  Our digraph $A$ will be defined from $\cC$ by adding this arc for every
  irreducible interval that is removed.

  The intuition holds even after $\cC^*$ and $\cC$ are no longer posets.
  For this though we will, in Sections \ref{sec:TermSets} and \ref{sec:antichains},
  extend the posets $\cD$ and $\c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}_m$ of downsets and antichains
  to posets $\D$ and ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_m$ of terminal sets and independent sets.

  For technical reasons we will replace the posets $\cC$ and $\cC^*$ of this
  outline with the  digraph $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ and $\cC^\infty$ respectively. We define these now.

  \section{Setup and the digraphs $A_\cC(\cI)$ and $D_\cC(\cI)$}\label{sec:setup}

  \subsection{Notation}

    For the rest of the paper, $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ will always denote a product of
    $d$ chains $C_1, \dots, C_d$ and
    $\cC$, $\cC^*$ will be the disjoint unions of the
    $d$ corresponding chains $C_i$, and $C_i^*$, and $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z} = \cup_{i=1}^dT_i$
    will denote the disjoint union of transitive tournaments, where $T_i$
    is the transitive tournament that we get  from $C_i$ by removing loops.
    Defining one will define the others with the same $d$ and $n_1, \dots, n_d$.

    For a poset $P$ let $P^\infty$ be the {\em pointed poset} we get
    by adding a new maximum element $\infty$ and a new minimum element
    $0$; we make one exception, letting $\cC^\infty = (\cC^*)^\infty$.

    We retain the notation $x_ie_i$ from last section to refer to elements of
    $\cC, \cC^*$ and $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$, and extend this notation to $\cC^\infty$
    by letting $0e_i$ and $(n_i+1)e_i$ refer to $0$ and $\infty$ respectively,
    for all $i \in [d]$.

    Partial order relations are now viewed
    as digraphs, a comparability $a \geq b$ being viewed as an arc
    $a \to b$.  A graph is {\em reflexive} if every vertex $a$ has a {\em loop}
    $a \to a$, and  is {\em irreflexive} if it has no loops.
   $A$ and $D$ will always refer to digraphs, $D$ will generally be reflexive.
    They will often contain $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ or $\cC^\infty$, respectively, as spanning
    subgraphs. In this case we will refer to them a {\em spanning supergraphs}
    of $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ and $\cC^\infty$ respectively.

   \subsection{Definitions of $A_\cC(\cI)$ and $D_\cC(\cI)$}

    By Theorem \ref{thm:rival} any sublattice of a product $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ of chains
    can be represented as $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI$ for some family $\cI$ of
    irreducible intervals of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.

     \begin{definition}[$A_\cC(\cI)$]\label{const:D}
       For a family of irreducible intervals $\cI$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$,
       let $A_\cC(\cI)$ be
       the spanning  supergraph of $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ we get by letting
       $\alpha e_i \geq  \beta e_j$ for each $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \in \cI$.
    \end{definition}

    \begin{definition}[$D_\cC(\cI)$]
     \label{const:R}
       For a
       family of irreducible intervals $\cI$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, let
        $D_\cC(\cI)$ be
       the spanning supergraph of $\cC^\infty$ defined by letting
       $\alpha e_i \geq  (\beta+1) e_j$ for each $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \in \cI$.
    \end{definition}

    Observe that we get $\cC^\infty$ from $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ by replacing every arc
    $\alpha e_i \to \beta e_j$ with the arc $\alpha e_i \to (\beta+1)e_j$.
    More generally, it should be clear that $D_\cC(\cI) = K_\cC(A_\cC(\cI))$ where
    $K_\cC$ is the following construction, which as we mentioned in
    the introduction, is essentially a generalization of Koh's construction
    from \cite{Ko83}.

   \begin{definition}\label{def:constK}
     For a  spanning supergraph $A$ of $\cC$,
     let $D = K_\cC(A)$ be graph on $\cC^\infty$ with arcs
     \[ \{\alpha e_i \to (\beta+1) e_j \mid \alpha e_i \to \beta e_j
            \mbox{ in } A \}. \]
   \end{definition}

   Now the construction $\cI \mapsto A_\cC(\cI)$  has a well defined
   inverse construction $A \mapsto \cI_\cC(A)$.  To say the same about
   the other two constructions requires some discussion of closure.
   Recall the observation in Theorem \ref{thm:rival} that we may assume that
   $\cI$ is closed: $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \in \cup \cI$ implies $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \in \cI$. Noting
   that the interval
   $\II{i}{j}{0}{\beta}$ is independent of $i$ and the interval
   $\II{i}{j}{\alpha}{n_j}$ is independent of $j$,
   $\cI$ being closed clearly implies the following three conditions:
   \begin{enumerate}
      \item $\cI$ contains the empty intervals of the form  $\II{i}{i}{\alpha}{\beta}$ for all $i$ and
          $0 \leq \beta < \alpha \leq n_i$.
      \item $\II{i}{j}{0}{\beta} \in \cI$ for some $i$ implies
           $\II{i}{j}{0}{\beta} \in \cI$ for all $i$.
       \item $\II{i}{j}{\alpha}{n_j} \in \cI$ for some $j$ implies
           $ \II{i}{j}{\alpha}{n_j} \in \cI$ for all $j$.
   \end{enumerate}

