2014-01-09 02:51:35 8 Comments

Universal algebra - roughly - is the study, construed broadly, of classes of algebraic structures (in a given language) defined by equations. Of course, it is really much more than that, but that's the best one-sentence definition I can give.

I'm very new to universal algebra. So far I've found it incredibly interesting, mainly because it looks at things I was already interested in from a new (to me) perspective, and that's always good; but I don't at all have a firm command of even the basics. For example, the recent question Relatively free algebras in a variety generated by a single algebra made me realize that I'd naively accepted a very false statement: until I thought about it, I'd sort of taken for granted that A is always relatively free in Var(A).

I'm sure this isn't the only false belief I have about universal algebra, and I'm sure I'll hold more in the future; and I'm also sure I'm not alone in this. So my question is:

What are some notable counterexamples (to reasonable hypotheses a student in universal algebra might have) in universal algebra?

I'm specifically interested in universal algebra because, well, it's fairly universal; it seems reasonable that a counterexample in universal algebra would be of interest to algebraists of many different stripes, and hopefully many outside algebra as well. At the same time, universal algebra is distinct enough that counterexamples in universal algebra would hopefully have their own flavor not found necessarily in questions like "counterexamples in group theory," "counterexamples in ring theory," etc. In that vein, I'd especially appreciate counterexamples about topics firmly within universal algebra - say, congruence lattices, or Mal'cev conditions - which nonetheless have "something to say" to other areas of mathematics.

### Related Questions

#### Sponsored Content

#### 57 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Counterexamples in Algebra?

**2010-06-21 23:10:07****Dylan Wilson****20826**View**103**Score**57**Answer- Tags: soft-question big-list counterexamples

#### 3 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Generalization of results from specific algebraic theories to Universal Algebra

**2018-02-06 11:29:35****Omer Rosler****255**View**7**Score**3**Answer- Tags: universal-algebra

#### 13 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Counterexamples in PDE

**2011-06-24 00:56:42****timur****6096**View**65**Score**13**Answer- Tags: big-list ap.analysis-of-pdes counterexamples

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Topological universal algebra: what is a variety?

**2017-05-28 20:48:46****Noah Schweber****530**View**16**Score**1**Answer- Tags: lo.logic gn.general-topology ra.rings-and-algebras universal-algebra

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Counterexamples to Kollár's conjecture

**2011-02-10 14:14:24****Rurik****848**View**6**Score**1**Answer- Tags: ag.algebraic-geometry counterexamples

#### 2 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Primitive Recursive Arithmetic via Universal Algebra

**2015-02-19 23:09:22****ThoralfSkolem****748**View**7**Score**2**Answer- Tags: reference-request ct.category-theory lo.logic universal-algebra

#### 0 Answered Questions

### Existence of a construction in Universal Algebra: infinite trees

**2014-02-26 07:25:30****Martin Hofmann****104**View**2**Score**0**Answer- Tags: universal-algebra

#### 1 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] The Universal Algebra of a sigma-Algebra

**2014-02-21 06:59:32****zeh****441**View**2**Score**1**Answer- Tags: measure-theory universal-algebra boolean-algebras

#### 0 Answered Questions

### Why did Bourbaki not use universal algebra?

**2013-05-24 22:36:20****The User****1172**View**17**Score**0**Answer- Tags: ho.history-overview universal-algebra bourbaki

#### 3 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Lawvere theories versus classical universal algebra

**2011-06-29 02:56:00****Benjamin Steinberg****2795**View**26**Score**3**Answer- Tags: ct.category-theory universal-algebra soft-question

## 18 comments

## @William DeMeo 2017-02-22 09:01:03

When one first learns about Birkhoff's HSP Theorem and the variety $\mathcal{V}(\mathbf A)$ generated by the algebra $\mathbf A$, it's a common mistake to think that properties of $\mathbf A$ are inherited by all inhabitants of $\mathcal{V}(\mathbf A)$. For example, if $\mathbf A$ has a modular congruence lattice, then so should every algebra in $\mathcal{V}(\mathbf A)$. (false)

A rule of thumb is to consider whether the property in question is "verbal"---that is, whether it can be specified by a set of equations. If so, then the property is inherited by all inhabitants of the variety.

