DOCSLIB.ORG

Abstract Algebraic Logic an Introductory Chapter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abstract Algebraic Logic an Introductory Chapter Abstract Algebraic Logic An Introductory Chapter Josep Maria Font 1 Introduction . 1 2 Some preliminary issues . 5 3 Bare algebraizability . 10 3.1 The equational consequence relative to a class of algebras . 11 3.2 Translating formulas into equations . 13 3.3 Translating equations into formulas . 15 3.4 Putting it all together . 15 4 The origins of algebraizability: the Lindenbaum-Tarski process . 18 4.1 The process for classical logic . 18 4.2 The process for algebraizable logics . 20 4.3 The universal Lindenbaum-Tarski process: matrix semantics . 23 4.4 Algebraizability and matrix semantics: definability . 27 4.5 Implicative logics . 29 5 Modes of algebraizability, and non-algebraizability . 32 6 Beyond algebraizability . 37 6.1 The Leibniz hierarchy . 37 6.2 The general definition of the algebraic counterpart of a logic . 45 6.3 The Frege hierarchy . 49 7 Exploiting algebraizability: bridge theorems and transfer theorems . 55 8 Algebraizability at a more abstract level . 65 References . 69 1 Introduction This chapter has been conceived as a brief introduction to (my personal view of) abstract algebraic logic. It is organized around the central notion of algebraizabil- ity, with particular emphasis on its connections with the techniques of traditional algebraic logic and especially with the so-called Lindenbaum-Tarski process. It Josep Maria Font Departament of Mathematics and Computer Engineering, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes 585, E-08007 Barcelona, Spain. e-mail: [email protected] 1 2 Josep Maria Font goes beyond algebraizability to offer a general overview of several classifications of (sentential) logics—basically, the Leibniz hierarchy and the Frege hierarchy— which have emerged in recent decades, and to show how the classification of a logic into any of them provides some knowledge regarding its algebraic or its metalogical properties. In the final section, a more abstract view of algebraizability is introduced. When attempting to describe the essential ideas of abstract algebraic logic for readers who are new to the topic, the first issue to be addressed is: What is ab- stract algebraic logic? If in general algebraic logic can be described as the branch of mathematics that studies the connections between logics and their algebra-based semantics, then abstract algebraic logic can be described as the more general or abstract side of that study. The expression algebra-based semantics is used in a deliberately ambiguous and informal sense.1 It is intended to refer to any kind of semantics where the mathemat- ical objects where the formulas of the language are interpreted are either just plain algebras, or algebras endowed with some additional structure (a particular element or subset, a family of subsets, or an order relation), and where the interpretations are given by the homomorphisms from the formula algebra to the algebras that underlie the models. The study of these connections may have different goals. • To describe them: It is natural that this was, historically, the first aspect of the subject to be developed, starting with Boole’s pioneering work (1847). The old- est connections to be described take the form of completeness theorems; later on other, stronger connections were discovered, such as the notion of algebraizabil- ity. The task of finding meaningful descriptions (preferably algebraic descrip- tions) of the reduced models of a logic and of its algebraic counterpart (in what- ever sense) also belongs to this aspect of the subject. • To explain them: This involves developing general theories regarding the connec- tions and exploring them in many different ways, to obtain a deeper understand- ing of how and why the different kinds of connections work, of the relations be- tween them, of how large their domain of application is, etc. Ideally, each general theory should provide criteria that justify the choice of a specific algebra-based semantics as the algebraic counterpart of a logic (either for arbitrary logics, or only for those of a certain class which the theory is intended to explain). • To exploit them: Once a connection has been described, the most usual way of exploiting it is to use powerful and well-developed algebraic techniques to prove properties of the logic; but there are also cases of the reverse process. This oc- curred at each stage in the evolution of algebraic logic, in different ways. One of the distinctive features of the abstract algebraic logic way of doing this, in con- trast to