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

Advances in Applied Mathematics

Sharp and Unsharp Quantum Effects

Stanley Gudder

Published Feb 1, 1998• 21 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1006/aama.1997.0575

Related papers

from unsharp to sharp quantum observables

CATTANEO G., Giuseppe Antonio NISTICO'

•Jan 1, 2000•0 citations

Unsharp Quantum Reality

Paul Busch, Gregg S. Jaeger

arXiv:1005.0604•Foundations of Physics•Aug 6, 2010•57 citations

From Boolean algebras to effect algebras: Sharp and unsharp logic in classical and quantum systems

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.

Engineering and Applied Science Letters•Aug 12, 2026•0 citations

On the Sharpness and Bias of Quantum Effects

Paul Busch

arXiv:0706.3532•Foundations of Physics•Feb 20, 2009•22 citations

Reasoning in Quantum Theory: Sharp and Unsharp Quantum Logics

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.

•Mar 14, 2014•112 citations

Quantum effects

Yasunori Fujii, Kei‐ichi Maeda

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 2, 2003•0 citations
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.
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.