By quoting extensively from unpublished letters written by John von Neumann to Garret Birkhoff during the preparatory phase (in 1935) of their ground-breaking 1936 paper that established quantum logic, the main steps in the thought process leading to the 1936 Birkhoff–von Neumann paper are reconstructed. The reconstruction makes it clear why Birkhoff and von Neumann rejected the notion of quantum logic as the projection lattice of an infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space and why they postulated in their 1936 paper that the quantum propositional system should be isomorphic to an abstract projective geometry. Looking at the paper now I see, that I forgot to say this, which should be said somewhere in the first §: That while common logics did apply to quantum mechanics, if the notion of simultaneous measurability is introduced as an auxiliary notion, we wished to construct a logical system, which applies directly to quantum mechanics – without any extraneous secondary notions like simultaneous measurability. And in order to have such a consequent, one-piece system of logics, we must change the classical class calculus of logics. (J. von Neumann to G. Birkhoff, November 21, 1935)
By quoting extensively from unpublished letters written by John von Neumann to Garret Birkhoff during the preparatory phase (in 1935) of their ground-breaking 1936 paper that established quantum logic, the main steps in the thought process leading to the 1936 Birkhoff–von Neumann paper are reconstructed. The reconstruction makes it clear why Birkhoff and von Neumann rejected the notion of quantum logic as the projection lattice of an infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space and why they postulated in their 1936 paper that the quantum propositional system should be isomorphic to an abstract projective geometry. Looking at the paper now I see, that I forgot to say this, which should be said somewhere in the first §: That while common logics did apply to quantum mechanics, if the notion of simultaneous measurability is introduced as an auxiliary notion, we wished to construct a logical system, which applies directly to quantum mechanics – without any extraneous secondary notions like simultaneous measurability. And in order to have such a consequent, one-piece system of logics, we must change the classical class calculus of logics. (J. von Neumann to G. Birkhoff, November 21, 1935)
. We put forward a new take on the logic of quantum mechanics, following Schrödinger's point of view that it is composition which makes quantum theory what it is, rather than its particular propositional structure due to the existence of superpositions, as proposed by Birkhoff and von Neumann. This gives rise to an intrinsically quantitative kind of logic, which truly deserves the name ‘logic’ in that it also models meaning in natural language, the latter being the origin of logic, that it supports automation, the most prominent practical use of logic, and that it supports probabilistic inference. The physics and the logic of quantum-ish logic. In 1932 John von Neumann formalized Quantum Mechanics in his book “Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik”. This was effectively the official birth of the quantum mechanical formalism which until now, some 75 years later, has remained the same. Quantum theory underpins so many things in our daily lives including chemical industry, energy production and information technology, which arguably makes it the most technologically successful theory of physics ever. However, in 1935, merely three years after the birth of his brainchild, von Neumann wrote in a letter to American mathematician Garrett Birkhoff: “I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more.” (sic)—for more details see [73]. Soon thereafter they published a paper entitled “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics” [13]. Their ‘quantum logic’ was cast in order-theoretic terms, very much in the spirit of the then reigning algebraic view of logic, with the distributive law being replaced with a weaker (ortho)modular law. This resulted in a research community of quantum logicians [68, 71, 47, 30]. However, despite von Neumann's reputation, and the large body of research that has been produced in the area, one does not find a trace of this activity neither in the mainstream physics, mathematics, nor logic literature. Hence, 75 years later one may want to conclude that this activity was a failure. What went wrong? The mathematics of it. Let us consider the raison d'être for the Hilbert space formalism.
§1. Introduction. Our understanding of Nature comes in layers, so should the development of logic. Classic logic is an indispensable part of our knowledge, and its interactions with computer science have recently dramatically changed our life. A new layer of logic has been developing ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics. G. D. Birkhoff and von Neumann introduced quantum logic in a seminal paper in 1936 [1]. But the definition of quantum logic varies among authors (see [2]). How to capture the logic structure inherent in quantum mechanics is very interesting and challenging. Given the close connection between classical logic and theoretical computer science as exemplified by the coincidence of computable functions through Turing machines, recursive function theory, and λ-calculus, we are interested in how to gain some insights about quantum logic from quantum computing. In this note we make some observations about quantum logic as motivated by quantum computing (see [5]) and hope more people will explore this connection. The quantum logic as envisioned by Birkhoff and von Neumann is based on the lattice of closed subspaces of a Hilbert space, usually an infinite dimensional one. The quantum logic of a fixed Hilbert space ℍ in this note is the variety of all the true equations with finitely many variables using the connectives meet, join and negation. Quantum computing is theoretically based on quantum systems with finite dimensional Hilbert spaces, especially the states space of a qubit ℂ2. (Actually the qubit is merely a convenience.