the more traditional way, is that its results concern not just an individual 1 The term algebraic semantics, which has been much used for years in informal comments in the same vague sense as my “algebra-based semantics”, has acquired a formal meaning in the modern theory (Definition 3.4). I consider it to be good practice to limit its usage to this strictly technical sense. Abstract Algebraic Logic 3 logic, but classes of logics that are treated in a uniform way;2 often these classes are defined by some abstract characteristic (such as the classes in the hierarchies reviewed in Section 6) or constitute a set of extensions of a particular logic (as in the applications of Theorem 4.2 mentioned at the end of Section 7). Naturally, these three aspects are inextricably intertwined. In particular, the gen- eral notions need to be tested against many examples, either natural or ad hoc, not just to obtain properties of particular logics, but in order to gain insight into the general notions themselves, their relations, their applicability, their scope and their limits. This empirical work is an important guide for the more abstract work. The framework where the connections we are interested in here have been found to be tighter and more fruitful, and where the algebra-based semantics is exclusively algebraic, is undoubtedly that of algebraizable logics. This justifies devoting more than half of this chapter to describing that framework, its variants and extensions, and its roots in the earliest milestone in modern algebraic logic: the construction of the Lindenbaum-Tarski algebras in order to obtain the first general algebraic completeness theorems. After the preliminary Section 2, algebraizability is gradually described in Sec- tions 3 to 5 by relating it to the progressive generalization of the Lindenbaum- Tarski construction, starting from its well-known application to classical proposi- tional logic and extending it to increasingly larger classes of logics. These sections, which are decidedly introductory and discuss the details of (some of) the key proofs, should be accessible to any reader with a general background in mathematical logic. A certain tendency to identify abstract algebraic logic with the theory of alge- braizability initiated by Blok and Pigozzi has been observed in the literature; how- ever, this is misguided, as algebraizability is only the core of the subject. More- over, the full development of the theory of algebraizability itself does indeed need the more general approach to algebraic logic provided by the classical theory of matrices (the next kind of algebra-based semantics); the results concerning alge- braizability that appear in this context form the crowning stage of a very elaborated framework, where the classical theory is extended in newer and more abstract di- rections. Some of those directions were developed by Blok and Pigozzi themselves (the theory of protoalgebraic logics), some earlier on by Czelakowski (the theory of equivalential logics), and some later on by others (such as Herrmann’s exten- sion to non-finitary logics, or Raftery’s theory of truth-equational logics). Abstract algebraic logic has led to the development of tools and techniques together with a strong and convoluted mathematical construction with deep results that provide the whole construction with unity. Moreover, it turns out that some less standard logics do show some algebraic behaviour, but it is not naturally captured by the the- ory of matrices; this brings generalized matrices (a more complicated algebra-based semantics) into the picture. 2 This feature has also been highlighted as distinctive of (some of) the modern studies of non- classical logics, notably of modal logics; see for instance Chagrov and Zakharyashev (1997, p. 109). 4 Josep Maria Font The essentials of all these issues, in a brief overview or survey style, are described in Section 6 (which is anticipated in Section 4.3). In particular, that survey includes a description of several of the classification criteria3 that have arisen, and which have given rise to the so-called Leibniz and Frege hierarchies. Section 6.3 also reviews the main relations between the two hierarchies and mentions a few recent results and some open problems. Revealing a general notion behind the Lindenbaum-Tarski process is only part of the interest in the notion of algebraizability. It is certainly true that the general notion helped to make it clear that some obscure logics are actually amenable to algebraic treatment, or to provide a sound foundation for claims of the form “such-and-such class of algebras is the algebraic counterpart of such-and-such