page 1

Daniel J. Greenhoe

CONTENTS

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics
DANIEL J. GREENHOE
Abstract: Constructing a fuzzy subset logic 𝙇 with Boolean properties is notoriously difficult because
under a handful of “reasonable” conditions, we have the following three debilitating constraints: (1)
Bellman and Giertz in 1973 showed that if 𝙇 is distributive, then it must be idempotent. (2) Dubois
and Padre in 1980 showed that if 𝙇 has the excluded middle or the non-contradiction property or both,
then it must be non-idempotent. (3) Bellman and Giertz also demonstrated in 1973 that even if 𝙇 is
idempotent, then the only choice available for the (∧, ∨) logic operator pair is the (min, max) operator pair. Thus it would seem impossible to construct a non-trivial fuzzy subset logic with Boolean
properties. However, this paper examines these three results in detail, and shows that “hidden” in the
hypotheses of the three is the assumption that the operator pair (∧, ∨) is pointwise evaluated. It is further demonstrated that removing this constraint yields the following results: (A) It is indeed possible
to construct fuzzy subset logics that have all the Boolean properties, including that of idempotency,
non-contradiction, excluded middle, and distributivity. (B) Even if idempotency holds, (min, max) is
not the only choice for (∧, ∨).
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification 03B52,03B50,03B47 (primary); 03B60,03G05,03G10 (secondary)
Keywords: fuzzy logic, fuzzy sets, fuzzy subsets, fuzzy subset logic, fuzzy set logic, multi-valued logic,
Boolean algebra, ortho logic, lattice theory, order theory

Contents
Table of Contents

2

Introduction

2

1 Fuzzy subset operators
1.1 Indicator functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Membership functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Operators on membership functions . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Key theorems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 Examples of non-ortho and non-Boolean fuzzy subset

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

2 Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics
A Background: Order
A.1 Ordered sets . . . . . . . .
A.2 Lattices . . . . . . . . . . .
A.2.1 General lattices . .
A.2.2 Bounded lattices .
A.2.3 Modular lattices . .
A.2.4 Distributive lattices
A.3 Complemented lattices . .
Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4
4
6
7
11
15
20

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

22
22
24
24
25
26
27
28

version 0.96

page 2

Daniel J. Greenhoe

A.3.1
A.3.2
A.3.3
A.3.4

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . .
Boolean lattices . . . . . . . .
Orthocomplemented Lattices
Orthomodular lattices . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

28
30
31
33

B Background: Negation
B.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.2 Properties of negations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34
34
35
38

C New implication functions for non-Boolean logics
C.1 Implication functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.2 Logics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44
44
50

Bibliography

55

Reference Index

63

Subject Index

64

Introduction
The problem. This paper addresses a well known conflict in fuzzy subset logic theory. Fuzzy subset
logic is the foundation for fuzzy set theory, just as classical logic is the foundation for classical set theory.
Just as classical logic and the algebras of sets constructed upon it are Boolean algebras (and hence have
all the “nice” Boolean properties such as idempotency, excluded middle, non-contradiction, distributivity, etc.), one might very much prefer to have a fuzzy subset logic and resulting fuzzy subset algebras
that are Boolean as well.1 But it has been found that under what would seem to be very “reasonable”
conditions, this is simply not possible. In particular, we have the following crippling constraints:
Bellman and Giertz in 1973 demonstrated that under very “reasonable” conditions, if we want
a fuzzy subset logic that is distributive, then it also must be idempotent.2
Dubois and Padre in 1980 demonstrated that under very “reasonable” conditions, if we want
a fuzzy subset logic that has the non-contradiction and excluded middle properties, then that
logic is not idempotent…and therefore not only fails to be a Boolean algebra, but also is not
even a lattice.3
1

excluded middle: 𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑥 = 1. non-contradiction: 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 0. idempotency: 𝑥 ∨ 𝑥 = 𝑥 and 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑥.
distributivity: 𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑧) and 𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑧). classic Boolean properties: Theorem A.42
page 30.
2
see fuzzy operators idempotency theorem (Theorem 1.25 page 12)
3
Dubois-Padre 1980 result: see fuzzy negation idempotency theorem (Theorem 1.28 page 14) and Dubois-Padre 1980
theorem (Corollary 1.29 page 15). Every lattice is a Boolean algebra, but not conversely (Definition A.11 page 24, Definition A.41
page 30). A lattice is idempotent, commutative, associative, and absorptive (Theorem A.14 page 25). A Boolean algebra
has all these properties but is moreover bounded, distributive, complemented, de Morgan, involutory, and has
identity (Theorem A.42 page 30).

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Daniel J. Greenhoe

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page 3

Moreover, even if we are willing to give up the non-contradiction and excluded middle properties and retain idempotency, Bellman and Giertz also demonstrated in 1973 that the only
choice we have for the logic operator pair (∧, ∨) is the (min, max) operator pair such that (∧, ∨) =
(min, max).4

A solution. Section 1 of this paper examines these results in detail, and demonstrates that “hidden” in
the hypotheses of these results is the assumption that the operator pair (∧, ∨) is pointwise evaluated.5
Section 2 demonstrates that if this constraint is removed, then it is indeed possible to construct fuzzy
subset logics that have all the Boolean properties, including that of idempotency, non-contradiction,
excluded middle, and distributivity.

A solution yielding ortho fuzzy subset logics. In this paper, a logic 𝙇′ ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is
defined as a lattice 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) with a negation function ¬ and implication function → defined
on this lattice. And in this sense, the logic 𝙇′ is said to be “constructed on” the lattice 𝙇. This paper
demonstrates that it is possible to construct fuzzy subset logics on Boolean lattices yielding Boolean
fuzzy subset logics. However, more generally, it is also demonstrated that it is possible to construct
fuzzy subset logics on orthocomplemented lattices yielding ortho fuzzy subset logics. The main difference between a Boolean lattice and an orthocomplemented lattice is that the latter does not in general
support distributivity.6 On finite sets, there are significantly more choices of orthocomplemented lattices than there are Boolean lattices.7 And so having the option of constructing ortho fuzzy subset logics
is arguably not without advantage. The disadvantage is that we give up the guarantee of distributivity.
But some authors8 have investigated structures without this property anyways. In fact, one could argue
that the “crucial” properties that we would really like a logic to have, if possible, are the following:
(1). disjunctive idempotence:
𝑥∨𝑥
= 𝑥 and
(2). conjunctive idempotence: 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥
= 𝑥 and
(3). excluded middle:
𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑥 = 1 and
(4). non-contradiction:
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 0 .
Not all fuzzy logics have all the these properties. Of course all Boolean logics have them. But more
generally than Boolean logics and less generally than fuzzy logics, all ortho logics have them as well.9
4

Bellman-Giertz 1973 result: see fuzzy min-max theorem (Theorem 1.26 page 13) and Bellman-Giertz 1973 theorem
(∧, ∨) in an ordered set: Definition A.9 page 24 and Definition A.8 page 24. (∧, ∨) in a lattice:
Definition A.11 page 24. (∧, ∨) in a logic: Definition C.5 page 50. (min, max): Definition 1.15 page 7.
5
pointwise evaluated: (Definition 1.12 page 7)
6
logic: Definition C.5 page 50. lattice: Definition A.11 page 24. negation function: Definition B.2 page 35. implication function: Definition C.1 page 45 Boolean lattice: Definition A.41 page 30. orthocomplemented lattice:
Definition A.44 page 31. ortho negation: Definition B.3 page 35. ortho+distributivity=Boolean: Proposition A.50
page 33
7
There are a total of 5 orthocomplemented lattices with 8 elements; of these 5, only 1 is Boolean. There are a
total of 10 orthocomplemented lattices with 8 elements or less; of these 10, only 4 are Boolean. For further details,
see Example A.46 page 31.
8
📃 [Alsina et al.(1980)Alsina, Trillas, and Valverde], 📃 [Hamacher(1976)] ⟨referenced by 📃 [Alsina
et al.(1983)Alsina, Trillas, and Valverde]⟩
9
properties of fuzzy negations and hence also fuzzy logics: Theorem B.11 page 36. properties of ortho negations
and hence also ortho logics: Theorem B.15 page 37. relationships between logics: Figure 13 page 50.
(Corollary 1.27 page 14).

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 4

Daniel J. Greenhoe

Negation functions. There are several types of negation functions and information about these functions is scattered about in the literature. APPENDIX B introduces several types of negation, describes
some of their properties, and shows where fuzzy negation, ortho negation, and Boolean negation “fit”
into the larger structure of negations in general.

Implication functions. Defining an implication function for a logic constructed on a Boolean lattice
𝑐
is straightforward because we can simply use the classical implication 𝑥 →
𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥∨𝑦. However, defining
an implication function for a non-Boolean logic is more difficult. APPENDIX C addresses the problem
of defining implication functions on lattices, including lattices that are non-Boolean.

1

Fuzzy subset operators

A fuzzy subset is often specified in terms of a membership function. A fuzzy subset logic is a lattice of
membership functions together with a fuzzy negation function and an implication function. Although
its definition is simple and straightforward, fuzzy subset logic has some notorious problems attempting
to provide some very standard Boolean properties.10

1.1

Indicator functions

In classical subset theory, a subset 𝐴 of a set 𝑋 can be specified using an indicator function 𝟙𝐴 (𝑥) (next
definition). An indicator function specifies concretely whether or not an element is a member of 𝐴.
That is, it is a convenient “indicator” of whether or not a particular element is in a subset. A subset that
can be defined using an indicator function is a crisp subset (next definition).
Definition 1.1 11 Let 𝟚𝑋 be the power set of a set 𝑋 . Let 𝑌 𝑋 be the set of all functions mapping from
𝑋 to a set 𝑌 . The indicator function 𝟙𝐴 ∈ {0, 1}𝑋 is defined as
1 if 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴
𝟙𝐴 (𝑥) =
∀𝑥∈𝑋, 𝐴∈𝟚𝑋 .
{ 0 if 𝑥 ∉ 𝐴 }
The parameter 𝐴 of 𝟙𝐴 is a crisp subset of 𝑋 if 𝟙𝐴 (𝑥) is an indicator function on 𝑋 .
Every set 𝑋 has at least one crisp subset (itself ). A set of subsets, together with the relation ⊆, form an
ordered set, and in some cases also form a lattice. Common set structures include the power set 𝟚𝑋 ,
topologies, rings of sets and algebras of sets. A set structure may be represented in terms of subsets, or
equivalently, in terms of set indicator functions.12
10

fuzzy subset: Definition 1.7 page 6, fuzzy subset logic: Definition 1.11 page 6, membership function: Definition 1.7 page 6, lattice: Definition A.11 page 24, fuzzy negation: Definition B.2 page 35, implication: Definition C.1
page 45 and Definition C.5 page 50; problems: Theorem 1.26 page 13 and Theorem 1.28 page 14.
11
📘 [Feller(1971)], page 104 ⟨1. Baire Functions⟩, 📘 [Aliprantis and Burkinshaw(1998)], page 126, 📘 [Hausdorff(1937)], page 22, 📘 [de la Vallée-Poussin(1915)] page 440
12
ordered set: Definition A.1 page 22, lattice (Definition A.11 page 24), set indicator function: Definition 1.1 page 4,
topologies: Example 1.3 page 5 and Example 1.4 page 5; examples of set structures: Example 1.3 page 5 and Example 1.5 page 5.

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

𝑋 = 𝑋 ⧵∅ = ∅𝖼
𝑋 ⧵{𝑐} = {𝑐}𝖼 = {𝑎, 𝑏}

𝟙𝑋 = 1 = 1 − 𝟙∅ = ¬𝟙∅

{𝑏, 𝑐} = 𝑋 ⧵{𝑎} = {𝑎}𝖼

𝖼

{𝑐} = 𝑋 ⧵{𝑎, 𝑏} = {𝑎, 𝑏}

𝑋 ⧵{𝑏, 𝑐} = {𝑏, 𝑐} = {𝑎}

page 5

Daniel J. Greenhoe

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

𝖼

¬𝟙{𝑐} = 𝟙{𝑎,𝑏}

𝟙{𝑏,𝑐} = 1 − 𝟙{𝑎} = ¬𝟙{𝑎}

¬𝟙{𝑏,𝑐} = 𝟙{𝑎}

𝟙{𝑐} = 1 − 𝟙{𝑎,𝑏} = ¬𝟙{𝑎,𝑏}

∅ = 𝑋 ⧵𝑋 = 𝑋 𝖼

𝟙∅ = 0 = 1 − 𝟙𝑋 = ¬𝟙∅

(A) set notation

(B) set indicator notation

Figure 1: set structures on O 6 (see Example 1.5 page 5)

Remark 1.2 Often set structures are defined in terms of set operators like intersection ∩, union ∪, and
set complement 𝖼. The set operators (∩, ∪, 𝖼, ⇒, ∅, 𝑋) in turn can be defined in terms of arithmetic operators (min, max, 𝖿 (𝑥) ≜ 1 − 𝑥, 𝗀(𝑥, 𝑦) ≜ 𝑦 − 𝑥𝑦, 0, 1) on the set indicator function13 or in terms of classic
logic operators (∧, ∨, ¬, →, 0, 1) like this:
0
≜ 𝟙∅
= 0
1
≜ 𝟙𝑋
= 1
𝟙𝐴 ∨ 𝟙𝐵 ≜ 𝟙𝐴∪𝐵 = max(𝟙𝐴 , 𝟙𝐵 )
𝟙𝐴 ∧ 𝟙𝐵 ≜ 𝟙𝐴∩𝐵 = min(𝟙𝐴 , 𝟙𝐵 )
¬𝟙𝐴
≜ 𝟙𝐴𝖼
= 1 − 𝟙𝐴
𝟙𝐴 → 𝟙𝐵 ≜ 𝟙𝐴⇒𝐵 = max(1 − 𝟙𝐴 , 𝟙𝐵 )
where 𝐴 ⇒ 𝐵 ≜ 𝐴𝖼 ∪ 𝐵 is the set implication from 𝐴 to 𝐵 .14
𝟙𝑋 = 1

𝑋

{𝑎, 𝑏}

{𝑎, 𝑐}

{𝑎}

{𝑏}

{𝑏, 𝑐}
{𝑐}

Example 1.3 The set structures illustrated to the left
and right are the power set of the set 𝑋 ≜ {𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐}.
A power set is a special case of an algebra of sets and
also a topology. The lattice to the left uses set notation; the one to the right uses set indicators.

𝟙{𝑎,𝑏}
𝟙{𝑎}

∅

{𝑎, 𝑏}
{𝑎}
∅

𝟙{𝑎,𝑐}

𝟙{𝑏,𝑐}
𝟙{𝑐}

𝟙{𝑏}
𝟙∅ = 0

Example 1.4 The set structures illustrated to the left
and right are a topology on the set 𝑋 ≜ {𝑎, 𝑏}. The
lattice to the left uses set notation; the one to the right
uses set indicators.

𝟙{𝑎,𝑏} = 1
𝟙{𝑎}
𝟙∅ = 0

Example 1.5 The set structures illustrated in Figure 1 (page 5) are not topologies (or algebras of sets
or power sets), but are set structures none the less. The negation function in the structure is an ortho
negation (Definition B.3 page 35). The lattice in (A) uses set notation; the one in (B) uses set indicators.
Definition 1.6 Let 𝟙𝑋 be the set of all indicator functions on a set 𝑋 . Let a logic be defined as in
Definition C.5 (page 50). A crisp subset logic is a logic
𝑋
( 𝟙 , ∨, ∧, ¬, 𝟙∅ , 𝟙𝑋 ; ⋜, →) .
13
14

📘 [Aliprantis and Burkinshaw(1998)], page 126, 📘 [Hausdorff(1937)], pages 22–23
[Ellerman(2010)] ⟨§1.7; 𝐴 ⇒ 𝐵 = (𝐴𝖼 ∪ 𝐵)∘ where 𝐶 ∘ is the interior of a set 𝐶 in a topological space ⟩

📃

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 6

1.2

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1.2 MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS

Membership functions

In a crisp subset 𝐴 of a crisp set 𝑋 (𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋 ), an element 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 has only two possible “degrees of membership” in 𝐴: Either 𝑥 is in 𝐴 or 𝑥 is not in 𝐴. Said another way, either 𝑥 has “full membership” in 𝐴,
or 𝑥 has “absolute non-membership” in 𝐴. And this “degree of membership” is specified by an indicator function (Definition 1.1 page 4) 𝟙𝐴 (𝑥) which maps from 𝑋 to the 2-valued set {0, 1}, where 0 represents
“absolute non-membership” and 1 represents “full membership”.
In a fuzzy subset 𝐵 of a crisp set 𝑋 (𝐵 ⊆ 𝑋 ), an element 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 has a range of possible degrees of
membership in 𝐵 . And this membership is specified by a membership function (next definition) 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
which maps from 𝑋 to the infinte set [0 ∶ 1].
Definition 1.7 15 Let [0 ∶ 1] be the closed interval on ℝ such that [0 ∶ 1] ≜ {𝑥 ∈ ℝ |0 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 1 }. Let 𝑋
be a set. A function 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) is a membership function on 𝑋 if 𝕞𝐴 ∈ [0 ∶ 1]𝑋 . The parameter 𝐴 is called
a fuzzy subset of 𝑋 . For any value 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 , 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) ∈ [0 ∶ 1] represents the “degree of membership” of 𝑥 in
𝐴. The condition 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = 1 indicates that 𝑥 has “full membership” in 𝐴, and the condition 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = 0
indicates that 𝑥 has “absolute non-membership” in 𝐴.
Remark 1.8 16 What is typically called a “fuzzy set” arguably should more accurately be called a “fuzzy
subset” because every element 𝑥 at any “degree of membership” in a fuzzy subset 𝐴 has absolute full
membership in some universal crisp set 𝑋 . And thus 𝐴 is a subset of the crisp set 𝑋 (𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋 ).
Remark 1.9 In a crisp set 𝑋 , a fuzzy subset 𝐴 ⊆ 𝑋 should not be confused with a random subset
𝐵 ⊆ 𝑋 . In the fuzzy subset 𝐴, an element 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 has a “degree of membership” in 𝐴 that specifies
“to what extent” 𝑥 can be considered a member of 𝐴. In the random subset 𝐵 , the element 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋
has a “degree of likelihood” that 𝑥 is in 𝐵 and that specifies the probability that 𝑥 is a member of 𝐵 .
Alternatively, a fuzzy subset is a result of “inference under vagueness”, while a random subset is a result
of “inference under randomness”.17
Example 1.10 Let 𝐴 be the set of all people who are “young” with membership function 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥). Let
𝐵 be the set of all people who are “middle age” with membership function 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥). Let 𝐶 be the set of
all people who are “old” with membership function 𝕞𝐶 (𝑥). Of course all these are vague, or “fuzzy”,
concepts; but the following figure illustrates what the membership functions (Definition 1.7 page 6) for these
sets might look like.
𝗆𝐴 (𝑥)

1

𝗆𝐶 (𝑥)

𝗆𝐵 (𝑥)

𝑥 = years

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Definition 1.11 Let 𝕄 be a set of membership functions (Definition 1.7 page 6).
The structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) is a fuzzy subset logic if 𝙇 is a fuzzy logic (Definition C.5 page 50).
15

📓 [Hájek(2011)], page 68 ⟨ “absolutely true”, “absolutely false ⟩, 📘 [Dubois(1980)] page 10, 📓 [Dubois
et al.(2000)Dubois, Ostasiewicz, and Padre], page 42 ⟨ “full membership”, “absolute non-membership” ⟩, 📃 [Zadeh(1965)]
page 339 ⟨ “grade of membership” ⟩
16
📘 [Dubois(1980)] page 10 ⟨Remarks 1⟩, 📘 [Kaufmann(1975)]
17
📓 [Hájek(2011)], page 67 ⟨5.1 Introduction⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

1.3

page 7

Daniel J. Greenhoe

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

Operators on membership functions

The meet-join operator pair (∧, ∨) on a set of indicator functions 𝟙𝑋 induces an ordering relation on
𝟙𝑋 .18 . So the operator pairs (∧, ∨) can be defined on sets of membership functions to form lattices. But
while lattices of set indicators effectively have just one choice for (∧, ∨), membership function lattices
have many choices.
In this paper, the operators (∧, ∨) are called pointwise evaluated if at each single value 𝑥, the functions
[𝕞 ∧ 𝕟](𝑥) and [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) depend only on the values of 𝕞(𝑥) (𝕞 evaluated at the single value 𝑥) and 𝕟(𝑥)
(next definition).
Definition 1.12 19 Let 𝙇 ≜ (𝕄, ∧, ∨), where 𝕄 is a set of membership functions (Definition 1.7 page 6) with
operators (∧, ∨). 𝙇 is pointwise evaluated, or said to have pointwise evaluation, if there exists 𝖿, 𝗀 ∈
2
[0 ∶ 1][0∶1] such that
1. [𝕞 ∧ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝖿 [𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝑥∈ℝ, and ∀𝕞, 𝕟∈𝕄 and
2. [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝗀[𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝑥∈ℝ, and ∀𝕞, 𝕟∈𝕄
Example 1.13
1. The function ⩟ defined as [𝕞 ⩟ 𝕟](𝑥) ≜ 𝕞(𝑥) + 𝕟(𝑥)
𝑥

is pointwise evaluated .

The function ⩠ defined as [𝕞 ⩠ 𝕟](𝑥) ≜
𝕞(𝑢)𝕟(𝑥 − 𝑢) d𝑢 is not pointwise evaluated.
∫
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
−∞

2.

