-algebras - GitHub Pages · Introduction Our research originates in the theory of -sets. These...

Ω-algebras

Branimir Seselja, Andreja TepavcevicDepartment of Mathematics and Informatics

Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

ALH-2018

Honolulu, May 23, 2018

B. Seselja Ω-algebras

Abstract

Starting with Ω-sets where Ω is a complete lattice, we introducethe notion of an Ω-algebra. This is a classical algebra equippedwith an Ω-valued equality replacing the ordinary one. In these newstructures identities hold as appropriate lattice-theoretic formulas.Our investigation is related to weak congruences of the basicalgebra to which a generalized equality is associated. Namely everyΩ-algebra uniquely determines a closure system in the lattice ofweak congruences of the basic algebra. By this correspondence weformulate a representation theorem for Ω-algebras.

Abstract

Starting with Ω-sets where Ω is a complete lattice, we introducethe notion of an Ω-algebra. This is a classical algebra equippedwith an Ω-valued equality replacing the ordinary one. In these newstructures identities hold as appropriate lattice-theoretic formulas.Our investigation is related to weak congruences of the basicalgebra to which a generalized equality is associated. Namely everyΩ-algebra uniquely determines a closure system in the lattice ofweak congruences of the basic algebra. By this correspondence weformulate a representation theorem for Ω-algebras.

Introduction

Our research originates in the theory of Ω-sets.These structures appeared in 1979. by Fourman and Scott.Introducing Ω-sets, they intended to use them for modelingintuitionistic logic, analogously to the application ofBoolean-valued models in first-order logic.An Ω-set is a nonempty set A equipped with an Ω-valued equalityE , with truth-values in a complete Heyting algebra Ω. E is asymmetric and transitive function from A2 to Ω. In thisframework, Ω-sets consist of so called ’partial elements’, sinceE (a, a) is understood as a ’probability’ of a ∈ A, and E is notreflexive (not constantly equal 1 for pairs (x , x)).

Ω-sets have been further applied to non-classical predicate logics,and also partially in theoretical foundations of fuzzy set theory.

Introduction

Our research originates in the theory of Ω-sets.

These structures appeared in 1979. by Fourman and Scott.Introducing Ω-sets, they intended to use them for modelingintuitionistic logic, analogously to the application ofBoolean-valued models in first-order logic.An Ω-set is a nonempty set A equipped with an Ω-valued equalityE , with truth-values in a complete Heyting algebra Ω. E is asymmetric and transitive function from A2 to Ω. In thisframework, Ω-sets consist of so called ’partial elements’, sinceE (a, a) is understood as a ’probability’ of a ∈ A, and E is notreflexive (not constantly equal 1 for pairs (x , x)).

Introduction

Our research originates in the theory of Ω-sets.These structures appeared in 1979. by Fourman and Scott.Introducing Ω-sets, they intended to use them for modelingintuitionistic logic, analogously to the application ofBoolean-valued models in first-order logic.

An Ω-set is a nonempty set A equipped with an Ω-valued equalityE , with truth-values in a complete Heyting algebra Ω. E is asymmetric and transitive function from A2 to Ω. In thisframework, Ω-sets consist of so called ’partial elements’, sinceE (a, a) is understood as a ’probability’ of a ∈ A, and E is notreflexive (not constantly equal 1 for pairs (x , x)).

Introduction

Our research originates in the theory of Ω-sets.These structures appeared in 1979. by Fourman and Scott.Introducing Ω-sets, they intended to use them for modelingintuitionistic logic, analogously to the application ofBoolean-valued models in first-order logic.An Ω-set is a nonempty set A equipped with an Ω-valued equalityE , with truth-values in a complete Heyting algebra Ω.

E is asymmetric and transitive function from A2 to Ω. In thisframework, Ω-sets consist of so called ’partial elements’, sinceE (a, a) is understood as a ’probability’ of a ∈ A, and E is notreflexive (not constantly equal 1 for pairs (x , x)).

Introduction

Our research originates in the theory of Ω-sets.These structures appeared in 1979. by Fourman and Scott.Introducing Ω-sets, they intended to use them for modelingintuitionistic logic, analogously to the application ofBoolean-valued models in first-order logic.An Ω-set is a nonempty set A equipped with an Ω-valued equalityE , with truth-values in a complete Heyting algebra Ω. E is asymmetric and transitive function from A2 to Ω.

In thisframework, Ω-sets consist of so called ’partial elements’, sinceE (a, a) is understood as a ’probability’ of a ∈ A, and E is notreflexive (not constantly equal 1 for pairs (x , x)).

Introduction

Another source of our investigation is the concept of algebras withfuzzy equality, introduced by Belohlavek and Vychodil in 2006.

Following the philosophy of fuzzy mathematics, they use acomplete residuated lattice L as a truth-values structure (calledalso a membership-values structure) and equip a nonempty set Awith a particular L-valued equality which should replace thecharacteristic function of the classical equality. By addingoperations to this structure they obtain so-called L-algebras. Thecorresponding equational logic is the one by Pavelka (1979). Basicparts of universal algebra are presented in this framework, includinga Birkoff-like variety theorem.A generalized equality was further used in particular by Demirci(2003), Belohlavek and Vychodil (2006) and others.

Another source of our investigation is the concept of algebras withfuzzy equality, introduced by Belohlavek and Vychodil in 2006.Following the philosophy of fuzzy mathematics, they use acomplete residuated lattice L as a truth-values structure (calledalso a membership-values structure) and equip a nonempty set Awith a particular L-valued equality which should replace thecharacteristic function of the classical equality.

By addingoperations to this structure they obtain so-called L-algebras. Thecorresponding equational logic is the one by Pavelka (1979). Basicparts of universal algebra are presented in this framework, includinga Birkoff-like variety theorem.A generalized equality was further used in particular by Demirci(2003), Belohlavek and Vychodil (2006) and others.