   Firstly, we will {\bf always} assume that a family $\cI$ satisfies (i).
   This corresponds to the fact that $D_\cC(\cI)$ contains $\cC^\infty$ and
   that $A_\cC(\cI)$  contains $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$.
   Secondly, it is clear that $\cI$ satisfying (ii) and (iii) translates to
   $A = A_\cC(\cI)$ satisfying the following.
   \begin{enumerate}
     \setcounter{enumi}{1}
     \item If  $0 e_i \to \beta e_j$ is in $A$ for any $i \in [d]$, then
              $0 e_i \to \beta e_j$ is in $A$ for all $i \in [d]$.
     \item If $\alpha e_i \to (n_j+1)e_j$ is in $A$ for any $j \in [d]$, then
              $\alpha e_i \to (n_j+1)e_j$ is in $A$ for all $j \in [d]$
    \end{enumerate}
   These properties hold precisely when  $K^{-1}_\cC(K_\cC(A)) = A$
   for the obviously defined
   inverse $K_\cC^{-1}$ of construction $K_\cC$. So exactly when
   $D^{-1}_\cC = K^{-1}_\cC \circ A^{-1}_\cC$ is the inverse construction of $D_\cC$.
   The construction $D_\cC(\cI)$ can be seen as assuming properties (ii) and (iii),
   so is slightly less general than the construction $A_\cC(\cI)$.
   We will not always assume these
   properties, as doing so would require more conditions on $A$ in the statement of such
   results as Corollary \ref{cor:RevEmbAntichain}, but we will see, in Corollary
   \ref{cor:simpClosD}, that apart from this, one may assume properties (ii) and (iii)
    without much harm.
  \subsection{ Closure of $\cI$ and transitivity}\label{sect:closure}

    We finish this section by looking at the full implications of assuming closure of $\cI$.
    We start with a technical lemma.

  \begin{lemma}\label{lem:tech}
    Let $D = D_\cC(\cI)$ for some subgraph $L = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
    Then the following are equivalent for
    $\alpha \leq n_i$ and  $\beta \leq n_j$.
     \begin{enumerate}
       \item  $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \subset \cup \cI$.
       \item  For all $x \in L$, $x_i \geq \alpha \Rightarrow x_j > \beta$.
       \item  There is an $(\alpha e_i, (\beta+1) e_j)$-path in $D$
     \end{enumerate}

  \end{lemma}

      \begin{proof}
       The equivalence of (i) and (ii) is immediate as both are
       equivalent to the statement that
       there are no elements $x \in L$ with  $x_i \leq \alpha$ and
       $\beta \leq x_j$. So we show the equivalence of (ii) and (iii).

       On the one hand, assume that
       $\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1} \to \alpha_{i_2} e_{i_2} \to \dots \to \alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}$,      is a path in $D$ where $\beta + 1 = \alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}$.
        By definition of $D$ this means that
       $\II{i_i}{i_{i+1}}{\alpha_{i_i}}{\alpha_{i_i + 1} - 1} \in \cI$ for each $i$.
        Thus by the equivalence of (i) and (ii), we have for all $x \in L$ that
        $x_{i_1} \geq \alpha_{i_1}$ implies $x_{i_2} > \alpha_{i_2} - 1 $ which
        implies $x_{i_3} > \alpha_{i_3} - 1$, etc., until we get that
        $x_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} > \alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} - 1 = \beta$, as needed.

       On the other hand, assume that there is no such path
       from $\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1}$ to $\alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}$.
       We will find $x$ in $L$ with
       $x_{i_1} \geq \alpha_{i_1}$ and $x_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} < \alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}$.
       Indeed, for $j \in [d]$ let $x_j$ be the maximum $\alpha$ such that
       there is a  path in $D$ from $\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1}$ to $\alpha e_j$.
       If no such
       path exists, let $x_j$ be $0$.
       Clearly $x_{i_1} \geq \alpha_{i_1}$,
       and by the assumption
       that there is no path from $\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1}$ to $\alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}$
       we have
       that $x_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} < \alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}$.
       We have just to show that $x$ is in $L$.

       If it is not in $L$, then it is in some $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \in \cI$.
       Thus we have that $\alpha \leq x_i$  and $\beta \geq x_j$.
       So $\alpha e_i \to (\beta + 1) e_j$ is in $A$.
       Now $\alpha \leq x_i$ implies that there is an path from
       $\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1}$ to $\alpha e_i$, so the edge
       $\alpha e_i \to (\beta + 1) e_j$
       gives us a path from $\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1}$ to
       $(\beta + 1) e_j$.  But $x_j < \beta + 1$, which contradicts the choice
       of $x_j$.
     \end{proof}

    \begin{proposition}\label{prop:Rtrans}
      Let $D = D_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}(\cI)$ for some sublattice $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
      Then $\cI$ is closed if and only if $D$ is transitive.

     \end{proposition}
     \begin{proof}
      On the one hand, assume that that $\cI$ is closed.
      Then we can replace (i) of Lemma \ref{lem:tech} with with $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \in \cI$.
      Now $\alpha e_i \to \beta e_j$ and  $\beta e_j \to \gamma e_k$
      in $D$ give by Lemma \ref{lem:tech} that $\II{i}{k}\alpha\gamma \in \cI$
      which means $\alpha e_i \to \gamma e_k$ in $D$.
      So $D$ is transitive.