“convolution”

Example 1.14 Examples of operators that are pointwise evaluated include the min-max operators
(next definition), the product and probabilistic sum operators (Definition 1.17 page 8), and the Łukasiewicz
t-norm and t-conorm (Definition 1.18 page 9).
One of the most common fuzzy logic operator pairs is the min-max operator pair (next). As will be
demonstrated by the fuzzy min-max theorem (Theorem 1.26 page 13), under fairly “reasonable” conditions
the min-max operators are the only choice available for a fuzzy subset logic.
Definition 1.15 20 Let 𝕄 be a set of membership functions on a set 𝑋 . Let 𝖿(𝑥) and 𝗀(𝑥) be functions
both with domain 𝑋 . Let min(𝖿 (𝑥), 𝗀(𝑥)) and max(𝖿 (𝑥), 𝗀(𝑥)) be the pointwise minimum and pointwise
maximum, respectively, of 𝖿(𝑥) and 𝗀(𝑥) over 𝑋 . The min-max operators (∧, ∨) for 𝙇 are defined as
[𝕞𝐴 ∨ 𝕞𝐵 ](𝑥) ≜ max [𝕞𝐴 (𝑥), 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)] ∀𝕞∈𝕄, 𝑥∈𝑋
[𝕞𝐴 ∧ 𝕞𝐵 ](𝑥) ≜ min [𝕞𝐴 (𝑥), 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)] ∀𝕞∈𝕄, 𝑥∈𝑋
Proposition 1.16 Let 𝕄, max, and min defined as in Definition 1.15. Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be an algebraic structure with 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ⟺ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑦 = 𝑥.
(∧, ∨) = (min, max)
⟹
𝙇 is a LATTICE (Definition A.11 page 24).
18

see Remark 1.2 page 5, Proposition A.10 page 24, and Example 1.3 page 5–Example 1.5 page 5
📘 [Dubois(1980)] page 11 ⟨B.a(i)⟩
20
📓 [Fodor and Yager(2000)], page 133, 📃 [Zadeh(1965)] pages 340–341 ⟨(3),(5)⟩; pointwise ordering : Definition A.7 page 23
19

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 8
✎PROOF:

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1.3

OPERATORS ON MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS

To be a lattice, 𝙇 must be commutative, associative, and absorptive (Theorem A.18 page 25).
𝕞 ∨ 𝕟 = max(𝕞, 𝕟)
= max(𝕟, 𝕞)
=𝕟∨𝕞

by left hypothesis
by definition of min
by left hypothesis

⟹ ∨ is commutative
𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 = min(𝕞, 𝕟)

by left hypothesis

= min(𝕟, 𝕞)
=𝕟∧𝕞
⟹ ∧ is commutative

by definition of min
by left hypothesis

𝕞 ∨ (𝕟 ∨ 𝕡) = max[𝕞, max(𝕟, 𝕡)]
= max[max(𝕞, 𝕟), 𝕡]

by left hypothesis
by definition of max

= (𝕞 ∨ 𝕟) ∨ 𝕡
⟹ ∨ is associative
𝕞 ∧ (𝕟 ∧ 𝕡) = min[𝕞, min(𝕟, 𝕡)]

by left hypothesis
by left hypothesis

= min[min(𝕞, 𝕟), 𝕡]
= (𝕞 ∧ 𝕟) ∧ 𝕡

by definition of min
by left hypothesis

⟹ ∧ is associative
𝕞 ∨ (𝕞 ∧ 𝕟) = max[𝕞, min(𝕞, 𝕟)]
=

max(𝕞, 𝕞)
{ max(𝕞, 𝕟)

=

𝕞 if 𝕞(𝑥) ≤ 𝕟(𝑥)
{ 𝕞 otherwise

by left hypothesis

if 𝕞(𝑥) ≤ 𝕟(𝑥)
otherwise

∀𝑥∈𝑋

∀𝑥∈𝑋

=𝕞
𝕞 ∧ (𝕞 ∨ 𝕟) = min[𝕞, max(𝕞, 𝕟)]
=

min(𝕞, 𝕟)
{ min(𝕞, 𝕞)

=

𝕞 if 𝕞(𝑥) ≤ 𝕟(𝑥)
{ 𝕞 otherwise

by left hypothesis

if 𝕞(𝑥) ≤ 𝕟(𝑥)
otherwise

∀𝑥∈𝑋

∀𝑥∈𝑋

=𝕞
⟹ (∧, ∨) is absorptive

✏
Definition 1.17 21 Let 𝕄 be defined as in Definition 1.15. Then for all 𝕞 ∈ 𝕄,
the probabilistic sum operator ∨ on 𝕄 is defined as [𝕞𝐴 ∨ 𝕞𝐵 ](𝑥) ≜ 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) − 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
and the product sum operator ∧ on 𝕄 is defined as [𝕞𝐴 ∧ 𝕞𝐵 ](𝑥) ≜ 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
Note that the product and probabilistic sum operators (previous definition) do not in general form a
lattice because, for example, they are not in general idempotent (a necessary condition for being a
lattice—Theorem A.14 page 25). Suppose for example 𝕞(𝑝) = 1/2 at some point 𝑝. Then at that point 𝑝
𝕞 ∨ 𝕞 ≜ 𝕞 + 𝕞 − 𝕞𝕞 = 1/2 + 1/2 − 1/2 ⋅ 1/2 = 3/4 ≠ 𝕞 ⟹ ∨ is non-idempotent
𝕞 ∧ 𝕞 ≜ 𝕞𝕞
= 1/2 ⋅ 1/2
= 1/4 ≠ 𝕞 ⟹ ∧ is non-idempotent
21

📓

[Fodor and Yager(2000)], page 133

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

Daniel J. Greenhoe

page 9

Definition 1.18 22 Let 𝙇, 𝓓 , min and max be defined as in Definition 1.15. Then for all 𝕞 ∈ 𝕄,
the Łukasiewicz t-conorm ∨ is defined as
[𝕞𝐴 ∧ 𝕞𝐵 ](𝑥) ≜ max [0, 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) − 1] ∀𝕞∈𝕄, 𝑥∈𝑋
and the Łukasiewicz t-norm ∧ is defined as [𝕞𝐴 ∨ 𝕞𝐵 ](𝑥) ≜ min [1, 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) + 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)]
∀𝕞∈𝕄, 𝑥∈𝑋
The Łukasiewicz t-conorm is also called the bold sum, and the Łukasiewicz t-norm is also called the
bold intersection.

Note that the Łukasiewicz operators (previous definition) do not in general form a lattice because, for
example, they are not in general idempotent. Suppose for example 𝕞(𝑝) = 1/2 at some point 𝑝. Then
= 1 ≠ 𝕞
𝕞 ∨ 𝕞 ≜ min(1, 𝕞 + 𝕞)
= min(1, 1/2 + 1/2)
𝕞 ∧ 𝕞 ≜ max(0, 𝕞 + 𝕞 − 1) = max(0, 1/2 + 1/2 − 1) = 0 ≠ 𝕞
There are several choices for negations in a fuzzy subset logic. Arguably the “simplest” is the discrete
negation (Example B.16 page 38). Perhaps the most “common” is the standard negation (next definition).
More generally there is the λ-negation (Definition 1.20 page 9) which reduces to the standard negation at 𝜆 = 0
and approaches the discrete negation as 𝜆 → ∞. Alternatively there is also the Yager negation (Definition 1.21 page 9) which reduces to the standard negation at 𝑝 = 1.
Definition 1.19 23 The function ¬𝕞(𝑥) is the standard negation (or Łukasiewicz negation) of 𝕞 if
¬𝕞(𝑥) ≜ 1 − 𝕞(𝑥)
∀𝑥∈ℝ .

Definition 1.20 24 The function ¬𝕞(𝑥) is the λ-negation of a function 𝕞(𝑥) if
1 − 𝕞(𝑥)
∀𝜆 ∈ (−1 ∶ ∞).
¬𝕞(𝑥) ≜
1 + 𝜆𝕞(𝑥)
Definition 1.21 25 The function ¬𝕞(𝑥) is the Yager negation of a function 𝕞(𝑥) if
¬𝕞(𝑥) ≜ (1 − 𝕞𝑝 )1/𝑝
∀𝑝 ∈ (0 ∶ ∞).

If ¬𝕞 is a λ-negation, then the function ¬ in a fuzzy subset lattice 𝙇 is a de Morgan negation (Definition B.3
page 35) and thus the de Morgan properties hold in 𝙇 (Theorem B.14 page 37). The standard negation (Definition 1.19
page 9) is a λ-negation (at 𝜆 = 0) and so the standard negation is also de Morgan.

Theorem 1.22 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a LATTICE WITH NEGATION (Definition B.5 page 35).
¬𝕞(𝑥) is a λ-NEGATION ∀𝕞∈𝕄
¬ is a DE MORGAN NEGATION on 𝙇
⟹
{ (Definition 1.7 page 6)
}
{ (Definition B.3 page 35)
}
22

[Fodor and Yager(2000)], page 133
[Zadeh(1965)] page 340, 📘 [Jager(1995)] page 243 ⟨Appendix A⟩
24
[Fodor and Yager(2000)], page 129, 📓 [Hájek(2011)], page 68 ⟨Definition 5.1⟩, 📘 [Sugeno(1977)] page 95
⟨(23) “λ-complement”, see also p.94(12), p.96(28)⟩, 📘 [Jager(1995)] page 243 ⟨Appendix A⟩
25
📃 [Yager(1980a)] ⟨cf Jager(1995)⟩, 📘 [Jager(1995)] page 243 ⟨Appendix A⟩
23

📓
📃
📓

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 10
✎PROOF:

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1.3

OPERATORS ON MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONS

To be a de Morgan negation, ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) must be antitone and involutory (Definition B.3 page 35).

𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) ≤ 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) ⟹ − 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) ≤ −𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
⟹ 1 − 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) ≤ 1 − 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
1 − 𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
1 − 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
⟹
≤
1 + 𝜆𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) 1 + 𝜆𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
⟹ ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) ≤ ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
⟹ 𝕞 is antitone
¬¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) ≜ ¬
≜

1 − 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
( 1 + 𝜆𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) )

1−𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
1 − 1+𝜆𝕞
(𝑥)
𝐴

1−𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
1 + 𝜆 1+𝜆𝕞
(𝑥)

by property of real numbers ℝ
by property of real numbers ℝ
because 1 + 𝜆𝕞 > 0
by definition of λ-negation (Definition 1.20 page 9)

by definition of λ-negation (Definition 1.20 page 9)
by definition of λ-negation (Definition 1.20 page 9)

𝐴

(1 + 𝜆𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)) − (1 − 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥))
=
(1 + 𝜆𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)) + 𝜆(1 − 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥))
(1 + 𝜆)𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
=
1+𝜆
= 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
⟹ ¬𝕞 is involutory

✏
Corollary 1.23 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a LATTICE WITH NEGATION (Definition B.5 page 35).
A. ¬𝕞(𝑥) is a λ-NEGATION ∀𝕞∈𝕄 and
1. ¬ is a DE MORGAN NEGATION on 𝙇
⟹
{ B. ¬𝕞1 = 𝕞0
}
{ 2. ¬ is a FUZZY NEGATION on 𝙇

and

}

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof for (1): by Theorem 1.22 (page 9)
(2) Proof for (2): To be a fuzzy negation, ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) must be antitone, have weak double negation, and have boundary condition ¬𝕞1 (𝑥) = 𝕞0 (𝑥) (Definition B.2 page 35).
(a) Proof that ¬ is antitone: by Theorem 1.22 (page 9).
(b) Proof that ¬ has weak double negation: by Theorem 1.22 (page 9), ¬ is involutory, which implies ¬
has weak double negation.
(c) Proof that ¬𝕞1 (𝑥) = 𝕞0 (𝑥): by left hypothesis (B).

✏
We can now define fuzzy subset operators (∩, ∪, 𝖼) in terms of the fuzzy logic operators (∧, ∨, ¬) like this
(cross reference Remark 1.2 page 5):
𝕞∅
≜ 0
(Definition A.19 page 25)
𝕞𝑋
≜ 1
(Definition A.19 page 25)
𝕞𝐴∪𝐵 ≜ 𝕞𝐴 ∨ 𝕞𝐵 (Section 1.3 page 7)
𝕞𝐴∩𝐵 ≜ 𝕞𝐴 ∧ 𝕞𝐵 (Section 1.3 page 7)
𝕞𝐴𝖼
≜ ¬𝕞𝐴
(Section 1.3 page 9)
In the case of set indicator functions, defining (∧, ∨) is straightforward. But again here in fuzzy subset
logics, it is not.
version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

1.4

page 11

Daniel J. Greenhoe

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

Key theorems

This section contains the following key theorems which under very “reasonable” conditions say very
roughly the following about the fuzzy subset logic operator pair (∧, ∨):
fuzzy operators idempotency theorem (Theorem 1.25 page 12):
distributive
⟹ idempotent
and conversely
non-idempotent ⟹ non-distributive
fuzzy negation idempotency theorem (Theorem 1.28 page 14)
excluded middle or non-contradiction ⟹ non-idempotent
idempotent ⟹ excluded middle or non-contradiction or both fails
fuzzy min-max theorem (Theorem 1.26 page 13):
idempotent
⟹ (∧, ∨) = (min, max) and conversely
(∧, ∨) ≠ (min, max) ⟹ non-idempotent

and conversely

The fuzzy min-max boundary theorem (next theorem) shows that under three pairs of arguably “reasonable” conditions (including pointwise evaluation), the functions min(𝕞, 𝕟) and max(𝕞, 𝕟) act as bounds
for any possible operators (∧, ∨).
Theorem 1.24 (fuzzy min-max boundary theorem) 26 Let 𝕄 be a set of MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONs (Definition 1.7 page 6).
[0∶1]2
such that [𝕞 ∧ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝖿 [𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎫
⎧ 1. ∃𝖿 ∈ [0 ∶ 1]
⎪
⎪
[0∶1]2
such that [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝗀[𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎪
⎪ 2. ∃𝗀 ∈ [0 ∶ 1]
⎪ 3. 𝕞 ∨ 0 = 𝕞
0∨𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( DISJUNCTIVE IDENTITY)
and ⎪
⎨
⎬
1∧𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( CONJUNCTIVE IDENTITY) and ⎪
⎪ 4. 𝕞 ∧ 1 = 𝕞
⎪ 5. 𝕟 ≤ 𝕡 ⟹ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕡 and 𝕟 ∨ 𝕞 ≤ 𝕡 ∨ 𝕞
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( DISJUNCTIVE ISOTONE)
and ⎪
⎪ 6. 𝕟 ≤ 𝕡 ⟹ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕡 and 𝕟 ∧ 𝕞 ≤ 𝕡 ∧ 𝕞
⎪
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( CONJUNCTIVE ISOTONE)
⎩
⎭
⟹ {𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 ≤ min(𝕞, 𝕟)
and
max(𝕞, 𝕟) ≤ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟
∀𝕞∈𝕄}
✎PROOF:
max(𝕞, 𝕟) = max ([𝕞 ∨ 0], [0 ∨ 𝕟])

by disjunctive identity property

≤ max(𝕞 ∨ 𝕟, 0 ∨ 𝕟)

by disjunctive isotone property: 0 ≤ 𝕟 ⟹ 𝕞 ∨ 0 ≤ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟

≤ max(𝕞 ∨ 𝕟, 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟)

by disjunctive isotone property: 0 ≤ 𝕞 ⟹ 0 ∨ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟

= 𝕞∨𝕟

by definition of max(⋅, ⋅)

𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 = min(𝕞 ∧ 𝕟, 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟)

by definition of min(⋅, ⋅)

≤ min ([𝕞 ∧ 1], [𝕞 ∧ 𝕟])
≤ min ([𝕞 ∧ 1], [1 ∧ 𝕟])

by conjunctive isotone property: 𝕟 ≤ 1 ⟹ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∧ 1
by conjunctive isotone property: 𝕞 ≤ 1 ⟹ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 ≤ 1 ∧ 𝕟

= min(𝕞, 𝕟)

by conjunctive identity property

✏
How reasonable are the “reasonable conditions” of Theorem 1.24? Let's discuss them briefly:
The strength of the pointwise evalution condition is perhaps more in its simplicity than in
it's reasonableness. In mathematics in general, functions are often mapped to other functions
in blatant disregard to this property or one like it. Often such a mapping is referred to as an
“operator”.
26

📃

[Alsina et al.(1983)Alsina, Trillas, and Valverde] page 16 ⟨§1⟩

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 12

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1.4

KEY THEOREMS

In fuzzy logic, the identity properties are “reasonable” because if either the “degree of membership” of 𝑥 is 𝕞(𝑥) or 𝑥 has “full membership”, then arguably the “degree of membership”
of 𝑥 is 𝕞(𝑥) . Likewise, if both the “degree of membership” of 𝑥 is 𝕞(𝑥) and 𝑥 has “absolute
non-membership”, then arguably the “degree of membership” of 𝑥 is 𝕞(𝑥) . In order theory,
𝑥 ∨ 0 = 𝑥 and 𝑥 ∧ 1 = 𝑥 are true of any bounded lattice (Proposition A.21 page 26). Their commuted
counterparts follow from a weakened form of the commutative property. Note that all lattices
are commutative (Theorem A.14 page 25).
The isotone properties are a natural requirement of fuzzy logic—if the “degree of membership” 𝕞(𝑥) increases, then we might expect that the “degrees of membership” [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) , [𝕟 ∨
𝕞](𝑥) , [𝕞 ∧ 𝕟](𝑥) , and [𝕟 ∧ 𝕞](𝑥) to also increase. In order theory, the isotone properties hold for
all lattices (Proposition A.15 page 25).
The fuzzy operators idempotency theorem (next theorem) shows that under a handful of additional arguably “somewhat reasonable” conditions (including the rather “strong” distributivity property), the
functions ∧ and ∨ are both idempotent.
Theorem 1.25 (fuzzy operators idempotency theorem) 27 Let 𝕄 be a set of MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONs
(Definition 1.7 page 6).
[0∶1]2
such that [𝕞 ∧ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝖿 [𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎫
⎧ 1. ∃𝖿 ∈ [0 ∶ 1]
⎪ 2. ∃𝗀 ∈ [0 ∶ 1][0∶1]2 such that [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝗀[𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎪
⎪
⎪
0∧0 = 0
1∨1 = 1
( BOUNDARY CONDITION)
and ⎪
⎪ 3.
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( DISJUNCTIVE IDENTITY)
and ⎬
𝕞∨0 = 𝕞 0∨𝕞 = 𝕞
⎨ 4.
⎪ 5.
𝕞∧1 = 𝕞 1∧𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( CONJUNCTIVE IDENTITY)
and ⎪
⎪
⎪
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( DISJUNCTIVE DISTRIBUTIVE)
and
⎪ 6. 𝕞 ∧ (𝕟 ∨ 𝕡) = (𝕞 ∧ 𝕟) ∨ (𝕞 ∧ 𝕡)
⎪
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( CONJUNCTIVE DISTRIBUTIVE)
⎩ 7. 𝕞 ∨ (𝕟 ∧ 𝕡) = (𝕞 ∨ 𝕟) ∧ (𝕞 ∨ 𝕡)
⎭
1. 𝕞 = 𝕞 ∨ 𝕞 ∀𝕞∈𝕄 ( DISJUNCTIVE IDEMPOTENT)
and
⟹
{ 2. 𝕞 = 𝕞 ∧ 𝕞 ∀𝕞∈𝕄 ( CONJUNCTIVE IDEMPOTENT)
}
✎PROOF:
𝕞=𝕞∧1

by conjunctive identity property

= 𝕞 ∧ (1 ∨ 1)
= (𝕞 ∧ 1) ∨ (𝕞 ∧ 1)
=𝕞∨𝕞
𝕞=𝕞∨0
= 𝕞 ∨ (0 ∧ 0)
= (𝕞 ∨ 0) ∧ (𝕞 ∨ 0)
=𝕞∧𝕞

by boundary condition
by conjunctive distributive property
by conjunctive identity property
by disjunctive identity property
by boundary condition
by disjunctive distributive property
by disjunctive identity property

✏
How reasonable are the “reasonable conditions” of Theorem 1.25? Let's discuss them briefly:
In fuzzy logic, the boundary conditions are “reasonable” because if 𝑥 has both “absolute
non-membership” and “absolute non-membership”, then arguably 𝑥 has “absolute non-membership”.
27

📃 [Bellman and Giertz(1973)] page 154 ⟨ 𝑎 ∨ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ∧ 𝑎 = 𝑎…(10)⟩, 📃 [Alsina et al.(1983)Alsina, Trillas, and
Valverde] page 15 ⟨ 𝑥 = 𝐺(𝑥, 𝑥) ⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

page 13

Daniel J. Greenhoe

Likewise, if 𝑥 has either “ full membership” or “full membership”, then arguably 𝑥 has “full
membership”. In order theory, the boundary conditions are simply a weakened form of the
idempotent property, which holds for all lattices (Theorem A.14 page 25).
The distributive properties hold in classical logic (2-valued logic) and more generally in any
Boolean logic, but not necessarily in any other form of logic (Definition C.5 page 50). In order theory,
a comparatively small but important class of lattices are distributive. But note that in any
lattice, the distributive inequalities always hold (Theorem A.16 page 25); and if one of the distributive
properties hold, then they both hold (Theorem A.28 page 27).
The fuzzy min-max theorem (next theorem) shows that under the identity and isotone conditions (Theand the additional condition of weak idempotency, the only functions for (∧, ∨) are
(∧, ∨) = (min, max)….

orem 1.24 page 11)

Theorem 1.26 (fuzzy min-max theorem) 28 Let 𝕄 be a set of MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONs (Definition 1.7 page 6).
[0∶1]2
such that [𝕞 ∧ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝖿 [𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎫
⎧ 1. ∃𝖿 ∈ [0 ∶ 1]
⎪ 2. ∃𝗀 ∈ [0 ∶ 1][0∶1]2 such that [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝗀[𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎪
⎪
⎪
0∨𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( DISJUNCTIVE IDENTITY)
and ⎪
⎪ 3. 𝕞 ∨ 0 = 𝕞
1∧𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( CONJUNCTIVE IDENTITY) and ⎬
⎨ 4. 𝕞 ∧ 1 = 𝕞
⎪ 5. 𝕞 ∧ 𝕞 ≥ 𝕞
𝕞∨𝕞 ≤ 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( WEAK IDEMPOTENT)
and ⎪
⎪
⎪
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( DISJUNCTIVE ISOTONE)
and
⎪ 6. 𝕟 ≤ 𝕡 ⟹ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕡 and 𝕟 ∨ 𝕞 ≤ 𝕡 ∨ 𝕞
⎪
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( CONJUNCTIVE ISOTONE)
⎩ 7. 𝕟 ≤ 𝕡 ⟹ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕡 and 𝕟 ∧ 𝕞 ≤ 𝕡 ∧ 𝕞
⎭
1. 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟 = max(𝕞, 𝕟) ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄 and
⟹
{ 2. 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 = min(𝕞, 𝕟) ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
}
✎PROOF:
max(𝕞, 𝕟) ≤ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟

by fuzzy min-max boundary theorem (Theorem 1.24 page 11)

≤ max(𝕞, 𝕟) ∨ 𝕟
≤ max(𝕞, 𝕟) ∨ max(𝕞, 𝕟)

by disjunctive isotone property: 𝕞 ≤ max(𝕞, 𝕟)
by disjunctive isotone property: 𝕟 ≤ max(𝕞, 𝕟)

≤ max(𝕞, 𝕟)

by weak idempotent property

min(𝕞, 𝕟) ≤ min(𝕞, 𝕟) ∧ min(𝕞, 𝕟)

by weak idempotent property

≤ 𝕞 ∧ min(𝕞, 𝕟)

by isotone property of ∧: min(𝕞, 𝕟) ≤ 𝕞

≤ 𝕞∧𝕟

by isotone property of ∧: min(𝕞, 𝕟) ≤ 𝕟

≤ min(𝕞, 𝕟)

by fuzzy min-max boundary theorem (Theorem 1.24 page 11)

✏
How reasonable are the “reasonable conditions” of Theorem 1.26? Let's discuss them briefly:
One way to get the weak idempotent property or even the stronger idempotent property is to
force (min, max) to have the boundary and distributive properties (Theorem 1.25 page 12). However,
this is arguably a kind of sledge hammer approach and is not really necessary.
28

This result is very similar to the celebrated result of Bellman and Giertz (1973): 📃 [Bellman and Giertz(1973)]
pages 153–154 ⟨§4⟩

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 14

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1.4

KEY THEOREMS

In fuzzy logic, even the stronger idempotent property is arguably “reasonable” because if an
element 𝑥 both has a “degree of membership” 𝕞(𝑥) and a “degree of membership” 𝕞(𝑥) , then
arguably 𝑥 has a “degree of membership” 𝕞(𝑥) . Likewise, if 𝑥 either has a “degree of membership” 𝕞(𝑥) or a “degree of membership” 𝕞(𝑥) , then arguably 𝑥 has a “degree of membership”
𝕞(𝑥) . In order theory, all lattices are idempotent (Theorem A.14 page 25). But, again, here we only
require weak idempotency, not idempotency.
Corollary 1.27 (Bellman-Giertz 1973 theorem) 29 Let 𝕄 be a set of MEMBERSHIP FUNCTIONs (Definition 1.7
page 6).
[0∶1]2
such that [𝕞 ∧ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝖿 [𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎫
⎧ 1. ∃𝖿 ∈ [0 ∶ 1]
⎪ 2. ∃𝗀 ∈ [0 ∶ 1][0∶1]2 such that [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) = 𝗀[𝕞(𝑥), 𝕟(𝑥)] ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
( POINTWISE EVALUATED)
and ⎪
⎪
⎪
0∨𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( DISJUNCTIVE IDENTITY)
and ⎪
⎪ 3. 𝕞 ∨ 0 = 𝕞
1∧𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( CONJUNCTIVE IDENTITY) and ⎬
⎨ 4. 𝕞 ∧ 1 = 𝕞
⎪ 5. 𝕞 ∧ 𝕞 = 𝕞
𝕞∨𝕞 = 𝕞
∀𝕞∈𝕄
( IDEMPOTENT)
and ⎪
⎪
⎪
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( DISJUNCTIVE ISOTONE)
and
⎪
⎪ 6. 𝕟 ≤ 𝕡 ⟹ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕡 and 𝕟 ∨ 𝕞 ≤ 𝕡 ∨ 𝕞
∀𝕞,𝕟,𝕡∈𝕄 ( CONJUNCTIVE ISOTONE)
⎩ 7. 𝕟 ≤ 𝕡 ⟹ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 ≤ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕡 and 𝕟 ∧ 𝕞 ≤ 𝕡 ∧ 𝕞
⎭
1. 𝕞 ∨ 𝕟 = max(𝕞, 𝕟) ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄 and
⟹
{ 2. 𝕞 ∧ 𝕟 = min(𝕞, 𝕟) ∀𝕞,𝕟∈𝕄
}
✎PROOF:

✏

This follows directly from Theorem 1.26 (page 13).