## @William DeMeo 2017-02-25 11:52:24

For a while it was conjectured that modularity was the "weakest" congruence identity in the following sense: if there was some non-trivial identity satisfied by the congruence lattice of every algebra in a variety, then the variety would have to be congruence modular. This was refuted by Polin in 1977.

## @Pedro Sánchez Terraf 2015-02-09 12:54:33

There are several very basic facts coming from traditional algebra that are confronted when going to a more "universal" setting. I guess that students that know some group/ring theory might be confused by the fact that

Although congruences $\theta$ are still determined by $0/\theta$ for Boolean algebras, this doesn't hold for bounded lattices.

When starting studying some lattice theory, it might be difficult to realize that

Finally, I conclude with a horrible example concerning factorization of structures that is somehow related to the previous example. Consider the direct product of two finite, totally ordered semilattices, as in the picture.

Actually, this product has a lattice order. If you take the subset consisting of the filled points, it is a subsemilattice, it is lattice-ordered and

it's still the product of two (smaller) chains.## @Pasha Zusmanovich 2014-05-17 20:55:03

May be this is too naive, but for people accustomed to more or less conventional algebraic objects (like groups, Lie and associative algebras, etc.), it could be revealing to know that there are universal algebras without proper subalgebras (for one such class of algebars, see, e.g., K. Kaarli, Subalgebras of the squares of weakly diagonal majority algebras, Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 49 (2012), N4, 509-524)

Free semigroups can be embedded into metabelian groups (see, e.g. G. Bergman, Hyperidentities of groups and semigroups, Aequat. Math. 22 (1981), 315-317).

## @Arturo Magidin 2014-01-10 17:34:08

Not all nonabelian relatively free groups of exponent zero or a prime power are directly indecomposable; not all splitting groups in a variety of exponent zero or a prime power are relatively free.

These were Problems 21 and 22 in Hanna Neumann's

Varieties of Groups; Peter Neumann provided examples inA note on the direct decomposablity of relatively free groups.Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2)191968 67–79, MR 0223437 (36 #6485)## @Thomas Klimpel 2014-01-09 23:03:15

A complete semilattice is automatically also a complete lattice. Hence a student might expect that there is no need to distinguish between complete semilattices and complete lattices. However, the

complete homomorphismsof complete meet-semilattices in general don't preserve the join operation, so the two structures must really be distinguished.## @Tom Leinster 2014-01-09 18:36:56

Not sure whether you count this as universal algebra; someone classically-minded probably wouldn't, and someone categorically-minded probably would.

In any case: it's possible to cook up two nonisomorphic operads that give rise to the same algebraic theory. Here "operad" means "non-symmetric operad of sets", and by "give rise to" I'm referring to the fact that every operad $P$ has an associated algebraic theory (which expressed as a monad is $\coprod_{n \geq 0} P_n \times (-)^n$).

This is a counterexample to the general belief that operads are algebraic theories of a special kind. You still see this belief expressed all over the place, and it's reinforced by the fact that for

symmetricoperads, different operads genuinely do give rise to different theories.EditHere are some details. From any operad $P$, we can construct itsreverse$P^\#$. It has the same operations as $P$, and the same identity operation, but the order of the composition is reversed. Thus, $\theta \circ (\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_n)$ in $P^\#$ is $\theta \circ (\theta_n, \ldots, \theta_1)$ in $P$. It's easy to show that $P$ and $P^\#$ give rise to the same algebraic theory.So, to construct our counterexample, we just have to find some operad not isomorphic to its reverse. This is a bit harder than it sounds. For instance, any operad that admits a symmetric structure is isomorphic to its reverse, and several other well-known operads are too. But you can find one in arXiv:math/0404016. It's obscure enough that I couldn't immediately remember what it was. There may be simpler examples out there; I think Steve Lack told me one by email.

## @Todd Trimble 2014-01-09 20:55:18

Tom, could you give a reference for this, or maybe just give two such operads in your answer if it's not too much trouble?

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 15:57:17

Here is another great Mark Sapir result. Let $S$ be the three element cyclic semigroup $\langle x\mid x^2=x^3\rangle$. Then $S$ has no finite basis for its quasi-identities. I believe Jackson and Volkov later showed that any finite semigroup containing this one also has no finite basis for its quasi-identities.

