Talk:Antimatroid

For potential future reference[edit]

Two blog postings mentioning antimatroids, probably not usable in the article itself in their current states but maybe pointing to future research that can be incorporated:

—David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson ?[edit]

I thought Jameson (sp?) of Clemson Univ. Maths. Dept. invented antimatroids. Or did he just name them? Or what? Hadn't seen Dilworth on the subject... 24.173.73.210 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest usage of the word "antimatroid" that I can find is Jamison's (note corrected spelling) 1980 paper "Copoints in antimatroids". He also has a relevant paper from 1978, "Tietze's Convexity Theorem for Semilattices and Lattices", and there's a paper by Edelman on similar topics in 1980, "Meet-Distributive Lattices and the Anti-exchange Closure". But Dilworth's paper is 40 years earlier, I think well before Jamison was born. In any case, I added the Jamison 1980 reference.—David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name "antimatroid" is due to Edelman (or possibly someone who suggested it to him; could be me). I was there at MIT when he invented antimatroids as a graduate student. David Eppstein is relying on the published record, which doesn't record actual inventions. Jamison prefers the name "convex geometry" (personal communication), unless he has changed his mind. None of this affects priority about the thing itself. Zaslav (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supersolvable Antimatroids[edit]

It's my understanding that Armstrong's supersolvable antimatroids are simply antimatroids that are also supersolvable. In this way, Armstrong didn't introduce them, so much as study them. Perhaps this section should include a mention of what a supersolvable lattice is? 75.64.185.240 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]