Another source of our investigation is the concept of algebras withfuzzy equality, introduced by Belohlavek and Vychodil in 2006.Following the philosophy of fuzzy mathematics, they use acomplete residuated lattice L as a truth-values structure (calledalso a membership-values structure) and equip a nonempty set Awith a particular L-valued equality which should replace thecharacteristic function of the classical equality. By addingoperations to this structure they obtain so-called L-algebras.

Thecorresponding equational logic is the one by Pavelka (1979). Basicparts of universal algebra are presented in this framework, includinga Birkoff-like variety theorem.A generalized equality was further used in particular by Demirci(2003), Belohlavek and Vychodil (2006) and others.

Another source of our investigation is the concept of algebras withfuzzy equality, introduced by Belohlavek and Vychodil in 2006.Following the philosophy of fuzzy mathematics, they use acomplete residuated lattice L as a truth-values structure (calledalso a membership-values structure) and equip a nonempty set Awith a particular L-valued equality which should replace thecharacteristic function of the classical equality. By addingoperations to this structure they obtain so-called L-algebras. Thecorresponding equational logic is the one by Pavelka (1979).

Basicparts of universal algebra are presented in this framework, includinga Birkoff-like variety theorem.A generalized equality was further used in particular by Demirci(2003), Belohlavek and Vychodil (2006) and others.

Another source of our investigation is the concept of algebras withfuzzy equality, introduced by Belohlavek and Vychodil in 2006.Following the philosophy of fuzzy mathematics, they use acomplete residuated lattice L as a truth-values structure (calledalso a membership-values structure) and equip a nonempty set Awith a particular L-valued equality which should replace thecharacteristic function of the classical equality. By addingoperations to this structure they obtain so-called L-algebras. Thecorresponding equational logic is the one by Pavelka (1979). Basicparts of universal algebra are presented in this framework, includinga Birkoff-like variety theorem.

A generalized equality was further used in particular by Demirci(2003), Belohlavek and Vychodil (2006) and others.

Another source of our investigation is the concept of algebras withfuzzy equality, introduced by Belohlavek and Vychodil in 2006.Following the philosophy of fuzzy mathematics, they use acomplete residuated lattice L as a truth-values structure (calledalso a membership-values structure) and equip a nonempty set Awith a particular L-valued equality which should replace thecharacteristic function of the classical equality. By addingoperations to this structure they obtain so-called L-algebras. Thecorresponding equational logic is the one by Pavelka (1979). Basicparts of universal algebra are presented in this framework, includinga Birkoff-like variety theorem.A generalized equality was further used in particular by Demirci(2003), Belohlavek and Vychodil (2006) and others.

Introducing Ω-algebras, we use Ω-sets and in our approach Ω is acomplete lattice (not necessarily a Heyting algebra).

A reason forthis membership-values structure is that it allows the use ofcut-sets as a tool appearing in the fuzzy set theory. Still the mainreason for using a complete lattice as a co-domain comes from therepresentation theorems that we prove here. In this constructionthe lattice of truth-values for an Ω-algebra is closely related to theweak-congruence lattice of the basic, underlying algebra and itcould be any algebraic lattice.Identities for lattice-valued structures with a fuzzy equality wereintroduced by Belohlavek (2006) with graded satisfiability.In our approach, an identity holds if the correspondinglattice-theoretic formula is fulfilled. An identity may hold on alattice-valued algebra, while the underlying classical algebra neednot satisfy the same identity.

Introducing Ω-algebras, we use Ω-sets and in our approach Ω is acomplete lattice (not necessarily a Heyting algebra). A reason forthis membership-values structure is that it allows the use ofcut-sets as a tool appearing in the fuzzy set theory.

Still the mainreason for using a complete lattice as a co-domain comes from therepresentation theorems that we prove here. In this constructionthe lattice of truth-values for an Ω-algebra is closely related to theweak-congruence lattice of the basic, underlying algebra and itcould be any algebraic lattice.Identities for lattice-valued structures with a fuzzy equality wereintroduced by Belohlavek (2006) with graded satisfiability.In our approach, an identity holds if the correspondinglattice-theoretic formula is fulfilled. An identity may hold on alattice-valued algebra, while the underlying classical algebra neednot satisfy the same identity.

Introducing Ω-algebras, we use Ω-sets and in our approach Ω is acomplete lattice (not necessarily a Heyting algebra). A reason forthis membership-values structure is that it allows the use ofcut-sets as a tool appearing in the fuzzy set theory. Still the mainreason for using a complete lattice as a co-domain comes from therepresentation theorems that we prove here.

In this constructionthe lattice of truth-values for an Ω-algebra is closely related to theweak-congruence lattice of the basic, underlying algebra and itcould be any algebraic lattice.Identities for lattice-valued structures with a fuzzy equality wereintroduced by Belohlavek (2006) with graded satisfiability.In our approach, an identity holds if the correspondinglattice-theoretic formula is fulfilled. An identity may hold on alattice-valued algebra, while the underlying classical algebra neednot satisfy the same identity.

Introducing Ω-algebras, we use Ω-sets and in our approach Ω is acomplete lattice (not necessarily a Heyting algebra). A reason forthis membership-values structure is that it allows the use ofcut-sets as a tool appearing in the fuzzy set theory. Still the mainreason for using a complete lattice as a co-domain comes from therepresentation theorems that we prove here. In this constructionthe lattice of truth-values for an Ω-algebra is closely related to theweak-congruence lattice of the basic, underlying algebra and itcould be any algebraic lattice.