logic”. However, the importance of the notion also lies in its consequences, that is, in how it can be ap- plied to obtain a precise formulation of the equivalences, informally called bridge theorems, that hold between certain metalogical properties (such as the deduction theorem or the interpolation property) and certain purely algebraic properties (such as having equationally definable principal congruences or several forms of amal- gamation); in some cases, these equivalences had previously been reported in the literature for restricted groups of particular logics. Although most of this would be the natural continuation of Section 5, it is treated in Section 7, after the exposition of the hierarchies, because it has been discovered that some of the equivalences men- tioned are best dealt with within the framework of a class in the Leibniz hierarchy that is larger than the class of algebraizable logics.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Survey of Abstract Algebraic Logic 15 Bras
    J. M. Font A Survey of Abstract Algebraic R. Jansana D. Pigozzi Logic Contents Introduction 14 1. The First Steps 16 1.1. Consequence operations and logics . 17 1.2. Logical matrices . 20 1.3. Lindenbaum-Tarski algebras . 22 2. The Lindenbaum-Tarski Process Fully Generalized 24 2.1. Frege's principles . 24 2.2. Algebras and matrices canonically associated with a logic . 26 3. The Core Theory of Abstract Algebraic Logic 29 3.1. Elements of the general theory of matrices . 29 3.2. Protoalgebraic logics . 33 3.3. Algebraizable logics . 38 3.4. The Leibniz hierarchy . 43 4. Extensions of the Core Theory 50 4.1. k-deductive systems and universal algebra . 50 4.2. Gentzen systems and their generalizations . 55 4.3. Equality-free universal Horn logic . 61 4.4. Algebras of Logic . 64 5. Generalized Matrix Semantics and Full Models 71 6. Extensions to More Complex Notions of Logic 79 6.1. The semantics-based approach . 80 6.2. The categorial approach . 85 References 88 Special Issue on Abstract Algebraic Logic { Part II Edited by Josep Maria Font, Ramon Jansana, and Don Pigozzi Studia Logica 74: 13{97, 2003. c 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 14 J. M. Font, R. Jansana, and D. Pigozzi Introduction Algebraic logic was born in the XIXth century with the work of Boole, De Morgan, Peirce, Schr¨oder, etc. on classical logic, see [12, 16]. They took logical equivalence rather than truth as the primitive logical predicate, and, exploiting the similarity between logical equivalence and equality, they devel- oped logical systems in which metalogical investigations take on a distinctly algebraic character.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Abstract Algebraic Logic?
    What is Abstract Algebraic Logic? Umberto Rivieccio University of Genoa Department of Philosophy Via Balbi 4 - Genoa, Italy email [email protected] Abstract Our aim is to answer the question of the title, explaining which kind of problems form the nucleus of the branch of algebraic logic that has come to be known as Abstract Algebraic Logic. We give a concise account of the birth and evolution of the field, that led from the discovery of the connections between certain logical systems and certain algebraic structures to a general theory of algebraization of logics. We consider first the so-called algebraizable logics, which may be regarded as a paradigmatic case in Abstract Algebraic Logic; then we shift our attention to some wider classes of logics and to the more general framework in which they are studied. Finally, we review some other topics in Abstract Algebraic Logic that, though equally interesting and promising for future research, could not be treated here in detail. 1 Introduction Algebraic logic can be described in very general terms as the study of the relations between algebra and logic. One of the main reasons that motivate such a study is the possibility to treat logical problems with algebraic methods. This means that, in order to solve a logical problem, we may try to translate it into algebraic terms, find the solution using algebraic techniques, and then translate back the result into logic. This strategy proved to be fruitful, since algebra is an old and well{established field of mathematics, that offers powerful tools to treat problems that would possibly be much harder to solve using the logical machinery alone.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Logic Translation? in Memoriam Joseph Goguen
