Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Representation of De Morgan and (Semi-)Kleene Lattices

  • Foundations
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Twist-structure representation theorems are established for De Morgan and Kleene lattices. While the former result relies essentially on the quasivariety of De Morgan lattices being finitely generated, the representation for Kleene lattices does not and can be extended to more general algebras. In particular, one can drop the double negation identity (involutivity). The resulting class of algebras, named semi-Kleene lattices by analogy with Sankappanavar’s semi-De Morgan lattices, is shown to be representable through a twist-structure construction inspired by the Cornish–Fowler duality for Kleene lattices. Quasi-Kleene lattices, a subvariety of semi-Kleene, are also defined and investigated, showing that they are precisely the implication-free subreducts of the recently introduced class of quasi-Nelson lattices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the related class of Sugihara monoids, a twist-structure representation has been given in Galatos and Raftery (2015). An interesting question for further research is how the twist construction of Galatos and Raftery (2015) is related to (in particular, whether it can be viewed as a special case of) the ones introduced in Sects. 4 and 5.

  2. As observed in Rivieccio and Spinks (2019), these conditions imply \(n(a_+) \wedge _- a_- = 0_-\) for all \(\langle a_+, a_- \rangle \in A\) and \(\pi _2[A] = L_-\). (I shall use these facts, sometimes without warning, in proofs.) The first holds because, since \(a_+ \wedge _+ p(a_-) = 0_+\), we can apply n to both sides of the equation and, using its properties, we obtain \(n(a_+ \wedge _+ p(a_-)) = n(a_+) \wedge _- n(p(a_-)) = n(a_+) \wedge _- a_- = 0_-= n(0_+) \) as required. Likewise, \(\pi _2[A] = L_-\) follows from \(\pi _1[A] = L_+\). In fact, for all \(a_- \in L_-\), we know that \(a_- = n(p(a_-))\), where \(p(a_-) \in L_+\). Then, \(\pi _1[A] = L_+\) guarantees that there is \(b_- \in L_- \) such that \(\langle p(a_-), b_- \rangle \in A\), which means that \(\lnot \langle p(a_-), b_- \rangle = \langle p(b_-), n(p(a_-) \rangle = \langle p(b_-), a_- \rangle \in A\). Thus, \(a_- \in \pi _2[A] \) as required.

  3. I do not know how one could further relax Definition 5.1 so as to include \(\mathbf {A} _4\) as well. On the one hand, this would be desirable, because \(\mathbf {A} _4\)can indeed by represented by a twist-structure, as is easy to check. However, if we delete (SK 5) from Definition 5.1, then it is not clear how to make the twist-structure construction work in general. In this sense, \(\mathbf {A} _4\) is perhaps a fortunate case because, being a chain, it satisfies the “Ockham identity” \(\lnot (x \wedge y ) \approx \lnot x \vee \lnot y \) (see Proposition 5.3). This ensures that \(\mathbf {A} _4\) can be represented as a twist-structure, but of course replacing (SK 5) in Definition 5.1 with the Ockham identity would confine us to a quite specific subclass of semi-De Morgan lattices (i.e., Ockham lattices).

  4. Implicative meet-semilattices are the \(\langle \wedge , \rightarrow \rangle \)-subreducts of Heyting algebras, corresponding to the conjunction–implication fragment of intuitionistic logic. Thus, in particular, the \(\langle \wedge , \rightarrow \rangle \)-reduct of every Heyting algebra is an implicative meet-semilattice.

  5. This is probably the best occasion to point out an unfortunate terminological clash with the previous literature, of which M. Spinks and I were not aware while writing (Rivieccio and Spinks 2019). Cignoli (1986) and Odintsov (2010) in their wake, call a Kleene algebra that satisfies item (i) of Theorem 6.2 a quasi-Nelson algebra. I shall prove in Theorem 6.3 that every quasi-Nelson algebra in the sense of Rivieccio and Spinks (2019) indeed satisfies both items of Theorem 6.2; obviously, however, it need not be involutive. Thus, neither the quasi-Nelson algebras of Cignoli–Odintsov are a special case of ours, nor the other way around.

  6. Indeed, the property of being \(({\mathbf {0}}, {\mathbf {1}})\)-congruence orderable does not seem unrelated to that of being representable by some kind of twist-structure construction, for both essentially rely on a filter separation property. This is quite clear at least in the context of residuated lattices, where filters are in one–one correspondence with congruences; see (Spinks et al. 2018, Section 7). In the quasi-Kleene context, one may observe, for instance, that the quasi-identity (iv) from Proposition 6.14 is essentially saying that two elements must be equal if they generate the same consistent filter and the same total filter...