One big difficulty in fuzzy subset logic (Definition 1.11 page 6) is that under “reasonable” conditions, if the fuzzy
subset logic is required to have either the excluded middle property or the non-contradiction property
(Boolean algebras have both), then the fuzzy subset logic cannot be idempotent (next theorem). Furthermore, if a structure is not idempotent, then it is not a lattice (Theorem A.14 page 25).
Theorem 1.28 (fuzzy negation idempotency theorem) Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a FUZZY SUBSET LOGIC (Definition 1.11 page 6). Let (∧, ∨) be POINTWISE EVALUATED (Definition 1.12 page 7).
If there
exists 𝑝 such that ¬𝕞(𝑝) = 𝕞(𝑝) ∈ (0 ∶ 1) then
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
( FIXED POINT CONDITION)
(A).
(B).

𝕞 ∨ ¬𝕞 = 1
𝕞 ∧ ¬𝕞 = 0

∀𝕞∈𝕄

( EXCLUDED MIDDLE)

∀𝕞∈𝕄

( NON-CONTRADICTION)

⟹ 𝕞∨𝕞 ≠ 𝕞
⟹ 𝕞∧𝕞 ≠ 𝕞

( NON-IDEMPOTENT)
( NON-IDEMPOTENT)

✎PROOF:
1 = 𝕞(𝑝) ∨ ¬𝕞(𝑝)
= 𝕞(𝑝) ∨ 𝕞(𝑝)
= 𝕞(𝑝)

by fixed point hypothesis
if ∨ is idempotent

⟹
⟹
⟹

¬𝕞(𝑝) = 0
𝕞(𝑝) = 0
contradiction

because ¬𝕞(𝑝) = ¬1 = 0
by fixed point hypothesis
because 𝕞(𝑝) = 1 ≠ 0 = 𝕞(𝑝) is a contradiction

⟹

∨ is non-idempotent

0 = 𝕞(𝑝) ∧ ¬𝕞(𝑝)
29

📃

by excluded middle hypothesis (A)

by non-contradiction hypothesis (B)

[Bellman and Giertz(1973)] pages 153–154 ⟨§4⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

Daniel J. Greenhoe

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

= 𝕞(𝑝) ∧ 𝕞(𝑝)

by fixed point hypothesis

= 𝕞(𝑝)
⟹
¬𝕞(𝑝) = 1

if ∧ is idempotent
because ¬𝕞(𝑝) = ¬0 = 1

⟹
⟹
⟹

by fixed point hypothesis
because 𝕞(𝑝) = 0 ≠ 1 = 𝕞(𝑝) is a contradiction

𝕞(𝑝) = 0
contradiction
∧ is non-idempotent

page 15

✏
How reasonable are the “reasonable conditions” of Theorem 1.28? Let's discuss them briefly:
One of these “reasonable conditions” is that at some point 𝑝, ¬𝕞(𝑝) = 𝕞(𝑝) ∈
𝑥 𝕞(𝑥) ¬𝕞(𝑥)
(0 ∶ 1). Because fuzzy negations are antitone, in some cases this is arguably a
“reasonable” assumption, especially if 𝕞(𝑥) is continuous and strictly antitone.
𝑑
1
0
3/4
1/4
However, be warned that it is not always the case that there is such a point 𝑝 in a
𝑐
1/4
3/4
fuzzy subset logic ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤). For example, under standard negation,
𝑏
and if the universal set is finite, then it is certainly possible that 𝑝 does not exist,
𝑎
0
1
as in the example illustrated to the right with 𝑋 ≜ {𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐, 𝑑}:
Corollary 1.29 (Dubois-Padre 1980 theorem) 30 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a FUZZY SUBSET LOGIC
(Definition 1.11 page 6). Let (∧, ∨) be POINTWISE EVALUATED (Definition 1.12 page 7).
If ¬(𝑥) is CONTINUOUS and STRICTLY ANTITONE then
(A). 𝕞 ∨ ¬𝕞 = 1 ∀𝕞∈𝕄 ( EXCLUDED MIDDLE)
⟹ 𝕞 ∨ 𝕞 ≠ 𝕞 ( NON-IDEMPOTENT)
(B). 𝕞 ∧ ¬𝕞 = 0 ∀𝕞∈𝕄 ( NON-CONTRADICTION)
⟹ 𝕞 ∧ 𝕞 ≠ 𝕞 ( NON-IDEMPOTENT)
✎PROOF:

1.5

This follows directly from Theorem 1.28 (page 14).

✏

Examples of non-ortho and non-Boolean fuzzy subset

This section presents some examples of fuzzy subset logics. They all have “problems”. The problem of
the first example is just that is a kind of trivial fuzzy subset logic in that it is 2-valued and equivalent to
the classical subset logic. In all the other examples, the “problem” involves not having one or more of
the following four properties:
(1). disjunctive idempotence:
𝑥∨𝑥
= 𝑥 and
(2). conjunctive idempotence: 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥
= 𝑥 and
(3). excluded middle:
𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑥 = 1 and
(4). non-contradiction:
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 0
Actually, this is a problem only as far as not having an ortho or Boolean logic is a problem—because
all ortho logics and all Boolean logics have these properties. And so if even one is missing, the logic is
neither an ortho logic nor a Boolean logic. Also note that if a logic does not have both (1) and (2), then
it cannot even be constructed on a lattice at all…and as defined in this paper, is not even a logic.
Example 1.30 Consider the structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) in Figure 2 page 16 (A).
1. 𝙇 is a Boolean lattice (Definition A.41 page 30).
30

📓

📓 [Dubois and Padre(1980)], page 62 ⟨P1, requires ¬(𝑥) be to continuous and strictly antitone ⟩
[Fodor and Yager(2000)], pages 130–131 ⟨Theorem 2, reference to previous without proof⟩

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 16

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1.5 EXAMPLES OF NON-ORTHO AND NON-BOOLEAN FUZZY SUBSET

1
1
2

1
1
2

1
1
2

1

𝕞1 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞0 (𝑥) = 1

1
2

𝑥

1

𝕞0 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞1 (𝑥) = 0

1
2

𝑥

(A) fuzzy classical logic
(see Example 1.30 page 15)
¬ is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
(∧, ∨) = (min, max)
excluded middle holds
non-contradiction holds
distributive and idempotent
(trivial) Boolean fuzzy subset logic

𝕞1 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞0 (𝑥) = 1
𝑥
𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) =

1
2

𝑥
𝕞0 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞1 (𝑥) = 0
𝑥

(B) fuzzy Kleene 3-valued logic
(see Example 1.31 page 16)
¬ is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
(∧, ∨) = (min, max)
excluded middle does not hold
non-contradiction does not hold
distributive and idempotent
non-ortho fuzzy subset logic

1
1
2

1
1
2

1
1
2

𝕞1 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞0 (𝑥) = 1
𝑥
𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥
𝕞0 (𝑥)=¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
=¬𝕞1 (𝑥)
=0

𝑥

(C) fuzzy Heyting 3-valued logic
(see Example 1.32 page 17)
¬ is discrete negation (𝜆 → ∞)
(∧, ∨) = (min, max)
excluded middle does not hold
non-contradiction holds
distributive and idempotent
non-ortho fuzzy subset logic

Figure 2: fuzzy logics (Definition C.5 page 50) on linear lattices (Definition A.11 page 24) 𝙇2 and 𝙇3

2. The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and hence also is a fuzzy negation Definition B.2 page 35, Figure 9 page 34).
3. The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 (Definition 1.7 page 6) is the standard negation
(Definition 1.19 page 9).
4. 𝙇 together with the classical implication (Example C.4 page 46) is the classical logic (Example C.6 page 50)
and is also a fuzzy logic (Definition C.5 page 50).
5. Because the membership functions 𝕞(𝑥) equal 0 or 1 only, the fuzzy subsets are equivalent to
crisp sets.
6. 𝙇 is linear (Definition A.11 page 24) and therefore distributive (Theorem A.30 page 27); and therefore (∧, ∨)
are idempotent (Theorem 1.25 page 12).
7. The excluded middle and non-contradiction properties hold in 𝙇, but 𝙇 is also idempotent.
This does not contradict Theorem 1.28 (page 14), because ¬ does not satisfy the fixed point
condition (there is no point 𝑝 such that ¬𝕞(𝑝) = 𝕞(𝑝) ∈ (0 ∶ 1)).
Example 1.31 Consider the structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) in Figure 2 page 16 (B).
1. The function ¬ is a Kleene negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and hence a de Morgan negation), and
is also a fuzzy negation (Example B.25 page 41).
2. The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation because for example 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) ≜ 1/2 = 1 − 1/2 = 1 − 𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) ≜ ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥).
3. 𝙇 is linear (Definition A.11 page 24) and therefore distributive (Definition A.27 page 27, Theorem A.30 page 27); and
therefore (∧, ∨) are idempotent (Theorem 1.25 page 12).
4. 𝙇 does not have the excluded middle property because
𝕞𝐴 ∨ ¬𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞𝐴 ∨ 𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞𝐴 ≜ 1/2 ≠ 1.
5. 𝙇 does not have the non-contradiction property because
𝕞𝐴 ∧ ¬𝕞𝐴 𝕞𝐴 ∧ 𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞𝐴 ≜ 1/2 ≠ 0.
6. (∧, ∨) = (min, max) (Definition 1.15 page 7), which together with the idempotence property agrees with
Theorem 1.26 (page 13).
version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

Daniel J. Greenhoe

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

1
1
2

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 1
1
0
1
𝕞1 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞0 (𝑥)

1
1
2

2

𝑥

1
𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
𝑥
1
1
2

page 17

1
2

1
1
2

𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝑥
1

𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
2

𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 0
0
1
1

𝕞0 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞1 (𝑥)

2

𝑥

(A) min-max operators (see Example 1.33 page 17)
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
excluded middle and non-contradiction do not hold
distributive and idempotent
non-ortho fuzzy subset logic

𝑥

(B) Łukasiewicz operators (see Example 1.34 page 18)
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
excluded middle and non-contradiction hold
non-idempotent
not a logic

Figure 3: fuzzy logic on 𝙈2 lattice

7. 𝙇 together with the classical implication (Example C.4 page 46) is a Kleene 3-valued logic (Example C.7
page 51) and also a fuzzy logic (Definition C.5 page 50).
Example 1.32 Consider the structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) in Figure 2 page 16 (C).
1. The function ¬ is an intuitionistic negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and hence also a fuzzy negation
Example B.26 page 41).
2. The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the discrete negation (Example B.16 page 38).
3. 𝙇 does not have the excluded middle property because 𝕞𝐴 ∨ ¬𝕞𝐴 ≠ 1
4. 𝙇 does have the non-contradiction property.
5. 𝙇 is linear (Definition A.11 page 24) and therefore distributive (Definition A.27 page 27, Theorem A.30 page 27); and
therefore (∧, ∨) are idempotent (Theorem 1.25 page 12).
6. Note that having both non-contradiction and idempotency does not conflict with Theorem 1.28
(page 14) because it does not satisfy the fixed point condition.
7. (∧, ∨) = (min, max) (Definition 1.15 page 7), which together with the idempotence property agrees with
(Theorem 1.26 page 13).
8. 𝙇 together with the classical implication (Example C.4 page 46) is a Heyting 3-valued logic (Example C.10
page 52) and also a fuzzy logic (Definition C.5 page 50).
Example 1.33 Consider the structure 𝙇 illustrated in Figure 3 page 17 (A).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The function ¬ is a Kleene negation (Definition B.3 page 35) and also a fuzzy negation (Definition B.2 page 35).
The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
The ∧ and ∨ operators are the min-max operators (Definition 1.15 page 7).
Because (∧, ∨) = (min, max), 𝙇 is a lattice (Proposition 1.16 page 7).
Because 𝙇 is a lattice, 𝙇 is idempotent (Theorem A.14 page 25). Conversely, idempotence and (min, max)
are in agreement with Theorem 1.26 (page 13).
6. 𝙇 does not have the excluded middle property because 𝕞𝐴 ∨ ¬𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞1 ≠ 1.
7. 𝙇 does not have the non-contradiction property because 𝕞𝐴 ∧ ¬𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞0 ≠ 0.
8. The idempotence property is not in disagreement with Theorem 1.28 (page 14) because 𝙇 does
not have the excluded middle or non-contradiction properties.
Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 18

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1.5 EXAMPLES OF NON-ORTHO AND NON-BOOLEAN FUZZY SUBSET

1
1
2

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 1
1
0
1
𝕞1 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞0 (𝑥)

1
1
2

1
𝕞𝑃 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
1
2

2

𝑥

1
2

1
𝕞𝑄 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑄 (𝑥)
𝑥
1
1
2

1
2

𝑥

1
2

1
1
2

𝕞𝑃 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑃 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
2

𝕞𝑄 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
1
2

𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑄 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑃 (𝑥)
𝑥

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 0
0
1
1

𝕞0 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞1 (𝑥)

2

𝑥

(A) min-max operators (see Example 1.35 page 18)
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
non-contradiction and excluded middle do not hold
idempotent
non-ortho fuzzy subset logic

𝑥

(B) Łukasiewicz operators (see Example 1.36 page 18)
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
non-contradiction and excluded middle both hold
non-idempotent
not a logic

Figure 4: fuzzy logic on O 6 lattice

9. 𝙇 together with any of the six implication functions listed in Example C.4 (page 46) is a fuzzy
subset logic (Definition 1.11 page 6).
Example 1.34 Consider the structure 𝙇 illustrated in Figure 3 page 17 (B).
1. The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and thus also a fuzzy negation).
2. The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
3. The ∧ and ∨ operators are the Łukasiewicz operators (Definition 1.18 page 9). Under these operators,
𝙇 has the non-contradiction and excluded middle properties, but 𝙇 is not idempotent (e.g.
𝕞𝐴 ∨ 𝕞𝐴 ≠ 𝕞𝐴 ), and so 𝙇 is not a lattice (Theorem 1.28 page 14, Theorem A.14 page 25).
Example 1.35 Consider the structure 𝙇 illustrated in Figure 4 page 18 (A).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and thus also a fuzzy negation).
The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
The ∧ and ∨ operators are the min-max operators (Definition 1.15 page 7).
Because (∧, ∨) = (min, max), 𝙇 is a lattice (Proposition 1.16 page 7).
Because 𝙇 is a lattice, 𝙇 is idempotent (Theorem A.14 page 25). Conversely, idempotence and (min, max)
are in agreement with Theorem 1.26 (page 13).
6. 𝙇 does not have the excluded middle property because 𝕞𝐴 ∨ ¬𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞1 ≠ 1.
7. 𝙇 does not have the non-contradiction property because 𝕞𝐴 ∧ ¬𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞0 ≠ 0.
8. 𝙇 together with any of the six implication functions listed in Example C.4 (page 46) is a fuzzy
subset logic (Definition 1.11 page 6).
Example 1.36 Consider the structure 𝙇 illustrated in Figure 4 page 18 (B).
1. The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and thus also a fuzzy negation).
2. The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

1

Daniel J. Greenhoe

FUZZY SUBSET OPERATORS

1
1
2

𝕞1 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞0 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
1
2

1
𝕞𝐽 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐻 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
1
2

1
2

𝕞𝐾 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐺 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
𝕞𝑃 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐶 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
1
2

1
2

1
𝕞𝑄 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑅 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
1
2

page 19

1
2

𝑥

1
2

𝕞𝑅 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑄 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝕞𝐺 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐾 (𝑥)

1

1
2

1
1
2

1
2

𝕞𝐶 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑃 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝕞𝐻 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐽 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝕞0 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞1 (𝑥)
𝑥

min-max operators (see Example 1.37 page 19)
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
exluded middle and non-contradiction do not hold
distributive and idempotent
non-ortho fuzzy subset logic

Figure 5: fuzzy logic on lattice with 𝙇32 sublattice

3. The ∧ and ∨ operators are the Łukasiewicz operators (Definition 1.18 page 9). Under these operators,
𝙇 has the non-contradiction and excluded middle properties, but 𝙇 is not idempotent, and so
𝙇 is not a lattice (Theorem 1.28 page 14).
Example 1.37 Consider the structure 𝙇 illustrated in Figure 5 (page 19).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and thus also a fuzzy negation).
The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
The ∧ and ∨ operators are the min-max operators (Definition 1.15 page 7).
Because (∧, ∨) = (min, max), 𝙇 is a lattice (Proposition 1.16 page 7).
Because 𝙇 is a lattice, 𝙇 is idempotent (Theorem A.14 page 25). Conversely, idempotence and (min, max)
are in agreement with Theorem 1.26 (page 13).
6. 𝙇 does not have the excluded middle property because for example
𝕞𝐴 ∨ ¬𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞𝐴 ∨ 𝕞𝑅 = 𝕞𝐾 ≠ 1.
7. 𝙇 does not have the non-contradiction property because for example
𝕞𝐴 ∧ ¬𝕞𝐴 = 𝕞𝐴 ∧ 𝕞𝑅 = 𝕞𝐺 ≠ 0.
Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 20

Daniel J. Greenhoe

8. 𝙇 does not contain M 3 or N 5 and so is distibutive (Theorem A.30 page 27). (also cross reference
Theorem 1.25 page 12 and Theorem 1.28 page 14).
9. 𝙇 is non-Boolean, but has an 𝙇32 Boolean sublattice ( shaded in Figure 5).

2

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

The Introduction described the problem of constructing Boolean fuzzy subet logics and more generally
ortho fuzzy subet logics. It also briefly described a “solution”. This section presents this solution in more
detail.
Simply put, a solution is available if we are willing to give up the pointwise evaluation condition (Definition 1.12 page 7). In particular, we can proceed as follows:
(1) We give up the pointwise evaluation condition.
(2) We define the ordering relation (Definition A.1 page 22) ≤ in the fuzzy subset logic
𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) to be the pointwise ordering relation (Definition A.7 page 23).
(3) In a lattice (Definition A.11 page 24), the definitions of the ordering relation ≤ and operators (∧, ∨) are
not independent—the ordering relation defines the operators (Definition A.9 page 24, Definition A.8 page 24)
and the operators define the ordering relation (Proposition A.10 page 24).
(4) Traditionally in fuzzy logic literature, we first define a pointwise evaluated (Definition 1.12 page 7) pair
of operators (∧, ∨), and then define the ordering relation ≤ in terms of (∧, ∨). For example, if
(∧, ∨) = (min, max), then
𝑥≤𝑦
𝑥≤𝑦

def

⟺
def

⟺

max(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑦
min(𝑥, 𝑦) = 𝑥

(5) However, here we take a kind of converse approach: We first define a pointwise ordering relation
≤ (Definition A.7 page 23), and then define the operators (∧, ∨) in terms of ≤. In doing so, (∧, ∨) may
possibly no longer satisfy the pointwise evaluation condition.
(6) By carefully constructing a set of membership functions (Definition 1.7 page 6) 𝕄, we can construct fuzzy
subset logics (Definition 1.11 page 6) on Boolean and other types of lattice structures.
(7) A fuzzy subset logic then inherits the properties of the lattice it is constructed on. So, for example, if a fuzzy subset logic is constructed on a Boolean lattice, then that fuzzy subset logic is
also Boolean with all the properties of a Boolean algebra (Theorem A.42 page 30) including the noncontradiction, excluded middle, idempotent, and distributive properties.
(8) Despite Theorem 1.26 page 13 and Theorem 1.28, this is all possible because (∧, ∨) is no longer
pointwise evaluated (Definition 1.12 page 7). The result of, say, [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) at the point 𝑥 is no longer
necessarily the result of the two values 𝕞(𝑥) and 𝕟(𝑥) alone, but instead [𝕞 ∨ 𝕟](𝑥) at the point 𝑥
may be the result of entire membership functions in the structure or even the position of 𝕞 and
𝕟 in the structure.
(9) Examples follow.
Example 2.1 Consider the structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) with 𝑀 ≜ {𝕞0 , 𝕞𝐴 , 𝕞𝐵 , 𝕞1 } illustrated
in Figure 6 page 21 (A).
version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

2

page 21

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BOOLEAN AND ORTHO FUZZY SUBSET LOGICS

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 1
1
0
1
2

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 1
1
0
1
2

1
1
2

1
1
2

𝑥
1

𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
2

1

𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
2

𝑥
1

𝕞𝑃 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
2

1

𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑄 (𝑥)
𝑥

1
2

𝕞𝑄 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥
𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑃 (𝑥)
𝑥

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 0
0
1
1

1 𝕞 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞 (𝑥) = 0
0
1
1

2

2

𝑥

(A) pointwise ≤ induced operators on 𝙈2
see Example 2.1 (page 20)
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
Boolean fuzzy subset logic

𝑥

(B) pointwise ≤ induced operators on 𝙊6
see Example 2.2 (page 21)
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
ortho fuzzy subset logic

Figure 6: fuzzy logic on 𝙈2 lattice

1.
2.
3.
4.

The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and thus also a fuzzy negation).
The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
𝙇 is very similar to the structure in Example 1.34 (page 18), which fails to even be a logic.
However the structure of this example has a valid ordering relation ≤ (pointwise ordering relation), has valid operators (∧, ∨) defined in terms of ≤ (Definition A.9 page 24, Definition A.8 page 24),
and is a Boolean lattice with all the accompanying Boolean properties including the noncontradiction, excluded middle, idempotency, and distributivity.
5. In this example, the operators are no longer Łukasiewicz operators (as in Example 1.34), but
some other operators (not explicitly given in terms of a function of the form given in Theorem 1.26 (page 13)).
6. This Boolean lattice together with the classical implication (Example C.4 page 46) is an ortho logic
(and thus also a fuzzy subset logic—Definition 1.11 page 6).
Example 2.2 Consider the structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) with
𝑀 ≜ {𝕞0 , 𝕞𝐴 , 𝕞𝐵 , 𝕞𝑃 , 𝕞𝑄 , 𝕞1 } illustrated in Figure 6 page 21 (B).
1.
2.
3.
4.

