Modular elements of the lattices of varieties of semigroups and epigroups. I

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.19010
• Title: Modular elements of the lattices of varieties of semigroups and epigroups. I
• Authors: Vyacheslav Yu. Shaprynskiǐ (Ural Federal University), Dmitry V. Skokov (Bar-Ilan University)
• Classification: math.GR (Group Theory), secondary 08B15 (Universal Algebra)
• Submission Date: November 24, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19010

Abstract

This paper constitutes the first part of a study on modular elements in the lattices of varieties of semigroups and epigroups. The authors provide strengthened necessary and sufficient conditions for a variety of semigroups or epigroups to constitute a modular element in its corresponding lattice. These results refine previously known criteria and lay the foundation for the complete classification to be presented in the second part of the study.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Problem

This paper addresses the complete characterization of modular elements in the lattice of semigroup varieties (SEM) and the lattice of epigroup varieties (EPI).

Problem Significance

1. Theoretical Importance: The lattice of semigroup varieties SEM possesses an extremely complex structure, containing anti-isomorphic copies of partition lattices on countably infinite sets, and thus satisfies no non-trivial lattice identities. The study of special elements with "good lattice behavior" is crucial for understanding this complex structure.
2. Historical Status: Modular elements are among the earliest types of special elements in SEM to attract research attention. Despite a long research history, a complete characterization has remained an open problem, explicitly posed in several survey articles (such as 17).
3. Unified Framework: The research results provide guidance for understanding the lattice structure of varieties of semigroups equipped with additional unary operations (such as epigroups).

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Partial Results: Previous work has provided characterizations only for specific types of modular varieties, such as:
   • Modularity of commutative varieties (Proposition 2.8)
   • Varieties satisfying permutation identities of length 3 (Proposition 2.9)
   • 0-reduced varieties (Proposition 2.7)
2. Gap in Necessary and Sufficient Conditions: Proposition 2.5 provides necessary conditions (non-zero identities in modular varieties must be substitution identities), Proposition 2.7 provides sufficient conditions (0-reduced varieties are modular), but a significant gap exists between these two conditions.
3. Technical Obstacles: The need to handle complex stabilizer subgroup structures and incomparability relations between words, lacking a unified analytical framework.

Research Motivation

This paper aims to establish a systematic analytical framework by introducing check sets and G-set theory, providing a precise characterization of modular varieties and filling a long-standing theoretical gap.

Core Contributions

1. Established a framework of necessary and sufficient conditions for modular nil-varieties (Theorems 1.1 and 1.2):
   • Necessary conditions (Theorem 1.1): A modular variety must have the form V = M ∨ N, where M ∈ {T, SL}, and N is a nil-variety satisfying conditions (a), (b), (c)
   • Sufficient conditions (Theorem 1.2): A nil-variety N satisfying conditions (a), (b), (c') makes M ∨ N modular
2. Introduced check sets and G-set theory as analytical tools:
   • Transformed the modularity problem of varieties into a modularity problem of congruence lattices on G-sets (Propositions 3.1 and 3.2)
   • Established code theory characterizing congruence structures (Lemmas 4.5-4.8)
3. Characterized critical configurations in subgroup lattices of symmetric groups:
   • Identified critical pairs of subgroups leading to non-modularity (four cases in conditions (c) and (c'))
   • Utilized complete structures of Sub(S₃) and Sub(S₄) (Figures 2 and 3)
4. Proved the unity of semigroup and epigroup cases: Except for the full semigroup variety, the modular elements in both lattices are identical (to be completely proven in the second part)
5. Revealed essential distinctions from the monoid case: Modular elements in the semigroup variety lattice do not form a sublattice (verified through counterexamples V₁ and V₂), whereas in the monoid case they do form a sublattice 7

Methodology in Detail

Task Definition

Input: A semigroup or epigroup variety V
Output: Determine whether V is a modular element of the lattice SEM (or EPI)
Definition: A lattice element x is modular if and only if: $(\forall y, z \in L) \quad y \leq z \rightarrow (x \vee y) \wedge z = (x \wedge z) \vee y$

Equivalent characterization (Volkov 25): x is modular if and only if x is not the central element of the non-modular lattice N₅ (see Figure 1).