      On the other hand, assume that $\cI$ is not closed.
      Then there is some $\II{i}j\alpha\beta$ in $\cup \cI$ but not
      in $\cI$. So there is a $(\alpha e_i, \beta e_j)$-path
      in $D$, while  $\alpha e_i \to \beta e_j$ is not in $D$.
      This gives the first statement of the lemma.
    \end{proof}

    Now to get a similar result for $A = A_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}(\cI)$, recall that if
    $\cI$ is closed

    we may assume that
    $A = K^{-1}(D)$ where $D = D_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}(\cI)$ is transitive.
    It is not to hard to see
    from  Definition \ref{def:constK}, that for
    $\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1}$ and $\alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}$ in $A$,
    there is a
     $(\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1},\alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi})$-path in $D$
     if and only if there is an
    {\em alternating $(\alpha_{i_1} e_{i_1},\alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi})$-path}
     in $A$:
       \[ \alpha_{i_1} e_{i_i} \to (\alpha_{i_2}-1) e_{i_2}
        {\leftarrow} \alpha_{i_2} e_{i_2} \to (\alpha_{i_3}-1) e_{i_3}
        {\leftarrow} \alpha_{i_2} e_{i_2} \to \dots  \to (\alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}-1) e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}
        {\leftarrow} \alpha_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi}
        \]
    One should pay attention here to the particular nature of the backwards edges.
    It follows from Proposition \ref{prop:Rtrans} that $\cI$ is closed if and
     only if $A$ satisfies the conditions (ii) and (iii) of the last
     subsection, and is `alternating path transitive', a concept we feel
     is clear enough in light of the fact that we will not make rigourous use of
     it latter.  We make the following weaker  observation formal.

    \begin{proposition}\label{prop:Dtrans}
       Let $A = A_\cC(\cI)$ for a family $\cI$.
       If $\cI$ is closed then $A = K^{-1}_\cC(D_\cC(\cI))$
       and is  $A$ is transitive.
    \end{proposition}
    \begin{proof}
      We have discussed that $\cI$ being closed allows us to assume that
      $A = K_\cC(D)$ where $D = D_\cC(\cI)$.
      To see that $A$ is transitive,
      let  $\alpha e_i \to \beta e_j \to \gamma e_k$ in $A$. Then
      $\alpha e_i \to (\beta+1) e_j$ and $\beta e_j \to (\gamma+1)e_k$
      are in $D$. As $(\beta+1) e_j \to (\beta) e_j$ is always in $D$ we have
      by transitivity that $\alpha e_i \to (\gamma+1)e_k$ is in $D$. So
      $\alpha e_i \to \gamma e_k$ is in $D$, as needed for transitivity.
    \end{proof}

 \section{Generalizing downsets to terminal sets}
  \label{sec:TermSets}

    A {\em directed path} or an {\em $xy$-path} in a digraph is a
    sequence of arcs
     \[ x = x_0 \to x_1 \to \dots \to x_d = y. \]

   \begin{definition}\label{def:termSet}
     A subset $T \subset D$ of vertices of a digraph $D$ is called {\em terminal}
     if for all $x$ in $T$ and all $xy$-paths in $D$, $y$ is also in $T$.
     A terminal set $T$ is {\em proper} if it is not $D$ or empty.
   \end{definition}

   Clearly when $D$ is a poset, the terminal sets are just the downsets.

   \begin{example}\label{ex:termSetsCupC}
   The terminal sets of the disjoint union
   $\cC^*$  of chains are  exactly the downsets
      \[ T_x = \{ \alpha e_i \mid i \in [d], \alpha \leq x_i \} \]
   for vertices $x$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
   These are also exactly the proper terminal sets of $\cC^\infty$.
  \end{example}

   We extend the definition of $\cD(P)$ to the following.
   \begin{definition}[$\D(D)$]\label{def:Term}
     Let $\D(D)$ be the family of proper terminal sets of $D$,
     ordered by inclusion.
   \end{definition}

   With this definition, Example \ref{ex:termSetsCupC} actually gives an
   isomorphism.

   \begin{lemma}\label{lem:baseTermSetIso}
      Let $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ be a product of chains. Then
         \[ T: \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} \to \D(\cC^\infty) : x \mapsto T_x \]
      is an isomorphism.
     The inverse is $T \mapsto \bigvee T$, where the join is taken in $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
   \end{lemma}
   \begin{proof}
     We have already observed, in Example \ref{ex:termSetsCupC},
      that $T$ is a bijection,
     To see that is an isomorphism simply note that
     $T_x \subset T_{x'}$ if and only if $x \leq x'$.  That the join is the inverse is clear:
     an element $x$ in $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ is uniquely defined by the
     set $T_x$ of coordinates below it.
   \end{proof}

   It is not hard to show that the union and intersection of terminal sets
   are terminal, so for all digraphs $D$, $\D(D)$ is a lattice.
   We only need this when $D$ is a spanning supergraph of some $\cC^\infty$,
   but in this case, we show more. In the following, our first main theorem,
   we show that  $\D(D)$ is the sublattice $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cI_\cC(D)$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.

 \begin{theorem}\label{thm:mainIsoDownsets}
        Let $L = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup\cI$ be a sublattice of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, and $D = D_\cC(\cI)$.
        Then the map $T: L \to \D(D)$ is a lattice isomorphism.
  \end{theorem}
  \begin{proof}

     In the case $\cI$ is empty, we have $L = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ and $D = \cC^\infty$,
     so the isomorphism is  shown in  Lemma \ref{lem:baseTermSetIso}.%

     In the general case, we first
     observe that $\D(D)$ is a subposet of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} =  \D(\cC^\infty)$.
     To see that it is a subset, observe that adding arcs to $D$ can only
     remove terminal sets, not create new ones: if a terminal set in $D$
     contains $x_i e_i$,
     then it must contain all $\alpha_i e_i$ for all $\alpha_i < x_i$, so
     any terminal set of $D$ was a terminal set $T_x$ of $\cC^\infty$ for some $x$.
     As  $\D(D)$ is also ordered by inclusion, its order is induced from
     $\D(\cC^\infty)$, so is a subposet.