    , 1{29 c 2009 Birkh¨auserVerlag Basel/Switzerland What is a Logic Translation? In memoriam Joseph Goguen Till Mossakowski, R˘azvan Diaconescu and Andrzej Tarlecki Abstract. We study logic translations from an abstract perspective, with- out any commitment to the structure of sentences and the nature of logical entailment, which also means that we cover both proof-theoretic and model- theoretic entailment. We show how logic translations induce notions of logical expressiveness, consistency strength and sublogic, leading to an explanation of paradoxes that have been described in the literature. Connectives and quanti- fiers, although not present in the definition of logic and logic translation, can be recovered by their abstract properties and are preserved and reflected by translations under suitable conditions. 1. Introduction The development of a notion of logic translation presupposes the development of a notion of logic. Logic has been characterised as the study of sound reasoning, of what follows from what. Hence, the notion of logical consequence is central. It can be obtained in two complementary ways: via the model-theoretic notion of satisfaction in a model and via the proof-theoretic notion of derivation according to proof rules. These notions can be captured in a completely abstract manner, avoiding any particular commitment to the nature of models, sentences, or rules. The paper [40], which is the predecessor of our current work, explains the notion of logic along these lines. Similarly, an abstract notion of logic translation can be developed, both at the model-theoretic and at the proof-theoretic level. A central question concern- ing such translations is their interaction with logical structure, such as given by logical connectives, and logical properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanations
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. CHAPTER 1 Explanations 1.1 SALLIES Language is an instrument of Logic, but not an indispensable instrument. Boole 1847a, 118 We know that mathematicians care no more for logic than logicians for mathematics. The two eyes of exact science are mathematics and logic; the mathematical sect puts out the logical eye, the logical sect puts out the mathematical eye; each believing that it sees better with one eye than with two. De Morgan 1868a,71 That which is provable, ought not to be believed in science without proof. Dedekind 1888a, preface If I compare arithmetic with a tree that unfolds upwards in a multitude of techniques and theorems whilst the root drives into the depthswx . Frege 1893a, xiii Arithmetic must be discovered in just the same sense in which Columbus discovered the West Indies, and we no more create numbers than he created the Indians. Russell 1903a, 451 1.2 SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THE BOOK 1.2.1 An outline history. The story told here from §3 onwards is re- garded as well known. It begins with the emergence of set theory in the 1870s under the inspiration of Georg Cantor, and the contemporary development of mathematical logic by Gottlob Frege andŽ. especially Giuseppe Peano. A cumulation of these and some related movements was achieved in the 1900s with the philosophy of mathematics proposed by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.
    [Show full text]
  • Duality Theory and Abstract Algebraic Logic
    Duality Theory and Abstract Algebraic Logic María Esteban ADVERTIMENT. La consulta d’aquesta tesi queda condicionada a l’acceptació de les següents condicions d'ús: La difusió d’aquesta tesi per mitjà del servei TDX (www.tdx.cat) i a través del Dipòsit Digital de la UB (diposit.ub.edu) ha estat autoritzada pels titulars dels drets de propietat intel·lectual únicament per a usos privats emmarcats en activitats d’investigació i docència. No s’autoritza la seva reproducció amb finalitats de lucre ni la seva difusió i posada a disposició des d’un lloc aliè al servei TDX ni al Dipòsit Digital de la UB. No s’autoritza la presentació del seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX o al Dipòsit Digital de la UB (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant al resum de presentació de la tesi com als seus continguts. En la utilització o cita de parts de la tesi és obligat indicar el nom de la persona autora. ADVERTENCIA. La consulta de esta tesis queda condicionada a la aceptación de las siguientes condiciones de uso: La difusión de esta tesis por medio del servicio TDR (www.tdx.cat) y a través del Repositorio Digital de la UB (diposit.ub.edu) ha sido autorizada por los titulares de los derechos de propiedad intelectual únicamente para usos privados enmarcados en actividades de investigación y docencia. No se autoriza su reproducción con finalidades de lucro ni su difusión y puesta a disposición desde un sitio ajeno al servicio TDR o al Repositorio Digital de la UB.