Abstract Birkhoff and von Neumann make it clear what the goal of their October, 1936 paper, “The logic of quantum mechanics”, is: “The object of the present paper is to discover what logical structure one may hope to find in physical theories which, like quantum mechanics, do not conform to classical logic. Our main conclusion, based on admittedly heuristic arguments, is that one can reasonably expect to find a calculus of propositions which is formally indistinguishable from the calculus of linear subspaces with respect to set products, linear sums, and orthogonal complements-and resembles the usual calculus of propositions with respect to and, or, and not.” (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936, p.823; underline added). Specifically, “Up to now, we have only discussed formal features of logical structure which seem to be common to classical dynamics and the quantum theory. We now turn to the central difference between them-the distributive identity of the propositional calculus: L6: a U (b ꓵ c) = (a U b) ꓵ (a U c) and a ꓵ (b U c) = (a ꓵ b) U (a ꓵ c) which is a law in classical, but not in quantum mechanics.” (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936, p.830; underline added) Continuing, Birkhoff and von Neumann comment: “From a deeper mathematical viewpoint, L6 is the characteristic property of set-combination. More precisely, every "field" of sets is isomorphic with a Boolean algebra, and conversely.21 This throws new light on the well-known fact that the propositional calculi of classical mechanics are Boolean algebras.” (Birkhoff and von Neumann, 1936, p.831). Birkhoff and von Neumann then show on p.831 that the distributive law breaks down in quantum mechanics and that the generalized distributive law of logic breaks down in the related field “in the quotient algebra of the field of Lebesgue measurable sets by the ideal of sets of Lebesgue measure 0, which is so fundamental in statistics and the formulation of the ergodic principle.” (ibid., p.831). However, it must be noted that Birkhoff and von Neumann are talking about the Jevons-Pierce-Schroder interpretation (two -valued) of Boole’s original approach (four -valued), which Boole completely rejected. (See Hailperin, 1986, 1996), The reason for this rejection is that the Jevons-Peircean approach required strict complementation, which translated into additivity and linearity in probability assessments, as opposed to Boole’s realization that real world decision making required sub additivity and non-linearity, Thereafter, we will refer to the Jevons-Pierce-Schroder approach as Jevons’s approach to the interpretation of Boolean logic, which uses standard classical logic to underpin discussions of standard probability logic. Jevons’s approach removed the basic algebra which Boole combined with his new relational, propositional logic, so as to deal with indeterminate, imprecise probabilities, which are nonstandard. Jevons’s approach can’t deal with the non-standard probability logics used by Boole in chapters XVIII-XX of The Laws of Thought (1854) and by Keynes in chapters XII, XV-XVII of the A Treatise on Probability (1921) in order to deal with indeterminate, interval valued probabilities.
It has been shown by Birkhoff and v. Neumann (1936) and by Jauch and Piron (1963,1964,1968) that the subspaces of Hilbert space constitute an orthocomplemented quasi-modular lattice Lq, if one considers between two subspaces (elements) a, b the relation a⊆b and the operations a∩b, a∪b, a⊥. Furthermore, since the subspaces can be interpreted as quantum mechanical propositions, and since the operations ∩,∪ ,⊥ have some similarity with the logical operations ⋀ (and), ⋁ (or) and ⌝ (not), the question has been raised already by Birkhoff and v. Neumann, whether the lattice of subspaces of Hilbert space can be interpreted as a propositional calculus, sometimes called quantum logic. There are many kinds of lattices which can be interpreted as a propositional or logical calculus. A Boolean lattice LB of propositions corresponds to the calculus of classical logic and an implicative (Birkhoff, 1961) lattice Li has as a model the calculus of effective (intuitionistic) logic.
In this paper we provide a structural derivation of Birkhoff–von Neumann quantum logic starting from an extended statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Quantum logic is not introduced as an independent logical hypothesis, but is shown to arise naturally from the non-classical structure of quantum probability, in particular from interference, non-additivity, and the priority of the whole over its alternatives. We demonstrate that the failure of Boolean logic in quantum mechanics is not a semantic or philosophical anomaly, but a direct consequence of the probabilistic structure encoded in Hilbert space. Within this framework, quantum logic appears as the logical form of quantum probability itself. This interpretation clarifies the physical meaning of quantum logic and highlights its contemporary relevance in quantum information and quantum computation.