Overall Architecture

The paper's method consists of three levels of reduction:

First Level: Reduction to Nil-varieties (Proposition 2.4)

Proves that any proper modular variety must have the form V = M ∨ N, where:

• M ∈ {T, SL} (trivial variety or semilattice variety)
• N is a nil-variety (all members are nilpotent semigroups)

Key Lemma (Lemma 2.3): V is modular if and only if V ∨ SL is modular (utilizing SL as a neutral element)

Second Level: From Variety Lattices to Congruence Lattices of G-sets (Propositions 3.1 and 3.2)

Core Idea: Transform the modularity problem of varieties into a modularity problem of congruence relations on word sets.

Check Set Definition: A set M ⊆ F satisfying:

1. All words have the same alphabet: alph(u) = alph(v) for all u,v ∈ M
2. Incomparability: u ≮ v for all u,v ∈ M
3. Equivalence class closure: u ∈ M, u ∼ v, alph(u) = alph(v) ⇒ v ∈ M

Key Transformation (Proposition 3.1): If a nil-variety V is modular, then for any check set M satisfying M ∩ I(V) = ∅, the restricted relation ∼_V|_M is a modular element of the congruence lattice Con(M).

Proof Technique:

1. Construct the sublattice L_M = {X : M is a union of ∼_X classes}
2. Establish a surjective homomorphism χ: L_M → Con(M), χ(X) = ∼_X|_M
3. Apply Lemma 2.1 (surjective homomorphisms preserve modularity)

Third Level: Structure Theory of G-set Congruence Lattices (Section 4)

View M as a G-set under the action of S(alph(M)), systematically studying the structure of Con(M).

Code Theory:

• For a transversal T = {x₁,...,x_n} (one representative from each orbit), define the code: $\text{Code}_T(\sigma) = (\sigma^*_T \mid \text{Stab}_\sigma(x_1), ..., \text{Stab}_\sigma(x_n))$ where σ* is the equivalence relation between orbits, and Stab_σ(x_i) is the σ-stabilizer subgroup
• Key Isomorphism (Lemma 4.6): Code_T establishes a poset isomorphism $\text{Con}_T(A) \cong \text{PC}$ where Con_T(A) is the set of congruences coordinated with transversal T, and PC is the appropriate set of codes

Explicit Formulas for Lattice Operations (Lemma 4.8): $C_1 \wedge C_2 = (\pi_1 \wedge \pi_2 \mid H_1 \wedge P_1, ..., H_n \wedge P_n)$$C_1 \vee C_2 = (\pi_1 \vee \pi_2 \mid K_1, ..., K_n)$ where $K_i = \left(\bigvee_{j:(A_i,A_j)\in\pi_1\vee\pi_2} H_j\right) \vee \left(\bigvee_{j:(A_i,A_j)\in\pi_1\vee\pi_2} P_j\right)$

Characterization of Modular Elements (Proposition 5.2)

For a G-set X under the action of G = S_n, a simple congruence σ is modular if and only if:

(i) Local Condition: Each Stab_σ(x) is a modular element of Sub(S_n)

(ii) Global Condition: There do not exist points x, y from different orbits satisfying any of the following:

• (a) Stab_σ(x), Stab_σ(y) ∈ {T₁₂, T₂₃, T₁₃} (two different transposition-generated groups)
• (b) One is a transposition group and the other is A₃
• (c) Stab_σ(x), Stab_σ(y) ∈ {I₁₂,₃₄, I₁₃,₂₄, I₁₄,₂₃} (different extensions of the Klein four-group)
• (d) One is an extension of the Klein four-group and the other is A₄

Proof Strategy:

• Necessity: Use Lemma 5.1; for each forbidden configuration, construct a counterexample N₅ sublattice
• Sufficiency: Carefully construct a transversal T coordinated with α, β, γ; use code theory to verify the modular equation