     Now it is enough to show that  $T: L \to \D(D)$ a bijection.  We do
     this by induction on the size of $\cI$.
      Let $\II{i}j\alpha\beta \in \cI$, $\cI' = \cI - \II{i}j\alpha\beta$, $L' = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI'$, and
      $A' = A_\cC(\cI')$.
      By induction we have that $T$ is bijection from $L'$ to $\D(A')$.

      We must show for $T_x \in \D(A')$, that $T_x \not\in \D(A)$ if and
      only if $x \in \II{i}j\alpha\beta$.  Now $T_x$ being a terminal set in $A'$ but not in
      $A = A' \cup \{(\alpha e_i, (\beta + 1) e_j)\}$ means exactly that
      $\alpha e_i \in T_x$ and $(\beta + 1) e_j \not\in T_x$. This is to say
      $\alpha \leq x_i$ but $(\beta + 1) > x_j$. This means that $x \in \II{i}j\alpha\beta$,
      as needed.
   \end{proof}

   The inverse isomorphism $T^{-1}$ can be viewed as an embedding of
   $\D(D)$ into $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
   Viewing the spanning subgraph $\cC^\infty$ of $D$ as a type of
   'pointed chain decomposition' of $D$ the following, which is immediate
   from the theorem, can be viewed as a generalization
   of Corollary \ref{cor:birkEmb}.
   (We make the fact that this is a generalization more explicit with Corollary  \ref{cor:MainTermRevFull}).

   \begin{corollary}\label{cor:MainTermRev}
    For any spanning supergraph $D$ of $\cC^\infty$ the map
    \[ \D(D) \to \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}: T \mapsto \bigvee T \]
    is an embedding of $\D(D)$ into $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
   \end{corollary}

   Also, as Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoDownsets} makes no assumption on the closure of $\cI$, and $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI$ is
   independent of it, we get the following, which could also be simply verified directly.

   \begin{corollary}\label{cor:close1}
     Let $\cI^c$ be the closure of the family $\cI$. Then
     $\D(D_\cC(\cI^c)) \iso \D(D_\cC(\cI))$.
     Let $D^T$ be the transitive closure of a reflexive digraph
     $D$. Then $\D(D^T) = \D(D)$.
   \end{corollary}

   By Proposition \ref{prop:Rtrans}, this means we can henceforth assume
  that $D$ is transitive, and so a preorder.

 \section{Generalizing  antichains to independent sets}\label{sec:antichains}

    A directed path $x_1 \to x_2 \to \dots \to x_d$ in a digraph
    is {\em non-trivial} if $d \geq 1$.
    Observe that the directed path $x$ is trivial, while the
    directed path, or {\em loop}, $x \to x$, is non-trivial.

   \begin{definition}\label{def:indSet}
      A subset $I$ of a digraph $A$ is {\em independent} if
       there is no non-trivial $xy$-path in $A$ for
        (not necessarily distinct) $x$ and $y$ in $I$.
   \end{definition}

   Observe that by this definition, looped vertices cannot be in
   any independent sets.
   Compare the following with Example \ref{ex:termSetsCupC}.
   \begin{example}\label{ex:indSetsCupC}
   The independent sets of $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ are  exactly the antichains
      \[ x = (x_1, \dots, x_d) = \{ x_1e_1, \dots, x_de_d \} \]
   for vertices $x$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
  \end{example}

   \begin{definition}[${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$]\label{def:indFam}
     Let ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$ be the family of independent sets of $A$ of size $d$,
     and order it as follows. For $I,I' \in {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$, let
     $I \geq I'$ if for each $a \in I$ there is an $aa'$-path in
     $A$ with $a' \in I'$.
   \end{definition}

    The {\em width} $w(A)$ of a digraph $A$ is the size of the
    maximum independent set.
    Observe that if $d > w(A)$, then ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$ is empty.
    If $d = w(A)$ and $A$ is a poset, then ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A^{\rm \irr}) = \c{A}} \def\cB{\c{B}}  \def\cC{\c{C}} \def\cD{\c{D}} \def\cE{\c{E}(A)$
    where $A^{\rm \irr}$ is the graph we get from $A$ by removing loops.

   \begin{lemma}\label{lem:baseIndSetIso}
      Let $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ be a disjoint union of transitive tournaments. Then
         \[ I: \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} \to {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}) : x \mapsto x:= \{x_1e_1, \dots, x_de_d \} \]
      is an isomorphism.
   \end{lemma}
   \begin{proof}
     We have already observed that $I$ is a bijection. To see that is an
     isomorphism
     simply note that there is an $(\alpha e_i,\beta e_j)$-path in $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ if
     and only
     if $i = j$ and $\alpha \geq \beta$. So $x \geq x'$ if and only if
      $I(x) \geq I(x')$.
   \end{proof}

    Our goal now is to extend this lemma to Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoAntichain}.
    We could do this with almost exactly the same proof as in we used in
    the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoDownsets}, but it is more satisfying
    to use Theorem \ref{thm:duality}, our second main theorem.

  \begin{theorem}\label{thm:duality}
      Let $\cI$ be a family of irreducible intervals of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$
      and let  $A = A_\cC(\cI)$ and $D = D_\cC(\cI)$.
     Then
          \[T: {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A) \to \D(D):  x \mapsto T_x \]
      is a lattice isomorphism

  \end{theorem}
  \begin{proof}
     In case that $\cI$ is empty, $A = \c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z}$ and $D = \cC^*$, so
     the result follows immediately from Lemmas
     \ref{lem:baseTermSetIso} and \ref{lem:baseIndSetIso}.