The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and thus also a fuzzy negation).
The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
𝙇 is very similar to the structure in Example 1.36 (page 18), which fails to be a logic.
However the structure of this example has a valid ordering relation ≤, has valid operators
(∧, ∨) defined in terms of ≤, and is an orthocomplemented lattice (Definition A.44 page 31) with all the
accompanying properties of an orthocomplemented lattice including the non-contradiction,
excluded middle and idempotency properties (Theorem A.14 page 25, Definition A.44 page 31, Theorem A.47
page 32).
5. In this example, the operators are no longer Łukasiewicz operators (as in Example 1.36, but
some other operators.
6. This orthocomplemented lattice together with any one of the implications given in Example C.4 (page 46) is an ortho logic (and thus also a fuzzy subset logic—Definition 1.11 page 6).
Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 22

Daniel J. Greenhoe

1
1
2

1
1
2

1
1
2

𝕞1 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞0 (𝑥)

1

𝕞𝑃 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐶 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝑥

𝑥

𝑥

1

1
2

1

𝕞𝐵 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑄 (𝑥)

1
2

1
2

𝕞𝑅 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐴 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝕞𝐶 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑃 (𝑥)
𝑥

𝕞0 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞1 (𝑥)

1
2

pointwise ≤ induced operators on
¬𝕞(𝑥) is standard negation (𝜆 = 0)
Boolean fuzzy subset logic

1

𝕞𝑄 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝐵 (𝑥)

1
2

1

𝕞𝐴 (𝑥) = ¬𝕞𝑅 (𝑥)

𝑥

𝑥
𝙇32

(see Example 2.3 page 22)

Figure 7: fuzzy logic on Boolean lattice 𝙇32

Example 2.3 Consider the structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝕄, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) illustrated in Figure 7 (page 22).
1. The function ¬ is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35) (and thus also a fuzzy negation).
2. The negation ¬𝕞 of each membership function 𝕞 is the standard negation (Definition 1.19 page 9).
3. 𝙇 is somewhat similar to the fuzzy subset logic of Example 1.37 (page 19), which fails to be
Boolean.
4. However the structure of this example has a valid ordering relation ≤, has valid operators (∧, ∨)
defined in terms of ≤, and is a Boolean lattice with the accompanying Boolean properties including the non-contradiction, excluded middle, idempotent, and distributivity properties (Theorem A.42 page 30).
5. In this example, the operators are no longer min-max operators (as in Example 1.37), but some
other operators.
6. This Boolean lattice together with the classical implication (Example C.4 page 46) is an ortho logic
(and thus also a fuzzy logic).

Appendix A
A.1

Background: Order

Ordered sets

Definition A.1 31 Let 𝟚𝑋𝑋 be the set of all relations on a set 𝑋 .
A relation ≤ is an order relation in 𝟚𝑋𝑋 if
31

📃

📘 [MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)] page 470, 📘 [Beran(1985)] page 1, 📃 [Korselt(1894)] page 156 ⟨I, II, (1)⟩,
[Dedekind(1900)] page 373 ⟨I–III⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

A

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: ORDER

page 23

𝑥≤𝑥
∀𝑥∈𝑋
(reflexive)
and
preorder
𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 and 𝑦 ≤ 𝑧 ⟹ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑧
∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋
(transitive)
and
3. 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 and 𝑦 ≤ 𝑥 ⟹ 𝑥 = 𝑦
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
(anti-symmetric)
The pair (𝑋, ≤) is an ordered set if ≤ is an order relation on a set 𝑋 . If 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 or 𝑦 ≤ 𝑥, then elements 𝑥
and 𝑦 are said to be comparable, denoted 𝑥 ∼ 𝑦. Otherwise they are incomparable, denoted 𝑥||𝑦.
1.

2.

Definition A.2 32 Let (𝑋, ≤) be an ordered set. Let 𝟚𝑋𝑋 be the set of all relations on 𝑋 . The relations
≥, <, >∈ 𝟚𝑋𝑋 are defined as follows:
𝑥≥𝑦
𝑥<𝑦
𝑥>𝑦

def

⟺
def

⟺
def

⟺

𝑦≤𝑥

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 and 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

𝑥 ≥ 𝑦 and 𝑥 ≠ 𝑦

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

Definition A.3 33 An ordered set (𝑋, ≤) (Definition A.1 page 22) is linear, or is a linearly ordered set, if
𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 or 𝑦 ≤ 𝑥
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
(comparable).
A linearly ordered set is also called a totally ordered set, a fully ordered set, and a chain.
Definition A.4 34 𝑦 covers 𝑥, denoted 𝑥 ≺ 𝑦, in the ordered set (𝑋, ≤) if
1. 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
(𝑦 is greater than 𝑥)
⟹
(𝑧 = 𝑥 or 𝑧 = 𝑦) (there is no element between 𝑥 and 𝑦).
2. (𝑥 ≤ 𝑧 ≤ 𝑦)

and

An ordered set can be represented graphically by a Hasse diagram (next definition).
Definition A.5 Let (𝑋, ≤) be an ordered pair. A diagram is a Hasse diagram of (𝑋, ≤) if
1. Each element in 𝑋 is represented by a dot or small circle and
2. for each 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋, if 𝑥 ≺ 𝑦, then 𝑦 appears at a higher position than 𝑥 and a line connects 𝑥
and 𝑦.
Example A.6 Here are three ways of representing the ordered set (𝟚{𝑥,𝑦} , ⊆) ;
{𝑥, 𝑦}
{𝑦}

(1) Hasse diagram: {𝑥}
∅

(2) Sets of ordered pairs specifying order relations:
(∅, ∅) , ({𝑥}, {𝑥}) , ({𝑦}, {𝑦}) ,
({𝑥, 𝑦}, {𝑥, 𝑦}) ,
⊆=
{ (∅, {𝑥}) , (∅, {𝑦}) , (∅, {𝑥, 𝑦}) , ({𝑥}, {𝑥, 𝑦}) , ({𝑦}, {𝑥, 𝑦}) }
(3) Sets of ordered pairs specifying covering relations:
≺= { (∅, {𝑥}) , (∅, {𝑦}) , ({𝑥}, {𝑥, 𝑦}) , ({𝑦}, {𝑥, 𝑦}) }
Definition A.7 Let 𝑌 𝑋 be the set of all functions that map from a set 𝑋 to a set 𝑌 . Let (𝑌 , ⋜) be an
ordered set. The relation ≤ is a pointwise ordering relation on 𝑌 𝑋 with respect to ⋜ if for all 𝖿, 𝗀 ∈ 𝑌 𝑋
𝖿 ≤𝗀
⟹
{𝖿 (𝑥) ⋜ 𝗀(𝑥) ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋}
32

[Peirce(1880)] page 2
📘 [MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)] page 470, 📃 [Ore(1935)] page 410
34
📃 [Birkhoff(1933)] page 445
📃

33

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 24

Daniel J. Greenhoe

A.2

LATTICES

Definition A.8 Let (𝑋, ≤) be an ordered set and 𝟚𝑋 the power set of 𝑋 .
For any set 𝐴 ∈ 𝟚𝑋 , 𝑐 is an upper bound of 𝐴 in (𝑋, ≤) if
1. 𝑥 ∈ 𝐴
⟹ 𝑥≤𝑐 .
An element 𝑏 is the least upper bound, or ł.u.b., of 𝐴 in (𝑋, ≤) if
2. 𝑏 and 𝑐 are upper bounds of 𝐴
⟹ 𝑏≤𝑐 .
The least upper bound of the set 𝐴 is denoted ⋁ 𝐴. It is also called the supremum of 𝐴, which is
denoted sup 𝐴. The join 𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 of 𝑥 and 𝑦 is defined as 𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 ≜ ⋁ {𝑥, 𝑦}.
Definition A.9 Let (𝑋, ≤) be an ordered set and 𝟚𝑋 the power set of 𝑋 . For any set 𝐴 ∈ 𝟚𝑋 , 𝑝 is a
lower bound of 𝐴 in (𝑋, ≤) if
1. 𝑝 ≤ 𝑥 ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝐴.
An element 𝑎 is the greatest lower bound, or glb, of 𝐴 in (𝑋, ≤) if
2. 𝑎 and 𝑝 are lower bounds of 𝐴
⟹ 𝑝 ≤ 𝑎.
The greatest lower bound of the set 𝐴 is denoted ⋀ 𝐴. It is also called the infimum of 𝐴, which is
denoted inf 𝐴. The meet 𝑥 ∧ 𝑦 of 𝑥 and 𝑦 is defined as 𝑥 ∧ 𝑦 ≜ ⋀ {𝑥, 𝑦}.
Proposition A.10
𝑥 ≤ 𝑦

A.2

⟺

1.

{

2.

𝑥∧𝑦 = 𝑥
𝑥∨𝑦 = 𝑦

𝑎𝑛𝑑

}

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

Lattices

A.2.1 General lattices
Definition A.11 35 An algebraic structure 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) is a lattice if
1. (𝑋, ≤) is an ordered set
((𝑋, ≤) is a partially or totally ordered set)
2. 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋
⟹ ∃(𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∈ 𝑋 (every pair of elements in 𝑋 has a least upper bound in 𝑋)
3. 𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋
⟹ ∃(𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∈ 𝑋 (every pair of elements in 𝑋 has a greatest lower bound in 𝑋).
The lattice 𝙇 is linear if (𝑋, ≤) is a linearly ordered set (Definition A.3 page 23).

and
and

Example A.12 36 The ordered set ( 𝑋, ≤) illustrated by the Hasse diagram to the right is
not a lattice because, 𝑎 and 𝑏 have no lower bound in 𝑋 .
Example A.13 37 The ordered set illustrated by the Hasse diagram to the right is not a
lattice because, for example, while 𝑎 and 𝑏 have upper bounds 𝑐 , 𝑑 , and 1, still 𝑎 and 𝑏
have no least upper bound. The element 1 is not the least upper bound because 𝑐 ≤ 1
and 𝑑 ≤ 1. And neither 𝑐 nor 𝑑 is a least upper bound because 𝑐 ≰ 𝑑 and 𝑑 ≰ 𝑐 ; rather,
𝑐 and 𝑑 are incomparable (𝑎||𝑏). Note that if we remove either or both of the two lines
crossing the center, the ordered set becomes a lattice.

1
𝑎

𝑏
1

𝑐

𝑑

𝑎

𝑏
0

35

📘 [MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)] page 473, 📘 [Birkhoff(1948)] page 16, 📃 [Ore(1935)], 📃 [Birkhoff(1933)]
page 442, 📘 [Maeda and Maeda(1970)], page 1
36
📘 [Dominich(2008)] page 50 ⟨Fig. 3.5⟩
37
📘 [Birkhoff(1967)] pages 15–16, 📘 [Oxley(2006)] page 54, 📘 [Dominich(2008)] page 50 ⟨Figure 3.6⟩, 📃
[Farley(1997)] page 3, 📃 [Farley(1996)] page 5

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

A

Theorem A.14 38
𝑥∨𝑥
⎧
⎪
𝑥∨𝑦
⎨ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∨ 𝑧
⎪
⎩ 𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)

( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) is a LATTICE
= 𝑥
𝑥∧𝑥
= 𝑦∨𝑥
𝑥∧𝑦
= 𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∧ 𝑧
= 𝑥
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)

page 25

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: ORDER

=
=
=
=

⟺
𝑥
𝑦∧𝑥
𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧)
𝑥

∀𝑥∈𝑋

( IDEMPOTENT)

and

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

( COMMUTATIVE)

and

∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋

( ASSOCIATIVE)

and

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

( ABSORPTIVE).

⎫
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎭

Proposition A.15 (Monotony laws) 39 Let ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a LATTICE.
𝑎 ∧ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑏 ∧ 𝑦 and
𝑎 ≤ 𝑏 and
⟹
∀𝑎,𝑏,𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
}
}
{ 𝑎∨𝑥 ≤ 𝑏∨𝑦
{ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
Theorem A.16 (distributive inequalities) 40 ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) is a LATTICE ⟹
𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) ≥ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑧)
∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋 ( JOIN SUPER-DISTRIBUTIVE)
⎧
⎪
𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) ≤ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑧)
∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋 ( MEET SUB-DISTRIBUTIVE)
⎨
⎪
(𝑥
∧
𝑦)
∨
(𝑥
∧
𝑧)
∨
(𝑦
∧
𝑧)
≤
(𝑥
∨
𝑦)
∧
(𝑥
∨
𝑧)
∧
(𝑦
∨
𝑧)
∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋 ( MEDIAN INEQUALITY).
⎩

and
and

⎫
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎭

Theorem A.17 (Modular inequality) 41 Let ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a LATTICE.
𝑥≤𝑦
⟹
𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) ≤ 𝑦 ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑧)
Theorem A.14 (page 25) gives 4 necessary and sufficient pairs of properties for a structure ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤)
to be a lattice. However, these 4 pairs are actually overly sufficient (they are not independent), as
demonstrated next.
Theorem A.18 42
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) is a LATTICE
⟺
𝑥
∨
𝑦
=
𝑦
∨
𝑥
𝑥∧𝑦 = 𝑦∧𝑥
⎧
⎪
⎨ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∨ 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∧ 𝑧 = 𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧)
⎪
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) = 𝑥
⎩ 𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑥

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

( COMMUTATIVE)

and

∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋

( ASSOCIATIVE)

and

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

( ABSORPTIVE)

⎫
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎭

A.2.2 Bounded lattices
Definition A.19 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a lattice. Let ⋁ 𝑋 be the least upper bound of (𝑋, ≤) and let
⋀ 𝑋 be the greatest lower bound of (𝑋, ≤). 𝙇 is upper bounded if (⋁ 𝑋 ) ∈ 𝑋. 𝙇 is lower bounded
if (⋀ 𝑋 ) ∈ 𝑋. 𝙇 is bounded if 𝙇 is both upper and lower bounded. A bounded lattice is optionally
denoted ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤), where 0 ≜ ⋀ 𝑋 and 1 ≜ ⋁ 𝑋 .
Proposition A.20 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a LATTICE.
{𝙇 is FINITE}
⟹
{𝙇 is BOUNDED}
38

📘 [MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)] pages 473–475 ⟨LEMMA 1, THEOREM 4⟩, 📘 [Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] pages 4–7, 📘 [Birkhoff(1938)], pages 795–796, 📃 [Ore(1935)] page 409 ⟨(𝛼 )⟩, 📃 [Birkhoff(1933)]
page 442, 📃 [Dedekind(1900)] pages 371–372 ⟨(1)–(4)⟩
39
📘 [Givant and Halmos(2009)] page 39, 📃 [Doner and Tarski(1969)] pages 97–99
40
📘 [Davey and Priestley(2002)] page 85, 📘 [Grätzer(2003)] page 38, 📃 [Birkhoff(1933)] page 444, 📃 [Korselt(1894)] page 157, 📘 [Müller-Olm(1997)] page 13 ⟨terminology⟩
41
📘 [Birkhoff(1948)] page 19, 📘 [Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] page 11, 📃 [Dedekind(1900)] page 374
42
📘 [Padmanabhan and Rudeanu(2008)] pages 7–8, 📘 [Beran(1985)] page 5, 📃 [McKenzie(1970)] page 24

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 26

Daniel J. Greenhoe

A.2

LATTICES

bounded
(Definition A.19 page 25)

complemented
(Definition A.35 page 28)

modular

orthocomplemented

(Definition A.23 page 26)

(Definition A.44 page 31)

distributive

orthomodular

(Definition A.27 page 27)

(Definition A.52 page 33)

modular orthocomplemented
(Definition A.54 page 34)

boolean
(Definition A.41 page 30)

Figure 8: relationships between selected lattice types

Proposition A.21 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a LATTICE with ⋁ 𝑋 ≜ 1 and ⋀ 𝑋
⎧ 𝑥 ∨ 1 = 1 ∀𝑥∈𝑋 (upper bounded) and
⎪ 𝑥 ∧ 0 = 0 ∀𝑥∈𝑋 (lower bounded) and
{𝙇 is BOUNDED}
⟹
⎨ 𝑥 ∨ 0 = 𝑥 ∀𝑥∈𝑋 (join-identity)
and
⎪
⎩ 𝑥 ∧ 1 = 𝑥 ∀𝑥∈𝑋 (meet-identity)
A.2.3

≜ 0.
⎫
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎭

Modular lattices

Definition A.22
𝑥Ⓜ𝑦

def

⟺

43

Let ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a lattice. The modularity relation Ⓜ ∈ 𝟚𝑋𝑋 is defined as

2
{(𝑥, 𝑦) ∈ 𝑋 |𝑎 ≤ 𝑦

⟹

𝑦 ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑎) = (𝑦 ∧ 𝑥) ∨ 𝑎

∀𝑎 ∈ 𝑋 } .

Modular lattices are a generalization of distributive lattices in that all distributive lattices are modular,
but not all modular lattices are distributive (Example A.33 page 28, Example A.34 page 28).
Definition A.23

44

A lattice ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) is modular if

𝑥Ⓜ𝑦

∀𝑥, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑋 .

Definition A.24 (N5 lattice/pentagon) 45 The N5 lattice is the ordered set
({0, 𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑝, 1}, ≤) with cover relation
≺= {(0, 𝑎) , (𝑎, 𝑏) , (𝑏, 1) , (𝑝, 1) , (0, 𝑝)}.
The N5 lattice is also called the pentagon. The N5 lattice is illustrated by the Hasse
diagram to the right.

1
𝑏
𝑎

𝑝
0

43

📘 [Stern(1999)] page 11, 📘 [Maeda and Maeda(1970)], page 1 ⟨Definition (1.1)⟩, 📘 [Maeda(1966)]
page 248
44
📘 [Birkhoff(1967)] page 82, 📘 [Maeda and Maeda(1970)], page 3 ⟨Definition (1.7)⟩
45
📘 [Beran(1985)] pages 12–13, 📃 [Dedekind(1900)] pages 391–392 ⟨(44) and (45)⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

A

page 27

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: ORDER

Theorem A.25 46 Let 𝙇 be a LATTICE (Definition A.11 page 24).
𝙇 is MODULAR
⟺
𝙇 does NOT contain the N5 LATTICE
Examples of modular lattices are provided in Example A.33 (page 28) and Example A.34 (page 28).

A.2.4 Distributive lattices
Definition A.26 47 Let ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a lattice (Definition A.11 page 24).
The distributivity relation Ⓓ ∈ 𝟚𝑋𝑋𝑋 and the dual distributivity relation Ⓓ∗ ∈ 𝟚𝑋𝑋𝑋 are defined as
Ⓓ ≜ {(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) ∈ 𝑋 3 |𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑧) } (each (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) is disjunctive distributive).
Ⓓ∗ ≜ {(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) ∈ 𝑋 3 |𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑧) } (each (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) is conjunctive distributive).
A triple (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) is distributive if (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) ∈ Ⓓ and such a triple is alternatively denoted as (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) Ⓓ.
Definition A.27

48

A lattice ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) is distributive if

(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) ∈ Ⓓ

∀𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 ∈ 𝑋

Not all lattices are distributive. But if a lattice 𝙇 does happen to be distributive—that is all triples in 𝙇
satisfy the distributive property—then all triples in 𝙇 also satisfy the dual distributive property, as well
as another property called the median property. The converses also hold (next theorem).
Theorem A.28 49 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a LATTICE. The following statements are all equivalent:
(1). 𝙇 is DISTRIBUTIVE
(Definition A.27 page 27)
⟺ (2). 𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑧)
∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋 ( DISJUNCTIVE DISTRIBUTIVE)
⟺ (3). 𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑧)
∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋 ( CONJUNCTIVE DISTRIBUTIVE)
⟺ (4). (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑧) ∧ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑧) ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) ∀𝑥,𝑦,𝑧∈𝑋 ( MEDIAN PROPERTY)
Definition A.29 (M3 lattice/diamond) 50 The M3 lattice is the ordered set
({0, 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑟, 1}, ≤) with covering relation
≺= {(𝑝, 1) , (𝑞, 1) , (𝑟, 1) , (0, 𝑝) , (0, 𝑞) , (0, 𝑟)}.
The M3 lattice is also called the diamond, and is illustrated by the Hasse diagram
to the right.

1
𝑝

𝑞

𝑟

0

Theorem A.30 (Birkhoff distributivity criterion) 51 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a LATTICE.
r
r r
⎧
⎪ 𝙇 does not contain N5 as a sublattice r r
and
𝙇 is DISTRIBUTIVE
⟺
r
⎨
r
r
r
⎪
r
⎩ 𝙇 does not contain M3 as a sublattice
46

📘 [Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] page 11, 📘 [Grätzer(1971)] page 70, 📃 [Dedekind(1900)] ⟨cf Stern
1999 page 10⟩
47
📘 [Maeda and Maeda(1970)], page 15 ⟨Definition 4.1⟩, 📃 [Foulis(1962)] page 67, 📘 [von Neumann(1960)],
page 32 ⟨Definition 5.1⟩, 📃 [Davis(1955)] page 314 ⟨ disjunctive distributive and conjunctive distributive functions⟩
48
📘 [Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] page 10, 📘 [Birkhoff(1948)] page 133, 📃 [Ore(1935)] page 414
⟨arithmetic axiom⟩, 📃 [Birkhoff(1933)] page 453, 📘 [Balbes and Dwinger(1975)] page 48 ⟨Definition II.5.1⟩
49
📃 [Dilworth(1984)] page 237, 📘 [Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] page 10, 📃 [Ore(1935)] page 416 ⟨(7),(8),
Theorem 3⟩, 📃 [Ore(1940)] ⟨cf Gratzer 2003 page 159⟩, 📘 [Schröder(1890)] page 286 ⟨cf Birkhoff(1948)p.133⟩,
📃 [Korselt(1894)] ⟨cf Birkhoff(1948)p.133⟩
50
📘 [Beran(1985)] pages 12–13, 📘 [Korselt(1894)] page 157 ⟨ 𝑝1 ≡ 𝑥, 𝑝2 ≡ 𝑦, 𝑝3 ≡ 𝑧, 𝑔 ≡ 1, 0 ≡ 0 ⟩
51
📘 [Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] page 12, 📘 [Birkhoff(1948)] page 134, 📃 [Birkhoff and Hall(1934)]

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 28

Daniel J. Greenhoe

A.3

COMPLEMENTED LATTICES

Distributive lattices are a special case of modular lattices. That is, all distributive lattices are modular,
but not all modular lattices are distributive (next theorem). An example is the M3 lattice—it is modular,
but yet it is not distributive.
Theorem A.31 52 Let ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a lattice.
⟹
(𝑋, ∨, ∧; ≤) is DISTRIBUTIVE
⟸
/

( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) is MODULAR.

Proposition A.32 53 Let 𝑋𝑛 be a finite set with order 𝑛 = | 𝑋𝑛 | . Let 𝑙𝑛 be the number of unlabeled lattices
on 𝑋𝑛 , 𝑚𝑛 the number of unlabeled modular lattices on 𝑋𝑛 . and 𝑑𝑛 the number of unlabeled distributive
lattices on 𝑋𝑛 .
𝑛
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
𝑙𝑛
1 1 1 1 2 5 15 53 222 1078 5994 37622 262776 2018305 16873364
𝑚𝑛 1 1 1 1 2 4 8 16 34
72
157
343
766
1718
3899
𝑑𝑛 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 8 15
26
47
82
151
269
494
Example A.33 54 There are a total of 5 unlabeled lattices on a five element set. Of these, 3 are distributive (Proposition A.32 page 28, and thus also modular), one is modular but non-distributive, and one is
non-distributive (and non-modular).
distributive (and modular)
modular
non-distributive

Example A.34 55 There are a total of 15 unlabeled lattices on a six element set; and of these 15, five are
distributive (Proposition A.32 page 28). The following illustrates the 5 distributive lattices. Note that none of
these lattices are complemented (none are Boolean Definition A.41 page 30).
distributive lattices on 6 element sets

A.3

Complemented lattices

A.3.1 Definitions
Definition A.35 56 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice
𝑥′ ∈ 𝑋 is a complement of an element 𝑥 in 𝙇 if

(Definition A.19 page 25).

