Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1310.8221 · Bulletin of the American Physical Society

Quantum mechanics over sets

David Ellerman

Published Oct 30, 2013• 8 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In the tradition of toy models of quantum mechanics in vector spaces over finite fields (e.g., Schumacher and Westmoreland's "modal quantum theory"), one finite field stands out, 2, since vectors over 2 have an interpretation as natural mathematical objects, i.e., sets. This engages a sets-to-vector-spaces bridge that is part of the mathematical folklore to translate both ways between set concepts and vector space concepts. Using that bridge, the mathematical framework of (finite-dimensional) quantum mechanics can be transported down to sets resulting in quantum mechanics over sets or QM/sets. This approach leads to a different treatment of Dirac's brackets than in "modal quantum theory" (MQT), and that gives a full probability calculus (unlike MQT that only has zero-one modalities of impossible and possible). That, in turn, leads to a rather fulsome theory of QM over sets that includes "logical" models of the double-slit experiment, Bell's Theorem, quantum information theory, quantum computing, and much else. Indeed, QM/sets is proposed as the "logic" of QM in the old-fashioned sense of "logic" as giving the simplified essentials of a theory. QM/sets is also a key part of a broader research program to provide an interpretation of QM based on the notion of "objective indefiniteness," a program that grew out the recent development of the logic of partitions mathematically dual to the usual Boolean logic of subsets.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1310.8221

Related papers

A New Approach to Understanding Quantum Mechanics: Illustrated Using a Pedagogical Model over ℤ2

David Ellerman

The new approach to quantum mechanics (QM) is that the mathematics of QM is the linearization of the mathematics of partitions (or equivalence relations) on a set. This paper develops those ideas using vector spaces over the field Z2={0.1} as a pedagogical or toy model of (finite-dimensional, non-relativistic) QM. The 0,1-vectors are interpreted as sets, so the model is “quantum mechanics over sets” or QM/Sets. The key notions of partitions on a set are the logical-level notions to model distinctions versus indistinctions, definiteness versus indefiniteness, or distinguishability versus indistinguishability. Those pairs of concepts are the key to understanding the non-classical ‘weirdness’ of QM. The key non-classical notion in QM is the notion of superposition, i.e., the notion of a state that is indefinite between two or more definite- or eigen-states. As Richard Feynman emphasized, all the weirdness of QM is illustrated in the double-slit experiment, so the QM/Sets version of that experiment is used to make the key points.

AppliedMath•Apr 9, 2024•0 citations

The Pedagogical Model of Quantum Mechanics over Sets

David Ellerman

This paper develops a simplified pedagogical or toy model of (finite-dimensional non-relativistic) quantum mechanics (QM). The model uses vector spaces over \(\mathbb{Z}_{2}=\{0,1\}\), where the \(0,1\)-vectors can also be interpreted as sets, so the model is "quantum mechanics over sets" or QM/Sets. At the level of sets, the key notion is that of a partition or, equivalently, an equivalence relation. Partitions are the logical-level notions to model distinctions versus indistinctions, definiteness versus indefiniteness, or distinguishability versus indistinguishability. Those pairs of concepts are the key to understanding the non-classical 'weirdness' of QM. The key non-classical notion in QM is the notion of superposition, i.e., the notion of a state that is indefinite between two or more definite- or eigen-states. As Richard Feynman emphasized, all the weirdness of QM is illustrated in the double-slit experiment so the QM/Sets version is used to make the key points. The simplified model provides an explanation and intuitive picture to answer the key question: "How can the particle get to the detection wall without passing through one slit or the other?"

Qeios•Jan 5, 2024•0 citations

A New Approach to Understanding Quantum Mechanics: Illustrated Using a Pedagogical Model over Z2

David Ellerman

The new approach to quantum mechanics (QM) is that the mathematics of QM is the linearization of the mathematics of partitions (or equivalence relations) on a set. This paper develops those ideas using vector spaces over the field Z2 = {0.1} as a pedagogical or toy model of (finite-dimensional, non-relativistic) QM. The 0, 1-vectors are interpreted as sets, so the model is “quantum mechanics over sets” or QM/Sets. The key notions of partitions on a set are the logical-level notions to model distinctions versus indistinctions, definiteness versus indefiniteness, or distinguishability versus indistinguishability. Those pairs of concepts are the key to understanding the non-classical ‘weirdness’ of QM. The key non-classical notion in QM is the notion of superposition, i.e., the notion of a state that is indefinite between two or more definite- or eigen-states. As Richard Feynman emphasized, all the weirdness of QM is illustrated in the double-slit experiment, so the QM/Sets version of that experiment is used to make the key points.