Technical Innovations

1. Check Set Method: Localizes infinite lattice problems into finite configuration problems through check sets
2. Code Reduction: Completely encodes the modularity problem of congruence lattices into:
   • Equivalence relations between orbits (combinatorial data)
   • Sequences of stabilizer subgroups (algebraic data)
3. Comparability Observation on Stabilizer Subgroups: Under conditions (i) and (ii), all Stab_α(x_i) are comparable, so the maximum operation simplifies to the join operation (key step in the sufficiency proof of Proposition 5.2)
4. Coordinated Transversal Construction: Systematically constructs common transversals through nested structures of γ-classes and β-classes

Theoretical Verification

Verification Case 1: Complete Characterization of Commutative Varieties (Proposition 2.8)

Conclusion: A commutative semigroup variety V is modular if and only if V = M ∨ N, where M ∈ {T, SL} and N satisfies x²y ≈ 0.

Verification: This is a special case of the main theorem when n=2. Sub(S₂) contains only the trivial group and S₂ itself, so conditions (b) and (c) are automatically satisfied.

Verification Case 2: Permutation Identity Varieties of Length 3 (Proposition 2.9)

Provides a complete list of four classes of modular varieties, corresponding to different modular subgroup configurations of Sub(S₃) (see Figure 2).

Verification Case 3: Counterexample Showing Modular Elements Do Not Form a Sublattice

Construction:

• V₁ generated by {x²yz ≈ x²zy, x₁x₂x₃x₄x₅ ≈ 0}
• V₂ generated by {xyz² ≈ yxz², x₁x₂x₃x₄x₅ ≈ 0}

Verification: Using Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, one can verify that V₁ and V₂ are modular, but V₁ ∧ V₂ is not modular. This contrasts sharply with the monoid case 7.

Comparison with Previous Work

Main Results

Theorem 1.1 (Necessary Conditions)

If V is a proper modular element of the lattice SEM (or EPI), then V = M ∨ N, where M ∈ {T, SL}, and N is a nil-variety satisfying the following conditions:

(a) Identity Condition: For each non-substitution identity u ≈ v in V, both u ≈ 0 and v ≈ 0 hold in V

(b) Stabilizer Subgroup Modularity: If V does not satisfy u ≈ 0, then Stab_V(u) is a modular element of Sub(S(alph(u)))

(c) Forbidden Configurations for Incomparable Word Pairs: There do not exist incomparable words u, v with alph(u) = alph(v) such that any of the following holds:

• Stab_V(u), Stab_V(v) ∈ {T₁₂, T₂₃, T₁₃}
• Stab_V(u) ∈ {T₁₂, T₂₃, T₁₃}, Stab_V(v) = A₃
• Stab_V(u), Stab_V(v) ∈ {I₁₂,₃₄, I₁₃,₂₄, I₁₄,₂₃}
• Stab_V(u) ∈ {I₁₂,₃₄, I₁₃,₂₄, I₁₄,₂₃}, Stab_V(v) = A₄

Theorem 1.2 (Sufficient Conditions)

If M ∈ {T, SL} and N is a nil-variety satisfying conditions (a), (b), and (c'), then V = M ∨ N is a modular element of the lattice SEM (or EPI).

Condition (c') differs from (c): Replace "incomparable words" with "non-equivalent words" (u ≁ v rather than u ∥ v).

Key Lemmas

Lemma 4.1: Direct product decomposition of simple congruence lattices $\text{SCon}(A) \cong \prod_{i=1}^n \text{Con}(A_i)$

Lemma 4.6: Code isomorphism $\text{Code}_T: \text{Con}_T(A) \xrightarrow{\cong} \text{PC}$

Proposition 5.2: Complete characterization of modular elements of G-sets (see Methodology in Detail section)

Theoretical Findings

1. Announcement of Equivalence of Conditions (c) and (c'): The authors state that the equivalence of these two conditions will be proven in the second part, thus Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 provide a complete characterization.
2. Unity of Semigroup and Epigroup Cases: Except for the full semigroup variety, the modular elements in both lattices are completely identical (Corollary 2.6 and subsequent discussion).
3. Complete Description of Modular Elements in Sub(S_n) (from 9):
   • n ≤ 3: All non-trivial subgroups are modular
   • n = 4: G is modular ⇔ G ⊇ V₄
   • n ≥ 5: G is modular ⇔ G ∈ {S_n, A_n}