An element

52

📘 [Birkhoff(1948)] page 134, 📘 [Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] page 11
💻 [oei(2014)] ⟨http://oeis.org/A006966⟩, 💻 [oei(2014)] ⟨http://oeis.org/A006982⟩, 💻 [oei(2014)]
⟨http://oeis.org/A006981⟩,📃 [Heitzig and Reinhold(2002)] ⟨ 𝑙𝑛 ⟩, 📃 [Erné et al.(2002)Erné, Heitzig, and Reinhold] page 17 ⟨ 𝑑𝑛 ⟩, 📃 [Thakare et al.(2002)Thakare, Pawar, and Waphare]
54
📃 [Erné et al.(2002)Erné, Heitzig, and Reinhold] pages 4–5
55
📃 [Erné et al.(2002)Erné, Heitzig, and Reinhold] pages 4–5
56
📘 [Stern(1999)] page 9, 📘 [Birkhoff(1948)] page 23
53

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

A

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: ORDER

page 29

𝑥 ∧ 𝑥′ = 0 (non-contradiction) and
′
2. 𝑥 ∨ 𝑥
= 1 (excluded middle).
′
An element 𝑥 in 𝙇 is the unique complement of 𝑥 in 𝙇 if 𝑥′ is a complement of 𝑥 and 𝑦′ is a complement
of 𝑥 ⟹ 𝑥′ = 𝑦′ . 𝙇 is complemented if every element in 𝑋 has a complement in 𝑋 . 𝙇 is uniquely
complemented if every element in 𝑋 has a unique complement in 𝑋 . A complemented lattice that is
not uniquely complemented is multiply complemented.
1.

Example A.36 Here are some examples:
non-complemented lattices

uniquely complemented lattices

multiply complemented lattices

Example A.37 Of the 53 unlabeled lattices on a 7 element set, 0 are uniquely complemented, 17 are
multiply complemented, and 36 are non-complemented.
Theorem A.38 (next) is a landmark theorem in mathematics.
Theorem A.38 57 For every lattice 𝙇, there exists a lattice 𝙐 such that
1. 𝙇 ⊆ 𝙐 (𝙇 is a sublattice of 𝙐 )
and
2. 𝙐 is UNIQUELY COMPLEMENTED.
Corollary A.39 58 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) be a lattice.
1. 𝙇 is DISTRIBUTIVE
and
⟹
⟸
/
{ 2. 𝙇 is COMPLEMENTED
}

{𝙇 is UNIQUELY COMPLEMENTED}

Theorem A.40 (Huntington properties) 59 Let 𝙇 be a lattice.
or ⎫
⎧ 𝙇 is MODULAR
⎪ 𝙇 is ATOMIC
𝙇
is
or ⎪
⎧
⎫
𝙇 is
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ UNIQUELY
⎬ and ⎨ 𝙇 is ORTHOCOMPLEMENTED or ⎬ ⟹ { DISTRIBUTIVE }
⎪
⎪ 𝙇 has FINITE WIDTH
or ⎪
⎩ COMPLEMENTED ⎪
⎭
⎪
⎪ 𝙇 is DE MORGAN
⎩
⎭
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
HUNTINGTON PROPERTIES
57

[Dilworth(1945)] page 123, 📘 [Saliǐ(1988)] page 51, 📘 [Grätzer(2003)] page 378 ⟨Corollary 3.8⟩
📘 [MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)] page 488, 📘 [Saliǐ(1988)] page 30 ⟨Theorem 10⟩
59
📘 [Roman(2008)] page 103, 📘 [Adams(1990)] page 79, 📘 [Saliǐ(1988)] page 40, 📃 [Dilworth(1945)]
page 123, 📘 [Grätzer(2007)], page 698
📃

58

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 30

Daniel J. Greenhoe

A.3

COMPLEMENTED LATTICES

A.3.2 Boolean lattices
Definition A.41 60 A lattice (Definition A.11 page 24) 𝙇 is Boolean if
1. 𝙇 is bounded
(Definition A.19 page 25) and
2. 𝙇 is distributive
(Definition A.27 page 27) and
3. 𝙇 is complemented (Definition A.35 page 28) .
In this case, 𝙇 is a Boolean algebra or a Boolean lattice. In this paper, a Boolean lattice is denoted
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤), and a Boolean lattice with 2𝘕 elements is sometimes denoted 𝙇𝘕2 .
Theorem A.42 (classic 10 Boolean properties) 61 Let 𝘼 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be an algebraic structure.
In the event that 𝑨 is a BOUNDED LATTICE (Definition A.19 page 25), let 𝑥′ represent a COMPLEMENT (Definition A.35
page 28) of an element 𝑥 in 𝘼.
𝘼 is a Boolean algebra
⟺
∀𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧 ∈ 𝑋
𝑥∨𝑥
= 𝑥
𝑥∧𝑥
= 𝑥
( IDEMPOTENT)
and
𝑥∨𝑦
= 𝑦∨𝑥
𝑥∧𝑦
= 𝑦∧𝑥
( COMMUTATIVE)
and
𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∨ 𝑧
𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∧ 𝑧
( ASSOCIATIVE)
and
𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑥
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) = 𝑥
( ABSORPTIVE)
and
𝑥∨1
= 1
𝑥∧0
= 0
( BOUNDED)
and
𝑥∨0
= 𝑥
𝑥∧1
= 𝑥
( IDENTITY)
and
𝑥 ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑧) 𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ 𝑧) = (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑧) ( DISTRIBUTIVE)
and
𝑥 ∨ 𝑥′
= 1
𝑥 ∧ 𝑥′
= 0
( COMPLEMENTED) and
(𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)′
= 𝑥′ ∧ 𝑦 ′
(𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)′
= 𝑥′ ∨ 𝑦′
( DE MORGAN)
and
′ ′
( INVOLUTORY)
(𝑥 ) = 𝑥
disjunctive properties

conjunctive properties

Lemma A.43
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤)
⟹
{
is a BOOLEAN ALGEBRA }

1.
2.

𝑥′ ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑥′ ∨ 𝑦
𝑥 ∨ (𝑥′ ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

property name

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

( SASAKI HOOK)

and

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

✎PROOF:
′
𝑥′ ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑥
∨ (𝑥′ ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟

by absorption property (Theorem A.42 page 30)

𝑥′
′

= 𝑥 ∨ [(𝑥′ ∨ 𝑥) ∧ 𝑦]
= 𝑥′ ∨ [1 ∧ 𝑦]
= 𝑥′ ∨ 𝑦
𝑥 ∨ (𝑥′ ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑥
∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟

by associative and distributive properties (Theorem A.42 page 30)
by excluded middle property (Theorem A.42 page 30)
by definition of 1 (Definition A.8 page 24)
by absorption property (Theorem A.42 page 30)

𝑥

= 𝑥 ∨ [(𝑥 ∨ 𝑥′ ) ∧ 𝑦]
= 𝑥 ∨ [1 ∧ 𝑦]

by associative and distributive properties (Theorem A.42 page 30)
by excluded middle property (Theorem A.42 page 30)

=𝑥∨𝑦

by definition of 1 (Definition A.8 page 24)

✏
60

📘 [MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)] page 488, 📘 [Jevons(1864)]
[Huntington(1904)] pages 292–293 ⟨“1st set”⟩, 📃 [Huntington(1933)] page 280 ⟨“4th set”⟩, 📘 [MacLane
and Birkhoff(1999)] page 488, 📘 [Givant and Halmos(2009)] page 10, 📘 [Müller(1909)], pages 20–21, 📘
[Schröder(1890)], 📘 [Whitehead(1898)] pages 35–37
61

📃

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

A

page 31

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: ORDER

A.3.3 Orthocomplemented Lattices
Definition A.44 62 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25). An element
𝑥⟂ ∈ 𝑋 is an orthocomplement of an element 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 if
⟂⟂
1. 𝑥
= 𝑥
∀𝑥∈𝑋
(involutory)
and
⟂
2. 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥
= 0
∀𝑥∈𝑋
(non-contradiction) and
3. 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
⟹ 𝑦⟂ ≤ 𝑥⟂ ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (antitone).
The lattice 𝙇 is orthocomplemented (𝙇 is an orthocomplemented lattice) if every element 𝑥 in 𝑋 has
an orthocomplement.
Definition A.45 63 The O 6 lattice is the ordered set ({0, 𝑝, 𝑞, 𝑝⟂ , 𝑞 ⟂ , 1}, ≤) with cover
relation
≺= {(0, 𝑝) , (0, 𝑞) , (𝑝, 𝑞 ⟂ ) , (𝑞, 𝑝⟂ ) , (𝑝⟂ , 1) , (𝑞 ⟂ , 1)} .
The 𝑂6 lattice is illustrated by the Hasse diagram to the right.

1
𝑞⟂
𝑝

𝑝⟂
𝑞
0

Example A.46 64 There are a total of 10 orthocomplemented lattices with 8 elements or less. These
along with some other orthocomplemented lattices are illustrated next:65
Lattices that are orthocomplemented but non-orthomodular and hence also
non-modular-orthocomplemented and non-Boolean:
1
1
1
⟂
⟂
𝑦
𝑥
𝑥⟂
𝑦⟂
𝑧⟂
𝑥⟂
⟂
⟂
𝑝
𝑦
𝑝
𝑥
𝑝
𝑦 𝑝⟂
𝑦
𝑥
𝑥
𝑦
𝑥
0
1
0
1. 𝑂6 lattice
2. 𝑂8 lattice
3.
𝑧⟂
𝑝
𝑥

1
⟂

𝑦

𝑦
0

𝑥⟂
𝑝⟂
𝑧

1
⟂

⟂

𝑧

𝑦

𝑥

𝑤

𝑥

𝑦

⟂

𝑤

⟂

𝑧

6.

1

𝑞 𝑝
𝑥

0

5.

𝑦⟂

1
𝑦⟂ 𝑥⟂
𝑦

𝑧

0
4.

𝑥⟂
𝑝⟂ 𝑞 ⟂

0

𝑦

7.

Lattices that are orthocomplemented and orthomodular but non-modular-orthocomplemented
and hence also non-Boolean:
62

📘 [Stern(1999)] page 11, 📘 [Beran(1985)] page 28, 📘 [Kalmbach(1983)] page 16, 📘 [Gudder(1988)]
page 76, 📘 [Loomis(1955)] page 3, 📃 [Birkhoff and Neumann(1936)] page 830 ⟨L71–L73⟩
63
📘 [Kalmbach(1983)] page 22, 📓 [Holland(1970)], page 50, 📘 [Beran(1985)] page 33, 📘 [Stern(1999)]
page 12. The O 6 lattice is also called the hexagon or Benzene ring.
64
📘 [Beran(1985)] pages 33–42, 📃 [Maeda(1966)] page 250, 📘 [Kalmbach(1983)] page 24 ⟨Figure 3.2⟩, 📘
[Stern(1999)] page 12, 📓 [Holland(1970)], page 50
65
As can be seen in this example, the number of orthocomplemented lattices with ⦅1, 2, 3, …⦆ elements is
⦅1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 5, 0, …⦆. It is interesting to note that at least the first 9 terms (and possibly more?) of this sequence are the same as the “expansion of 1+2𝑥 💻 [oei(2014)] ⟨http://oeis.org/A097331⟩ and the “Catalan
1+√1−4𝑥2

numbers …interpolated with 0's” 💻 [oei(2014)] ⟨http://oeis.org/A126120⟩

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 32

Daniel J. Greenhoe

A.3

COMPLEMENTED LATTICES

1
1
⟂

𝑦

𝑧⟂
𝑥

𝑝

𝑑⟂

𝑐⟂

𝑎

𝑏

𝑥⟂
⟂
𝑦 𝑧 𝑝

𝑧⟂

𝑦⟂

𝑥⟂

𝑥

𝑦

𝑧

0

𝑏⟂

𝑎⟂

𝑐

𝑑

0

8.

9.

Lattices that are orthocomplemented, orthomodular, and modular-orthocomplemented but
non-Boolean:
1
1
𝑦

𝑥

𝑤

𝑧

𝑦

𝑥

𝑧

⟂

𝑦⟂ 𝑥⟂

𝑧
0
0
10. 𝑀4 lattice
11. 𝑀6 lattice
Lattices that are orthocomplemented, orthomodular, modular-orthocomplemented and
Boolean:
1
𝑝⟂
𝑟⟂ 𝑞 ⟂
1
𝑝
1
𝑝
𝑞 𝑟
𝑝⟂
0 1
0
0
0
3
2
12. 𝐿1 lattice
13. 𝐿2 lattice
14. 𝐿2 lattice
15. 𝐿2 lattice
1
𝑠⟂

𝑡⟂

𝑟⟂

𝑞⟂

𝑝⟂

1
𝑠
𝑎

𝑝⟂

⟂

𝑟⟂

𝑏

𝑑
𝑑⟂

𝑏⟂

𝑟

𝑠

𝑝

𝑞

𝑞

⟂

𝑗⟂
𝑎

𝑔⟂ 𝑓 ⟂

𝑖 ⟂ ℎ⟂
𝑏

𝑐

𝑑

𝑒⟂ 𝑑 ⟂

𝑒

𝑓

𝑟

𝑠

𝑔

𝑐⟂

𝑏⟂

𝑎⟂

ℎ

𝑖

𝑗

⟂

𝑎

𝑝

0

𝑞

𝑡

0
16.

𝐿42

lattice

17.

𝐿52 lattice

Theorem A.47 66 Let 𝑥⟂ be the ORTHOCOMPLEMENT of an element 𝑥 in a BOUNDED LATTICE
𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
0⟂ = 1
( BOUNDARY CONDITION)
⎧ (1).
⟂
⎪ (2).
1 = 0
( BOUNDARY CONDITION)
𝙇 is
⎪
⟹ ⎨ (3). (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)⟂ = 𝑥⟂ ∧ 𝑦⟂ ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( DISJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN)
{ ORTHOCOMPLEMENTED }
⎪ (4). (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)⟂ = 𝑥⟂ ∨ 𝑦⟂ ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( CONJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN)
⎪
𝑥 ∨ 𝑥⟂ = 1
∀𝑥∈𝑋
( EXCLUDED MIDDLE).
⎩ (5).
✎PROOF:

and
and
and
and

⎫
⎪
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎪
⎭

Let 𝑥⟂ ≜ ¬𝑥, where ¬ is an ortho negation function (Definition B.3 page 35). Then this theorem follows

66

📘 [Beran(1985)] pages 30–31, 📃 [Birkhoff and Neumann(1936)] page 830 ⟨L74⟩, 📘 [Cohen(1989)] page 37
⟨3B.13. Theorem⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

A

BACKGROUND: ORDER

page 33

Daniel J. Greenhoe

✏

directly from Theorem B.15 (page 37).

Corollary A.48 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a LATTICE (Definition A.11 page 24).
𝙇 is orthocomplemented
𝙇 is complemented
⟹
{ (Definition A.44 page 31)
}
{ (Definition A.35 page 28) }
✎PROOF:

This follows directly from the definition of orthocomplemented lattices (Definition A.44 page 31) and complemented lattices (Definition A.35 page 28).
✏
1
𝑎

𝑏

𝑝

𝑞
0

Example A.49 The 𝑂6 lattice (Definition A.45 page 31) illustrated to the left
is both orthocomplemented (Definition A.44 page 31) and multiply complemented (Definition A.35 page 28). The lattice illustrated to the right is multiply complemented, but is non-orthocomplemented.

1
𝑎
𝑝

𝑞
0

✎PROOF:

𝑟

(1) Proof that 𝑂6 lattice is multiply complemented: 𝑏 and 𝑞 are both complements of 𝑝.
(2) Proof that the right side lattice is multiply complemented: 𝑎, 𝑝, and 𝑞 are all complements of 𝑟.

✏
Proposition A.50 67 Let 𝙇 = ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a BOUNDED LATTICE (Definition A.19 page 25).
𝙇 is Boolean
1. 𝙇 is orthocomplemented (Definition A.44 page 31) and
⟹
}
{ (Definition A.41 page 30) }
{ 2. 𝙇 is distributive
(Definition A.27 page 27)
Example A.51 The 𝑂6 lattice (Definition A.45 page 31) illustrated to the left
is orthocomplemented (Definition A.44 page 31) but non-join-distributive
(Definition A.27 page 27),and hence non-Boolean. The lattice illustrated to
the right is orthocomplemented and distributive and hence also
Boolean (Proposition A.50 page 33).

A.3.4

Orthomodular lattices

Definition A.52 68 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25).
𝙇 is orthomodular if
1. 𝙇 is orthocomplemented
and
2. 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
⟹
𝑥 ∨ (𝑥⟂ ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (orthomodular identity)
Theorem A.53 69 Let 𝙇 = ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be an algebraic structure.
𝙇 is a
⎫
⎧ 𝙇 is an orthomodular lattice and
⎧
⎪
⎪ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑦 ⟂ ⟂ = 𝑦 ∨ 𝑥⟂ ∧ 𝑦 ⟂
⎪
∀𝑥,
𝑦
∈
𝑋
)
)
(
(
⟹
⎬
⎨ Boolean algebra
⎨ ⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ (Definition A.41 page 30)
⎩
⎭
ELKAN'S LAW

⎫
⎪
⎬
⎪
⎭

67

📘 [Kalmbach(1983)] page 22
📘 [Kalmbach(1983)] page 22, 📘 [Lidl and Pilz(1998)] page 90, 📃 [Husimi(1937)]
69
📃 [Renedo et al.(2003)Renedo, Trillas, and Alsina] page 72

68

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 34

Daniel J. Greenhoe

Definition A.54 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25).
𝙇 is a modular orthocomplemeted lattice if
1. 𝙇 is orthocomplemented (Definition A.44 page 31) and
2. 𝙇 is modular
(Definition A.23 page 26)
Theorem A.55 70 Let 𝙇 be a lattice.
{𝙇 is BOOLEAN} ⟹ {𝙇 is MODULAR ORTHOCOMPLEMENTED
⟹ {𝙇 is ORTHOMODULAR
⟹ {𝙇 is ORTHOCOMPLEMENTED

Appendix B

(Definition A.54 page 34)}
(Definition A.52 page 33)}
(Definition A.44 page 31)}

Background: Negation
subminimal negation
(Definition B.1 page 34)
(Example B.23 page 39)

minimal negation
(Definition B.2 page 35)
(Example B.24 page 40)

de Morgan negation

fuzzy negation

(Definition B.3 page 35)
(Example B.29 page 43)

(Definition B.2 page 35)
(Example B.27 page 42)

Kleene negation

intuitionalistic negation

(Definition B.3 page 35)
(Example B.25 page 41)

(Definition B.2 page 35)
(Example B.16 page 38)

ortho negation
(Definition B.3 page 35)
(Example B.28 page 42)

orthomodular negation
(Definition B.3 page 35)

Figure 9: lattice of negations

B.1

Definitions

Definition B.1 71 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25).
A function ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 is a subminimal negation on 𝙇 if 72
𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ⟹ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (antitone).
70
71

📘 [Kalmbach(1983)] page 32 ⟨20.⟩, 📓 [Iturrioz(1985)], page 57
📘 [Dunn(1996)] pages 4–6, 📘 [Dunn(1999)] pages 24–26 ⟨2 THE KITE OF NEGATIONS⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

B

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: NEGATION

page 35

Definition B.2 73 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25).
A function ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 is a negation, or minimal negation, on 𝙇 if
1. 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
⟹ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (antitone)
and
2. 𝑥
≤ ¬¬𝑥
∀𝑥∈𝑋
(weak double negation).
A minimal negation ¬ is an intuitionistic negation on 𝙇 if
3. 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥
= 0
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (non-contradiction).
A minimal negation ¬ is a fuzzy negation on 𝙇 if
4. ¬1
= 0
(boundary condition).
Definition B.3 74 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25).
A minimal negation ¬ is a de Morgan negation on 𝙇 if
5. 𝑥
= ¬¬𝑥
∀𝑥∈𝑋
(involutory).
A de Morgan negation ¬ is a Kleene negation on 𝙇 if
6. 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥
≤ 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (Kleene condition).
A de Morgan negation ¬ is an ortho negation on 𝙇 if
7. 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥
= 0
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (non-contradiction).
A de Morgan negation ¬ is an orthomodular negation on 𝙇 if
8. 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥
= 0
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (non-contradiction)
and
⟂
9. 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
⟹ 𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = 𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (orthomodular).
Remark B.4 75 The Kleene condition is a weakened form of the non-contradiction and excluded middle
properties in the sense
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 0 ≤ 1⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦 .
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
non-contradiction

excluded middle

Definition B.5 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25) with a function
¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 . If ¬ is a negation (Definition B.2 page 35), then 𝙇 is a lattice with negation.

B.2

Properties of negations

Lemma B.6 76 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) (Definition A.11 page 24).
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹
¬𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬(𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( CONJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN INEQUALITY) and
⟹
}
{
¬𝑦
≤
¬𝑥
¬(𝑥
∨ 𝑦) ≤ ¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( DISJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN INEQUALITY)
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
ANTITONE
72

In the context of natural language, D. Devidi has argued that, subminimal negation (Definition B.1 page 34) is
“difficult to take seriously as” a negation. For further details see 📓 [Devidi(2010)], page 511, 📓 [Devidi(2006)],
page 568
73
📘 [Dunn(1996)] pages 4–6, 📘 [Dunn(1999)] pages 24–26 ⟨2 THE KITE OF NEGATIONS⟩, 📘 [TROELSTRA AND VAN DALEN(1988)] PAGE 4 ⟨1.6 INTUITIONISM. (B)⟩, 📃 [DE VRIES(2007)] PAGE 11 ⟨DEFINITION 16⟩,
📘 [GOTTWALD(1999)] PAGE 21 ⟨DEFINITION 3.3⟩, 📘 [NOVáK ET AL.(1999)NOVáK, PERFILIEVA, AND MOčKOř]
PAGE 50 ⟨DEFINITION 2.26⟩, 📘 [NGUYEN AND WALKER(2006)] PAGES 98–99 ⟨5.4 NEGATIONS⟩, 📃 [BELLMAN AND
GIERTZ(1973)] PAGES 155–156 ⟨(N1) ¬0 = 1 AND ¬1 = 0, (N3) ¬¬𝑥 = 𝑥 ⟩
74
📘 [Dunn(1999)] pages 24–26 ⟨2 THE KITE OF NEGATIONS⟩, 📘 [JENEI(2003)] PAGE 283, 📘 [KALMBACH(1983)]
PAGE 22, 📘 [LIDL AND PILZ(1998)] PAGE 90, 📃 [HUSIMI(1937)]
75
📘 [Cattaneo and Ciucci(2009)] page 78
76
📘 [Beran(1985)] page 31 ⟨Theorem 1.2 Proof⟩, 📃 [Fáy(1967)] page 268 ⟨Lemma 1 Proof⟩, 📃 [de Vries(2007)]
page 12 ⟨Theorem 18⟩

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 36

Daniel J. Greenhoe

B.2

PROPERTIES OF NEGATIONS

Lemma B.7 77 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧ ; ≤) (Definition A.11 page 24).
If 𝑥 = (¬¬𝑥) for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ( INVOLUTORY), then
¬(𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) = ¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( DISJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN) and
𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ⟹ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥} ⟺
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
{
¬(𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = ¬𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( CONJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN)
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
ANTITONE

DE MORGAN

Lemma B.8 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
1. 𝑥 ≤ ¬¬𝑥 ∀𝑥∈𝑋 ( WEAK DOUBLE NEGATION) and
⟹ { ¬0 = 1 ( BOUNDARY CONDITION) }
{ 2. ¬1 = 0
}
( BOUNDARY CONDITION)
✎PROOF:
¬0 = ¬¬1

by boundary condition hypothesis (2)

≥1
⟹ ¬0 = 1

by weak double negation hypothesis (1)
by upper bound property (Definition A.19 page 25)

✏
Lemma B.9 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
( BOUNDARY CONDITION)
{ 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 0 ∀𝑥∈𝑋 ( NON-CONTRADICTION) } ⟹ { ¬1 = 0

}

✎PROOF:
0 = 1 ∧ ¬1
= ¬1

by non-contradiction hypothesis
by definition of g.u.b. 1 and ∧

✏
Lemma B.10 78 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
(A). ¬ is BIJECTIVE
and
(1). ¬0 = 1 and
⟹
{ (B). 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ⟹ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( ANTITONE) }
{
}
(2). ¬1 = 0
⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟⏟
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Theorem B.11 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
¬ is a
⟹ { ¬0 = 1 ( BOUNDARY CONDITION) }
{ FUZZY NEGATION }
✎PROOF:

✏

This follows directly from Definition B.2 (page 35) and Lemma B.8 (page 36).