•Jan 1, 2024•0 citations

On classical finite probability theory as a quantum probability calculus

David Ellerman

This paper shows how the classical finite probability theory (with equiprobable outcomes) can be reinterpreted and recast as the quantum probability calculus of a pedagogical or "toy" model of quantum mechanics over sets (QM/sets). There have been four previous attempts to develop a quantum-like model with the base field of $\mathbb{C}$ replaced by $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$, but they are all forced into a merely "modal" interpretation by requiring the brackets to take values in $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ (1 = possible, 0 = impossible). But the usual QM brackets give the "overlap" between states ψ and ϕ, so for subsets S,T of U, the natural definition is $=|S{\cap}T|$. This allows QM/sets to be developed with a full probability calculus that turns out to be the perfectly classical Laplace-Boole finite probability theory. The point is not to clarify finite probability theory but to elucidate quantum mechanics itself by seeing some of its quantum features (e.g., two-slit experiment) in a classical setting.

arXiv:1502.01048•Feb 3, 2015•2 citations

The Nature of Quantum Truth: Logic, Set Theory, & Mathematics in the Context of Quantum Theory

Kimberly Frey

The purpose of this dissertation is to construct a radically new type of mathematics whose underlying logic differs from the ordinary classical logic used in standard mathematics, and which we feel may be more natural for applications in quantum mechanics. Specifically, we begin by constructing a first order quantum logic, the development of which closely parallels that of ordinary (classical) first order logic --- the essential differences are in the nature of the logical axioms, which, in our construction, are motivated by quantum theory. After showing that the axiomatic first order logic we develop is sound and complete (with respect to a particular class of models), this logic is then used as a foundation on which to build (axiomatic) mathematical systems --- and we refer to the resulting new mathematics as "quantum mathematics." As noted above, the hope is that this form of mathematics is more natural than classical mathematics for the description of quantum systems, and will enable us to address some foundational aspects of quantum theory which are still troublesome --- e.g. the measurement problem --- as well as possibly even inform our thinking about quantum gravity.\n\nAfter constructing the underlying logic, we investigate properties of several mathematical systems --- e.g. axiom systems for abstract algebras, group theory, linear algebra, etc. --- in the presence of this quantum logic. In the process, we demonstrate that the resulting quantum mathematical systems have some strange, but very interesting features, which indicates a richness in the structure of mathematics that is classically inaccessible. Moreover, some of these features do indeed suggest possible applications to foundational questions in quantum theory. \n\nWe continue our investigation of quantum mathematics by constructing an axiomatic quantum set theory, which we show satisfies certain desirable criteria. Ultimately, we hope that such a set theory will lead to a foundation for quantum mathematics in a sense which parallels the foundational role of classical set theory in classical mathematics. One immediate application of the quantum set theory we develop is to provide a foundation on which to construct quantum natural numbers, which are the quantum analog of the classical counting numbers. It turns out that in a special class of models, there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the quantum natural numbers and bounded observables in quantum theory whose eigenvalues are (ordinary) natural numbers. This 1-1 correspondence is remarkably satisfying, and not only gives us great confidence in our quantum set theory, but indicates the naturalness of such models for quantum theory itself. We go on to develop a Peano-like arithmetic for these new "numbers," as well as consider some of its consequences. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our results, and discussing directions for future work.