Related, Mark Sapir showed that although the variety generated by the finite semigroup $\{1,a,b\}$ where $1$ is the identity and $xy=x$ for $x,y\neq 1$ has only fnitely many subvarieties, it has uncountably many subquasivarieties. I recently showed with Margolis and Saliola that $\{1,a,b\}$ has no finite basis of quasi-identities (this is easier than Sapir's result) using hyperplane arrangements.

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 15:52:58

Here is another one I love. Marcel Jackson showed that there is a finite semigroup with a finite basis for its identities such that the variety it generates contains uncountably many subvarieties. I would have thought this impossible. Here is the link:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021869399982807

## @Joseph Van Name 2014-01-09 12:13:13

This is only a counterexample in the loose sense of the word. Universal algebra students may hypothesize that all interesting fundamental operations studied in universal algebra and related areas have arity at most 2. Even though ternary terms are useful when investigating certain properties of congruence lattices (i.e. Mal'cev conditions), ternary terms rarely pop up as fundamental operations on algebras.. Therefore, algebras with interesting ternary operations are helpful to keep in mind. For example, median algebras are algebras with a single ternary operation $m$ that satisfies the identities: $$m(a,a,b)=a$$ $$m(a,b,c)=m(b,a,c)=m(b,c,a)$$ $$m(m(a,b,c),d,e)=m(a,m(b,d,e),m(c,d,e)).$$

For example, if $X$ is a distributive lattice, then $(X,m)$ is a median algebra where $$m(x,y,z)=(x\wedge y)\vee(x\wedge z)\vee(y\wedge z)=(x\vee y)\wedge(x\vee z)\wedge(y\vee z).$$

See this question for more ternary operations in universal algebra.

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 14:56:18

Median algebras are essentially the same thing as Cat(0) cube complexes so are fundamental to 3-manifold topology.

## @arsmath 2015-02-09 14:34:21

@BenjaminSteinberg That sounds interesting. Do you know a reference for the connection?

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2015-02-09 16:30:54

@arsmath, look at personal.soton.ac.uk/gan/Roller.pdf

## @arsmath 2015-02-10 21:15:40

@BenjaminSteinberg Thanks! That's fascinating reading.

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 03:14:20

A deep theorem of Oates and Powell shows that any finite group has a finite basis for its identities. One might think that the same is true for semigroups. But Perkins showed the 6-element semigroup consisting of the $2\times 2$ identity matrix, the zero matrix and the four matrix units $E_{ij}$ is not finitely based.

Mark Sapir, in a tour-de-force work involving symbolic dynamics, proved that this semigroup is inherently nonfinitely based, meaning it cannot belong to any finitely based locally finite variety. Hence any finite semigroup generating a variety containing this semigroup is not finitely based.

See Sapir's book http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~msapir/book/b2.pdf for this and many other nice universal algebra results.

## @Todd Trimble 2014-01-09 04:18:36

Benjamin, can you add a reference for Mark Sapir's tour-de-force?

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 14:53:37

You can find it in in his book math.vanderbilt.edu/~msapir/book/b2.pdf where in Chapter 3 he uses symbolic dynamics to characterize in an algorithmic way all finite inherently non finitely based semigroups.

## @William DeMeo 2017-02-22 07:45:22

Bryant (1982) proved that the theorem of Oates and Powell does not generalize to "pointed" groups. That is, if you take a finite group and simply identify one of its elements as "special," then it no longer has a finite basis for its identities. That seems striking at first, but think about all the new identities you have once you can recognize a special element of the group (besides the identity, of course).

## @Victor 2014-01-09 08:05:14

Following George Bergman's recent preprint

http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.0564

(btw, he is very good at finding strange (counter-)examples in universal algebra!)

we recently found out that the universal group of the subsemigroup from the free monoid $\{a,b,c\}^*$ generated by $\{bc,abcabc,bcabca,bcabcabcabc\}$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z})\ast\mathbb{Z}$, and so non-free, which somehow collides with Nielsen-Schreier theorem.