     We show that the restriction of $T: x \mapsto T_x$ to ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$ is a
     bijection to $\D(D)$ by showing that $x \in {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$ if and only
     if $T_x \in \D(D)$. As it follows from Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoDownsets}
     that $\D(D)$ is a lattice, $T$ is then a isomorphism of lattices.

    Indeed, that $x \in {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$ means there are no non-trivial
     $(x_ie_i,x_je_j)$-paths
   in $A$. This is equivalent to there being no arcs $\alpha e_i \to \beta e_i$
   in $A$ for any $\alpha \leq x_i$ and $x_j \leq \beta$.
   But this is equivalent to there being no arcs $\alpha e_i \to (\beta + 1) e_j$
   in $D$ for any $\alpha \leq x_i$ and $x_j \leq \beta$, which is to say any
   arc originating at some $\alpha x_i$ in $T_x$ terminates at $\beta' x_j$
   for some $\beta \leq x_j$. This is also in $T_x$, so this means $T_x$ is a
   terminal set.

  \end{proof}

   Our third main theorem is now immediate.

    \begin{theorem}\label{thm:mainIsoAntichain}
        Let $L = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup\cI$ be sublattice of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, and
        $A = A_\cC(\cI)$.
        Then the map $I:L \to {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A): x \mapsto \{x_1e_1, \dots, x_de_d\}$
       is a lattice isomorphism.
    \end{theorem}
    \begin{proof}

      This is immediate from Theorems \ref{thm:mainIsoDownsets} and \ref{thm:duality}.
    \end{proof}

   As Corollary \ref{cor:close1} followed from Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoDownsets} we get the following
   from Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoAntichain}.
  \begin{corollary}\label{cor:simpClosD}
     Let $\cI^c$ be the closure of the family $\cI$. Then
     ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A_\cC(\cI^c)) \iso {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A_\cC(\cI))$.
     Let $A^T$ be the transitive closure of a digraph $A$. Then
     ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A^T) \iso {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$.
  \end{corollary}
   By Proposition \ref{prop:Dtrans}, this
   allows us to assume that $A$ is transitive, and
   that $A_\cC(\cI) = K^{-1}_\cC(D_\cC(\cI))$.
   We will do so after this section.

     By taking the inverse isomorphism $I^{-1}$ in Theorem
     \ref{thm:mainIsoAntichain} we get the following
     `independent set analogue' to Corollary \ref{cor:MainTermRev}.
     A special case of it would have come out of \cite{Ko83}, but was never
    made explicit there.
     \begin{corollary}\label{cor:RevEmbAntichain}
       For any spanning supergraph of a disjoint union of tournaments
      $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z} = \cup_{i=1}^d T_i$
       the map
        \[ {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A) \to \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} : X \mapsto (X \cap T_1, \dots, X \cap T_d) \]
       is a well defined embedding of ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$ into $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
     \end{corollary}

   Though we did not need Theorem \ref{thm:dilDec} to prove Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoAntichain},
   our generalization of Theorem \ref{thm:koh}, we will need it to prove the following
   generalization of Theorem \ref{thm:dilMaxAnt}.

   \begin{corollary}
     For any digraph $A$, the poset
     ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_M(A)$ of all maximum sized independent sets of $A$
     is a distributive lattice.
   \end{corollary}
   \begin{proof}

     We can remove arcs from $A$ to get a subgraph $A_1$ with the same
     independent sets, but no directed cycles.
     Indeed, if removing an arc $x \to y$ joins two
     independent sets $I_x$ and $I_y$, then in particular there was no
     directed $(y,x)$-path in $D$, contradicting the fact that
     $x \to y$ is in a directed cycle.

     The poset $P$ we get by adding loops to every vertex of the
     transitive closure $A^T$ of $A_1$, has a decomposition $\cC$ into
     $d = w(P)$ chains
     $C_1, \dots, C_m$ by Theorem \ref{thm:dilDec}.  Removing the loops
     from each of these chains we get a tournament decomposition of
     $T_1, \dots, T_m$ of $A^T$. By Corollary \ref{cor:RevEmbAntichain}
     this gives an isomorphism of ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A^T) = {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_M(A^T)$ to a
     sublattice of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$. This is ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_M(A_1)$ by Corollary
     \ref{cor:simpClosD}, which is the same as ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_M(A)$ by construction.
   \end{proof}

  This actually proved more. Where $\c{T}} \def\cV{\c{V}}  \def\cX{\c{X}}  \def\cY{\c{Y}} \def\cZ{\c{Z} = \{T_1, \dots T_m\}$ is
  the tournament decomposition of $A^T$ in the proof and
  $\cR = \cR_\cC(A)$ for corresponding $\cC$, we get that
  $A = A_\cC(\cR)$. This gives the following further complement to
  Theorem \ref{thm:koh}.

    \begin{corollary}\label{cor:antialldig}
      For any digraph $A$ with ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_M(A) = L$,
      there is a (subdirect) sublattice
      $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cR \iso L$ of a product of chains $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ such that
      $A = A_\cC(\cR)$.
    \end{corollary}

    \section{ Characterisation of sublattices }\label{sec:char}

    A sublattice $L = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ is {\em full} if
    it contains $\mathbf{1}_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ and $\mathbf{0}_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
    It is
    {\em subdirect} if for each $i \in [d]$, the projection
    $\pi_i: L \to C_i$ is surjective; this is necessarily full.
    A full subgraph is {\em tight} if its covers are covers of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
    We call $\cI$ {\em full, subdirect} or {\em tight} if $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cI$
    is as a sublattice of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.