•Oct 24, 2013•1 citation

A BRIDGE BETWEEN Q-WORLDS

ANDREAS DÖRING, BENJAMIN EVA, MASANAO OZAWA

Abstract Quantum set theory (QST) and topos quantum theory (TQT) are two long running projects in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) that share a great deal of conceptual and technical affinity. Most pertinently, both approaches attempt to resolve some of the conceptual difficulties surrounding QM by reformulating parts of the theory inside of nonclassical mathematical universes, albeit with very different internal logics. We call such mathematical universes, together with those mathematical and logical structures within them that are pertinent to the physical interpretation, ‘Q-worlds’. Here, we provide a unifying framework that allows us to (i) better understand the relationship between different Q-worlds, and (ii) define a general method for transferring concepts and results between TQT and QST, thereby significantly increasing the expressive power of both approaches. Along the way, we develop a novel connection to paraconsistent logic and introduce a new class of structures that have significant implications for recent work on paraconsistent set theory.

arXiv:1812.08604•The Review of Symbolic Logic•Jul 2, 2020•7 citations
In the tradition of toy models of quantum mechanics in vector spaces over finite fields (e.g., Schumacher and Westmoreland's "modal quantum theory"), one finite field stands out, 2, since vectors over 2 have an interpretation as natural mathematical objects, i.e., sets. This engages a sets-to-vector-spaces bridge that is part of the mathematical folklore to translate both ways between set concepts and vector space concepts. Using that bridge, the mathematical framework of (finite-dimensional) quantum mechanics can be transported down to sets resulting in quantum mechanics over sets or QM/sets. This approach leads to a different treatment of Dirac's brackets than in "modal quantum theory" (MQT), and that gives a full probability calculus (unlike MQT that only has zero-one modalities of impossible and possible). That, in turn, leads to a rather fulsome theory of QM over sets that includes "logical" models of the double-slit experiment, Bell's Theorem, quantum information theory, quantum computing, and much else. Indeed, QM/sets is proposed as the "logic" of QM in the old-fashioned sense of "logic" as giving the simplified essentials of a theory. QM/sets is also a key part of a broader research program to provide an interpretation of QM based on the notion of "objective indefiniteness," a program that grew out the recent development of the logic of partitions mathematically dual to the usual Boolean logic of subsets.
The new approach to quantum mechanics (QM) is that the mathematics of QM is the linearization of the mathematics of partitions (or equivalence relations) on a set. This paper develops those ideas using vector spaces over the field Z2={0.1} as a pedagogical or toy model of (finite-dimensional, non-relativistic) QM. The 0,1-vectors are interpreted as sets, so the model is “quantum mechanics over sets” or QM/Sets. The key notions of partitions on a set are the logical-level notions to model distinctions versus indistinctions, definiteness versus indefiniteness, or distinguishability versus indistinguishability. Those pairs of concepts are the key to understanding the non-classical ‘weirdness’ of QM. The key non-classical notion in QM is the notion of superposition, i.e., the notion of a state that is indefinite between two or more definite- or eigen-states. As Richard Feynman emphasized, all the weirdness of QM is illustrated in the double-slit experiment, so the QM/Sets version of that experiment is used to make the key points.
This paper develops a simplified pedagogical or toy model of (finite-dimensional non-relativistic) quantum mechanics (QM). The model uses vector spaces over Z2={0,1}\mathbb{Z}_{2}=\{0,1\}Z2​={0,1}, where the 0,10,10,1-vectors can also be interpreted as sets, so the model is "quantum mechanics over sets" or QM/Sets. At the level of sets, the key notion is that of a partition or, equivalently, an equivalence relation. Partitions are the logical-level notions to model distinctions versus indistinctions, definiteness versus indefiniteness, or distinguishability versus indistinguishability. Those pairs of concepts are the key to understanding the non-classical 'weirdness' of QM. The key non-classical notion in QM is the notion of superposition, i.e., the notion of a state that is indefinite between two or more definite- or eigen-states. As Richard Feynman emphasized, all the weirdness of QM is illustrated in the double-slit experiment so the QM/Sets version is used to make the key points. The simplified model provides an explanation and intuitive picture to answer the key question: "How can the particle get to the detection wall without passing through one slit or the other?"
The new approach to quantum mechanics (QM) is that the mathematics of QM is the linearization of the mathematics of partitions (or equivalence relations) on a set. This paper develops those ideas using vector spaces over the field Z2 = {0.1} as a pedagogical or toy model of (finite-dimensional, non-relativistic) QM. The 0, 1-vectors are interpreted as sets, so the model is “quantum mechanics over sets” or QM/Sets. The key notions of partitions on a set are the logical-level notions to model distinctions versus indistinctions, definiteness versus indefiniteness, or distinguishability versus indistinguishability. Those pairs of concepts are the key to understanding the non-classical ‘weirdness’ of QM. The key non-classical notion in QM is the notion of superposition, i.e., the notion of a state that is indefinite between two or more definite- or eigen-states. As Richard Feynman emphasized, all the weirdness of QM is illustrated in the double-slit experiment, so the QM/Sets version of that experiment is used to make the key points.
