The concepts of "quasimanual" and "manual" in logic

[Stephen Tashi]

TL;DR

Are the concepts of "quasimanual" and "manual" specific to the study of quantum logic? - or are they more general? - perhaps concepts from "model theory"?

The paper https://www.whitman.edu/Documents/Academics/Mathematics/klipfel.pdf (beginning page 2``1) describes a model for experiments based (it says) on the book An Introduction To Hilbert Space and Quantum Logic https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1461388430/?tag=pfamazon01-20. This approach defines structures called "quasimanuals" and "manuals". Are these concepts "out of the blue" and specific to the study of quantum logic? Or do similar ideas have longstanding place in formal logic?

 

[jedishrfu]

As an aside, i would interpret them as product manuals ie ones you can read and ones so convoluted after translation that you can’t .

 

[sysprog]

Summary:: Are the concepts of "quasimanual" and "manual" specific to the study of quantum logic? - or are they more general? - perhaps concepts from "model theory"?

The paper https://www.whitman.edu/Documents/Academics/Mathematics/klipfel.pdf (beginning page 2``1) describes a model for experiments based (it says) on the book An Introduction To Hilbert Space and Quantum Logic https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1461388430/?tag=pfamazon01-20. This approach defines structures called "quasimanuals" and "manuals". Are these concepts "out of the blue" and specific to the study of quantum logic? Or do similar ideas have longstanding place in formal logic?

I just skimmed Klipfel's paper and found it intriguing. It seems to me that Cohen's definitions of quasimanuals and manuals recounted therein are more novel than longstanding. In my view, if it's newer than e.g. the Lambda Calculus, it's not longstanding -- even if the material is of earlier origin, it's more obscure than widespread.