  It was shown in \cite{La98} that every tight sublattice of a product
  of chains is subdirect. The converse was also claimed, but the proof was
  flawed: indeed, the lattice  $L = Z_{2} \times Z_{2} - \II{1}{2}{2}{1} - \II{2}{1}{2}{1}$
  shown in Figure~\ref{fig:subNotTight} is a subdirect sublattice of $Z_{2} \times Z_{2}$,
   but not tight. One notices in this example that
  $A_\cC(\cI)$ is acyclic while $D_\cC(\cI)$ is not.
  This is indicative of the difference between tight and subdirect sublattices.

  \begin{figure}
     \setlength{\unitlength}{300bp}%
  \begin{picture}(1,0.46874999)%
    \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{./Fig2.pdf}}%
    \put(0.46165001,0.18187109){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{0}}}%
    \put(0.46199882,0.34111995){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.61677761,0.18176894){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{0}}}%
    \put(0.61712643,0.33667336){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.61653861,0.26028186){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.461411,0.26194305){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.7644336,0.30360502){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.93462044,0.30461499){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{2}}}%
    \put(0.93169399,0.22822364){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.7643762,0.23066427){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{1}}}%
    \put(0.26036506,0.12316671){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$L$}}}%
    \put(0.50,0.12394625){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$A_\cC(\cI)$}}}%
    \put(0.82,0.12325144){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\smash{$D_\cC(\cI)$}}}%
  \end{picture}%
   \caption{ Subdirect sublattice $L = Z_2 \times Z_2 - \II{1}{2}{2}{1} - \II{2}{1}{2}{1}$ that is not tight }\label{fig:subNotTight}
  \end{figure}

    \subsection{Full sublattices}

    \begin{lemma}
     Let $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI$ be a full sublattice of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$. Let
     $A = A_\cC(\cI)$
     and $D = D_\cC(\cI)$.
     Then the following are true.
      \begin{enumerate}
         \item For any $i$ the vertex $n_ie_i$ in $A$ is a source and
               the vertex  $0e_i$ is a sink.

         \item The vertex $\infty$ is a source in $D$ and $0$ is a sink.
         \item Where $D^*$ is the graph we get from $D$ by removing the vertices
               $\infty$ and $0$, $T \mapsto T - \{0\}$ is a bijection of the
               family of proper terminal sets of $D$ to the family of terminal sets
               of $D^*$.
      \end{enumerate}
    \end{lemma}
    \begin{proof}
         By Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoAntichain} the map $x \mapsto x$ is
         an isomorphism of ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$ to  $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup \cI$. By definition
         this is full if and only
       if $\mathbf{1}_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ and $\mathbf{0}_\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ are in ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A)$, which is clearly true if and
       only if there are no arcs in $A$ terminating at $n_ie_i$ or originating at
       $0e_i$, for any $i$.  This gives (i).  Item (ii) is now immediate using that
       $D = K_\cC(A)$.

       We now show that (ii) implies (iii).
       As $\{0\}$ is in any proper terminal set of $D$ and has no out edges,
       it is clear that for any proper terminal set $T$ of $D$, $T \setminus \{0\}$ is
       a terminal set of $D^*$. We must show that there are no other terminal sets of $D^*$.
       Assume $T$ is terminal in $D^*$ but $T \cup \{0\}$ is not terminal in $D$.
       Then $T$ must have some out arc in $D$ that does not exist in $D^*$.  This can
       only be an arc to $\infty$ but by (ii), there are no such arcs.
    \end{proof}

    We thus make the following definition.

     \begin{definition}
       For a family $\cI$ of irreducible intervals of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, let
       $D^* = D^*_\cC(\cI)$ be the subgraph of $D_\cC(\cI)$ induced by
       the vertices of $\cC^* = \cC^{\infty} - \{\infty, 0\}$.
       Let $\D^*(D^*)$ be the set of
       terminal subsets of $D^*$.
     \end{definition}

    In light of item (iii) of the Theorem, we have that ,
    $\D^*(D^*) = \D(D)$ when $\cI$ is full.
    The spanning subgraph $\cC^\infty$
    of $D$ yields a spanning subgraph $\cC^*$ of $\cR^*$, which is
    exactly a chain decomposition of $\cR^*$ thus
    Corollary \ref{cor:MainTermRev} yields the following, which with
    Theorem \ref{thm:mainIsoDownsets} yields a one-to-to correspondence
    between the full sublattices of products of chains, and the chain
    decomposition of transitive reflexive digraphs, or {\em preorders}.

     \begin{corollary}\label{cor:MainTermRevFull}
       For any chain decomposition $\cC^*$ of a preorder $D^*$ the map
    \[ \D^*(D^*) \to \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}:
        T \mapsto  \bigvee T \]
      is a full embedding of $\D(\cR) = \D^*(D^*)$ into $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
      \end{corollary}

    A preorder is a poset if it is acyclic. This brings us to the next point.

    \subsection{Tight  and subdirect sublattices}

    A digraph is {\em acyclic} if its only directed cycles are loops, and is
    {\em strongly acyclic} if it it has no directed cycles.

