Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 30, Issue 10, pp 1765–1799 | Cite as

Pre-BZ and Degenerate BZ Posets: Applications to Fuzzy Sets and Unsharp Quantum Theories

  • G. Cattaneo
  • R. Giuntini
  • S. Pulmannovà
Article

Abstract

Two different generalizations of Brouwer–Zadeh posets (BZ posets) are introduced. The former (called pre-BZ poset) arises from topological spaces, whose standard power set orthocomplemented complete atomic lattice can be enriched by another complementation associating with any subset the set theoretical complement of its topological closure. This complementation satisfies only some properties of the algebraic version of an intuitionistic negation, and can be considered as, a generalized form of a Brouwer negation. The latter (called degenerate BZ poset) arises from the so-called special effects on a Hilbert space. It is shown that the standard Brouwer negation for effect operators produces a degenerate BZ poset with respect to the order induced from the partial sum operation.

Keywords

Hilbert Space Quantum Theory Special Effect Topological Space Effect Operator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    G. Birkhoff, Lattice theory, 3rd edn. (American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1967).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Busch, “Can quantum theoretical reality be considered sharp?,” in Recent Developments in Quantum Logic, P. Mittelstaedt and E. W. Stachow, eds. (Wissenschaftsverlag, Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1985), pp. 81–101.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Cattaneo, “A unified framework for the algebra of unsharp quantum mechanics,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 36, 3085–3117 (1997).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Cattaneo, “Abstract approximation spaces for rough theories,” in Rough Sets in Knowledge Discovery, L. Polkowski and A. Skowron, eds. (Springer, Berlin, 1998), pp. 59–98.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Cattaneo, M. L. Dalla Chiara, and R. Giuntini, “Some algebraic structures for many- valued logics,” Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publication 15, 173–196 (1998) (Special Issue: Quantum Structures II, Dedicated to Gudrun Kalmbach).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Cattaneo and R. Giuntini, “Some results on BZ structures from Hilbertian unsharp quantum physics,” Found. Phys. 25, 1147–1183 (1995).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Cattaneo, R. Giuntini, and R. Pilla, “BZMVdM and Stonian MV algebras (applications to fuzzy sets and rough approximations),” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 108, 201–222 (1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Cattaneo and F. Lombardo, “Independent axiomatization of MV-algebras,” Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publication 15, 227–232 (1998) (Special Issue: Quantum Structures II, Dedicated to Gudrun Kalmbach).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Cattaneo and G. Marino, “Brouwer_Zadeh posets and fuzzy set theory,” in Proceedings of the 1st Napoli Meeting on Mathematics of Fuzzy Systems, A. Di Nola and A. Ventre, eds. (Napoli, June 1984), pp. 34–58.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Cattaneo and G. Marino, “Partially ordered structures of fuzzy projections in Hilbert spaces,” in Proceedings of the 1st Napoli Meeting on Mathematics of Fuzzy Systems, A. Di Nola and A. Ventre, eds. (Napoli, June 1984), pp. 59–71.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Cattaneo and G. Nisticò, “Brouwer-Zadeh posets and three valued Lukasiewicz posets,” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 33, 165–190 (1989).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. C. Chang, “Algebraic analysis of many valued logics,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 88, 467–490 (1958).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. L. Dalla Chiara and R. Giuntini, “Unsharp quantum logics,” Found. Phys. 24, 1161–1177 (1994).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. J. Foulis and M. K. Bennett, “Effect algebras and unsharp quantum logics,” Found. Phys. 24, 1331–1352 (1994).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Garola, “Propositions and orthocomplementation in quantum logic,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 19, 369–387 (1980).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Giuntini and H. Greuling, “Toward a formal language for unsharp properties,” Found. Phys. 20, 931–935 (1989).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Greechie and S. Gudder, “Effect algebra counterexamples,” unpublished manuscript (1995).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Z. Pavlak, “Rough sets,” Int. J. Inform. Comput. Sci. 11, 341–356 (1982).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Rasiowa and R. Sikorski, “The mathematics of metamathematics,” 3rd edn. (Monografie Matematyczne, vol. 41, Polish Scientific Publishers, Warszawa, 1970).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. van Dalen, “Intuitionistic Logic,” in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 3, D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds. (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1986), pp. 225–239.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. S. Varadarajan, “Probability in physics and a theorem on simultaneous measurability,” Comm. Pure and Appl. Math. 25, 189–217 (1962).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. S. Varadarajan, Geometry of quantum physics. I (Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1968).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Cattaneo
    • 1
  • R. Giuntini
    • 2
  • S. Pulmannovà
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e ComunicazioneUniversità di Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly;
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze Pedagogiche e FilosoficheUniversità di CagliariCagliariItaly;
  3. 3.Mathematical InstituteSlovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia;

Personalised recommendations