Identities for lattice-valued structures with a fuzzy equality wereintroduced by Belohlavek (2006) with graded satisfiability.In our approach, an identity holds if the correspondinglattice-theoretic formula is fulfilled. An identity may hold on alattice-valued algebra, while the underlying classical algebra neednot satisfy the same identity.

Introducing Ω-algebras, we use Ω-sets and in our approach Ω is acomplete lattice (not necessarily a Heyting algebra). A reason forthis membership-values structure is that it allows the use ofcut-sets as a tool appearing in the fuzzy set theory. Still the mainreason for using a complete lattice as a co-domain comes from therepresentation theorems that we prove here. In this constructionthe lattice of truth-values for an Ω-algebra is closely related to theweak-congruence lattice of the basic, underlying algebra and itcould be any algebraic lattice.Identities for lattice-valued structures with a fuzzy equality wereintroduced by Belohlavek (2006) with graded satisfiability.

In our approach, an identity holds if the correspondinglattice-theoretic formula is fulfilled. An identity may hold on alattice-valued algebra, while the underlying classical algebra neednot satisfy the same identity.

Introducing Ω-algebras, we use Ω-sets and in our approach Ω is acomplete lattice (not necessarily a Heyting algebra). A reason forthis membership-values structure is that it allows the use ofcut-sets as a tool appearing in the fuzzy set theory. Still the mainreason for using a complete lattice as a co-domain comes from therepresentation theorems that we prove here. In this constructionthe lattice of truth-values for an Ω-algebra is closely related to theweak-congruence lattice of the basic, underlying algebra and itcould be any algebraic lattice.Identities for lattice-valued structures with a fuzzy equality wereintroduced by Belohlavek (2006) with graded satisfiability.In our approach, an identity holds if the correspondinglattice-theoretic formula is fulfilled. An identity may hold on alattice-valued algebra, while the underlying classical algebra neednot satisfy the same identity.

Preliminaries

An algebra is denoted by A = (A,F ), where A is a nonempty setand F is a set of (fundamental) operations on A.We deal with terms, term-operations, and identities in the givenlanguage as formulas t1 ≈ t2, where t1, t2 are terms in the samelanguage.In addition to congruences, we use weak congruences on A assymmetric and transitive subalgebras of A2.

A weak congruence on A is a congruence on the subalgebradetermined by its domain.

The collection Conw(A) of all weak congruences on an algebra Ais an algebraic lattice under inclusion.

Preliminaries

An algebra is denoted by A = (A,F ), where A is a nonempty setand F is a set of (fundamental) operations on A.

We deal with terms, term-operations, and identities in the givenlanguage as formulas t1 ≈ t2, where t1, t2 are terms in the samelanguage.In addition to congruences, we use weak congruences on A assymmetric and transitive subalgebras of A2.

Preliminaries

An algebra is denoted by A = (A,F ), where A is a nonempty setand F is a set of (fundamental) operations on A.We deal with terms, term-operations, and identities in the givenlanguage as formulas t1 ≈ t2, where t1, t2 are terms in the samelanguage.

In addition to congruences, we use weak congruences on A assymmetric and transitive subalgebras of A2.

Preliminaries

Ω-valued sets and relations

By (Ω,∧,∨,6) we denote a complete lattice with the top and thebottom elements, 1 and 0, respectively.If A is a nonempty set, then an Ω-valued function µ on A is amap µ : A→ Ω. For x ∈ A, µ(x) is a degree of membership of xto µ.For p ∈ L, a cut set or a p-cut of an Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ωis a subset µp of A which is the inverse image of the principal filter↑p in Ω: µp = µ−1(↑p) = x ∈ X | µ(x) > p.

An Ω-valued (binary) relation R on A is an Ω-valued function onA2, i.e., it is a mapping R : A2 → Ω. As above, for p ∈ Ω, a cutRp of R is the binary relation on A, which is the inverse image of↑p: Rp = R−1(↑p).

By (Ω,∧,∨,6) we denote a complete lattice with the top and thebottom elements, 1 and 0, respectively.

If A is a nonempty set, then an Ω-valued function µ on A is amap µ : A→ Ω. For x ∈ A, µ(x) is a degree of membership of xto µ.For p ∈ L, a cut set or a p-cut of an Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ωis a subset µp of A which is the inverse image of the principal filter↑p in Ω: µp = µ−1(↑p) = x ∈ X | µ(x) > p.

By (Ω,∧,∨,6) we denote a complete lattice with the top and thebottom elements, 1 and 0, respectively.If A is a nonempty set, then an Ω-valued function µ on A is amap µ : A→ Ω. For x ∈ A, µ(x) is a degree of membership of xto µ.

For p ∈ L, a cut set or a p-cut of an Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ωis a subset µp of A which is the inverse image of the principal filter↑p in Ω: µp = µ−1(↑p) = x ∈ X | µ(x) > p.

R is symmetric if R(x , y) = R(y , x) for all x , y ∈ A,

and transitive if R(x , y) > R(x , z) ∧ R(z , y) for all x , y , z ∈ A.

An Ω-valued binary relation R on A is symmetric (transitive) if andonly if all cuts of R are classical symmetric (transitive) relations onA.

A symmetric and transitive Ω-valued relation on A fulfills thestrictness property:

R(x , y) 6 R(x , x) ∧ R(y , y),

Strictness can be understood as a weak reflexivity of R. Therefore,a symmetric and transitive Ω-valued relation on A is a weakΩ-valued equivalence on A.

R is symmetric if R(x , y) = R(y , x) for all x , y ∈ A,and transitive if R(x , y) > R(x , z) ∧ R(z , y) for all x , y , z ∈ A.

R(x , y) 6 R(x , x) ∧ R(y , y),

Strictness can be understood as a weak reflexivity of R.

Therefore,a symmetric and transitive Ω-valued relation on A is a weakΩ-valued equivalence on A.

R(x , y) 6 R(x , x) ∧ R(y , y),

If µ : A→ Ω is an Ω-valued function on A, then the mapR : A2 → Ω on A is an Ω-valued relation on µ if for all x , y ∈ A

R(x , y) 6 µ(x) ∧ µ(y).

An ordinary symmetric and transitive relation is reflexive on itsdomain. Analogously, an Ω-valued relation R on µ : A→ Ω is saidto be reflexive on µ if

R(x , x) = µ(x) for every x ∈ A.

A symmetric and transitive Ω-valued relation R on A, which isreflexive on µ : A→ Ω is an Ω-valued equivalence on µ.

If R : A2 → Ω is a weak Ω-valued equivalence on A, then it is anΩ-valued equivalence on µ : A→ Ω, such that µ(x) = R(x , x).The Ω-valued function µ is said to be determined by R.

R(x , y) 6 µ(x) ∧ µ(y).

An ordinary symmetric and transitive relation is reflexive on itsdomain.

Analogously, an Ω-valued relation R on µ : A→ Ω is saidto be reflexive on µ if

R(x , y) 6 µ(x) ∧ µ(y).

A weak Ω-valued equivalence R on A is a weak Ω-valuedequality, if it satisfies the separation property:

If R(x , x) 6= 0, then R(x , y) = R(x , x) implies x = y .

Analogously, an Ω-valued equivalence on µ : A→ Ω satisfying theseparation property is an Ω-valued equality on µ.

A weak Ω-valued equivalence R on A is a weak Ω-valuedequality, if it satisfies the separation property:

If R(x , x) 6= 0, then R(x , y) = R(x , x) implies x = y .

Analogously, an Ω-valued equivalence on µ : A→ Ω satisfying theseparation property is an Ω-valued equality on µ.

If A = (A,F ) is an algebra and µ : A→ Ω an Ω-valued function onA, then µ is compatible with the operations in F , if for everyn-ary operation f ∈ F , for all a1, . . . , an ∈ A, and for everyconstant (nullary operation) c ∈ F

n∧i=1

µ(ai ) 6 µ(f (a1, . . . , an)), and µ(c) = 1.

Analogously, an Ω-valued relation R : A2 → Ω on A is compatiblewith the operations in F if for every n-ary operation f ∈ F , for alla1, . . . , an, b1, . . . , bn ∈ A, and for every constant c ∈ F

n∧i=1

R(ai , bi ) 6 R(f (a1, . . . , an), f (b1, . . . , bn)), and R(c , c) = 1.

If A = (A,F ) is an algebra and µ : A→ Ω an Ω-valued function onA, then µ is compatible with the operations in F , if for everyn-ary operation f ∈ F , for all a1, . . . , an ∈ A, and for everyconstant (nullary operation) c ∈ F

n∧i=1

µ(ai ) 6 µ(f (a1, . . . , an)), and µ(c) = 1.

Analogously, an Ω-valued relation R : A2 → Ω on A is compatiblewith the operations in F if for every n-ary operation f ∈ F , for alla1, . . . , an, b1, . . . , bn ∈ A, and for every constant c ∈ F

n∧i=1

R(ai , bi ) 6 R(f (a1, . . . , an), f (b1, . . . , bn)), and R(c , c) = 1.

Let A = (A,F ) be an algebra.

An Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ω on A is compatible with all theoperations in F , if and only if for every p ∈ Ω, µp is a subalgebraof A.Similarly, an Ω-valued relation R : A2 → Ω on A is compatible withall the operations in F , if and only if for every p ∈ Ω, Rp iscompatible with all the operations in F .

Let A = (A,F ) be an algebra.An Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ω on A is compatible with all theoperations in F , if and only if for every p ∈ Ω, µp is a subalgebraof A.

Similarly, an Ω-valued relation R : A2 → Ω on A is compatible withall the operations in F , if and only if for every p ∈ Ω, Rp iscompatible with all the operations in F .

Let A = (A,F ) be an algebra.An Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ω on A is compatible with all theoperations in F , if and only if for every p ∈ Ω, µp is a subalgebraof A.Similarly, an Ω-valued relation R : A2 → Ω on A is compatible withall the operations in F , if and only if for every p ∈ Ω, Rp iscompatible with all the operations in F .

Ω-set and Ω-algebra

An Ω-set is a pair (A,E ), where A is a nonempty set, and E is asymmetric and transitive Ω-valued relation on A, fulfilling theseparation property:

If E (x , x) 6= 0, then E (x , y) = E (x , x) implies x = y .

As defined above, the Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ω on A, given byµ(x) = E (x , x), is determined by E , which is a weak Ω-valuedequivalence on A. But E is also an Ω-valued equality on µ.Therefore, we say that in an Ω-set (A,E ), E is an Ω-valuedequality.

Every cut Ep = E−1(↑p), p ∈ Ω, of the Ω-valued equality E in anΩ-set (A,E ) is an equivalence relation on the corresponding cut µpof µ.

As defined above, the Ω-valued function µ : A→ Ω on A, given byµ(x) = E (x , x), is determined by E , which is a weak Ω-valuedequivalence on A. But E is also an Ω-valued equality on µ.

Therefore, we say that in an Ω-set (A,E ), E is an Ω-valuedequality.

A pair A = (A,E ) is an Ω-algebra if A = (A,F ) is an algebra,(A,E ) is an Ω-set and E is compatible with the operations in F . Ais the underlying, basic algebra of A.

Proposition

Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra. Then:(i ) The Ω-valued function µ determined by E is compatible withthe fundamental operations on A.(ii ) For every p ∈ Ω, the cut µp of µ is a subalgebra of A, and(iii ) Every cut of E is a weak congruence on A, namely for p ∈ E ,Ep is a congruence on µp.

Proposition

Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra. Then:

(i ) The Ω-valued function µ determined by E is compatible withthe fundamental operations on A.(ii ) For every p ∈ Ω, the cut µp of µ is a subalgebra of A, and(iii ) Every cut of E is a weak congruence on A, namely for p ∈ E ,Ep is a congruence on µp.

Proposition

Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra. Then:(i ) The Ω-valued function µ determined by E is compatible withthe fundamental operations on A.

(ii ) For every p ∈ Ω, the cut µp of µ is a subalgebra of A, and(iii ) Every cut of E is a weak congruence on A, namely for p ∈ E ,Ep is a congruence on µp.

Proposition

Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra. Then:(i ) The Ω-valued function µ determined by E is compatible withthe fundamental operations on A.(ii ) For every p ∈ Ω, the cut µp of µ is a subalgebra of A, and

(iii ) Every cut of E is a weak congruence on A, namely for p ∈ E ,Ep is a congruence on µp.

Proposition

Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra. Then:(i ) The Ω-valued function µ determined by E is compatible withthe fundamental operations on A.(ii ) For every p ∈ Ω, the cut µp of µ is a subalgebra of A, and(iii ) Every cut of E is a weak congruence on A, namely for p ∈ E ,Ep is a congruence on µp.

Next we define how identities hold on Ω-algebras.

Recall that in the equational logic, the relational symbol ≈ in anidentity u ≈ v is modeled by the classical equality ” = ”. In theframework of Ω-algebras, this relational symbol corresponds to theΩ-equality E , as follows.Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra and u(x1, . . . , xn) ≈ v(x1, . . . , xn),briefly u ≈ v be an identity in the type of A. We assume, as usual,that variables appearing in terms u and v are from x1, . . . , xn.Then, (A,E ) satisfies identity u ≈ v (i.e., this identity holds on(A,E )) if

n∧i=1

µ(ai ) 6 E (u(a1, . . . , an), v(a1, . . . , an)),

for all a1, . . . , an ∈ A and the term-operations on A correspondingto terms u and v respectively.

Next we define how identities hold on Ω-algebras.Recall that in the equational logic, the relational symbol ≈ in anidentity u ≈ v is modeled by the classical equality ” = ”.

In theframework of Ω-algebras, this relational symbol corresponds to theΩ-equality E , as follows.Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra and u(x1, . . . , xn) ≈ v(x1, . . . , xn),briefly u ≈ v be an identity in the type of A. We assume, as usual,that variables appearing in terms u and v are from x1, . . . , xn.Then, (A,E ) satisfies identity u ≈ v (i.e., this identity holds on(A,E )) if

n∧i=1

µ(ai ) 6 E (u(a1, . . . , an), v(a1, . . . , an)),

Next we define how identities hold on Ω-algebras.Recall that in the equational logic, the relational symbol ≈ in anidentity u ≈ v is modeled by the classical equality ” = ”. In theframework of Ω-algebras, this relational symbol corresponds to theΩ-equality E , as follows.

Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra and u(x1, . . . , xn) ≈ v(x1, . . . , xn),briefly u ≈ v be an identity in the type of A. We assume, as usual,that variables appearing in terms u and v are from x1, . . . , xn.Then, (A,E ) satisfies identity u ≈ v (i.e., this identity holds on(A,E )) if

n∧i=1

µ(ai ) 6 E (u(a1, . . . , an), v(a1, . . . , an)),

Next we define how identities hold on Ω-algebras.Recall that in the equational logic, the relational symbol ≈ in anidentity u ≈ v is modeled by the classical equality ” = ”. In theframework of Ω-algebras, this relational symbol corresponds to theΩ-equality E , as follows.Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra and u(x1, . . . , xn) ≈ v(x1, . . . , xn),briefly u ≈ v be an identity in the type of A. We assume, as usual,that variables appearing in terms u and v are from x1, . . . , xn.

Then, (A,E ) satisfies identity u ≈ v (i.e., this identity holds on(A,E )) if

n∧i=1

µ(ai ) 6 E (u(a1, . . . , an), v(a1, . . . , an)),

Next we define how identities hold on Ω-algebras.Recall that in the equational logic, the relational symbol ≈ in anidentity u ≈ v is modeled by the classical equality ” = ”. In theframework of Ω-algebras, this relational symbol corresponds to theΩ-equality E , as follows.Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra and u(x1, . . . , xn) ≈ v(x1, . . . , xn),briefly u ≈ v be an identity in the type of A. We assume, as usual,that variables appearing in terms u and v are from x1, . . . , xn.Then, (A,E ) satisfies identity u ≈ v (i.e., this identity holds on(A,E )) if

n∧i=1

µ(ai ) 6 E (u(a1, . . . , an), v(a1, . . . , an)),

If Ω-algebra (A,E ) satisfies an identity, this identity need not holdon A, but the converse holds:

An identity u ≈ v fulfilled on an algebra A holds on an Ω-algebra(A,E ) as well.

Theorem

Let (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra, and F a set of identities in thelanguage of A. Then, (A,E ) satisfies all identities in F if and onlyif for every p ∈ L the quotient algebra µp/Ep satisfies the sameidentities.

Theorem

Corollary

If a diagonal relation ∆A = (a, a) | a ∈ A is a cut of E , theneach identity fulfilled by an Ω-algebra A = (A,E ) also holds onthe underlying algebra A.

By Corollary , we are interested in Ω-algebras which do not containa copy of the underlying algebra among quotient substructures. AnΩ-algebra A = (A,E ) is said to be proper if ∆A is not a cut of E .

Theorem

A = (A,E ) is a proper Ω-algebra if and only if

there are a, b ∈ A, a 6= b, such that E (a, b) >∧E (x , x) | x ∈ A.

Corollary

Theorem

Corollary

Theorem

Proposition

The collection of cuts of E in an Ω-algebra A = (A,E ) is a closuresystem on A2, a subposet of the weak congruence lattice Conw(A)of A.

Theorem (Representation)

Let A be an algebra and R a closure system in Conw(A) such that

if a 6= b, then (a, b) 6∈⋂R ∈ R | (a, a) ∈ R for all a, b ∈ A.

Then there is a complete lattice Ω and an Ω-algebra (A,E ) withthe underlying algebra A, such that R consists of cuts of E .

Proposition

The collection of cuts of E in an Ω-algebra A = (A,E ) is a closuresystem on A2, a subposet of the weak congruence lattice Conw(A)of A.

Theorem (Representation)

Let A be an algebra and R a closure system in Conw(A) such that

Then there is a complete lattice Ω and an Ω-algebra (A,E ) withthe underlying algebra A, such that R consists of cuts of E .

Sketch of the proof

We take Ω to be the starting collection R of weak congruencesordered by the dual of inclusion, ⊇. Being a closure system,(R,⊇) is a complete lattice. Next, we define E : A2 → Ω:

E (a, b) :=⋂

(R ∈ R | (a, b) ∈ R) for all a, b ∈ A.

Now we have that ER = R (the cut determined by R considered asan element of Ω, coincides with R as a weak congruence).

The structure (A,E ) is then the required Ω-algebra, obtained bythe canonical construction.

Sketch of the proof

We take Ω to be the starting collection R of weak congruencesordered by the dual of inclusion, ⊇.

Being a closure system,(R,⊇) is a complete lattice. Next, we define E : A2 → Ω:

E (a, b) :=⋂

(R ∈ R | (a, b) ∈ R) for all a, b ∈ A.

Sketch of the proof

We take Ω to be the starting collection R of weak congruencesordered by the dual of inclusion, ⊇. Being a closure system,(R,⊇) is a complete lattice.

Next, we define E : A2 → Ω:

E (a, b) :=⋂

(R ∈ R | (a, b) ∈ R) for all a, b ∈ A.

Sketch of the proof

E (a, b) :=⋂

(R ∈ R | (a, b) ∈ R) for all a, b ∈ A.

Sketch of the proof

E (a, b) :=⋂

(R ∈ R | (a, b) ∈ R) for all a, b ∈ A.

Sketch of the proof

E (a, b) :=⋂

(R ∈ R | (a, b) ∈ R) for all a, b ∈ A.

Sketch of the proof

E (a, b) :=⋂

(R ∈ R | (a, b) ∈ R) for all a, b ∈ A.

For a symmetric and transitive relation R ⊆ A2, we denote bydomR the set x ∈ A | (x , x) ∈ R.

Corollary

Let A be an algebra and R a closure system in Conw(A) fulfillingcondition:

Let also F be a set of identities in the language of A and supposethat for every R ∈ R, the algebra domR/R fulfills these identities.Then there is a complete lattice Ω and an Ω-algebra (A,E ), suchthat R consists of cuts of E and (A,E ) satisfies F .

For a symmetric and transitive relation R ⊆ A2, we denote bydomR the set x ∈ A | (x , x) ∈ R.

Corollary

Let A be an algebra and R a closure system in Conw(A) fulfillingcondition:

Let also F be a set of identities in the language of A and supposethat for every R ∈ R, the algebra domR/R fulfills these identities.Then there is a complete lattice Ω and an Ω-algebra (A,E ), suchthat R consists of cuts of E and (A,E ) satisfies F .

Suppose that we have different complete lattices, Ω1 and Ω2 andan algebra A. Let (A,E1) and (A,E2) be an Ω1-valued algebraand an Ω2-valued algebra respectively. We say that the structures(A,E1) and (A,E2) are cut-equivalent if their collections ofquotient algebras over cuts of E1 and E2 coincide, i.e., if for everyp ∈ Ω1 there is q ∈ Ω2 such that µ1p/E1p = µ2q/E2q and viceversa.

Theorem

Let A = (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra where Ω is an arbitrary completelattice. Then there is a lattice and a lattice-valued algebracut-equivalent with A, obtained by the canonical construction overA.

Suppose that we have different complete lattices, Ω1 and Ω2 andan algebra A. Let (A,E1) and (A,E2) be an Ω1-valued algebraand an Ω2-valued algebra respectively. We say that the structures(A,E1) and (A,E2) are cut-equivalent if their collections ofquotient algebras over cuts of E1 and E2 coincide, i.e., if for everyp ∈ Ω1 there is q ∈ Ω2 such that µ1p/E1p = µ2q/E2q and viceversa.

Theorem

Let A = (A,E ) be an Ω-algebra where Ω is an arbitrary completelattice. Then there is a lattice and a lattice-valued algebracut-equivalent with A, obtained by the canonical construction overA.

Examples

1. ((e, a, b, c , d, · , ′ ),E )

uu u u@

· e a b c d

e e a b c da a e d a ab b c c e ac c c e b bd d d d d e

e a b c d′ e a c b d

Examples

1. ((e, a, b, c , d, · , ′ ),E )

uu u u@

· e a b c d

Examples

1. ((e, a, b, c , d, · , ′ ),E )

uu u u@

· e a b c d

E e a b c d

e 1 u t t sa u r 0 0 0b t 0 q t 0c t 0 t q 0d s 0 0 0 p.

(e a b c d1 r q q p

The cuts of E are either diagonal relations on subalgebras (Eq one, b, c and Er on e, a), or they are full relations on one-, two-or three-element subalgebras (e.g., Et is a full relation one, b, c). Trivially, E0 is a full relation on the whole algebra. Allthe corresponding quotient algebras are groups, hence (A,E ) is anΩ-group. Observe that the basic five-element algebra is not agroup.