    In the proof of the following lemma, we use the following, simple,
    well known ideas.
    The {\em height} of a lattice is the length of a maximum ascending
    chain of covers from $\mathbf{0}$ to $\mathbf{1}$. For a distributive lattice,
    every cover is in a maximum ascending chain. It follows that
    a sublattice $L$ of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ is tight if and only if $L$ and $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ have the
    same height.

    \begin{lemma}\label{lem:Jacyclic}
      Let $L = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} - \cup\cI$ be a sublattice of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$, and $\cI$
      be closed.
      Let $D = D_\cC(\cI)$ and let $A = A_\cC(\cI)$.
      Then the following are true.
      \begin{enumerate}
         \item $L$ is tight (in $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$) if and only if $D$ is acyclic.
         \item $L$ is subdirect if and only if $D$ has no {\em up edges}:
               those of the form $\alpha e_i \to (\alpha+1) e_i$.
         \item $L$ is subdirect if and only if $A$ is irreflexive.
         \item $L$ is subdirect if and only if $A$ is strongly acyclic.
      \end{enumerate}
    \end{lemma}
    \begin{proof}
      (i).  First assume that $L$ is tight, and assume,
      towards contradiction that $D$ contains a cycle
       $\alpha_1 e_{i_1} \to \alpha_2 e_{i_2} \dots \to
      \alpha_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi e_{i_\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi} \to \alpha_1 e_{i_1}$, for some $\ifmmode\ell\else\polishlcross\fi \geq 2$.
     We show that no vertex $x$ in $L$ has $x_{i_1} = \alpha_1$, which
     contradicts the fact that $L$ is tight.
     Indeed, if $x$ did have $x_{i_1} = \alpha_1$, then
     $x_{i_1} \geq \alpha_1$ so by Lemma \ref{lem:tech} $x_{i_2} > \alpha_2$ so
     $x_{i_3} > \alpha_3$ etc., and we get that $x_{i_1} > \alpha_1$,
      a contradiction.

     On the other hand, assume that $D$ is acyclic. Then its vertices can be
     ordered so that   all arcs go down.  Adding vertices from the bottom of this ordering,
      one at a time, we get an ascending  walk in $L = \D(D)$ from $0$ to $1$ of
     size $|D|$, showing that $L$ has height equal to the height of $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$.
     Thus $L$ is a tight sublattice.

     (ii). There is an edge $\alpha e_i \to (\alpha+1) e_i$ in $D$
       if and only if there is no terminal set of $D$ containing $\alpha e_i$
      but not $(\alpha+1) e_i$. This means precisely that
       $|T_x \cap C_i| = \alpha$
      is not true for any $T_x \in \D(D)$. So no element $x \in L$ has
      $x_i = \alpha$.

     The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) is immediate from the fact
     that
     $D = K_\cC(A)$, and the equivalence of (iii) and (iv) is immediate
       by  the
     transitivity of $A$.

    \end{proof}

     Using that $\cI$ can be assumed closed, so $D_\cC(\cI)$ can be
     assumed transitive, we get the following by Corollary \ref{cor:revBirkEmb}
     and the observation that on posets $\D^*$ is the same as $\cD$.

    \begin{corollary}\label{cor:RisJ}
       If $L = \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S} -\cup\cI$ is a tight sublattice, then
      $D_\cC(\cI) = J_L^\infty$ and $D^*_\cC(\cI) = J_L$.
    \end{corollary}

    This shows explicitly that Corollary  \ref{cor:MainTermRevFull} is a
    generalization of Corollary \ref{cor:birkEmb}, and that Corollary
    \ref{cor:MainTermRev} can in turn be viewed as a generalization.

   \section{A one-to-one correspondence }\label{sect:Koh}

   Our main drive has been to catalog the sublattices of a given product of
   chains with the digraphs $D$ and $A$, and from this to describe the
   lattices intrinsically with $\D$ and ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d$.
   One aspect of the original decomposition theories we loose is the fact that
   in them, the `cataloging' digraph $J_L$ was unique for a given lattice $L$.
   We recapture this uniqueness by showing that $J^\infty_L$ is a canonical
   quotient of $D$ for any $D$ with $\D(D) = L$. Via this quotient,
   chain decompositions of $D^*$ become 'chain covers' of $J_L$, extending
   the correspondence of Corollary \ref{cor:La}.

    \subsection{Back To Posets}

    Let $D$ be a reflexive transitive digraph, and let $\sim$ be the relation on
    $D$ defined by $x \sim y$ if $x$ and $y$ are in a directed cycle.
    This is clearly an equivalence relation. The partial ordering, defined
    on the set $P_D :=D/\sim$ of equivalence classes of $\sim$,
    by $[a] \geq [b]$ if and only if $a \to b$, is well defined
    because of the transitivity of $D$. Further, it is a poset,  which we also denote by
    $P_D$. (Indeed, $D$ is a preorder, so `$\sim$' is the established
    {\em non-preference} relation on
    a preorder. Its quotient is known to be a poset.)

    Now the {\em quotient homomorphism} $q : D \to P_D : a \to [a]$
    induces maps between $2^D$ and $2^{P_D}$. For
    $T \subset D$, we let $[T]:= \{[x] \mid x \in T\} \subset P_D$, and
    for $S \subset P_D$ we let $\cup S = \cup_{[x] \in S}[x]$.
    Clearly $[\cup S] = S$ and $\cup [T] = T$.

    \begin{lemma}\label{lem:quotient}
      Let $D$ be a transitive reflexive digraph, then
       $\D(D) \to \D(P_D): T \mapsto [T]$
      is an isomorphism with inverse $S \mapsto \cup S$.
    \end{lemma}
    \begin{proof}
       Let $T$ be in $\D(D)$. Then for $[x] \in [T]$ with $[x] \geq [y]$, we have
       that $x \to y$ and so $y \in T$. Thus $[y] \in [T]$, giving that
       $[T] \in \D(P_A)$.