    [Show full text]
  • An Institutional View on Categorical Logic and the Curry-Howard-Tait-Isomorphism
    An Institutional View on Categorical Logic and the Curry-Howard-Tait-Isomorphism Till Mossakowski1, Florian Rabe2, Valeria De Paiva3, Lutz Schr¨oder1, and Joseph Goguen4 1 Department of Computer Science, University of Bremen 2 School of Engineering and Science, International University of Bremen 3 Intelligent Systems Laboratory, Palo Alto Research Center, California 4 Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, University of California, San Diego Abstract. We introduce a generic notion of propositional categorical logic and provide a construction of an institution with proofs out of such a logic, following the Curry-Howard-Tait paradigm. We then prove logic-independent soundness and completeness theorems. The framework is instantiated with a number of examples: classical, intuitionistic, linear and modal propositional logics. Finally, we speculate how this framework may be extended beyond the propositional case. 1 Introduction The well-known Curry-Howard-Tait isomorphism establishes a correspondence between { propositions and types { proofs and terms { proof reductions and term reductions. Moreover, in this context, a number of deep correspondences between cate- gories and logical theories have been established (identifying `types' with `objects in a category'): conjunctive logic cartesian categories [19] positive logic cartesian closed categories [19] intuitionistic propositional logic bicartesian closed categories [19] classical propositional logic bicartesian closed categories with [19] ::-elimination linear logic ∗-autonomous categories [33] first-order logic hyperdoctrines [31] Martin-L¨of type theory locally cartesian closed categories [32] Here, we present work aimed at casting these correspondences in a common framework based on the theory of institutions. The notion of institution arose within computer science as a response to the population explosion among logics in use, with the ambition of doing as much as possible at a level of abstraction independent of commitment to any particular logic [16, 18].
    [Show full text]
  • How Peircean Was the “'Fregean' Revolution” in Logic?
    HOW PEIRCEAN WAS THE “‘FREGEAN’ REVOLUTION” IN LOGIC? Irving H. Anellis Peirce Edition, Institute for American Thought Indiana University – Purdue University at Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN, USA [email protected] Abstract. The historiography of logic conceives of a Fregean revolution in which modern mathematical logic (also called symbolic logic) has replaced Aristotelian logic. The preeminent expositors of this conception are Jean van Heijenoort (1912–1986) and Don- ald Angus Gillies. The innovations and characteristics that comprise mathematical logic and distinguish it from Aristotelian logic, according to this conception, created ex nihlo by Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) in his Begriffsschrift of 1879, and with Bertrand Rus- sell (1872–1970) as its chief This position likewise understands the algebraic logic of Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871), George Boole (1815–1864), Charles Sanders Peirce (1838–1914), and Ernst Schröder (1841–1902) as belonging to the Aristotelian tradi- tion. The “Booleans” are understood, from this vantage point, to merely have rewritten Aristotelian syllogistic in algebraic guise. The most detailed listing and elaboration of Frege’s innovations, and the characteristics that distinguish mathematical logic from Aristotelian logic, were set forth by van Heijenoort. I consider each of the elements of van Heijenoort’s list and note the extent to which Peirce had also developed each of these aspects of logic. I also consider the extent to which Peirce and Frege were aware of, and may have influenced, one another’s logical writings. AMS (MOS) 2010 subject classifications: Primary: 03-03, 03A05, 03C05, 03C10, 03G27, 01A55; secondary: 03B05, 03B10, 03E30, 08A20; Key words and phrases: Peirce, abstract algebraic logic; propositional logic; first-order logic; quantifier elimina- tion, equational classes, relational systems §0.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpolation: Theory and Applications
