  Approximate lattices of locally compact groups were first studied in a
seminal monograph of Yves Meyer and were subsequently used in the theory of
aperiodic order to model objects such as Pisot numbers, quasi-cristals or
aperiodic tilings. Meyer studied approximate lattices of Euclidean spaces - now
dubbed Meyer sets. A fascinating feature of this theory is the wealth of
natural and equivalent definitions of Meyer sets that are available. The study
of approximate lattices in non-commutative groups has recently attracted more
attention. They are meant as generalisation of lattices of locally compact
groups (i.e. discrete subgroup of finite co-volume) and, as such, are roughly
defined as approximate subgroups of locally compact groups that are both
discrete and have finite co-volume. In this generalized framework, the correct
notion of `finite co-volume' is however up for interpretation. A number of
definitions recently arose following work of Bj\"{o}rklund and Hartnick,
Hrushovski, and the author. In stark contrast with the Euclidean framework,
little is known of the relations between these notions.
  Our main objective in this paper is to address this issue. We establish clear
relations between these definitions and show that, in fact, these definitions
are not all equivalent. We prove nevertheless that all the notions mentioned
are related to one another and simply represent varying degrees of generality.
Among the original results we prove here, we extend a cornerstone theorem of
Meyer and show that all strong approximate lattices are laminar; we build
measures with weak invariance properties on the invariant hull of approximate
lattices; we use quasi-models to show that any BH-approximate lattice is
contained in an approximate lattice; we prove that even laminar approximate
lattices can be arbitrarily far from strong approximate lattices and model
sets.
