Algebraic Structures Arising in Axiomatic Unsharp Quantum Physics

Gianpiero Cattaneo

David J. Foulis, M. K. Bennett

Chiara Manfriani, Roberto Giuntini, Richard J. Greechie

List of Figures. List of Tables. Preface. Acknowledgements. I: Mathematical and Physical Background. Introduction. 1. The mathematical scenario of quantum theory and von Neumann's axiomatization. 1.1. Algebraic structures. 1.2. The geometry of quantum theory. 1.3. The axiomatization of orthodox QT. 1.4. The 'logic' of the quantum events. 1.5. The logico-algebraic approach to QT. 2. Abstract axiomatic foundations of sharp QT. 2.1. Mackey's minimal axiomatization of QT. 2.2. Events. 2.3. Event-state systems. 2.4. Event-state systems and preclusivity spaces. 3. Back to Hilbert space. 3.1. Events as closed subspaces. 3.2. Events as projections. 3.3. Hilbert event-state systems. 3.4. From abstract orthoposets of events to Hilbert lattices. 4. The emergence of fuzzy events in Hilbert space quantum theory. 4.1. The notion of effect. 4.2. Effect-Brouwer Zadeh posets. 4.3. MacNeille completions. 4.4. Unsharp preclusivity spaces. 5. Effect algebras and quantum MV algebras. 5.1. Effect algebras and Brouwer Zadeh effect algebras. 5.2. The Lukasiewwicz operations. 5.3. MV algebras and QMV algebras. 5.4. Quasi-linear QMV algebras and effect algebras. 6. Abstract axiomatic foundations of unsharp quantum theory. 6.1. A minimal axiomatization of unsharp QT. 6.2. The algebraic structure of abstract effects. 6.3. The sharply dominating principle. 6.4. Abstract unsharp preclusivity spaces. 6.5. Sharp and unsharp abstract quantum theory. 7. To what extent is quantum ambiguity ambiguous? 7.1. Algebraic notions of 'sharp'. 7.2. Probabilistic definitions of 'sharpness'. II: Quantum Logics as Logic. Introduction. 8. Sharp quantum logics. 8.1. Algebraic and Kripkean semantics for sharp quantum logics. 8.2. Algebraic and Kripkean realizations of Hilbert event-state systems. 8.3. The implication problem in quantum logic. 8.4. Five polynomial conditions. 8.5. The quantum logical conditional as a counterfactual conditional. 8.6. Implication-connectives. 9. Metalogical properties and anomalies of quantum logic. 9.1. The failure of the Lindenbaum properety. 9.2. A modal interpretation of sharp quantum logics. 10. An axiomatization of OL and OQL. 10.1. The calculi of OL and OQL. 10.2. The soundness and completeness theorems. 11. The metalogical intractability of orthomodularity. 11.1. Orthomodularity is not elementary. 11.2. The embeddability problem. 11.3. Hilbert quantum logic and the orthomodular law. 12. First-order quantum logics and quantum set theories. 12.1. First-order semantics. 12.2. Quantum set theories. 13. Partial classical logic, the Lindenbaum property and the hidden variable problem. 13.1. Partial classical logic. 13.2. Partial classical logic and the Lindenbaum property. 13.3. States on partial Boolean algebras. 13.4. The Lindenbaum property and the hidden variable problem. 14. Unsharp quantum logics. 14.1.

Gianpiero Cattaneo, Federico Laudisa

Atul Kumar Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Singh

This paper examines how logical structures represent sharp and unsharp propositions in classical and quantum systems. Classical sharp logic is modeled by Boolean algebras, where propositions have bivalent truth values, complements are globally defined, and distributivity holds. Quantum sharp logic is modeled by orthomodular lattices of closed Hilbert-space subspaces or projection operators; it retains definite yes–no outcomes for ideal measurements but rejects the Boolean assumptions of global truth valuation and distributivity. Classical unsharp logic uses fuzzy membership or probabilistic truth values to describe vagueness and incomplete information, whereas quantum unsharp logic is expressed through effects and effect algebras, which capture noisy, inefficient, and generalized measurements. The paper’s central question is which algebraic structure is appropriate for each combination of classical or quantum behavior and sharp or unsharp measurement. The analysis shows that the four cases form a coherent hierarchy: Boolean algebras describe deterministic classical events, orthomodular lattices describe ideal quantum propositions, fuzzy or probabilistic models describe classical partial truth, and effect algebras describe realistic quantum effects. This classification clarifies the mathematical and physical role of unsharpness and explains why effect algebras are needed beyond projection-based quantum logic.

Wawrzyniec Guz

Abstract The paper, summarizing the results of recent papers of the author, is devoted to a detailed analysis of postulates of nonrelativistic quantum theory appearing within two classical axiomatic frameworks the “quantum logic” and the “algebraic approach” respectively, which are presently the two main alternatives for quantum axiomatics. The first part of the paper concerns the structure of two important sets, the set of questions (propositional logic) and the set of pure states. It is shown how the quantum logic axiomatic scheme can be modified and improved in order to overcome the well known troubles connected with the lack of satisfactory physical justification for some postulates of this approach. In particular, an axiom system is developed, related closely to the quantum logic axiomatic scheme, in which the questions of the complete lattice structure, the atomisticity, and the validity of the covering law in the propositional logic do not appear so problematic. The particular attention is directed to the covering law, which is here obtained as a consequence of physically clear properties of the experimental procedures (“filters”) associated with the quantum‐mechanical propositions. In Section 1.5 we formulate an axiom system for quantum mechanics based exclusively on the concepts of pure state, transition probability, and pure filter. In the second part of the paper the axiomatic scheme presented in Part 1 is developed with the aim to analyse the algebraic structure of some subspaces of the set of simple observables. The quantum logic axiomatic framework is here shown closely connected with the Jordan‐Banach algebraic scheme. In the third part of the paper, similarly as it was done in Parts 1 and 2, the correspondence between the propositions and the experimental (measuring) procedures verifying these propositions is put as the basic assumption of the axiomatization of quantum mechanics. As a consequence of this assumption, there is established the structure of a real Jordan‐Banach algebra in the set Ob of the bounded observables associated with a physical system, so that we can apply the GNS representation theorem proved recently for such algebras by Alfsen et al. (1978) to obtain the Hilbert space (or, to be more precise, the C*‐algebraic) representation for Ob.