    Interpolation: Theory and Applications Vijay D’Silva Google Inc., San Francisco UC Berkeley 2016 Wednesday, March 30, 16 1 A Brief History of Interpolation 2 Verification with Interpolants 3 Interpolant Construction 4 Further Reading and Research Wednesday, March 30, 16 Craig Interpolants For two formulae A and B such that A implies B B,aCraig interpolant is a formula I such that 1. A implies I, and I 2. I implies B, and 3. the non-logical symbols in I occur in A and in B. A P (P = Q)=Q = R = Q ^ ) ) ) ) Wednesday, March 30, 16 Reverse Interpolants or “Interpolants” For a contradiction A B,areverse interpolant is ^ a formula I such that B 1. A implies I, and 2. I B is a contradiction, and ^ I 3. the non-logical symbols in I occur in A and in B. Note: In classical logic, A = B is valid exactly ) A if A B is a contradiction. ^¬ In the verification literature, “interpolant” usually means “reverse interpolant.” Wednesday, March 30, 16 International Business Machines Corporation 2050 Rt 52 Hopewell Junction, NY 12533 845-892-5262 October 7, 2008 Dear Andreas, I would like to congratulate Cadence Research Labs on their 15th Anniversary. In these 15 years, Cadence Research Labs has worked at several frontiers of Electronic Design Automation. They focus on hard problems that when solved significantly push the state of the art forward. They found novel solutions to system, synthesis and formal verification problems. Formal verification is the process of exhaustively validating that a logic entity behaves correctly. In contrast to testing-based approaches, which may expose flaws though generally cannot yield a proof of correctness, the exhaustiveness of formal verification ensures that no flaw will be left unexposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Algebraic Logic, Where Does It Stand Today? Part 2: Algebraic Logic; Counting Varieties and Models, Vaught’S Conjecture and New Physics
    1 What happened since ’ Algebraic Logic, where does it stand today? Part 2: Algebraic logic; Counting varieties and models, Vaught’s conjecture and new physics Tarek Sayed Ahmed Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. Dedicated to my mentors Andreka´ and Nemeti´ No Institute Given Summary. * In the article ’Algebraic logic, where does it stand today?’ published in the Bulletin of Symbolic logic in 2005 logic, we gave a fairly comprehensive review of Tarskian algebraic logic reaching the boundaries of current research back then. In this paper we take it from there, giving the reader more than a glimpse of the recent develoments till the present day. In the process, we take a magical tour in algebraic logic, starting from classical results on neat embeddings due to Henkin, Monk and Tarski, all the way to recent results in algebraic logic using so–called rainbow constructions. Highlighting the connections with graph theory, model theory, and finite combinatorics, this article aspires to present topics of broad interest in a way that is hopefully accessible to a large audience. Other topics dealt with include the inter- action of algebraic and modal logic, the so–called (central still active) finitizability problem, Godels’s¨ incompleteness Theorem in guarded fragments, counting the number of subvarieties of RCAw which is reminiscent of Shelah’s stability theory and the interaction of algebraic logic and descriptive set theory as means to approach Vaught’s conjecture in model theory. Rainbow constructions conjuncted with variations on Andreka’s´ methods of splitting (atoms) are used to solve problems adressing classes of cylindric–like algebras consisting of algebras having a neat embedding property.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Logic? Till Mossakowski Joseph Goguen R˘Azvan Diaconescu Andrzej Tarlecki October 16, 2004
    What is a Logic? Till Mossakowski Joseph Goguen R¸azvan Diaconescu Andrzej Tarlecki October 16, 2004 TODO: Joseph: Our cardinality spectra generalize traditional cardinality properties from func- tions of signature cardinality, to functors of signature isomorphism type. TODO: Replace diagram by equations? Vertical spaces as small as possible; combine paragraphs when possible; reduce model theory details; be cruel with references, use smaller font, less space between refs; better explanations of key material for main point. TODO: Razvan: mention new results for classical logics obtained by institution theory: Craig interpolation of some fragments of classical logic (see Studia Logica paper). 1 Introduction Logic is often informally described as the study of sound reasoning. As such, it plays a crucial role in several areas of mathematics (especially foundations) and of computer science (especially formal methods), as well as in other ¯elds, such as analytic philosophy and formal linguistics. In an enormous development beginning in the late 19th century, it has been found that a wide variety of di®erent principles are needed for sound reasoning in di®erent domains, and \a logic" has come to mean a set of principles for some form of sound reasoning. But in a subject the essence of which is formalization, it is embarrassing that there is no widely acceptable formal de¯nition of \a logic". It is clear that two key problems here are to de¯ne what it means for two presentations of a logic to be equivalent, and to provide e®ective means to demonstrate equivalence and inequivalence. This essay addresses these problems using the notion of \institution", which arose within computer science in response to the recent population explosion among logics in use there, with the ambition of doing as much as possible at a level of abstraction independent of commitment to any particular logic [16, 19].
