Uncovering the Mystery of Algebraic Logic: A Comprehensive Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concepts of algebraic logic and universal algebra, highlighting the connection between algebraic structures and logical completeness. The book mentioned introduces terms like "gaggles," "distributoids," "partial-gaggles," and "tonoids," which are not well-documented in common mathematical resources. Universal algebra is described as a framework that encompasses various algebraic structures, defined by operations and equational identities. The relationship between universal algebra and model theory is emphasized, suggesting that groups can be viewed through both algebraic and logical lenses. The conversation concludes with a request for clarification on the specific terms related to algebraic logic.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
i searched at amazon for books, and find some books about this topic, and i wonder what does this topic cover?
in one book it states that:"The main theme is that standard algebraic results (representations) translate into standard logical results (completeness). "
ok i understand what completeness is, but what does it have to do with (if I'm right here) represntation theory of groups (unless there are other representations)?

and the book also says that it covers:"...gaggles, distributoids, partial- gaggles, and tonoids", what are they? (i tried wiki and mathworld and didn't find anything about them).

here's a link to the book:
http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-853192-3
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I know part of what the book is doing -- I'm a little familiar with universal algebra.

Universal algebra is an approach that can study many diverse kinds of algebraic structures simultaneously, such as:
groups, abelian groups, rings, modules over a ring, vector spaces over a particular field, algebraic lattices, algebras over a ring, representations of a discrete group acting on a vector space over a particular field, etc.

(but not fields!)

The connecting theme is that all of these structures can be defined by writing down the allowed operations, and some equational identities they satisfy.

For example, let Omega (that should be the capital Greek letter) be the type consisting of a binary operation *, a unary operation ^-1, and a nullary operation 1. (Yes, that's essentially just a constant, but it's fruitful to think of it as a function with no arguments)

The category of structures that have those three operations are called Omega-algebras.

The category of groups is a variety of Omega-algebras, defined by taking the quotient by the following relations:

1 * x = x
x * 1 = x
x * x^-1 = 1
x^-1 * x = 1
x * (y * z) = (x * y) * z


This is the general idea behind the foundations of universal algebra. Another example is vector spaces over a field K.

The type for this structure consists of the binary operation +, the unary operation -, the nullary operation 0, and one unary operation for every element of K.

Then, the equational identities include (among other things) one equation of the form
k (v + w) = k(v) + k(w)

for every element k of K.



Anyways, if you were reading what I said above, you knew logic but not algebra, you would have thought I was talking about model theory. :smile:

Specifying the underlying type of a universal algebra is essentially the same thing as specifying a formal language -- they're both simply a list of symols and how many arguments they accept.

The structures of this language are precisely the Omega-algebras.

In the univeral algebra setting, we take the quotient by certain algebraic identities to create the structures of interest.

In the logical setting, we look for structures that satisfy those algebraic identities. (i.e. models of those identities)


To repeat...

From the universal point of view, a group is nothing more than the quotient of Omega-algebra by a particular set of relations.

From the logical point of view, a group is nothing more than a structure in a particular language that satisfies a particular set of propositions.



So, foundationally at least, universal algebra is simply a special case of model theory where the statements to model take a particular form.
 
okay, thank for your input.
what about the terms i have specified, such as gaggle and tonoid?
 
I've no idea.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
11K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
9K