Theorem B.12 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
(a) ¬1 = 0 ( BOUNDARY CONDITION) and ⎫
⎧
¬ is an
⎪
⎪
⟹ ⎨ (b) ¬0 = 1 ( BOUNDARY CONDITION) and ⎬
{ INTUITIONISTIC NEGATION }
⎪
⎪
⎩ (c) ¬ is a FUZZY NEGATION
⎭
77

📘 [Beran(1985)] pages 30–31 ⟨Theorem 1.2⟩,
Romberger(1971)] ⟨cf Beran 1985⟩
78
📘 [Varadarajan(1985)] page 42

version 0.96

📃

[Fáy(1967)] page 268 ⟨Lemma 1⟩,

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

📃

[Nakano and

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

B

page 37

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: NEGATION

✎PROOF:
¬ is an intuitionistic negation ⟹ 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 0

by Definition B.2 page 35

⟹ ¬1 = 0
⟹ ¬ is a fuzzy negation

by Lemma B.9 page 36
by Definition B.2 page 35

⟹ ¬0 = 1

by Theorem B.11 page 36

✏
Theorem B.13 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
¬ is a
⎧
⎫
¬𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬(𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( CONJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN INEQUALITY) and
⎪
⎪
⎨ minimal ⎬ ⟹ { ¬(𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ≤ ¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( DISJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN INEQUALITY)
}
⎪
⎩ negation ⎪
⎭
✎PROOF:

✏

This follows directly from Definition B.5 (page 35) and Lemma B.6 (page 35).

Theorem B.14 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
¬ is a
¬(𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) = ¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( DISJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN) and
⟹
{ ¬(𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = ¬𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( CONJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN)
de Morgan negation }
✎PROOF:

✏

This follows directly from Definition B.5 (page 35) and Lemma B.7 (page 36).

Theorem B.15 Let ¬ ∈ 𝑋 𝑋 be a function on a BOUNDED LATTICE 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤).
1.
¬0 = 1
( BOUNDARY CONDITION)
and ⎫
⎧
⎪ 2.
⎪
¬1 = 0
( BOUNDARY CONDITION)
and
⎪
⎪
¬ is an ⎫
⎧
⎪ 3. ¬(𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) = ¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( DISJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN) and ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ortho
⎬ ⟹ ⎨ 4. ¬(𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) = ¬𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( CONJUNCTIVE DE MORGAN) and ⎬
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
negation
⎩
⎭
𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑥 = 1
∀𝑥∈𝑋
( EXCLUDED MIDDLE)
and ⎪
⎪ 5.
⎪
⎪
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ( KLEENE CONDITION).
⎩ 6.
⎭
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof for 0 = ¬1 boundary condition: by Lemma B.9 (page 36)
(2) Proof for boundary conditions:
1 = ¬¬1
= ¬0

by involutory property
by previous result

(3) Proof for de Morgan properties:
(a) By Definition B.5 (page 35), ortho negation is involutory and antitone.
(b) Therefore by Lemma B.7 (page 36), de Morgan properties hold.
(4) Proof for excluded middle property:
𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑥 = ¬¬(𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑥)
= ¬(𝑥¬ ∧ [¬¬𝑥])

by involutory property of ortho negation (Definition B.5 page 35)
by disjunctive de Morgan property

= ¬(¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑥)
= ¬(𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥)
= ¬0

by involutory property of ortho negation (Definition B.5 page 35)
by commutative property of lattices (Definition A.11 page 24)
by non-contradiction property of ortho negation (Definition B.5 page 35)

=1

by boundary condition (item (2) page 37) of minimal negation

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 38

Daniel J. Greenhoe

B.3 EXAMPLES

(5) Proof for Kleene condition:
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 0
≤1
= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦

by non-contradiction property (Definition B.5 page 35)
by definition of 0 and 1
by excluded middle property (item (4) page 37)

✏

B.3

Examples

Example B.16 (discrete negation) 79 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice
𝑋
page 25) with a function ¬ ∈ 𝑋 . The function ¬𝑥 defined as
1 for 𝑥 = 0
¬𝑥 ≜
{ 0 otherwise
is an intuitionistic negation (Definition B.2 page 35, and a fuzzy negation).

(Definition A.19

✎PROOF:
To be an intuitionistic negation, ¬𝑥 must be antitone, have weak double negation, and have the
non-contradiction property (Definition B.2 page 35).

¬¬𝑥
{ ¬¬𝑥
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥
{ 𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥

⎧
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎩
=
=
=
=

¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥
¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥
¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥
¬1
¬0

⟺ 1≤1
⟺ 0≤1
⟺ 0≤0

=
=

0
1

≥
≥

0
𝑥

𝑥∧1
𝑥∧0

=
=

0∧0
𝑥∧0

for 0 = 𝑥 = 𝑦
for 0 = 𝑥 ⪇ 𝑦
for 0 ≠ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦

⎫
⎪
⎬ ⟹ ¬𝑥 is antitone
⎪
⎭

= 𝑥 for 𝑥 = 0
⟹ ¬𝑥 has weak double negation
= 𝑥 for 𝑥 ≠ 0 }
= 0
= 0

for 𝑥 = 0
⟹ ¬𝑥 has non-contradiction property
for 𝑥 ≠ 0 }

✏
Example B.17 (dual discrete negation) 80 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Defini𝑋
tion A.19 page 25) with a function ¬ ∈ 𝑋 . The function ¬𝑥 defined as
0 for 𝑥 = 1
¬𝑥 ≜
{ 1 otherwise
is a subminimal negation (Definition B.1 page 34) but it is not a minimal negation (Definition B.2 page 35) (and not
any other negation defined here).
✎PROOF:

To be a subminimal negation, ¬𝑥 must be antitone (Definition B.1 page 34). To be a minimal negation, ¬𝑥
must be antitone and have weak double negation (Definition B.2 page 35).
¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥 ⟺ 0 ≤ 0 for 𝑥 = 𝑦 = 1 ⎫
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎨ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥 ⟺ 0 ≤ 1 for 𝑥 ⪇ 𝑦 = 1 ⎬ ⟹ ¬𝑥 is antitone
⎪
⎩ ¬𝑦 ≤ ¬𝑥 ⟺ 1 ≤ 1 for 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ≠ 1 ⎪
⎭
¬¬𝑥 = ¬0 = 1 ≥ 𝑥 for 𝑥 = 1
⟹ ¬𝑥 does not have weak double negation
{ ¬¬𝑥 = ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑥 for 𝑥 ≠ 1 }

✏
79
80

📘 [Fodor and Yager(2000)] page 128, 📃 [Yager(1980b)] pages 256–257, 📃 [Yager(1979)] ⟨cf Fodor⟩
📘 [Fodor and Yager(2000)] page 128, 📃 [Ovchinnikov(1983)] page 235 ⟨Example 4⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

B

page 39

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: NEGATION

Example B.18
1 = ¬0

The function ¬ illustrated to the right is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35).

0 = ¬1

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that
0 ≤ 1
(2) Proof that
(3) Proof that

¬ is antitone:
⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑥 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 1)
¬ is involutory: 1 = ¬0 = ¬¬1
¬ has the non-contradiction property: 1 ∧ ¬1 = 1 ∧ 0 =
0 ∧ ¬0 = 0 ∧ 1 =

0
0

✏
Example B.19
The functions ¬ illustrated to the right are not any
negation defined here. In particular, none of them
is antitone.

1 = ¬1
𝑎 = ¬𝑎

1 = ¬0

1 = ¬𝑎

𝑎 = ¬1

𝑎 = ¬0

0 = ¬0

0 = ¬𝑎

0 = ¬1

(a)

(b)

(c)

✎PROOF:
1. Proof that (a) is not antitone: 𝑎 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 1 ≰ 𝑎 = ¬𝑎
2. Proof that (b) is not antitone: 𝑎 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 𝑎 ≰ 0 = ¬𝑎
3. Proof that (c) is not antitone: 0 ≤ 𝑎 ⟹ ¬𝑎 = 1 ≰ 𝑎 = ¬0

✏
Example B.20 The function ¬ as illustrated to the right is not a subminimal negation (it is not antitone) and so is not any negation defined
here. Note however that the problem is not the O 6 lattice—it is possible to define a negation on an O 6 lattice (Example B.31 page 43).
✎PROOF: Proof that ¬ is not antitone: 𝑎 ≤ 𝑐 ⟹ ¬𝑐 = 𝑑 ≰ 𝑏 = ¬𝑎

1 = ¬0
𝑐 = ¬𝑑

𝑑 = ¬𝑐

𝑎 = ¬𝑏

𝑏 = ¬𝑎
0 = ¬1

✏

Remark B.21 The concept of a complement (Definition A.35 page 28) and the concept of a negation are fundamentally different. A complement is a relation on a lattice 𝙇 and a negation is a function. In Example B.20 (page 39), 𝑏 and 𝑑 are both complements of 𝑎 (and so the lattice is multiply complemented), but
yet ¬ is not a negation. In the right side lattice of Example B.31 (page 43), both 𝑏 and 𝑑 are complements
of 𝑎, but yet only 𝑑 is equal to the negation of 𝑎 (𝑑 = ¬𝑎). It can also be said that complementation is
a property of a lattice, whereas negation is a function defined on a lattice.
Remark B.22 If a lattice is complemented, then by definition each element 𝑥 in the lattice has a complement 𝑥′ such that 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥′ = 0 (non-contradiction property) and 𝑥 ∨ 𝑥′ = 1 (excluded middle property). If a lattice 𝙇 is both distributive and complemented, then 𝙇 is uniquely complemented (Definition A.41
page 30, Theorem A.42 page 30). If 𝙇 is uniquely complemented and satisfies any one of Huntington's properties (𝙇 is modular, atomic, ortho-complemented, has finite width, or de Morgan), then 𝙇 is distributive
(Theorem A.40 page 29).
Example B.23 Each of the functions ¬ illustrated in Figure 10 (page 40) is a subminimal negation (Definition B.1 page 34); none of them is a minimal negation (each fails to have weak double negation).
Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 40

Daniel J. Greenhoe

B.3 EXAMPLES

1

1

𝑎 = ¬0

𝑎 = ¬1 = ¬𝑎 = ¬0

0 = ¬1 = ¬𝑎
(A)

0

1 = ¬𝑎 = ¬0
0
(A) minimal (but not fuzzy)
see Example B.24 page 40

0 = ¬1
(C)

(B)

Figure 10: subminimal negations on 𝙇3

𝑎 = ¬1

1 = ¬0 = ¬𝑎
𝑎

(Example B.23 page 39)

1 = ¬0
𝑎 = ¬𝑎
0 = ¬1
(B) Kleene and fuzzy
see Example B.25 page 41

1 = ¬0
𝑎
0 = ¬1 = ¬𝑎
(C) intuitionistic (and fuzzy)
see Example B.26 page 41

Figure 11: negations on 𝙇3

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that (A) ¬ is antitone:
𝑎 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 0 = ¬𝑎 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (𝑎, 1)
0 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑎 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 1)
0 ≤ 𝑎 ⟹ ¬𝑎 = 0 ≤ 𝑎 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 𝑎)
(2) Proof that (A) ¬ fails to have weak double negation:
1 ≰ 𝑎 = ¬0 = ¬¬1
(3) Proof that (B) ¬ is antitone:
𝑎 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 𝑎 ≤ 𝑎 = ¬𝑎 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (𝑎, 1)
0 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 𝑎 ≤ 𝑎 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 1)
0 ≤ 𝑎 ⟹ ¬𝑎 = 𝑎 ≤ 𝑎 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 𝑎)
(4) Proof that (B) ¬ fails to have weak double negation: 1 ≰ 𝑎 = ¬𝑎 = ¬¬1
(5) (C) is a special case of the dual discrete negation (Example B.17 page 38).

✏
Example B.24 Consider the function ¬ on 𝙇3 illustrated in Figure 11 page 40 (A):
1. ¬ is a minimal negation (Definition B.2 page 35);
2. ¬ is not an intuitionistic negation and it is not a de Morgan negation.
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is antitone:
𝑎 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 𝑎 ≤ 1 = ¬𝑎 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (𝑎, 1)
0 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 𝑎 ≤ 1 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 1)
0 ≤ 𝑎 ⟹ ¬𝑎 = 1 ≤ 1 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 𝑎)
(2) Proof that ¬ is a weak double negation (and so is a minimal negation, but is not a de Morgan negation):
1 = 1 = ¬𝑎 = ¬¬1 ⟹ ¬ is involutory at 1
𝑎 = 𝑎 = ¬1 = ¬¬𝑎 ⟹ ¬ is involutory at 𝑎
0 ≤ 𝑎 = ¬1 = ¬¬0 ⟹ ¬ is a weak double negation at 0
(3) Proof that ¬ does not have the non-contradiction property (and so is not an intuitionistic negation):
1 ∧ ¬1 = 1 ∧ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ≠ 0
(4) Proof that ¬ is not a fuzzy negation: ¬1 = 𝑎 ≠ 0

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

B

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: NEGATION

page 41
✏

Example B.25

81

Consider the function ¬ on 𝙇3 illustrated in Figure 11 page 40 (B).

1. ¬ is a Kleene negation (Definition B.3 page 35) and is also a fuzzy negation (Definition B.2 page 35, Example 1.31
page 16).
2. ¬ is not an ortho negation and is not an intuitionistic negation (it does not have the noncontradiction property).
3. This negation on 𝙇3 is used with an implication function to construct the Kleene 3-valued
logic in Example C.7 (page 51), with another implication to construct the Łukasiewicz 3-valued
logic in Example C.8 (page 52), and with yet another implication to construct the RM 3 logic in
Example C.9 (page 52).
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬
𝑎 ≤
0 ≤
0 ≤

is antitone:
1 ⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑎 = ¬𝑎
1 ⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 1 = ¬0
𝑎 ⟹ ¬𝑎 = 𝑎 ≤ 1 = ¬0

(2) Proof that ¬
1 =
𝑎 =
0 =

is involutory (and so is a de Morgan negation):
¬0 = ¬¬1 ⟹ ¬ is involutory at 1
¬𝑎 = ¬¬𝑎 ⟹ ¬ is involutory at 𝑎
¬0 = ¬¬0 ⟹ ¬ is involutory at 0

⟹ ¬ is antitone over (𝑎, 1)
⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 1)
⟹ ¬ is antitone over (0, 𝑎)

(3) Proof that ¬ does not have the non-contradiction property (and so is not an ortho negation):
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 = 𝑥 ∧ 𝑥 = 𝑥 ≠ 0
(4) Proof that ¬
1 ∧
1 ∧
𝑎 ∧
𝑎 ∧
0 ∧
0 ∧

satisfies the Kleene condition (and so is a Kleene negation):
¬1 = 1 ∧ 0 = 0 ≤ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ∨ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ∨ ¬𝑎
¬1 = 1 ∧ 0 = 0 ≤ 1 = 0 ∨ 1 = 0 ∨ ¬0
¬𝑎 = 1 ∧ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ≤ 1 = 1 ∨ 0 = 1 ∨ ¬1
¬𝑎 = 1 ∧ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ≤ 1 = 0 ∨ 1 = 0 ∨ ¬0
¬0 = 0 ∧ 1 = 0 ≤ 1 = 1 ∨ 0 = 1 ∨ ¬1
¬0 = 0 ∧ 1 = 0 ≤ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ∨ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ∨ ¬𝑎

✏
Example B.26 (Heyting 3-valued logic/Jaśkowski's first matrix)
illustrated in Figure 11 page 40 (C):

82

Consider the the function ¬ on 𝙇3

1. ¬ is an intuitionistic negation (Definition B.2 page 35) (and thus is also a fuzzy negation).
2. ¬ is not a de Morgan negation.
3. This negation on 𝙇3 is used with an implication function to construct the Heyting 3-valued
logic in Example C.10 (page 52).
✎PROOF:

This is simply a special case of the discrete negation (Example B.16 page 38).

✏

81

📃 [Łukasiewicz(1920)], 📃 [Avron(1991)] pages 277–278, 📃 [Kleene(1938)] page 153, 📘 [Kleene(1952)],
pages 332–339 ⟨§64. The 3-valued logic⟩, 📃 [Sobociński(1952)]
82
📘 [Karpenko(2006)] page 45, 📘 [Johnstone(1982)] page 9 ⟨§1.12⟩, 📃 [Heyting(1930a)], 📃 [Heyting(1930b)], 📃 [Heyting(1930c)], 📃 [Heyting(1930d)], 📃 [Jaskowski(1936)], 📘 [Mancosu(1998)]

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 42

Daniel J. Greenhoe

B.3 EXAMPLES

1 = ¬0

1 = ¬0

𝑏 = ¬𝑏

𝑎

1 = ¬0
𝑏 = ¬𝑎

𝑏 = ¬𝑏
𝑎 = ¬𝑎

𝑎 = ¬𝑏
0 = ¬1

0 = ¬1 = ¬𝑎

0 = ¬1

(A) fuzzy negation

(B) ortho negation

(C) de Morgan negation

(Example B.27 page 42)

(Example B.28 page 42)

(Example B.29 page 43)

Figure 12: negations on 𝙈2

Example B.27 The function ¬ illustrated in Figure 12 page 42 (A) is a fuzzy negation (Definition B.2 page 35).
It is not an intuitionistic negation (it does not have the non-contradiction property) and it is not a de
Morgan negation (it is not involutory).
✎PROOF:

Note that

1 = ¬0
𝑏 = ¬𝑏
𝑎

1 = ¬0
𝑎

=

1 = ¬0
𝑎 = ¬𝑎

+

0 = ¬1 = ¬𝑎

0 = ¬1 = ¬𝑎
(Example B.27 page 42)

0 = ¬1

fuzzy and intuitionistic

Kleene negation

(Example B.26 page 41)

(Example B.25 page 41)

(1) Proof that ¬ is antitone:
𝑎 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 0 = ¬𝑎 ⟹ ¬ is antitone at (𝑎, 1)
0 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 1 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone at (0, 1)
0 ≤ 𝑎 ⟹ ¬𝑎 = 0 ≤ 1 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone at (0, 𝑎)
𝑏 ≤ 1 ⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑏 = ¬𝑏 ⟹ ¬ is antitone at (𝑏, 1)
0 ≤ 𝑏 ⟹ ¬𝑏 = 𝑏 ≤ 1 = ¬0 ⟹ ¬ is antitone at (0, 𝑏)
(2) Proof that ¬ has weak double negation property (and so is a minimal negation, but not a de Morgan negation):
1 = ¬0 = ¬¬1
⟹ ¬ is involutory at 1
𝑎 ≤ 1
= ¬0
= ¬¬𝑎 ⟹ ¬ has weak double negation at 𝑎
0 = ¬1 = ¬¬0
⟹ ¬ is involutory at 0
𝑏 = ¬𝑏 = ¬¬𝑏 =
⟹ ¬ is involutory at 𝑏
(3) Proof that ¬ does not have the non-contradiction property (and so is not an intuitionistic negation):
𝑏 ∧ ¬𝑏 = 𝑏 ∧ 𝑏 = 𝑏 ≠ 0
(4) Proof that ¬ is has boundary conditions (and so is a fuzzy negation): ¬1 = 0, ¬0 = 1

✏
Example B.28
page 35).

83

The function ¬ illustrated in Figure 12

page

42 (B) is an ortho negation

(Definition B.3

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is antitone: 𝑎
0
0
𝑏
0

≤
≤
≤
≤
≤

1
1
𝑎
1
𝑏

⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑏
⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 1
⟹ ¬𝑎 = 𝑏 ≤ 1
⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑎
⟹ ¬𝑏 = 𝑎 ≤ 1

= ¬𝑎
= ¬0
= ¬0
= ¬𝑏
= ¬0

83

📃 [Belnap(1977)] page 13, 📘 [Restall(2000)] page 177 ⟨Example 8.44⟩, 📃 [Pavičić and Megill(2009)] page 28
⟨Definition 2, classical implication⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

B

(2) Proof that ¬ is involutory (and so is a de Morgan negation): 1
𝑎
𝑏
0
(3) Proof that ¬
1 ∧ ¬1
𝑎 ∧ ¬𝑎
𝑏 ∧ ¬𝑏
0 ∧ ¬0

page 43

Daniel J. Greenhoe

BACKGROUND: NEGATION

= ¬0
= ¬𝑎
= ¬𝑏
= ¬0

= ¬¬1
= ¬¬𝑎
= ¬¬𝑏
= ¬¬0

is has the non-contradiction property (and so is an ortho negation):
= 1 ∧ 0 = 0
= 𝑎 ∧ 𝑏 = 0
= 𝑏 ∧ 𝑎 = 0
= 0 ∧ 1 = 0

✏
Example B.29 (BN 4 ) 84 The function ¬ illustrated in Figure 12 page 42 (C) is a de Morgan negation
(Definition B.3 page 35), but it is not a Kleene negation and not an ortho negation (it does not satisfy the Kleene
condition).
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is antitone: 𝑎
0
0
𝑏
0

≤
≤
≤
≤
≤

1
1
𝑎
1
𝑏

⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑏 = ¬𝑎
⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 1 = ¬0
⟹ ¬𝑎 = 𝑎 ≤ 1 = ¬0
⟹ ¬1 = 0 ≤ 𝑏 = ¬𝑏
⟹ ¬𝑏 = 𝑏 ≤ 1 = ¬0

(2) Proof that ¬ is involutory (and so is a de Morgan negation): 1
𝑎
𝑏
0

= ¬0
= ¬𝑎
= ¬𝑏
= ¬0

= ¬¬1
= ¬¬𝑎
= ¬¬𝑏
= ¬¬0

(3) Proof that ¬ does not have the non-contradiction property (and so is not an ortho negation):
𝑎 ∧ ¬𝑎 = 𝑎 ∧ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ≠ 0
𝑏 ∧ ¬𝑏 = 𝑏 ∧ 𝑏 = 𝑏 ≠ 0
(4) Proof that ¬ does not satisfy the Kleene condition (and so is a de Morgan negation):
𝑎 ∧ ¬𝑎 = 𝑎 ∧ 𝑎 = 𝑎 ≰ 𝑏 ∧ ¬𝑏 = 𝑏

✏
Example B.30
1 = ¬0
¬𝑎 = 𝑎

𝑐 = ¬𝑐
𝑏 = ¬𝑏
0 = ¬1

The function ¬ illustrated to the left is a de Morgan
negation, but it is not a Kleene negation and not an ortho negation. The negation illustrated to the right is a
Kleene negation, but it is not an ortho negation.

1 = ¬0
¬𝑐 = 𝑎

𝑐 = ¬𝑎
𝑏 = ¬𝑏
0 = ¬1

Example B.31
1 = ¬0
¬𝑎 = 𝑐
¬𝑐 = 𝑎

The function ¬ illustrated to the left is a de Morgan nega𝑑 = ¬𝑏 tion (Definition B.3 page 35); it is not a Kleene negation (it does ¬𝑏 = 𝑐
𝑏 = ¬𝑑 not satisfy the Kleene condition). The negation illustrated ¬𝑑 = 𝑎
0 = ¬1
to the right is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35).

84

📃 [Cignoli(1975)] page 270, 📘 [Restall(2000)] page 171 ⟨Example 8.39⟩,
⟨Example 26⟩, 📃 [Dunn(1976)], 📃 [Belnap(1977)]

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

📃

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

1 = ¬0
𝑑 = ¬𝑎
𝑏 = ¬𝑐
0 = ¬1

[de Vries(2007)] pages 15–16

version 0.96

page 44

Daniel J. Greenhoe

Example B.32
The function ¬ illustrated to the left is not antitone and
therefore is not a negation (Definition B.2 page 35). The function ¬𝑏 = 𝑐
𝑑 = ¬𝑐
¬
illustrated to the right is a Kleene negation (Definition B.3 ¬𝑑 = 𝑎
𝑏 = ¬𝑎
page 35); it is not an ortho negation (it does not have the non0 = ¬1
contradiction property).
1 = ¬0
¬𝑑 = 𝑐
¬𝑏 = 𝑎

1 = ¬0
𝑑 = ¬𝑎
𝑏 = ¬𝑐
0 = ¬1

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that left ¬ is not antitone: 𝑎 ≤ 𝑐 but ¬𝑐 ≰ ¬𝑎.
(2) Proof that right ¬ satisfies the Kleene condition:
𝑏 for 𝑥 = 𝑏
𝑐 for 𝑦 = 𝑐
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 =
∀𝑥∈𝑋
and
𝑦 ∧ ¬𝑦 =
∀𝑦∈𝑋
{ 0 otherwise
{ 0 otherwise
⟹
𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
(3) Proof that right ¬ does not have the non-contradiction property: 𝑏 ∧ ¬𝑏 = 𝑏 ∧ 𝑐 = 𝑏 ≠ 0

✏
Example B.33
The lattices illustrated to the left and right are
1 = ¬0
𝑓 = ¬𝑐 Boolean (Definition A.41 page 30). The function ¬ illustrated 𝑑 = ¬𝑐 𝑒 = ¬𝑏 𝑓 = ¬𝑎
to the left is a Kleene negation (Definition B.3 page 35), but
it is not an ortho negation (it does not have the non𝑐 = ¬𝑓
contradiction property). The negation illustrated to 𝑎 = ¬𝑑 𝑏 = ¬𝑒 𝑐 = ¬𝑓
0 = ¬1
the right is an ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35).

1 = ¬0
𝑑 = ¬𝑎

𝑒 = ¬𝑏

𝑎 = ¬𝑑

𝑏 = ¬𝑒

0 = ¬1

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that left side negation does not have non-contradiction property (and so is not an ortho negation):
𝑎 ∧ ¬𝑎 = 𝑎 ∧ 𝑑 = 𝑎 ≠ 0
(2) Proof that left side negation does not satisfy Kleene condition (and so is not a Kleene negation):
𝑎 ∧ ¬𝑎 = 𝑎 ∧ 𝑑 = 𝑎 ≰ 𝑓 = 𝑐 ∨ 𝑓 = 𝑐 ∨ ¬𝑐

✏

Appendix C
C.1

New implication functions for non-Boolean logics

Implication functions

This paper deals with how to construct a fuzzy subset logic not only on a Boolean lattice, but more
generally on other types of lattices as well. However, any logic (fuzzy or otherwise) is arguably not
complete without the inclusion of an implication function →. If we were only concerned with logics
𝑐
on Boolean lattices, then arguably the classical implication 𝑥 →
𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 would suffice. However,
for some non-Boolean lattices, we may do well to have other options. Two common properties of classical implication are entailment and modus ponens. However, these properties do not always support
well known logic systems that are constructed on non-orthocomplented (and hence also non-Boolean)
lattices. For example,
version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

C

NEW IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS FOR NON-BOOLEAN LOGICS

page 45

Daniel J. Greenhoe

the RM 3 logic does not support the strong entailment property,
the Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic does not support the strong modus ponens property, and
the Kleene 3-valued logic and BN 4 logic do not support either property.
This section introduces a new definition for an implication function with weakened forms of entailment and modus ponens (herein called weak entailment and weak modus ponens), and that supports
logics constructed on a large class of lattices including non-orthocomplemented (and non-Boolean)
ones.
Definition C.1 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25). The function → in
𝑋 𝑋 is an implication on 𝙇 if
1. {𝑥 ≤ 𝑦} ⟹ 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≥ 𝑥 ∨ 𝑦
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (weak entailment)
and
2.
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 → 𝑦) ≤ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (weak modus ponens)
Proposition C.2 Let → be an IMPLICATION (Definition C.1 page 45) on a BOUNDED LATTICE
𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) (Definition A.19 page 25).
{𝑥 ≤ 𝑦} ⟺ {𝑥 → 𝑦 ≥ 𝑥 ∨ 𝑦}
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof for ⟹ case: by weak entailment property of implications (Definition C.1 page 45).
(2) Proof for ⟸ case:
𝑦 ≥ 𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 → 𝑦)
≥ 𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)
=𝑥

by right hypothesis
by modus ponens property of → (Definition C.1 page 45)
by absorptive property of lattices (Definition A.11 page 24)

✏
Remark C.3 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a bounded lattice (Definition A.19 page 25). In the context of orthocomplemented lattices, a more common (and stronger) definition of implication → might be85
1. 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥 → 𝑦 = 1 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (entailment / strong entailment)
and
2.
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 → 𝑦) ≤ 𝑦 ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (modus ponens / strong modus ponens)
This definition yields a result stronger than that of Proposition C.2 (page 45):
{𝑥 ≤ 𝑦} ⟺ {𝑥 → 𝑦 = 1}
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
The Heyting 3-valued logic (Example C.10 page 52) and Boolean 4-valued logic (Example C.12 page 53) have both
strong entailment and strong modus ponens. However, for non-Boolean logics in general, these two
properties seem inappropriate to serve as a definition for implication. For example, the Kleene 3-valued
logic (Example C.7 page 51), RM 3 logic (Example C.9 page 52), and BN 4 logic (Example C.13 page 54) do not have the strong
entailment property; and the Kleene 3-valued logic, Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic (Example C.8 page 52), and
BN 4 logic do not have the strong modus ponens property.
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof for ⟹ case: by entailment property of implications (Definition C.1 page 45).
85
📃 [Hardegree(1979)] page 59 ⟨(E),(MP),(E*)⟩, 📃 [Kalmbach(1973)] page 498, 📘 [Kalmbach(1983)]
pages 238–239 ⟨Chapter 4 §15⟩, 📃 [Pavičić and Megill(2009)] page 24, 📘 [Xu et al.(2003)Xu, Ruan, Qin, and
Liu] page 27 ⟨Definition 2.1.1⟩, 📃 [Xu(1999)] page 25, 📃 [Jun et al.(1998)Jun, Xu, and Qin] page 54

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 46

Daniel J. Greenhoe

C.1 IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS

(2) Proof for ⟸ case:
𝑥→𝑦=1 ⟹ 𝑥∧1≤𝑦
⟹ 𝑥≤𝑦

by modus ponens property (Definition C.1 page 45)
by definition of 1 (least upper bound) (Definition A.8 page 24)

✏
Example C.4 86 Let 𝙇 ≜ ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) be a lattice with negation (Definition B.5 page 35). If 𝙇 is an
orthocomplemented lattice, then under Definition C.1, functions (1)–(5) below are valid implication
functions with strong entailment and weak modus ponens. The relevance implication (6) in this lattice is not a valid implication: It does have weak modus ponens, but it does not have weak or strong
entailment. However, if 𝙇 is an orthomodular lattice (Definition A.23 page 26, a special case of an orthocomplemented lattice), then (6) is also a valid implication function with strong entailment.
𝑐
1. 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
(classical implication/material implication/horseshoe)
𝑠
2. 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (Sasaki hook / quantum implication)
𝑑
3. 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (Dishkant implication)
𝑘
4. 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)) ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (Kalmbach implication)
𝑛
5. 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ ((¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ ¬𝑦)
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (non-tollens implication)
𝑟
6. 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 (relevance implication)
𝑐
Moreover, if 𝙇 is a Boolean lattice, then all of these implications are equivalent to →
, and all of them
have strong entailment and strong modus ponens.
𝑑
𝑠
𝑛
𝑘
Note that ∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 , 𝑥 →
𝑦 = ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥 and 𝑥 →
𝑦 = ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥. The values for the six implications on
an orthocomplemented O 6 lattice (Definition A.45 page 31) are listed in Example C.14 (page 54).
✎PROOF:
𝑐
(1) Proofs for the classical implication →
:
𝑐
(a) Proof that on an orthocomplemented lattice, →
is an implication:
𝑐
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥→
𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

≥ ¬𝑦 ∨ 𝑦
=1
⟹ strong entailment
𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ≤ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦
⟹ weak modus ponens

𝑐
by definition of →

by 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 and antitone property of ¬ (Definition B.3 page 35)
by excluded middle property of ¬ (Theorem B.15 page 37)
by definition of strong entailment
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)
by definition of weak modus ponens

Note that in general for an orthocomplemented lattice, the bound cannot be
tightened to strong modus ponens because, for example in the O 6 lattice (Definition A.45 page 31) illustrated to the right
𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) = 𝑥 ∧ 1 = 𝑥 ≰ 𝑦 ⟹ not strong modus ponens

1
¬𝑦

𝑥
𝑦

¬𝑥
0

𝑐
(b) Proof that on a Boolean lattice, →
is an implication:

𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) = (𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
= 1 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)

by distributive property (Definition A.41 page 30)
by excluded middle property of Boolean lattices

=𝑥∧𝑦
≤𝑦

by definition of 1
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

⟹ strong modus ponens

by definition of strong modus ponens

86

📃 [Kalmbach(1973)] page 499, 📃 [Kalmbach(1974)], 📃 [Mittelstaedt(1970)] ⟨Sasaki hook⟩, 📃 [Finch(1970)]
page 102 ⟨Sasaki hook (1.1)⟩, 📘 [Kalmbach(1983)] page 239 ⟨Chapter 4 §15, 3. THEOREM⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

C

Daniel J. Greenhoe

NEW IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS FOR NON-BOOLEAN LOGICS

page 47

𝑠
(2) Proofs for Sasaki implication →
:
𝑠
(a) Proof that on an orthocomplemented lattice, →
is an implication:
𝑠
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥→
𝑦

≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑥

𝑘
by definition of →
by 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 hypothesis

=1
⟹ strong entailment

by excluded middle prop. (Theorem B.15 page 37)
by definition of strong entailment

𝑠
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 →
𝑦) ≜ 𝑥 ∧ [¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)]
≤ [¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)]

𝑠
by definition of →
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

≤ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦
⟹ weak modus ponens

by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

𝑠
𝑐
(b) Proof that on a Boolean lattice, →
=→
:
𝑠
𝑥→
𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

𝑠
by definition of →
by Lemma A.43 (page 30)

𝑐
=𝑥→
𝑦

𝑐
by definition of →

𝑑
(3) Proofs for Dishkant implication →
:
𝑑
𝑠
(a) Proof that 𝑥 →
𝑦 ≡ ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥:
𝑑
𝑥→
𝑦 ≜ 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)

𝑑
by definition of →

= 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑦 ∧ ¬𝑥)
= ¬¬𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑦 ∧ ¬𝑥)

by commutative property of lattices (Theorem A.14 page 25)
by involutory property of ortho negations (Definition B.3 page 35)

𝑠
≜ ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥

𝑠
by definition of →

𝑑
(b) Proof that on an orthocomplemented lattice, →
is an implication:
𝑑
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥→
𝑦
𝑑
by definition of →
by 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 hypothesis and antitone property
by excluded middle property of ortho negation

≜ 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦
=1
⟹ strong entailment
𝑑

by definition of strong entailment
𝑑
by definition of →

𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 → 𝑦) ≜ 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥
⟹ weak modus ponens

by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

𝑑
𝑐
(c) Proof that on a Boolean lattice, →
=→
:
𝑑
𝑥→
𝑦 ≜ 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦
𝑐
=𝑥→
𝑦

𝑑
by definition of →
by Lemma A.43 (page 30)
𝑐
by definition of →

𝑘
(4) Proofs for the Kalmbach implication →
:

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 48

Daniel J. Greenhoe

C.1 IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS

𝑘
(a) Proof that on an orthocomplemented lattice, →
is an implication:
𝑘
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥→
𝑦

≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ [𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)]
= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑦) ∨ [𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)]
= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ ¬𝑦 ∨ [𝑥 ∧ (1)]

𝑘
by definition of →
by antitone property (Definition B.3 page 35)

= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦)
= ¬¬(¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦)

by definition of 1 (Definition A.8 page 24)
by involutory property (Definition B.3 page 35)

= ¬(¬¬𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦)
= ¬(𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦)
=1

by de Morgan property (Theorem B.15 page 37)
by involutory property (Definition B.3 page 35)
by excluded middle prop. (Theorem B.15 page 37)

⟹ strong entailment
𝑘
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 →
𝑦)

≜ 𝑥 ∧ [(¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ [𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)]]

𝑘
by definition of →

≤ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ [𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)]
≤ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)
≤ 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
≤ 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑥

by idempotent p. (Theorem A.14 page 25)
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦
⟹ weak modus ponens

by idempotent p.

(Theorem A.14 page 25)

𝑘
𝑐
(b) Proof that on a Boolean lattice, →
=→
:
𝑘
𝑥→
𝑦

≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ [𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦)]
= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ [(𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑥) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)]
= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ [(0) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)]

𝑘
by definition of →
by distributive property (Definition A.41 page 30)

= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
= ¬𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)

by non-contradiction property
by bounded property (Definition A.19 page 25)
by distributive property (Definition A.41 page 30)

= ¬𝑥 ∧ 1 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
= ¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)

by excluded middle property
by definition of 1 (Definition A.8 page 24)

= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

by Lemma A.43 (page 30)

𝑐

𝑐
by definition of →

≜𝑥→𝑦
𝑛
(5) Proofs for the non-tollens implication →
:
𝑛
𝑘
(a) Proof that 𝑥 →
𝑦 ≡ ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥:
𝑛
𝑥→
𝑦 ≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ [(¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦) ∧ ¬𝑦]

𝑛
by definition of →

= (𝑦 ∧ ¬𝑥) ∨ (𝑦 ∧ 𝑥) ∨ [¬𝑦 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥)]
= (¬¬𝑦 ∧ ¬𝑥) ∨ (¬¬𝑦 ∧ ¬¬𝑥) ∨ [¬𝑦 ∧ (¬¬𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥)]
𝑘
≜ ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

𝑘
by definition of →

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

C

page 49

Daniel J. Greenhoe

NEW IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS FOR NON-BOOLEAN LOGICS

𝑛
(b) Proof that on an orthocomplemented lattice, →
is an implication:
𝑛
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥→
𝑦
𝑘
≡ ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥
=1

by item (5a) page 48
by item (4a) page 48

⟹ strong entailment
𝑛

𝑘
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 → 𝑦) = 𝑥 ∧ (¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥)

by item (5a) page 48

≤ ¬¬𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥
= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥
= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

by item (4a) page 48
by involutory property of ¬ (Definition B.3 page 35)
by commutative property of lattices

⟹ weak modus ponens
𝑛
𝑐
(c) Proof that on a Boolean lattice, →
=→
:
𝑛
𝑘
𝑥→
𝑦 = ¬𝑦 →
¬𝑥
= ¬¬𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥
= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑥

= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦
𝑐

≜𝑥→𝑦

by item (5a) page 48
by item (4b) page 48
by involutory property of ¬ (Definition B.3 page 35)
by commutative property of lattices (Definition A.11 page 24)
𝑐
by definition of →

𝑟
(6) Proofs for the relevance implication →
:
𝑟
(a) Proof that on an orthocomplemented lattice, →
does not have weak entailment:
In the orthocomplemented lattice to the right…
𝑟
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥→
𝑦

1
𝑟

≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)

by definition of →

= 0 ∨ 𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦
= 𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦

¬𝑦

𝑥
𝑦

¬𝑥
0

≠𝑥∨𝑦
𝑟
(b) Proof that on an orthomodular lattice, →
does have strong entailment:
𝑟
𝑥≤𝑦 ⟹ 𝑥→
𝑦

≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)

𝑟
by definition of →

= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ 𝑥 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
= (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ 𝑥 ∨ ¬𝑦

by 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 hypothesis
by 𝑥 ≤ 𝑦 and antitone property (Definition B.3 page 35)

= 𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦
=1

by orthomodular identity (Definition B.3 page 35)
by excluded middle property of ¬ (Theorem B.15 page 37)

𝑟
(c) Proof that on an orthocomplemented lattice, →
does have weak modus ponens:
𝑟
𝑥 ∧ (𝑥 →
𝑦) ≜ 𝑥 ∧ [(¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)]
≤ [(¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)]

≤ ¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
≤ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)
≤ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

𝑟
by definition of →
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)
by definition of ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)
by absorption property (Theorem A.14 page 25)

⟹ weak modus ponens

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 50

Daniel J. Greenhoe

C.2 LOGICS

𝑟
𝑐
(d) Proof that on a Boolean lattice, →
=→
:
𝑟
𝑥→
𝑦 ≜ (¬𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦) ∨ (¬𝑥 ∧ ¬𝑦)

𝑟
by definition of →

= [¬𝑥 ∧ (𝑦 ∨ ¬𝑦)] ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
= [¬𝑥 ∧ 1] ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)
= ¬𝑥 ∨ (𝑥 ∧ 𝑦)

by distributive property (Definition A.41 page 30)
by excluded middle property of ¬ (Theorem B.15 page 37)
by definition of 1 and ∧ (Definition A.9 page 24)

= ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

by property of Boolean lattices (Lemma A.43 page 30)

𝑐

𝑐
by definition of →

≜𝑥→𝑦

✏

C.2

Logics

logic

fuzzy logic
intuitionalistic logic
de Morgan logic

ortho logic

Boolean logic / classic logic

Figure 13: lattice of logics

Definition C.5 87 Let → be an implication (Definition C.1 page 45) defined on a lattice with negation 𝙇 ≜
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤) (Definition B.5 page 35).
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is a logic
if ¬ is a minimal negation.
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is a fuzzy logic
if ¬ is a fuzzy negation.
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is an intuitionalistic logic if ¬ is an intuitionalistic negation.
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is a de Morgan logic
if ¬ is a de Morgan negation.
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is a Kleene logic
if ¬ is a Kleene negation.
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is an ortho logic
if ¬ is an ortho negation.
( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is a Boolean logic
if ¬ is an ortho negation and 𝙇 is Boolean.
Example C.6 (Aristotelian logic/classical logic) 88 The classical bi-variate logic is defined below. It is a
2 element Boolean logic (Definition C.5 page 50). with 𝙇 ≜ ( {1, 0}, ∧, ¬, 0, 1, ≤ ; ∨) and a classical implication
→ with strong entailment and strong modus ponens. The value 1 represents “true” and 0 represents
87
88

📃 [Straßburger(2005)] page 136 ⟨Definition 2.1⟩, 📃 [de Vries(2007)] page 11 ⟨Definition 16⟩
📘 [Novák et al.(1999)Novák, Perfilieva, and Močkoř] pages 17–18 ⟨EXAMPLE 2.1⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

C

NEW IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS FOR NON-BOOLEAN LOGICS

Daniel J. Greenhoe

page 51

“false”.
1 = ¬0

𝑥→𝑦≜
0 = ¬1

1
{ 𝑦

∀𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
otherwise

⎧ → 1 0
=⎪
1 1 0
} ⎨
⎪
⎩ 0 1 1

⎫
⎪ = ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ⎬

⎪
⎭

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is an ortho negation: by Definition B.3 (page 35)
(2) Proof that → is an implication with strong entailment and strong modus ponens:
(a) 𝙇 is Boolean and therefore is orthocomplemented.
𝑐
(b) → is equivalent to the classical implication →
(Example C.4 page 46).

(c) By Example C.4 (page 46), → has strong entailment and strong modus ponens.

✏
The classical logic (previous example) can be generalized in several ways. Arguably one of the simplest
of these is the 3-valued logic due to Kleene (next example).
Example C.7 89 The Kleene 3-valued logic ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is defined below. The function ¬ is
a Kleene negation (Definition B.3 page 35) and is presented in Example B.25 (page 41). The function → is the
classic implication 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥∨𝑦. The values 1 represents “true”, 0 represents “false”, and 𝑛 represents
“neutral” or “undecided”.
1 = ¬0
⎧ → 1 𝑛 0
⎫
⎪
⎪
1
1
𝑛
0
𝑛 = ¬𝑛
𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ { ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 ∀𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 } = ⎨
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ⎬
𝑛 1 𝑛 𝑛
⎪
⎪
0 = ¬1
⎩ 0 1 1 1
⎭
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is a Kleene negation: see Example B.25 (page 41)
(2) Proof that → is an implication: This follows directly from the definition of → and the definition of an
implication (Definition C.1 page 45).
(3) Proof that → does not have strong entailment: 𝑛 → 𝑛 = 𝑛 = 𝑛 ∨ 𝑛 ≠ 1.
(4) Proof that → does not have strong modus ponens: 𝑛 → 0 = 𝑛 = ¬𝑛 ∨ 0 ≰ 0.

✏
A lattice and negation alone do not uniquely define a logic. Łukasiewicz also introduced a 3-valued
logic with identical lattice structure to Kleene, but with a different implication relation (next example).
Historically, Łukasiewicz's logic was introduced before Kleene's.
89

📃 [Kleene(1938)] page 153, 📘 [Kleene(1952)], pages 332–339 ⟨§64. The 3-valued logic⟩, 📃 [Avron(1991)]
page 277

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 52

Daniel J. Greenhoe

C.2 LOGICS

Example C.8 90
The Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is defined to the right and below. The function ¬ is a Kleene negation (Definition B.3 page 35) and is presented in Example B.25 (page 41). The implication has strong entailment but weak modus ponens. In
the implication table below, values that differ from the classical 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 are
shaded .
⎧ → 1 𝑛 0
⎫
1
∀𝑥 ≤ 𝑦
1
for 𝑥 = 𝑦 = 𝑛
⎪ 1 1 𝑛 0
⎪
𝑥→𝑦≜
=
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ⎬ =
{ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 otherwise } ⎨ 𝑛 1 1 𝑛
{ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 otherwise }
⎪
⎪
⎩ 0 1 1 1
⎭

1 = ¬0
𝑛 = ¬𝑛
0 = ¬1

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is a Kleene negation: see Example B.25 (page 41)
(2) Proof that → is an implication: This follows directly from the definition of → and the definition of an
implication (Definition C.1 page 45).
(3) Proof that → does not have strong modus ponens: 𝑛 → 0 = 𝑛 = ¬𝑛 ∨ 0 ≰ 0.