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Logic and the Geography of Thought – Reflections on Logical
    Universal Logic and the Geography of Thought – Reflections on logical pluralism in the light of culture Tzu-Keng Fu Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Ingenieurwissenschaften –Dr.-Ing.– Vorgelegt im Fachbereich 3 (Mathematik und Informatik) der Universit¨at Bremen Bremen, Dezember, 2012 PhD Committee Supervisor: Dr. Oliver Kutz (Spatial Cognition Re- search Center (SFB/TR 8), University of Bremen, Germany) External Referee : Prof. Dr. Jean-Yves B´eziau (Depart- ment of Philosophy, University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) Committee Member : Prof. Dr. Till Mossakowski (German re- search center for artificial intelligence (DFKI), Germany) Committee Member : Prof. Dr. Frieder Nake (Fachbereich 3, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, the University of Bremen, Germany) Committee Member : Dr. Mehul Bhatt (Cognitive Systems (CoSy) group, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Bremen, Germany) Committee Member : Minqian Huang (Cognitive Systems (CoSy) group, Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Bremen, Germany) Sponsoring Institution The Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange, Taipei, Taiwan. To my Parents. 獻給我的 父母。 Acknowledgment I owe many thanks to many people for their help and encouragement, without which I may never have finished this dissertation, and their constructive criticism, without which I would certainly have finished too soon. I would like to thank Dr. Oliver Kutz, Prof. Dr. Till Mossakowski, and Prof. Dr. Jean- Yves B´eziau for assisting me with this dissertation. Warmest and sincere thanks are also due to Prof. Dale Jacquette of the Philosophy Department, the University of Bern, Switzerland, and to Prof. Dr. Stephen Bloom of the Computer Science Department, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, who provided me with valuable original typescripts on abstract logic.
    [Show full text]
  • In Quantum Logics. an Algebraic Approach
    Model-Theoretic Investigations into Consequence Operation ( Cn ) in Quantum Logics. An Algebraic Approach. Piotr Wilczek, Department of Algebra and Combinatorics, Warsaw University of Technology, Address for correspondence: os. Piastowskie 99/ 24, 61-163 Pozna, POLAND, e-mail [email protected] Abstract In this paper we present the fundamentals of the so-called algebraic approach to propositional quantum logics. We define the set of formulas describing quantum reality as a free algebra freely generated by the set of quantum propostional variables. We define the general notion of logic as a structural consequence operation. Next we introduce the concept of logical matrices understood as a models of quantum logics. We give the definitions of two quantum consequence operations defined in these models. Key words: algebraic logic; consequence operation; logical matrices; models of qunatum logics 1. Introduction Historically speaking we can distinguish two different and competitive ways of understanding of the concept of “logic”. An approach considering the logic as a set of logically valid sentences was the first manner of understanding logic. In this approach one can perceive a logical system as a set of sentences closed under substitutions and some rules of inference. A paradigmatic example is a set of tautologies of classical propositional calculus. Second and more general approach enables one to comprehend a logic as a logical consequence operation (or relation). This approach formalizes the most general principles of reasoning and not a set of logically valid sentences. Following the second approach one will uniquely obtain a set of logically valid sentences as a set of consequences of an empty set of premises.
    [Show full text]