Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:43:26.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sequential method in quantum logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Hirokazu Nishimura
Hirokazu Nishimura*
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto T606, Japan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since Birkhoff and von Neumann [2] a new area of logical investigation has grown up under the name of quantum logic. However it seems to me that many authors have been inclined to discuss algebraic semantics as such (mainly lattices of a certain kind) almost directly without presenting any axiomatic system, far from developing any proof theory of quantum logic. See, e.g., Gunson [9], Jauch [10], Varadarajan [15], Zeirler [16], etc. In this sense many works presented under the name of quantum logic are algebraic in essence rather than genuinely logical, though it is absurd to doubt the close relationship between algebraic and logical study on quantum mechanics.

The main purpose of this paper is to alter this situation by presenting an axiomatization of quantum logic as natural and as elegant as possible, which further proof-theoretical study is to be based on.

It is true that several axiomatizations of quantum logic are present now. Several authors have investigated the so-called material implication α → β ( = ¬α∨(α ∧ β)) very closely with due regard to its importance. See, e.g., Finch [5], Piziak [11], etc. Indeed material implication plays a predominant role in any axiomatization of a logic in Hilbert-style. Clark [4] has presented an axiomatization of quantum logic with negation ¬ and material implication → as primitive connectives. In this paper we do not follow this approach. First of all, this approach is greatly complicated because orthomodular lattices are only locally distributive.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 339 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Birkhoff, G., Lattice theory, 3rd edition, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 25, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1967.Google Scholar
[2]Birkhoff, G. and von Neumann, J., The logic of quantum mechanics, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 37 (1936), pp. 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Chiara, M.L. Dalla, Quantum logic and physical modalities, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 6 (1977), pp. 391–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Clark, I.D., An axiomatisation of quantum logic, this Journal, vol. 38 (1973), pp. 389–392.Google Scholar
[5]Finch, P.D., Quantum logic as an implication algebra, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 2 (1970), pp. 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Foulis, D.J. and Randall, C.H., Lexicographic orthogonality, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, vol. 11 (1971), pp. 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Gentzen, G., Untersuchungen iiber das logische Schliessen. I, II, Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 39 (1935), pp. 176–210, pp. 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Goldblatt, R.I., Semantical analysis of orthologic, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3 (1974), pp. 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Gunson, J., On the algebraic structure of quantum mechanics, Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 6 (1967), pp. 262–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Jauch, J.M., Foundations of quantum mechanics, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
[11]Piziak, R., Orthomodular lattices as implication algebra, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3 (1974), pp. 413–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Prawitz, D., Comments on Gentzen-type procedures and the classical notion of truth, Proof Theory Symposium, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 500, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, pp. 290–315, 1979.Google Scholar
[13]Randall, C.H. and Foulis, D.J., An approach to empirical logic, American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 77 (1970), pp. 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Sato, M., A study of Kripke-type models for some modal logics by Gentzen's sequential method, Kyoto University, Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Publications, vol. 13 (1977), pp. 381–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Varadarajan, V.S., Geometry of quantum theory, vol. 1, Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J., 1968.Google Scholar
[16]Zeirler, N., Axioms for non-relativistic quantum mechanics, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 2 (1961), pp. 1151–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar