200310077
Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, P. O. Box 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran
Department of Mathematics, Sharif University of Technology, P. O. Box 11365-9415, Tehran, Iran
iff a b = a
iff a b = b.
We recall that a Heyting algebra (Ha) is a distributive lattice with constants 0 and 1, and a binary relation ,
which satisfies:
abc
iff
a b c.
The fourth item of the following Proposition shows that in Bas we have only one direction of the above
bi-conditional:
Proposition 1.2 Let B be a Ba . Then for a, b, c B,
1. if a b, then c a c b,
2. if a b, then b c a c,
3. if a b, then a b = 1,
4. if a b c, then a b c,
5. a (a b) = a (1 b).
e-mail: majid@ipm.ir
Corresponding author: e-mail: mardshir@sharif.edu
c 2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
66
M. Alizadeh and M. Ardeshir: On the linear Lindenbaum algebra of Basic Propositional Logic
P r o o f.
1. Let a b. Then a b = a, so c a = c a b = (c a) (c b) c b.
2. Let a b. Then a b = b, so b c = a b c = (a c) (b c) a c.
3. Let a b. By 1., 1 = a a a b. So a b = 1.
4. Let a b c. Then by 1., b a b b c, so (b a) (b b) b c. Then b a b c.
Since b 1, by 2., 1 a b a. So a 1 a b a b c.
5. a (a b) (1 a) (a b) (1 b). On the other hand, a (1 b) a (a b), by 2.
Note that every Ha is a Ba . As a trivial example of a Ba which is not a Ha , let B = {0, 1} with the usual
definition of and . Define a b = 1, for a, b {0, 1}. Then B = B, , , , 0, 1 is a Ba . B is not a Ha ,
since 1 1 0, but 1 1 0. So the class of all Has is a proper subclass of all Bas.
The following proposition shows a tight relation between Bas and Has:
Proposition 1.3 Let B be a Ba . Then B is a Ha iff for every a B, 1 a = a.
P r o o f. It is enough to show that if x a b, then x a b. Suppose x a b. Then
a x a (a b) = a (1 b) = a b.
So a x b.
As usual we define:
Definition 1.4 A subset F B of a Ba B is called a filter on B if 1 F , a, b F implies a b F , and
a b and b F implies a F .
67
It is easy to check that the above relations are well defined. The interesting case is for . We show that for all
x, x , y, y B, if x x and y y , then x y x y . Suppose y y . We have y y F , so
(x y) (x y ) F . Then [x y] [x y ]. By the same argument, we have [x y ] [x y].
So (a) [x y] = [x y ]. Now suppose x x . Then x x F . Since (x x) (x y) x y, we
have ((x y) (x y)) F , so [x y] [x y]. By the same argument, we have [x y] [x y].
So (b) [x y] = [x y]. Now, by (b) and (a), we have [x y] = [x y] = [x y ].
It is also routine to see that [a b] and [a b] are the meet and the join of [a] and [b], respectively, and that
satisfies the axioms of a Ba . Thus we have:
Theorem 2.5 Let B be a Ba and F a proper filter on B. Then B/F = B/F, , , , [0], [1] is also a Ba .
Lemma 2.6 If F is a prime filter on an Ba B, then B/F is a chain.
P r o o f. Let x, y B. Since (x y) (y x) = 1, we have (x y) F or (y x) F . So [x] [y]
or [y] [x].
Now we wish to determine the set of all formulas which are valid in every chain.
The language of BPC is L = {, , , , }. The small letters p, q, r, . . . propositional variables and
capital letters A, B, C, . . . denote formulas, where the notion of formula is defined as usual. We use the sequent
notation to axiomatize BPC. A sequent is an expression of the form A B, in which A and B are formulas in
L. In the rules of BPC a double horizontal line means that we have two-direction rules.
A A,
A ,
A,
A (B C) (A B) (A C),
(A B) (B C) A C,
(A B) (A C) A B C,
(A B) (C B) A C B,
AB BC
,
AC
AB AC
,
ABC
AB C
,
ABC
AB CB
.
AC B
c 2004 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
68
M. Alizadeh and M. Ardeshir: On the linear Lindenbaum algebra of Basic Propositional Logic
This ends the axiomatization of BPC. For notations, basic definitions and properties of BPC, see [2]. We use A
for A, and A B is an abbreviation for A B and B A.
Let us define BPC to be BPC plus the axiom schema (A B) (B A). As usual the elements of
the Lindenbaum algebra of BPC are the equivalence classes |A| of formulas in the language of BPC, where
|A| = {B : BPC A B}. The algebraic operations of the structure are just those inherited from the logical
operations of BPC:
|A| |B| = |A B|,
|| = 1,
|| = 0.
By the Substitution property (see [2, Proposition 2.4]), these operations are well defined.
Let U be the Lindenbaum algebra of BPC. Then U is an Ba . It is easy to see that for every sequent A B,
|A| |B| iff BPC A B, so for any formula A, |A| = 1 iff BPC A.
Definition 2.7 An algebraic model of BPC consists of a pair B = B, I with B an Ba and I a map from
the set of all propositional variables of the language of BPC to B. The map I can be uniquely extended to all
formulas of the language of BPC by the following definition:
I() = 1, I() = 0, I(A B) = I(A) I(B), I(A B) = I(A) I(B), I(A B) = I(A) I(B).
A sequent A B is satisfied in model B (B A B) if I(A) I(B). A sequent A B is valid in
an Ba B if it is satisfied in B, I for all interpretations I.
Now let U = U, I be the term model for BPC with the canonical interpretation function I, i. e., I(p) = |p|
for every propositional variable p. Then for every formula A, I(A) = |A|. So BPC A iff I(A) = 1, and for
every sequent A B, BPC A B iff I(A) I(B).
Theorem 2.8 (Soundness and Completenes) Let A |A| be a map, as described above, from the language
of BPC to a Ba B. Then for all sequents A B, if BPC A B, then |A| |B| in B. Conversely, let
U = U, I be the term model of BPC with I : A |A|. Then |A| |B| if and only if BPC A B.
P r o o f. By induction on the length of proofs. We consider only the Implication Introduction case. Suppose
A B C follows from A B C. By induction |A| |B| |C|. Then |B| |A| |B| |B| |C|
and |A| 1 |A| |B| |A| = |B| |A| |B|, by Proposition 1.2. So |A| |B| |C|. The converse is
observed above.
Before we continue this topic, we prove a useful property of BPC, which we need in the sequel. In the
following definition means deduction in BPC.
Definition 2.9 A set of sequents is called faithful if (A1 B1 ) (An Bn ) A B implies
{(A1 B1 ), . . . , (An Bn )} (A B).
All extensions of IPC are faithful, since in these extensions C D is equivalent to C D for all formulas
C, D. In particular CPC is faithful. Let E1 be the theory axiomatized by . E1 is not faithful, otherwise,
it would be inconsistent. We want to show that BPC is faithful. Our proof is Kripke model theoretic. A Kripke
model for BPC is like the one for IPC, expect that the underlying set of nodes need not be reflexive. So for a
Kripke model K = (K, , ), the forcing relation for implication is
for k K, k A B iff for all k k, if k A, then k B.
Given a Kripke model K with root k, let K be the model formed from K by adding a new root node k0 k
which is reflexive exactly when k is, and such that k0 p exactly when k p.
Proposition 2.10 Let be a set of sequents such that its class of Kripke models is closed under the following
transformation: If K is a rooted Kripke model of with irreflexive root, then so is K . Then is faithful.
P r o o f. See [2].
69
70
M. Alizadeh and M. Ardeshir: On the linear Lindenbaum algebra of Basic Propositional Logic
Our last theorem shows that Bas may be characterized by the fact that a certain subset of the set of their
prime filters has a tree-like property.
Theorem 2.20 A Ba is an Ba iff for every prime filter F the set S = {G : F G and G is a prime filter}
is linearly ordered by inclusion.
P r o o f. Suppose B is an Ba and F is a prime filter on B. Suppose G, H S are incomparable. Then there
exist x G H and y H G. Since (x y) (y x) = 1, then either (x y) F or (y x) F . So
we have y G or x H, a contradiction.
Conversely, suppose the condition holds but (x y) (y x)
= 1 for some x, y B. By Corollary 1.7
there is a prime filter F on B which dose not contain (x y) (y x). So x y
/ F and y x
/ F . By
Lemma 1.5, there exist G, H S such that x G, y
/ G and y H, x
/ H. Contradiction.
Corollary 2.21 Let B be an Ba . Then for every x, y, z B,
1. x y z = (x z) (y z),
2. z x y = (z x) (z y).
P r o o f.
1. Clearly (x z) (y z) x y z. Suppose x y z (x z) (y z). Then by Lemma
1.5, there is a prime filter F such that (x y z) F and (x z) (y z)
/ F . So x z, y z
/ F.
/ F1 , y F2 , and
Again by Lemma 1.5 there are prime filters F1 , F2 such that F F1 , F F2 , and x F1 , z
z
/ F2 . Since B is an Ba, by Theorem 2.20, F1 F2 or F2 F1 . Suppose F1 F2 . Then x y F1 and
z
/ F1 . On the other hand, from F F1 and x y F1 we have z F1 . A contradiction.
2. Similar to 1.
Acknowledgements The first author would like to thank the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics
(IPM) for the financial support.
References
[1] M. Ardeshir, Aspects of Basic Logic. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, Marquette University, 1995.
[2] M. Ardeshir and W. Ruitenburg, Basic propositional calculus I. Math. Logic Quarterly 44, 317 343 (1998).
[3] M. Dummett, A propositional calculus with denumerable matrix. J. Symbolic Logic 24, 97 106 (1959).
[4] A. Horn, Logic with truth values in a linearly ordered Heyting algebra. J. Symbolic Logic 34, 395 408. (1969)
[5] H. Rasiowa and R. Sikorski, The Mathematics of Metamathematics (PWN, Warsaw 1963).
[6] Y. Suzuki, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev, Speaking about transitive frames in propositional languages. Journal of
Logic, Language and Information 7, 317 339 (1998).
[7] A. S. Troelstra and D. van Dalen, Constructivism in Mathematics, Vol. 1 (North-Holland Publ. Comp., Amsterdam 1988).
[8] A. Visser, A propositional logic with explicit fixed points. Studia Logica 40, 155 175 (1981).