Related Work

Historical Development

1. Foundational Theory of Variety Lattices (1960s-1970s):
   • Evans 4: Survey of basic properties of SEM
   • Ježek 8: Proof that SEM contains anti-isomorphic copies of partition lattices
   • Burris & Nelson 2: Embedding theorems
2. Early Studies of Modular Elements (1980s-2000s):
   • Ježek 9: General theory of modular elements in lattices of equational theories
   • Ježek & McKenzie 10: Definability in semigroup variety lattices
   • Volkov 25: Equivalent characterization of modular elements (N₅ criterion)
3. Characterization of Special Types of Modular Varieties (2000s-2010s):
   • Vernikov & Volkov 23, 24: Modularity of nilpotent varieties
   • Vernikov 21: Complete characterization of commutative modular varieties
   • Shaprynskiǐ 12: Study of modular and submodular elements
4. Study of Epigroup Varieties (2010s-2020s):
   • Shevrin 15, 16: Foundational theory of epigroups
   • Shaprynskiǐ, Skokov & Vernikov 13, 14: Special elements in EPI
   • Skokov 18, 19: Distributive elements and other special elements
5. Recent Progress (2020s):
   • Skokov & Vernikov 20: Modular varieties satisfying permutation identities of length 3
   • Gusev 7: Modular elements in monoid variety lattices (2025)
   • This Paper: Unified theory of modular elements in semigroup and epigroup variety lattices

Position of This Paper

Improvement over Ježek 9:

• Ježek studied equational theory lattices for all types of algebras, with more general but less refined results
• This paper focuses on semigroups, utilizing special structures of free semigroups (comparability relations between words) to obtain stronger results

Generalization of Vernikov's Series of Works:

• 21 only handles the commutative case
• 20 only handles permutation identities of length 3
• This paper provides a unified framework for the general case

Contrast with Gusev 7:

• Monoid case: Modular elements form a sublattice
• Semigroup case (this paper): Modular elements do not form a sublattice
• Essential difference stems from the existence of identity elements

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Precise Characterization of Modular Nil-varieties: Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 establish a framework of necessary and sufficient conditions; the equivalence of conditions (c) and (c') will be proven in the second part.
2. Effectiveness of the Check Set-G-set Method: Successfully reduces infinite-dimensional lattice problems to analysis of subgroup lattices of finite symmetric groups.
3. Identification of Critical Configurations: Specific pairs of subgroups in Sub(S₃) and Sub(S₄) are the source of non-modularity.
4. Unity of Semigroup and Epigroup Cases: The modular elements in both lattices (except for the full semigroup variety) are completely identical.

Limitations

1. Completeness: This paper only provides necessary and sufficient conditions; the complete classification (i.e., enumeration of all modular varieties) is deferred to the second part.
2. Gap Between Conditions (c) and (c'): The equivalence of these two conditions has not been proven, which is a critical gap in theoretical completeness.
3. Algorithmic Complexity: Although decision conditions are provided:
   • Checking condition (b) requires computing stabilizer subgroups of all words
   • Checking condition (c) requires enumerating all word pairs
   • Computational feasibility for practical applications is not discussed
4. Case n ≥ 5: When |alph(u)| ≥ 5, the modular elements of Sub(S_n) are only S_n and A_n, making condition (b) extremely restrictive and possibly leading to scarcity of modular varieties.
5. Non-periodic Epigroup Varieties: Although results are claimed to apply to epigroups, Corollary 2.6 shows that modular epigroup varieties must be periodic, effectively reducing to the semigroup case.

Future Directions

1. Content of the Second Part (promised by authors):
   • Prove the equivalence of conditions (c) and (c')
   • Provide a complete list of modular varieties
   • Offer constructive classification
2. Algorithmic Problems:
   • Design efficient algorithms to determine whether a given variety is modular
   • Study the computational complexity of the decision problem
3. Directions for Generalization:
   • Other types of special elements (distributive elements, neutral elements, etc.)
   • Variety lattices of other algebraic structures (rings, groups, lattices, etc.)
4. Exploration of Applications:
   • Applications of modular varieties in semigroup representation theory
   • Connections with automata theory

