When a physicist performs a quantic measurement, new information about the system at hand is gathered. This article studies the logical properties of how this new information is combined with previous information. It presents Quantum Logic as a propositional logic under two connectives: negation and the and then operation that combines old and new information. The and then connective is neither commutative nor associative. Many properties of this logic are exhibited, and some small elegant subset is shown to imply all the properties considered. No independence or completeness result is claimed. Classical physical systems are exactly characterized by the commutativity, the associativity, or the monotonicity of the and then connective. Entailment is defined in this logic and can be proved to be a partial order. In orthomodular lattices, the operation proposed by Finch in [3] satisfies all the properties studied in this article. All properties satisfied by Finch's; operation in modular lattices are valid in Quantum Logic. It is not known whether all properties of Quantum Logic are satisfied by Finch's; operation in modular lattices. Non-commutative, non-associative algebraic structures generalizing Boolean algebras are defined, ideals are characterized and a homomorphism theorem is proved.
When a physicist performs a quantic measurement, new information about the system at hand is gathered. This article studies the logical properties of how this new information is combined with previous information. It presents Quantum Logic as a propositional logic under two connectives: negation and the and then operation that combines old and new information. The and then connective is neither commutative nor associative. Many properties of this logic are exhibited, and some small elegant subset is shown to imply all the properties considered. No independence or completeness result is claimed. Classical physical systems are exactly characterized by the commutativity, the associativity, or the monotonicity of the and then connective. Entailment is defined in this logic and can be proved to be a partial order. In orthomodular lattices, the operation proposed by Finch in [3] satisfies all the properties studied in this article. All properties satisfied by Finch's; operation in modular lattices are valid in Quantum Logic. It is not known whether all properties of Quantum Logic are satisfied by Finch's; operation in modular lattices. Non-commutative, non-associative algebraic structures generalizing Boolean algebras are defined, ideals are characterized and a homomorphism theorem is proved.
The purpose of this paper is to give an axiom system for quantum logic. Here quantum logic is considered to have the structure of an orthomodular lattice. Some authors assume that it has the structure of an orthomodular poset. In finding this axiom system the implication algebra given in Finch [1] has been very useful. Finch shows there that this algebra can be produced from an orthomodular lattice and vice versa. Definition. An orthocomplementation N on a poset (partially ordered set) whose partial ordering is denoted by ≤ and which has least and greatest elements 0 and 1 is a unary operation satisfying the following: (1) the greatest lower bound of a and Na exists and is 0, (2) a ≤ b implies Nb ≤ Na, (3) NNa = a. Definition. An orthomodular lattice is a lattice with meet ∧, join ∨, least and greatest elements 0 and 1 and an orthocomplementation N satisfying where a ≤ b means a ∧ b = a, as usual. Definition. A Finch implication algebra is a poset with a partial ordering ≤, least and greatest elements 0 and 1 which is orthocomplemented by N. In addition, it has a binary operation → satisfying the following: An orthomodular lattice gives a Finch implication algebra by defining → by A Finch implication algebra can be changed into an orthomodular lattice by defining the meet ∧ and join ∨ by The orthocomplementation is unchanged in both cases.
According to quantum mechanics, the pure states of a microsystem are represented by vectors in a Hilbert Space. Sentences of the form, "x є L" (where x is the state vector for a system, L a subspace of the appropriate Hilbert space), may be called Q-propositions: such sentences serve to summarise our information about the results of possible experiments on the system. Quantum logic investigates the relations which hold among the Q-propositions about a given physical sys tem. These logical relations correspond to algebraic relations among the subspaces of Hilbert space. The algebra of this set of subspaces is non-Boolean, and may be regarded either as an orthomodular lattice or as a partial Boolean algebra. With each type of structure we can associate a logic. A general approach to the semantics for such a logic is provided in terms of interpretations of a formal language within an algebraic structure; an interpretation maps sentences of the language homomorphically onto elements of the structure. When the structure in question is a Boolean algera, the resulting logic is classical; here we develop a semantics for the logic associated with partial Boolean algebras. Two systems of proof, based on the natural deduction systems of Gentzen, are shown for this logic. With respect to the given sematics, these calculi are sound and weakly complete. Strong completeness is conjectured. Quantum logic deals with the logical relations between sentences, and so is properly called a logic. However, it is the logic appropriate to a limited class of sentences: proposals that it should replace classical logic wherever the latter is used should be viewed with suspicion.