E e a b c d

e 1 u t t sa u r 0 0 0b t 0 q t 0c t 0 t q 0d s 0 0 0 p.

(e a b c d1 r q q p

The cuts of E are either diagonal relations on subalgebras (Eq one, b, c and Er on e, a), or they are full relations on one-, two-or three-element subalgebras (e.g., Et is a full relation one, b, c). Trivially, E0 is a full relation on the whole algebra. Allthe corresponding quotient algebras are groups, hence (A,E ) is anΩ-group. Observe that the basic five-element algebra is not agroup.

uu u u u

u u u uu

p r s t

u v w x

S3 – symmetric group, (S3,E ) – the corresponding Ω-group.

e f g h j k

e e f g h j kf f e h g k jg g j e k f hh h k f j e gj j g k e h fk k h j f g e

E e f g h j k

e 1 x w q q vf x t u 0 0 ug w u s 0 0 uh q 0 0 p q 0j q 0 0 q p 0k v u u 0 0 r .

(e f g h j k1 t s p p r

All the structures µz/Ez , z ∈ Ω are groups of order 3, 2 or 1,hence Abelian.Therefore, this structure is an Abelian Ω-group, identityx · y ≈ y · xholds as the formulaµ(x) ∧ µ(y) 6 E (x · y , y · x).

E e f g h j k

All the structures µz/Ez , z ∈ Ω are groups of order 3, 2 or 1,hence Abelian.

Therefore, this structure is an Abelian Ω-group, identityx · y ≈ y · xholds as the formulaµ(x) ∧ µ(y) 6 E (x · y , y · x).

E e f g h j k

All the structures µz/Ez , z ∈ Ω are groups of order 3, 2 or 1,hence Abelian.Therefore, this structure is an Abelian Ω-group, identityx · y ≈ y · xholds as the formulaµ(x) ∧ µ(y) 6 E (x · y , y · x).

For the cuts, we have e.g., µp = e, h, j, µu = e, f , g , h, j , k.

Ep e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 0 0 0f 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0 0 0 1 0 0j 0 0 0 0 1 0k 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eu e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 1 1 0f 0 1 1 0 0 1g 0 1 1 0 0 1h 1 0 0 1 1 0j 1 0 0 1 1 0k 0 1 1 0 0 1 .

Hence, Ep is a weak congruence on S3, a diagonal of µp = e, h, jand µp/Ep is a group of order 3. Next, µu is the underlying groupS3. Therefore, µu/Eu = e, h, j, f , g , h i.e., it is atwo-element quotient group, similarly for other cuts.This Ω-group is obtained by the technique described above. Theclosure system i.e., the lattice Ω is Conw(S3) \∆S3 , consisting ofall weak congruences on S3 except the diagonal ∆S3 . And theorder in this lattice is dual to the set inclusion.

Ep e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 0 0 0f 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0 0 0 1 0 0j 0 0 0 0 1 0k 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eu e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 1 1 0f 0 1 1 0 0 1g 0 1 1 0 0 1h 1 0 0 1 1 0j 1 0 0 1 1 0k 0 1 1 0 0 1 .

Ep e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 0 0 0f 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0 0 0 1 0 0j 0 0 0 0 1 0k 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eu e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 1 1 0f 0 1 1 0 0 1g 0 1 1 0 0 1h 1 0 0 1 1 0j 1 0 0 1 1 0k 0 1 1 0 0 1 .

Hence, Ep is a weak congruence on S3, a diagonal of µp = e, h, jand µp/Ep is a group of order 3.

Next, µu is the underlying groupS3. Therefore, µu/Eu = e, h, j, f , g , h i.e., it is atwo-element quotient group, similarly for other cuts.This Ω-group is obtained by the technique described above. Theclosure system i.e., the lattice Ω is Conw(S3) \∆S3 , consisting ofall weak congruences on S3 except the diagonal ∆S3 . And theorder in this lattice is dual to the set inclusion.

Ep e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 0 0 0f 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0 0 0 1 0 0j 0 0 0 0 1 0k 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eu e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 1 1 0f 0 1 1 0 0 1g 0 1 1 0 0 1h 1 0 0 1 1 0j 1 0 0 1 1 0k 0 1 1 0 0 1 .

Hence, Ep is a weak congruence on S3, a diagonal of µp = e, h, jand µp/Ep is a group of order 3. Next, µu is the underlying groupS3.

Therefore, µu/Eu = e, h, j, f , g , h i.e., it is atwo-element quotient group, similarly for other cuts.This Ω-group is obtained by the technique described above. Theclosure system i.e., the lattice Ω is Conw(S3) \∆S3 , consisting ofall weak congruences on S3 except the diagonal ∆S3 . And theorder in this lattice is dual to the set inclusion.

Ep e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 0 0 0f 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0 0 0 1 0 0j 0 0 0 0 1 0k 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eu e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 1 1 0f 0 1 1 0 0 1g 0 1 1 0 0 1h 1 0 0 1 1 0j 1 0 0 1 1 0k 0 1 1 0 0 1 .

Hence, Ep is a weak congruence on S3, a diagonal of µp = e, h, jand µp/Ep is a group of order 3. Next, µu is the underlying groupS3. Therefore, µu/Eu = e, h, j, f , g , h i.e., it is atwo-element quotient group, similarly for other cuts.This Ω-group is obtained by the technique described above.

Theclosure system i.e., the lattice Ω is Conw(S3) \∆S3 , consisting ofall weak congruences on S3 except the diagonal ∆S3 . And theorder in this lattice is dual to the set inclusion.