       Reversing the argument, we get that $\cup S$ is a terminal set if $S$ is;
       so $T \mapsto [T]$ is a bijection.
       That it is an isomorphism is clear, as the order
       on both posets is inclusion, and $[T]$ simply partitions a set $T$
       with respect to an underlying fixed partition of $D$.
    \end{proof}

   One can make exactly the same construction for an non-reflexive graph $A$,
   yielding an acyclic quotient $A_A = A/\sim$, which may or may not have loops.
   (A class $[x]$ will have a loop if it contains a looped vertex or more than
     one vertex.)
   Analogously to Lemma \ref{lem:quotient} one can prove the following.
   \begin{lemma}\label{lem:quotient2}
      Let $A$ be a transitive digraph, then
       ${\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A) \to {\bb{A}}}\def\D{{\bb{D}}_d(A_A): A \mapsto \{ [a] \mid a \in A \}$
      is an isomorphism.
    \end{lemma}

     \subsection{Embeddings and Chain Covers}

       In Corollary \ref{cor:MainTermRev} we viewed  $\cC^\infty$ as
       a spanning subgraph of $D$, rather than the other way around.
       Now we take it a step further, viewing it
       as the image of a bijective homomorphism $\phi: \cC^\infty \to D$.
       As such, the embedding in Corollary \ref{cor:MainTermRev} can be
       written as
          $ E_{\phi}: \D(D) \to \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}: T \mapsto \bigvee \phi^{-1}(T)$.
       This holds for any bijective  homomorphism $\phi: \cC^\infty \to D$
       to a transitive reflexive graph $D$.
       Under passage to $P_D$, $\phi$ yields a surjective homomorphism
       $(q \circ \phi): \cC^\infty \to P_D$.  Observing that
        $(q \circ \phi)^{-1}( S ) = \phi^{-1} (\cup S)$, Lemma \ref{lem:quotient} extends the above
       embedding $E_\phi$ to an embeddin

         \[ E_\phi: \D(P_D) \to \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}: S \mapsto \bigvee \phi^{-1}(S). \]

      On the other hand, for an embedding $E: \D(P_D) \to \c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$ we define
      $\phi_E: \cC^\infty \to P_D$ by
         \[ \phi_E^{-1}(p) = T_{E(D_p)} - T_{E(D_p - \{p\})}. \]

      \begin{theorem}\label{thm:one2one5}
       The constructions $E \to \phi_E$ and $\phi \to E_\phi$ give a
       one-to-one correspondence between the surjective homomorphisms $\phi$
       of pointed unions of chains $\cC^\infty$ to $P_R$, and the embeddings
       $E$ of $\D(P_R)$ into products of chains.
      \end{theorem}
      \begin{proof}
        To see that $E = E_{\phi_e}$, it is enough to show it for the
        join irreducible elements  of $\D(P_D)$, i.e., those terminal
         sets of the form $T_r$.
        This is clear:
      \[ E_{\phi_E}(T_r) = \bigvee \phi^{-1}_\phi(T_r) = \bigvee T_{E(T_r)} = E(T_r). \]

       To see that $\phi_{e_\phi} = \phi$, let $r$ be in $P_R$. Then
        \begin{eqnarray*}
           \phi^{-1}_{E_\phi}(r) & = & T_{E_\phi(T_r)} - T_{E_\phi(T_r - \{r\})} \\
                                 & = & T_{\bigvee(\phi^{-1}(T_r))} - T_{\bigvee(\phi^{-1}(T_r - \{r\}))} \\
                                 & = & \phi^{-1}(T_r) - \phi^{-1}(T_r - \{r\}) \\
                                 & = & \phi^{-1}(r)
       \end{eqnarray*}
      The last equality comes from the fact that $T_r$ is join irreducible
      in $\D(P_R)$ and the unique
      terminal set it covers is $T_r - \{r\}$.
     \end{proof}

      Restricting to full embeddings, we can consider the supergraph $D^*$ of $\cC^*$ instead
      of $D$.  For a full embedding $E$ into $\c{P}} \def\cQ{\c{Q}}  \def\cR{\c{R}} \def\cS{\c{S}$,  the surjective homomorphism $\phi_E: \cC^\infty \to D$,
      must take only $\infty$ and $0$ of $\cC^\infty$ to $\infty = \phi_E(\infty)$ and
      $0 = \phi_E(0)$ respectively. So restriction to $\cC^*$ yields a surjective homomorphism
                 $\phi_E: \cC^* \to D^*$.
      On the other hand, any surjective homomorphism $\phi_E: \cC^* \to D^*$ can be extended to surjective
      homomorphism $\cC^\infty \to D$.

      \begin{definition}\label{def:chainCover}
        A {\em loose chain} of a poset $P$ is a pair $(\phi,C)$ where
        $C$ is a chain, and $\phi:C \to P$ is a homomorphism.
        It is a {\em chain} of $P$ if
        $\phi$ is injective. A {\em loose chain cover} of $P$ is a family
        $\cL = \{(\phi_1,C_1), \dots, (\phi_d,C_d) \}$ of loose chains of $P$
        such that the union of the vertex sets of $\phi_i(C_i)$ is the vertex
        set of $P$. $\cL$ is a {\em chain cover} if all the loose chains in the
        cover are chains.
       It is a {\em chain decomposition} if the chains $\phi_i(C_i)$ are disjoint.
     \end{definition}

      It is clear that a surjective homomorphism $\phi: \cC^* \to P$ is exactly a
      loose chain cover $\{ (\phi, C_1), \dots, (\phi, C_d) \}$ of $P$.
      Thus we have the following corollary to Theorem \ref{thm:one2one5}.

      \begin{corollary}\label{cor:one2one5}
         The constructions $E \to \phi_E$ and $\phi \to E_\phi$ give
         a one-to-one correspondence between full embeddings of $L$ into products of
        chains and loose chain covers of $J_L$. Subdirect embeddings  correspond with
        chain covers, and tight embeddings correspond with chain decompositions.
      \end{corollary}

  \providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hboxto3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}