Sentences Associated with a Quantum System and Their Truth Values In a sense this chapter is marginal to the content of this volume; the reader can skip it without prejudice to the comprehension of chapters to follow. Quantum logic is a discipline that branched off from the 1936 paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann and has the orthomodular-poset structures encountered in previous chapters as basic mathematical carriers: that is why we think it worthwhile to devote some pages to the subject. But the main interests quantum logic calls into play are in the territory of logicians and philosophers: that is why we (who are neither logicians nor philosophers) shall confine ourselves to a very simplified introduction to the subject. Roughly, the starting question is whether the propositions of a quantum system can be associated with, or can be interpreted as, sentences of a language (or propositional calculus) and which rules this language inherits from the ordered structure of propositions. In raising this question one has in mind the fact that when the physical system is classical its propositions form a Boolean algebra, and Boolean algebras are the algebraic models of the calculus of classical logic. Thus the question above can also be phrased as follows: when a Boolean algebra is relaxed into an orthomodular nondistributive lattice, which logic is it the model of? “Quantum logic” is the name that designates the answer, but there are several views about the content of this name. Here we sketch one approach to a quantum logic.
This article employs a descriptive-analytical method with an algebraic and axiomatic approach to address quantum logic. Through several thought experiments, it is demonstrated that the distributive law for propositions does not hold in quantum mechanics. Therefore, the logic governing this domain of science is not classical logic. In fact, the algebra corresponding to the logic of quantum propositions is an orthomodular lattice, which is why the distributive law is not necessarily valid for such propositions. In quantum logic, various definitions are offered for the implication operator. Since none of these operators satisfy the deduction theorem, a suitable implication operator with this property must be defined. This objective is achieved by defining a unified quantum logic. By constructing a Lindenbaum-Tarski algebra for this unified quantum logic, it can be shown that it is indeed a quantum logic. Dishkant presented an embedding of quantum logic into the Br-modal logic system. This provides an appropriate semantics for quantum logic. A suitable model for this logic is the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space.
Quantum logic is usually presented as a non-classical departure from ordinary reasoning forced on us by quantum mechanics, with classical logic kept as the secure starting point. We argue for the opposite order of explanation in a finite and fully computable setting. The free orthomodular lattice on two generators has ninety-six elements, the direct product of a six-element non-distributive factor and a sixteen-element Boolean factor. Reading the first factor as a register of contexts and the second as Boolean content, we obtain a calculus whose elements are context--bit-vector pairs and whose operations act component by component. With this calculus we establish three results. First, we classify the six layers by commutativity, identifying the central kernel of context-neutral propositions together with a dual central layer in which all complementary contexts are present. Second, we show that orthocomplementation rearranges the layers exactly as the complementation of the small factor rearranges its elements, which makes the duality among the layers rigid rather than accidental. Third, we prove that the operation forgetting the context is a surjective homomorphism of orthocomplemented lattices whose quotient is the classical Boolean algebra, so that classical logic is a six-to-one, information-losing image of the contextual calculus.
The purpose of this paper is to prove that the construction of a quantum logic is a task of specific interest for non-classical logic, but that it is relevant neither to the methodology of quantum mechanics nor to the formalisation of the alternative yes-no process. The main argument is that quantum structures (for example, orthocomplemented partially ordered sets, orthomodular lattices and partial algebras) are not systems of logic proper, but rather are perfectly formalizable structures in classical logic. In § 1, the orthodox formulation of Jauch and Piron are analyzed. I affirm that the objections made by these authors against “quantum logic” are not eliminated by the introduction of a conditional in the lattice structures, since the true reason why quantum “logic” is not really logic lies in its formulation, which is not that of a propositional system, but rather that of a specific theory whose model is these lattices. It is argued that the collection of the properties satisfied by certain objects of a structure does not justify their presentation as purely logical properties, nor does the presence of certain operations of the least upper bound and greatest lower bound permit us to call symbols introduced by analogy in propositionaI logic “connectives”. In any case, if that formalization is indeed possible, it does not imply the adoption of a new logic as a formal instrument for quantum mechanics. In § 2, aspects of quantum theories which are especially semantic in nature are analyzed. I agree with van Fraassen’s statement in the sense that that semantic formulation makes specific concepts of the theory clearer, but it does not attempt to construct its own logic. I deduce that it is non-classical logic which can actually take advantage of quantum semantics, as a model which, eventually, could throw light on the metalogical properties of certain special propositional systems. Finally, by using Benioff’s profound set theory analysis, I advance the hypothesis that classical logic is possibly the only one that can account for the richness of the meanings that appear in quantum mechanics.[Summary by Carlos Lungarzo]