## @Joël 2014-01-09 15:51:26

So Nielsen-Schreier theorem is false ?

## @janmarqz 2014-01-11 00:57:41

@Jöel: $({\Bbb{Z}}\times {\Bbb{Z}})*{\Bbb{Z}}$ is free product, but isn't a free group.

## @Joël 2014-01-11 01:30:32

Okay, I get it: the analog of Nielsen-Schreier for monoids is false. Sorry for having been thick.

## @Victor 2014-01-12 07:04:57

@Joël: well, before this example, i was very sure that universal groups of subsemigroups of free monoids must be free (subsemigroups of free monoids are of course not necessarily free), since subsemigroups of free monoids live inside free groups and kind of their universal groups would be some subgroups from the free group. Well, semigroups are just crazy wild objects!

## @Victor 2014-01-09 07:48:09

Let me mention the question we struggled with for some time: we could not find examples showing that if you take away finitely many elements from a finitely generated semigroup, so that the resulting subset is a subsemigroup, then neither hopficity, not co-copficity is preserved in general. Strangely, but it's exactly relating (co-)hopficity for semigroups to (co-)hopficity for graphs what made it possible. Here are two links:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6176

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6929

(I have to acknowledge though that Ben Steinberg finds Rees index unnatural)

Some other surprising links of semigroup properties to algebraic properties of various relational structures can be found in works on FA-presentable semigroups.

## @pdmclean 2014-01-09 04:35:39

Regarding a small model of High School Algebra

M. Jackson, A note on HSI-algebras and counterexamples to Wilkie's identity, Algebra Universalis 36 (1996), 528–535.

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 03:18:02

All free Jónsson-Tarski algebras on a finite nonempty set of generators are isomorphic. Thus free objects may not know their rank.

Curiously the automorphism group of this free algebra is the famous Thompson simple group $V$.

## @Noah Schweber 2014-01-09 03:39:13

Just checking: a Jonsson-Tarski algebra is an algebra in the language of a single binary function symbol $f$, with infinite domain $A$ such that $f$ is a bijection between $A^2$ and $A$, right?

## @bof 2014-01-09 03:58:14

@NoahS I think you also want unary unpairing functions $g$ and $h$, so the identities are $g(f(x,y))=x,\ h(f(x,y))=y$, and $f(g(x),h(x))=x$.

## @Joseph Van Name 2014-01-09 14:47:31

In a variety generated by an infinite primal algebra $A$, all algebras freely generated by finitely many elements are isomorphic to the direct power $A^{A}$, and $\textrm{Aut}(A^{A})\simeq\textrm{Sym}(A)$.

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 03:24:49

Subalgebras of free algebras are free. True for groups and Lie algebras but false for semigroups or commutative rings.

## @bof 2014-01-09 03:53:15

Rather blatantly false for lattices.

## @Joseph Van Name 2014-01-09 05:10:20

False also for Boolean algebras since the finite free Boolean algebras have cardinality of the form $2^{2^{n}}$.

## @bof 2014-01-09 05:28:58

@JosephVanName Oh, right. And I believe every countable Boolean algebra is embeddable in the free Boolean algebra on $\aleph_0$ generators?

## @Arturo Magidin 2014-01-10 04:54:28

Also false for "most" varieties of groups: it only holds for the variety of all groups, the variety of all abelian groups, the variety of all abelian groups of exponent $p$ ($p$ a prime), and the trivial variety.

## @goblin 2016-06-14 17:30:12

Another example: $R$-modules whenever $R$ is a commutative ring that isn't a PID.

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 03:21:34

There are compact totally disconnected lattices which are not inverse limits of finite lattices.

## @Benjamin Steinberg 2014-01-09 03:19:17

McKenzie proved that it is undecidable whether a finite universal algebra has a finite basis of identities.

## @Gerhard Paseman 2014-01-09 22:24:56

That was actually part of a creative outburst of McKenzie's regarding decidability of issues such as residual finiteness, whether certain types (tame conrguence theory) occur in an algebra in the variety generated by a variety, and others. The counterexample was to the statement "These problems are not going to be solved in the millenium they were posed." Gerhard "Or In The Same Century, Anyway" Paseman, 2013.01.09