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Depth:
   • Establishes a three-level reduction framework (varieties → check sets → G-sets), with rigorous mathematical proofs at each level
   • Code theory (Section 4) is an original technical contribution, completely algebraizing the structure of congruence lattices
   • Effectively utilizes known results on subgroup lattices of symmetric groups 9
2. Methodological Innovation:
   • The concept of check sets cleverly balances generality and tractability
   • The construction of transversal coordination (sufficiency proof of Proposition 5.2) is technically sophisticated
   • The explicit formula for lattice operations in Lemma 4.8 provides a foundation for concrete calculations
3. Result Completeness:
   • Uniformly handles both semigroup and epigroup cases
   • Encompasses all known special cases (commutative, permutation identities, etc.)
   • Clearly identifies essential distinctions from the monoid case
4. Writing Quality:
   • Clear structure, progressing systematically from special to general cases
   • Abundant lemmas supporting main theorems, with rigorous logic
   • Comprehensive treatment of historical background and related work

Weaknesses

1. Technical Complexity:
   • Code theory (Section 4) has high level of abstraction, difficult for beginners to master
   • The proof of sufficiency in Proposition 5.2 relies on subtle transversal constructions with poor readability
   • Lacks intuitive explanations or geometric imagery
2. Incompleteness of Results:
   • The equivalence of conditions (c) and (c') is unproven, resulting in subtle differences between necessary and sufficient conditions
   • No concrete examples of modular varieties are provided (except for known special cases)
   • The absence of the second part makes this paper feel "unfinished"
3. Practical Limitations:
   • Decision conditions involve infinitely many words, making practical application difficult
   • No discussion of finitely based varieties (which might be more amenable to decision procedures)
   • Lacks computational tools or software implementations
4. Scope of Coverage:
   • Main results apply only to nil-varieties; characterization of non-nil modular varieties depends on the reduction in Proposition 2.4
   • The epigroup case effectively reduces to periodic semigroups, with limited independent value

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution:
   • Resolves a long-standing open problem in semigroup theory
   • The check set-G-set method may be applicable to studies of other variety lattices
   • Provides foundation for the complete classification in the second part
2. Practical Value:
   • For studying properties of specific varieties (such as finite basis property, decidability), modularity is important structural information
   • May have potential applications in semigroup representation theory and automata theory
3. Reproducibility:
   • All proofs are purely mathematical and can in principle be independently verified by readers
   • However, technical complexity may limit practical feasibility of verification
   • Lacks computational examples or verification tools

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Research:
   • Structure theory of semigroup variety lattices
   • Study of special elements in other algebraic variety lattices
   • General theory of modular elements in lattice theory
2. Analysis of Specific Varieties:
   • Determining whether a given variety possesses "good" lattice properties
   • Studying the behavior of join and meet operations in varieties
3. Educational Use:
   • Advanced case study in universal algebra and lattice theory
   • Demonstration of applications of abstract algebraic methods to combinatorial problems

Key References

4 Evans, T.: The lattice of semigroup varieties. Semigroup Forum 2, 1–43 (1971)
8 Ježek, J.: Intervals in lattices of varieties. Algebra Universalis 6(1), 147–158 (1976)
9 Ježek, J.: The lattice of equational theories. Part I: Modular elements. Czechosl. Math. J. 31, 127–152 (1981)
17 Shevrin, L.N., Vernikov, B.M., Volkov, M.V.: Lattices of semigroup varieties. Izv. VUZ Mat. 3, 3–36 (2009)
21 Vernikov, B.M.: On modular elements of the lattice of semigroup varieties. Comment. Math. Univ. Carol. 48, 595–606 (2007)
25 Volkov, M.V.: Modular elements of the lattice of semigroup varieties. Contrib. Gen. Algebra 16, 275–288 (2005)

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality pure mathematics research paper that makes significant progress on the problem of characterizing modular elements in semigroup variety lattices. The check set-G-set method is original and technically sophisticated, and the main theorems refine known results. The main defects are incompleteness (awaiting the second part) and technical complexity (limiting readability and practical applicability). For specialist researchers, this is an important contribution to the field; for a broader audience, full assessment may require completion of the second part.