This paper shows how the classical finite probability theory (with equiprobable outcomes) can be reinterpreted and recast as the quantum probability calculus of a pedagogical or "toy" model of quantum mechanics over sets (QM/sets). There have been four previous attempts to develop a quantum-like model with the base field of C\mathbb{C}C replaced by Z2\mathbb{Z}_{2}Z2​, but they are all forced into a merely "modal" interpretation by requiring the brackets to take values in Z2\mathbb{Z}_{2}Z2​ (1 = possible, 0 = impossible). But the usual QM brackets give the "overlap" between states ψ and ϕ, so for subsets S,T of U, the natural definition is =∣S∩T∣=|S{\cap}T|=∣S∩T∣. This allows QM/sets to be developed with a full probability calculus that turns out to be the perfectly classical Laplace-Boole finite probability theory. The point is not to clarify finite probability theory but to elucidate quantum mechanics itself by seeing some of its quantum features (e.g., two-slit experiment) in a classical setting.
The purpose of this dissertation is to construct a radically new type of mathematics whose underlying logic differs from the ordinary classical logic used in standard mathematics, and which we feel may be more natural for applications in quantum mechanics. Specifically, we begin by constructing a first order quantum logic, the development of which closely parallels that of ordinary (classical) first order logic --- the essential differences are in the nature of the logical axioms, which, in our construction, are motivated by quantum theory. After showing that the axiomatic first order logic we develop is sound and complete (with respect to a particular class of models), this logic is then used as a foundation on which to build (axiomatic) mathematical systems --- and we refer to the resulting new mathematics as "quantum mathematics." As noted above, the hope is that this form of mathematics is more natural than classical mathematics for the description of quantum systems, and will enable us to address some foundational aspects of quantum theory which are still troublesome --- e.g. the measurement problem --- as well as possibly even inform our thinking about quantum gravity.\n\nAfter constructing the underlying logic, we investigate properties of several mathematical systems --- e.g. axiom systems for abstract algebras, group theory, linear algebra, etc. --- in the presence of this quantum logic. In the process, we demonstrate that the resulting quantum mathematical systems have some strange, but very interesting features, which indicates a richness in the structure of mathematics that is classically inaccessible. Moreover, some of these features do indeed suggest possible applications to foundational questions in quantum theory. \n\nWe continue our investigation of quantum mathematics by constructing an axiomatic quantum set theory, which we show satisfies certain desirable criteria. Ultimately, we hope that such a set theory will lead to a foundation for quantum mathematics in a sense which parallels the foundational role of classical set theory in classical mathematics. One immediate application of the quantum set theory we develop is to provide a foundation on which to construct quantum natural numbers, which are the quantum analog of the classical counting numbers. It turns out that in a special class of models, there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the quantum natural numbers and bounded observables in quantum theory whose eigenvalues are (ordinary) natural numbers. This 1-1 correspondence is remarkably satisfying, and not only gives us great confidence in our quantum set theory, but indicates the naturalness of such models for quantum theory itself. We go on to develop a Peano-like arithmetic for these new "numbers," as well as consider some of its consequences. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our results, and discussing directions for future work.
Abstract Quantum set theory (QST) and topos quantum theory (TQT) are two long running projects in the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics (QM) that share a great deal of conceptual and technical affinity. Most pertinently, both approaches attempt to resolve some of the conceptual difficulties surrounding QM by reformulating parts of the theory inside of nonclassical mathematical universes, albeit with very different internal logics. We call such mathematical universes, together with those mathematical and logical structures within them that are pertinent to the physical interpretation, ‘Q-worlds’. Here, we provide a unifying framework that allows us to (i) better understand the relationship between different Q-worlds, and (ii) define a general method for transferring concepts and results between TQT and QST, thereby significantly increasing the expressive power of both approaches. Along the way, we develop a novel connection to paraconsistent logic and introduce a new class of structures that have significant implications for recent work on paraconsistent set theory.