Ep e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 0 0 0f 0 0 0 0 0 0g 0 0 0 0 0 0h 0 0 0 1 0 0j 0 0 0 0 1 0k 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eu e f g h j k

e 1 0 0 1 1 0f 0 1 1 0 0 1g 0 1 1 0 0 1h 1 0 0 1 1 0j 1 0 0 1 1 0k 0 1 1 0 0 1 .

References

R. Belohlavek, V. Vychodil, Algebras with fuzzy equalities,Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (2006) 161-201.

R. Belohlavek, V. Vychodil, Fuzzy Equational Logic, Studiesin Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer 2005, Volume186/2005.

B. Budimirovic, V. Budimirovic, B. Seselja, A. Tepavcevic,E -fuzzy groups, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 289 (2016) 94-112.

G. Czedli, B. Seselja, A. Tepavcevic, Semidistributive elementsin lattices; application to groups and rings, Algebra Univers.58 (2008) 349-355.

G. Czedli, M. Erne, B. Seselja, A. Tepavcevic, Characteristictriangles of closure operators with applications in generalalgebra, Algebra Univers. 62 (2009) 399–418.

References

R. Belohlavek, V. Vychodil, Algebras with fuzzy equalities,Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (2006) 161-201.

R. Belohlavek, V. Vychodil, Fuzzy Equational Logic, Studiesin Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer 2005, Volume186/2005.

B. Budimirovic, V. Budimirovic, B. Seselja, A. Tepavcevic,E -fuzzy groups, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 289 (2016) 94-112.

G. Czedli, B. Seselja, A. Tepavcevic, Semidistributive elementsin lattices; application to groups and rings, Algebra Univers.58 (2008) 349-355.

G. Czedli, M. Erne, B. Seselja, A. Tepavcevic, Characteristictriangles of closure operators with applications in generalalgebra, Algebra Univers. 62 (2009) 399–418.

M. Demirci, Foundations of fuzzy functions and vague algebrabased on many-valued equivalence relations part I: fuzzyfunctions and their applications, part II: vague algebraicnotions, part III: constructions of vague algebraic notions andvague arithmetic operations, Int. J. General Systems 32 (3)(2003) 123-155, 157-175, 177-201.

E.E. Edeghagba, B. Seselja, A. Tepavcevic, Ω-Lattices, FuzzySets and Systems 311 (2017) 53–69.

M.P. Fourman, D.S. Scott, Sheaves and logic, in: M.P.Fourman, C.J. Mulvey D.S. Scott (Eds.), Applications ofSheaves, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 753, Springer,Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1979, pp. 302–401.

S. Gottwald, Universes of fuzzy sets and axiomatizations offuzzy set theory, Part II: Category theoretic approaches,Studia Logica, (2006) 84(1), 23-50. 1143-1174.

U. Hohle, Quotients with respect to similarity relations, FuzzySets and Systems 27 (1988) 31-44.

T. Kuraoka, N.Y. Suzuki, Lattice of fuzzy subalgebras inuniversal algebra, Algebra universalis 47 (2002) 223–237.

B. Seselja, V. Stepanovic, A. Tepavcevic, A note onrepresentation of lattices by weak congruences, AlgebraUnivers. 68 (2012) 287–291.

Thanks for listening!

-algebras - GitHub Pages · Introduction Our research originates in the theory of -sets. These...

Documents

Transcript of -algebras - GitHub Pages · Introduction Our research originates in the theory of -sets. These...

BV FUNCTIONS AND SETS OF FINITE PERIMETER ON …

Data Sets For Theory-Thin Modeling

The constant appeared in algebraic and complex geometry

PART 2 Fuzzy sets vs crisp sets 1. Properties of α-cuts 2. Fuzzy set representations 3. Extension principle FUZZY SETS AND FUZZY LOGIC Theory and Applications.

Arithmetic progressions in sets of fractional dimensionilaba/preprints/progressions-may15.pdf · Arithmetic progressions in sets of fractional dimension Izabella Laba and Malabika

Vacant sets and vacant nets: Component structures induced ...

Riesz bases, Meyer's quasicrystals, and bounded remainder sets...Riesz bases, Meyer’s quasicrystals, and bounded remainder sets SigridGrepstad June7,2018 Joint work with Nir Lev

Sets of Finite Perimeter and Geometric Variational Problemscvgmt.sns.it/media/doc/paper/1880/Maggi_extract.pdf · Sets of Finite Perimeter and Geometric Variational Problems An Introduction

Basis Sets: advantages

Unbalancing Sets and an Almost Quadratic Lower …benleevolk/pdf/mulitilinear-ckts-lb.pdfUnbalancing Sets and an Almost Quadratic Lower Bound for Syntactically Multilinear Arithmetic

EN Tenckhoff Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis Catheters and Sets

Basis Sets

Multiscale geometric methods for data sets I: Multiscale ...users.ju.edu/alittle2/Publications/Publication_ACHA_2016.pdf · Multiscale geometric methods for data sets I: Multiscale

ECS 20 – Fall 2021 – Phillip Rogaway Sets

Revision on Operation on Sets, SPM maths

ON SOME EXTENSION OF I -SPREAD SETS - Project Euclid

Definability in the Computably Enumerable Sets

Finitary Spacetime Sheaves of Quantum Causal Sets: Curving …cds.cern.ch/record/488679/files/0102097.pdf · 2009. 7. 28. · Finitary Spacetime Sheaves of Quantum Causal Sets: Curving

Noisy Interpolating Sets for Low Degree Polynomialsshpilka/talks/NIS-DvirShpilka.pdf · 2016-08-03 · Noisy Interpolating Sets for Low Degree Polynomials Zeev Dvir Princeton U. Amir

Sidon sets in bounded orthonormal systems