References

  • Albuquerque U (2015) Operators and strong versions of sentential logics in abstract algebraic logic. PhD dissertation, University of Barcelona

  • Albuquerque H, Prenosil A, Rivieccio U (2017) An algebraic view of super-Belnap logics. Stud Logica 105(6):1051–1086

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brignole D, Monteiro A (1967) Caracterisation des algèbres de Nelson par des egalités. I, II. Proc Jpn Acad 43:279–285 Reproduced in Notas de Lógica Matemática No. 20, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca (1964)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrer LM, Craig AP, Priestley HA (2015) Product representation for default bilattices: an application of natural duality theory. J Pure Appl Algebra 219(7):2962–2988

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Celani SA (1999) Distributive lattices with a negation operator. Math Logic Q 45(2):207–218

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Celani SA (2007) Representations for some algebras with a negation operator. Contrib Discrete Math 2(2):205–213

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cignoli R (1986) The class of Kleene algebras satisfying an interpolation property and Nelson algebras. Algebra Univ 23(3):262–292

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish WH, Fowler PR (1977) Coproducts of De Morgan algebras. Bull Austral Math Soc 16(1):1–13

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish WH, Fowler PR (1979) Coproducts of Kleene algebras. J Austral Math Soc Ser A 27(2):209–220

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Davey BA, Priestley HA (1990) Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn JM (1966) The algebra of intensional logics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh

  • Fidel MM (1978) An algebraic study of a propositional system of Nelson. In: Arruda AI, Da Costa NCA, Chaqui R (eds) Mathematical logic, proceedings of the first Brazilian conference, vol 39. Lecture notes in pure and applied mathematics. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 99–117

  • Font JM (1997) Belnap’s four-valued logic and De Morgan lattices. Logic J IGPL 5(3):413–440

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Galatos N, Raftery JG (2015) Idempotent residuated structures: some category equivalences and their applications. Trans Am Math Soc 367(5):3189–3223

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gehrke M, Harding J (2001) Bounded lattice expansions. J Algebra 238(1):345–371

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Greco F, Liang F, Moshier A, Palmigiano A (2017) Multi-type display calculus for semi-De Morgan logic. In: Kennedy J, de Queiroz R (eds) Proceedings of WoLLIC 2017, pp 199–215

  • Hobby D (1996) Semi-De Morgan algebras. Stud Logica 56(1–2):151–183

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Idziak PM, Słomczyńska K, Wroński A (2009) Fregean varieties. Int J Algebra Comput 19:595–645

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jansana R, Rivieccio U (2014) Dualities for modal N4-lattices. Logic J IGPL 22(4):608–637

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jung A, Rivieccio U (2019) A duality for two-sorted lattices. (submitted)

  • Kalman JA (1958) Lattices with involution. Trans Am Math Soc 87:485–491

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Maia P, Rivieccio U, Jung A (2018) Non-involutive twist-structures. Logic J IGPL (Special issue on recovery operators and logics of formal consistency & inconsistencies)

  • Monteiro A (1960) Matrices de Morgan caractéristiques pour le calcul propositionnel classique. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias 33:1–7

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro A (1963) Construction des algèbres de Nelson finies. Bull Acad Pol Sci 11:359–362

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento T, Rivieccio U, Marcos J, Spinks M (2018) Algebraic semantics for Nelson’s logic \(S\). In: Moss L, de Queiroz R, Martinez M (eds) Logic, language, information, and computation. WoLLIC 2018, vol 10944. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 271–288

  • Nascimento T, Rivieccio U, Marcos J, Spinks M (2019) Nelson’s logic \(S\). Logic J IGPL

  • Nelson D (1949) Constructible falsity. J Symb Log 14:16–26

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Odintsov SP (2004) On the representation of N4-lattices. Stud Logica 76:385–405

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Odintsov SP (2010) Priestley duality for paraconsistent Nelson’s logic. Stud Logica 96(1):65–93

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Palma C, Santos R (2003) On a subvariety of semi-De Morgan algebras. Acta Math Hung 98(4):323–328

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pietz A, Rivieccio U (2013) Nothing but the truth. J Philos Logic 42(1):125–135

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Přenosil A (2015) The lattice of super-Belnap logics. (submitted)

  • Pynko AP (1995a) Characterizing Belnap’s logic via De Morgan’s laws. Math Logic Q 41(4):442–454

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pynko AP (1995b) On Priest’s logic of paradox. J Appl Non Class Logics 5(2):219–225

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pynko AP (1999) Implicational classes of De Morgan lattices. Discrete Math 205(1–3):171–181

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rivieccio U (2012) An infinity of super-Belnap logics. J Appl Non Class Logics 22(4):319–335

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rivieccio U (2014) Implicative twist-structures. Algebra Univ 71(2):155–186

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rivieccio U, Spinks M (to appear) Quasi-Nelson; or, non-involutive Nelson algebras. Trends Logic (special issue dedicated to the conference AsubL (Algebra and substructural logics—take 6), Cagliari

  • Rivieccio U, Spinks M (2019) Quasi-Nelson algebras. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 344:169–188

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rivieccio U, Flaminio T, Nascimento T (2020) On the representation of (weak) nilpotent minimum algebras. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, Glasgow, UK, 19–24 July 2020

  • Sankappanavar HP (1987) Semi-De Morgan algebras. J Symb Log 52(3):712–724

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sendlewski A (1990) Nelson algebras through Heyting ones. I. Stud Logica 49:105–126

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Spinks M, Rivieccio U, Nascimento T (2018) Compatibly involutive residuated lattices and the Nelson identity. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3588-9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Vakarelov D (1977) Notes on \(\cal{N}\)-lattices and constructive logic with strong negation. Stud Logica 36:109–125

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges partial funding by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil), under the grant 313643/2017-2 (Bolsas de Produtividade em Pesquisa - PQ).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Informática e Matemática Aplicada, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brasil

    Umberto Rivieccio

Authors
  1. Umberto Rivieccio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umberto Rivieccio.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals.

Additional information

Communicated by A. Di Nola.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rivieccio, U. Representation of De Morgan and (Semi-)Kleene Lattices. Soft Comput 24, 8685–8716 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04885-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04885-w

Search

Navigation