✏
Example C.9 91 The RM 3 logic ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is defined below. The function ¬ is a Kleene
negation (Definition B.3 page 35) and is presented in Example B.25 (page 41). The implication function has
weak entailment but strong modus ponens. In the implication table below, values that differ from the
classical 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 are shaded .
1 = ¬0
→ 1 𝑛 0
⎫
1 ∀𝑥 < 𝑦 ⎫ ⎧
⎧
⎪
⎪
1
1
0
0
⎪
⎪
𝑛 = ¬𝑛
𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ⎨ 𝑛 ∀𝑥 = 𝑦 ⎬ = ⎨
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ⎬
𝑛
1
𝑛
0
⎪
⎪
⎩ 0 ∀𝑥 > 𝑦 ⎪
⎭ ⎪ 0 1 1 1
0 = ¬1
⎩
⎭
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is a Kleene negation: see Example B.25 (page 41)
(2) Proof that → is an implication: This follows directly from the definition of → and the definition of an
implication (Definition C.1 page 45).
(3) Proof that → does not have strong entailment: 𝑛 → 𝑛 = 𝑛 = 𝑛 ∨ 𝑛 ≠ 1.

✏
In a 3-valued logic, the negation does not necessarily have to be as in the previous three examples. The
next example offers a different negation.
Example C.10 (Heyting 3-valued logic/Jaśkowski's first matrix) 92
The Heyting 3-valued logic ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is defined below. The negation ¬ is both intuitionistic and fuzzy (Definition B.2 page 35), and is defined on a 3 element linearly ordered lattice (Definition A.3 page 23).
90

📃 [Łukasiewicz(1920)] page 17 ⟨II. The principles of consequence⟩, 📃 [Avron(1991)] page 277
⟨Łukasiewicz.⟩
91
📃 [Avron(1991)] pages 277–278, 📃 [Sobociński(1952)]
92
📘 [Karpenko(2006)] page 45, 📘 [Johnstone(1982)] page 9 ⟨§1.12⟩, 📃 [Heyting(1930a)], 📃 [Heyting(1930b)], 📃 [Heyting(1930c)], 📃 [Heyting(1930d)], 📃 [Jaskowski(1936)], 📘 [Mancosu(1998)]

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

C

NEW IMPLICATION FUNCTIONS FOR NON-BOOLEAN LOGICS

Daniel J. Greenhoe

page 53

The implication function has both strong entailment and strong modus ponens. In the implication table below, values that differ from the classical 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 are shaded .
1 = ¬0
⎫
⎧ → 1 𝑛 0
1
∀𝑥
≤
𝑦
⎪
⎪ 1 1 𝑛 0
𝑛
𝑥→𝑦≜
=⎨
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋 ⎬
{ 𝑦 otherwise }
𝑛 1 1 0
⎪
⎪
0
1 1 1
0 = ¬𝑛 = ¬1
⎩
⎭
✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is a Kleene negation: see Example B.26 (page 41)
(2) Proof that → is an implication: by definition of implication (Definition C.1 page 45)

✏
Of course it is possible to generalize to more than 3 values (next example).
Example C.11 93 The Łukasiewicz 5-valued logic ( 𝑋, ∨, ∧, ¬, 0, 1 ; ≤, →) is defined below. The implication function has strong entailment but weak modus ponens. In the implication table below, values
that differ from the classical 𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 are shaded .
1 = ¬0
⎧ → 1 𝑝 𝑛 𝑚 0
⎪ 1 1 𝑝 𝑛 𝑚 0
𝑝 = ¬𝑚
⎪
⎪ 𝑝 1 1 𝑛 𝑚 𝑚
𝑛 = ¬𝑛
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
𝑥→𝑦≜⎨
𝑚 = ¬𝑝
⎪ 𝑛 1 1 1 𝑚 𝑛
⎪ 𝑚 1 1 1 1 𝑝
0 = ¬1
⎪ 0 1 1 1 1 1
⎩
✎PROOF:
✏
All the previous examples in this section are linearly ordered. The following examples employ logics
that are not.
Example C.12 94 The Boolean 4-valued logic is defined below. The negation function ¬ is an ortho
negation (Example B.28 page 42) defined on an 𝑀2 lattice. The value 1 represents “true”, 0 represents “false”,
and 𝑚 and 𝑛 represent some intermediate values.
1 = ¬0
⎧ → 1 𝑏 𝑛 0
⎪ 1 1 𝑏 𝑛 0
𝑏 = ¬𝑛
⎪
𝑥 → 𝑦 ≜ ¬𝑥 ∨ 𝑦 = ⎨ 𝑏 1 1 𝑛 𝑛
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
𝑛 = ¬𝑏
⎪ 𝑛 1 𝑏 1 𝑏
0 = ¬1
⎪ 0 1 1 1 1
⎩
93

📘 [Xu et al.(2003)Xu, Ruan, Qin, and Liu] page 29 ⟨Example 2.1.3⟩, 📃 [Jun et al.(1998)Jun, Xu, and Qin]
page 54 ⟨Example 2.2⟩
94
📃 [Belnap(1977)] page 13, 📘 [Restall(2000)] page 177 ⟨Example 8.44⟩, 📃 [Pavičić and Megill(2009)] page 28
⟨Definition 2, classical implication⟩, 📃 [Mittelstaedt(1970)], 📃 [Finch(1970)] page 102 ⟨(1.1)⟩, 📃 [Smets(2006)]
page 270

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 54

Daniel J. Greenhoe

C.2 LOGICS

All the previous examples in this section are distributive; the previous example was Boolean. The next
example is non-distributive, and de Morgan (but non-Boolean). Note for a given order structure, the
method of negation may not be unique; in the previous and following examples both have identical
lattices, but are negated differently.

Example C.13 95 The BN 4 logic is defined below. The function ¬ is a de Morgan negation (Example B.29
page 43) defined on a 4 element M 2 lattice. The value 1 represents “true”, 0 represents “false”, 𝑏 represents
“both” (both true and false), and 𝑛 represents “neither”. In the implication table below, the values that
𝑐
differ from those of the classical implication →
are shaded .
→
1
𝑛 𝑏 0
1 = ¬0
⎧
⎪ 1 1 𝑛 0 0
𝑏 = ¬𝑏
⎪
𝑥→𝑦≜⎨ 𝑛 1 1 𝑛 𝑛
∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋
𝑛 = ¬𝑛
⎪ 𝑏 1 𝑛 𝑏 0
0 = ¬1
⎪ 0 1 1 1 1
⎩

Example C.14
The tables that follow are the 6 implications defined in Example C.4 (page 46)
on the O6 lattice with ortho negation (Definition B.3 page 35), or the O6 orthocomplemented lattice (Definition A.45 page 31), illustrated to the right. In the tables, the
𝑐
values that differ from those of the classical implication →
are shaded .
𝑐
𝑠
𝑑
→ 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
→ 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
→
1 𝑑 𝑐
1 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
1 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
1 1 𝑑 𝑐
𝑑 1 1 𝑐 1 𝑎 𝑎
𝑑 1 1 𝑎 1 𝑎 𝑎
𝑑 1 1 𝑐
𝑐 1 𝑑 1 𝑏 1 𝑏
𝑐 1 𝑏 1 𝑏 1 𝑏
𝑐 1 𝑑 1
𝑏 1 1 𝑐 1 𝑐 𝑐
𝑏 1 1 𝑐 1 𝑐 𝑐
𝑏 1 1 𝑐
𝑎 1 𝑑 1 𝑑 1 𝑑
𝑎 1 1 1 𝑑 1 𝑑
𝑎 1 𝑑 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1
𝑛
𝑟
𝑘
→ 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
→
1 𝑑 𝑐
→ 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
1 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
1 1 𝑑 𝑐
1 1 𝑑 𝑐 𝑏 𝑎 0
𝑑 1 1 𝑎 1 𝑎 𝑎
𝑑 1 1 𝑎
𝑑 1 1 𝑎 1 𝑎 𝑎
𝑐 1 𝑏 1 𝑏 1 𝑏
𝑐 1 𝑏 1
𝑐 1 𝑏 1 𝑏 1 𝑏
𝑏
1
1
𝑐
1
𝑎
𝑐
𝑏
1 1 𝑐
𝑏 1 1 𝑐 1 𝑎 𝑐
𝑎 1 𝑑 1 𝑏 1 𝑑
𝑎 1 𝑑 1
𝑎 1 𝑑 1 𝑏 1 𝑑
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 = ¬0
𝑑 = ¬𝑎

¬𝑏 = 𝑐
¬𝑑 = 𝑎

𝑏 = ¬𝑐
0 = ¬1

𝑏
𝑏
1
𝑏
1
𝑏
1
𝑏
𝑏
1
𝑏
1
𝑏
1

𝑎
𝑎
𝑎
1
𝑎
1
1
𝑎
𝑎
𝑎
1
𝑎
1
1

0
0
𝑎
𝑏
𝑐
𝑑
1
0
0
𝑎
𝑏
𝑐
𝑑
1

Example C.15 96 A 6 element logic is defined below. The function ¬ is a Kleene negation (Example B.32
page 44). The implication has strong entailment but weak modus ponens. In the implication table below,
𝑐
the values that differ from those of the classical implication →
are shaded .
95
96

📘 [Restall(2000)] page 171 ⟨Example 8.39⟩
📘 [Xu et al.(2003)Xu, Ruan, Qin, and Liu] pages 29–30 ⟨Example 2.1.4⟩

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

1 = ¬0
¬𝑛 = 𝑝

𝑞 = ¬𝑚

¬𝑞 = 𝑚

𝑛 = ¬𝑝

0 = ¬1

⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
𝑥→𝑦≜⎨
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩

→
1
𝑝
𝑞
𝑚
𝑛
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

𝑝
𝑝
1
𝑝
1
1
1

𝑞 𝑚 𝑛 0
𝑞 𝑚 𝑛 0
𝑞 𝑝 𝑞 𝑛
1 𝑚 𝑝 𝑚
𝑞 1 𝑞 𝑞
1 𝑝 1 𝑝
1 1 1 1

page 55

∀𝑥,𝑦∈𝑋

✎PROOF:
(1) Proof that ¬ is a Kleene negation: see Example B.32 (page 44)
(2) Proof that → is an implication: This follows directly from the definition of → and the definition of an
implication (Definition C.1 page 45).
(3) Proof that → does not have strong modus ponens:
¬𝑝 ∧ (𝑝 → 𝑚) = 𝑛 ∧ 𝑝 = 𝑛 ≤ 𝑝 = ¬𝑝 ∨ 𝑚
¬𝑛 ∧ (𝑛 → 𝑚) = 𝑛 ∧ 𝑝 = 𝑛 ≤ 𝑝 = ¬𝑝 ∨ 𝑚
¬𝑝 ∧ (𝑝 → 0) = 𝑛 ∧ 𝑛 = 𝑛 ≤ 𝑛 = ¬𝑝 ∨ 0
¬𝑛 ∧ (𝑛 → 0) = 𝑝 ∧ 𝑛 = 𝑛 ≤ 𝑝 = ¬𝑛 ∨ 0

≰ 𝑚
≰ 𝑚
≰ 0
≰ 0

✏
For an example of an 8-valued logic, see 📃 [Kamide(2013)]. For examples of 16-valued logics, see 📃
[Shramko and Wansing(2005)].

References
[oei(2014)] , 2014. On-line encyclopedia of integer sequences. World Wide Web.
URL http://oeis.org/
[Łukasiewicz(1920)] Łukasiewicz, J., 1920. On three-valued logic. In: McCall, S. (Ed.), Polish Logic, 1920–1939.
Oxford University Press, pp. 15–18, collection published in 1967.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0198243049&pg=PA15
[Adams(1990)] Adams, M. E., 1990. Uniquely complemented lattices. In: Bogart, K. P., Freese, R. S., Kung, J. P.
(Eds.), The Dilworth theorems: selected papers of Robert P. Dilworth. Birkhäuser, Boston, pp. 79–84.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0817634347
[Aliprantis and Burkinshaw(1998)] Aliprantis, C. D., Burkinshaw, O., 1998. Principles of Real Analysis, 3rd Edition. Acedemic Press, London.
URL http://www.amazon.com/dp/0120502577
[Alsina et al.(1980)Alsina, Trillas, and Valverde] Alsina, C., Trillas, E., Valverde, L., 1980. On non-distributive logical connectives for fuzzy sets. BUSEFAL 3, 18–29.
[Alsina et al.(1983)Alsina, Trillas, and Valverde] Alsina, C., Trillas, E., Valverde, L., April 30 1983. On some logical
connectives for fuzzy sets theory. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 93, 15–26.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022247X83902160
[Avron(1991)] Avron, A., March 1991. Natural 3-valued logics–characterization and proof theory. The Journal of
Symbolic Logic 56 (1), 276–294.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2274919

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 56

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

[Balbes and Dwinger(1975)] Balbes, R., Dwinger, P., February 1975. Distributive Lattices. University of Missouri
Press, Columbia, 2011 reprint edition available (ISBN 9780983801108).
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN098380110X
[Bellman and Giertz(1973)] Bellman, R., Giertz, M., 1973. On the analytic formalism of the theory of fuzzy sets.
Information Sciences 5, 149–156.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020025573900091
[Belnap(1977)] Belnap, Jr., N. D., 1977. A useful four-valued logic. In: Dunn, J. M., Epstein, G. (Eds.), Modern
Uses of Multiple-valued Logic: Invited Papers from the 5. International Symposium on Multiple-Valued
Logic, Held at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, May 13 - 16, 1975 ; with a Bibliography of Manyvalued Logic by Robert G. Wolf. Vol. 2 of Episteme. D. Reidel, pp. 8–37.
URL http://www.amazon.com/dp/9401011613
[Beran(1985)] Beran, L., 1985. Orthomodular Lattices: Algebraic Approach. Mathematics and Its Applications
(East European Series). D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN902771715X
[Birkhoff(1933)] Birkhoff, G., October 1933. On the combination of subalgebras. Mathematical Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philosophical Society 29, 441–464.
URL http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1933MPCPS..29..441B
[Birkhoff(1938)] Birkhoff, G., 1938. Lattices and their applications. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 44, 1:793–800.
URL http://www.ams.org/bull/1938-44-12/S0002-9904-1938-06866-8/
[Birkhoff(1948)] Birkhoff, G., 1948. Lattice Theory, 2nd Edition. American Mathematical Society, New York.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3540120440
[Birkhoff(1967)] Birkhoff, G., 1967. Lattice Theory, 3rd Edition. Vol. 25 of Colloquium Publications. American
Mathematical Society, Providence.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0821810251
[Birkhoff and Hall(1934)] Birkhoff, G., Hall, P., 1934. Applications of lattice algebra. Mathematical Proceedings
of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 30 (2), 115–122.
URL http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1934MPCPS..30..115B
[Birkhoff and Neumann(1936)] Birkhoff, G., Neumann, J. V., October 1936. The logic of quantum mechanics.
The Annals of Mathematics 37 (4), 823–843.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1968621
[Burris and Sankappanavar(1981)] Burris, S., Sankappanavar, H. P., 1981. A Course in Universal Algebra, 1st
Edition. No. 78 in Graduate texts in mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000 edition available for
free online.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0387905782
[Cattaneo and Ciucci(2009)] Cattaneo, G., Ciucci, D., 2009. Lattices with interior and closure operators and abstract approximation spaces. In: Peters, J. F., Skowron, A. (Eds.), Transactions on Rough Sets X. Vol. 5656
of Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp. 67–116.
[Cignoli(1975)] Cignoli, R., February 1975. Injective de morgan and kleene algebras. Proceedings of the
American Mathematical Society 47 (2), 269–278.
URL
http://www.ams.org/journals/proc/1975-047-02/S0002-9939-1975-0357259-4/
S0002-9939-1975-0357259-4.pdf
[Cohen(1989)] Cohen, D. W., 1989. An Introduction to Hilbert Space and Quantum Logic. Problem Books in
Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1461388430
[Davey and Priestley(2002)] Davey, B. A., Priestley, H. A., May 6 2002. Introduction to Lattices and Order, 2nd
Edition. Cambridge mathematical text books. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521784514

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

page 57

[Davis(1955)] Davis, A. C., 1955. A characterization of complete lattices. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5 (2),
311–319.
URL http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1103044539
[de la Vallée-Poussin(1915)] de la Vallée-Poussin, C. J., October 1915. Sur l'intégrale de lebesgue. Transactions
of the American Mathematical Society 16 (4), 435–501.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1988879
[de Vries(2007)] de Vries, A., July 14 2007. Algebraic hierarchy of logics unifying fuzzy logic and quantum logic,
the registered submission date for this paper is 2007 July 14, but the date appearing on paper proper is
2009 December 6. The latest year in the references is 2006.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2161
[Dedekind(1900)] Dedekind, R., January 8 1900. Ueber die von drei moduln erzeugte dualgruppe. Mathematische Annalen 53, 371–403, regarding the Dual Group Generated by Three Modules.
URL http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl/?GDZPPN002257947
[Devidi(2006)] Devidi, D., April 6 2006. Negation: Philosophical aspects. In: Brown, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Language & Linguistics, 2nd Edition. Elsevier, pp. 567–570.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080448542012025
[Devidi(2010)] Devidi, D., April 6 2010. Negation: Philosophical aspects. In: Barber, A., Stainton, R. J. (Eds.),
Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier, pp. 510–513.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0080965016&pg=PA510
[Dilworth(1945)] Dilworth, R., January 1945. Lattices with unique complements. Transactions of the American
Mathematical Society 57 (1), 123–154.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1990171
[Dilworth(1984)] Dilworth, R., February 1984. Aspects of distributivity. Algebra Universalis 18 (1), 4–17.
URL http://www.springerlink.com/content/l4480658xw08pp71/
[Dominich(2008)] Dominich, S., 2008. The Modern Algebra of Information Retrieval. Vol. 24 of The Information
Retrieval Series. Springer Science & Business Media.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3540776591
[Doner and Tarski(1969)] Doner, J., Tarski, A., 1969. An extended arithmetic of ordinal numbers. Fundamenta
Mathematicae 65, 95–127.
URL http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/tresc.php?wyd=1&tom=65
[Dubois et al.(2000)Dubois, Ostasiewicz, and Padre] Dubois, D., Ostasiewicz, W., Padre, H., 2000. Fuzzy sets:
History and basic notions. In: Dubois, D., Padre, H. (Eds.), Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets. Vol. 7 of The
Handbooks of Fuzzy Sets. pp. 21–124.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN079237732X
[Dubois and Padre(1980)] Dubois, D., Padre, H., 1980. New results about properties and semantics of fuzzy settheoretic operators. In: Wang, P. P., Chang, S. K. (Eds.), Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications to Policy
Analysis and Information Systems. Springer, pp. 59–75.
URL http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-3848-2_6
[Dubois(1980)] Dubois, D. J., December 1 1980. Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications. Vol. 144 of
Mathematics in science and engineering. Academic Press.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0080917720
[Dunn(1976)] Dunn, J. M., 1976. Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and `coupled trees'. Philosophical Studies 29 (3), 149–168.
URL http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00373152
[Dunn(1996)] Dunn, J. M., January 1 1996. Generalized ortho negation. In: Wansing, H. (Ed.), Negation: A Notion in Focus. Vol. 7 of Perspektiven der Analytischen Philosophie / Perspectives in Analytical Philosophy.
De Gruyter, pp. 3–26.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3110876809

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 58

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

[Dunn(1999)] Dunn, J. M., 1999. A comparative study of various model-theoretic treatments of negation: A history of formal negation. In: Gabbay, D. M., Wansing, H. (Eds.), What is Negation? Vol. 13 of Applied Logic
Series. De Gruyter, pp. 23–52.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0792355695
[Ellerman(2010)] Ellerman, D., June 2010. The logic of partitions: introduction to the dual of the logic of subsets.
The Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (2), 287–350.
URL http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.1950.pdf
[Erné et al.(2002)Erné, Heitzig, and Reinhold] Erné, M., Heitzig, J., Reinhold, J., April 2002. On the number of
distributive lattices. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 9 (1).
URL http://www.emis.de/journals/EJC/Volume_9/Abstracts/v9i1r24.html
[Farley(1996)] Farley, J. D., June 26–28 1996. Chain decomposition theorems for ordered sets and other musings.
African Americans in Mathematics DIMACS Workshop 34, 3–14.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0821806785
[Farley(1997)] Farley, J. D., July 16 1997. Chain decomposition theorems for ordered sets and other musings, 1–
12.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9707220
[Fáy(1967)] Fáy, G., 1967. Transitivity of implication in orthomodular lattices. Acta Scientiarum Mathematicarum 28 (3–4), 267–270.
URL http://www.acta.hu/acta/
[Feller(1971)] Feller, W., 1971. An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications Volume II, 2nd Edition.
John Wiley & Sons/ Mei Ya Publications, New York/Taipei.
[Finch(1970)] Finch, P. D., 1970. Quantum logic as an implication algebra. Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Soceity 2, 101–106.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0004972700041642
[Fodor and Yager(2000)] Fodor, J., Yager, R. R., 2000. Fuzzy set-theoretic operators and quantifiers. In: Dubois,
D., Padre, H. (Eds.), Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets. Vol. 7 of The Handbooks of Fuzzy Sets. pp. 125–195.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN079237732X
[Foulis(1962)] Foulis, D. J., 1962. A note on orthomodular lattices. Portugaliae Mathematica 21 (1), 65–72.
URL http://purl.pt/2387
[Givant and Halmos(2009)] Givant, S., Halmos, P., 2009. Introduction to Boolean Algebras. Undergraduate Texts
in Mathematics. Springer.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0387402934
[Gottwald(1999)] Gottwald, S., 1999. Many-valued logic and fuzzy set theory. In: Höhle, U., Rodabaugh, S. (Eds.),
Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets: Logic, Topology, and Measure Theory. Vol. 3 of The Handbooks of Fuzzy Sets.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 5–90.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0792383885
[Grätzer(1971)] Grätzer, G. A., June 1971. Lattice Theory; first concepts and distributive lattices. A Series of books
in mathematics. W. H. Freeman & Company, San Francisco.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0716704420
[Grätzer(2003)] Grätzer, G. A., January 17 2003. General Lattice Theory, 2nd Edition. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3764369965
[Grätzer(2007)] Grätzer, G. A., June/July 2007. Two problems that shaped a century of lattice theory. Notices of
the American Mathematical Society 54 (6), 696–707.
URL http://www.ams.org/notices/200706/
[Greenhoe(2015)] Greenhoe, D. J., March 2015. Sets Relations and Order Structures. Vol. 1 of Mathematical
Structure and Design series. Abstract Space Publishing, to be published, Lord willing, in 2015 or 2016.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0983801118

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

page 59

[Gudder(1988)] Gudder, S., August 28 1988. Quantum Probability. Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Academic Press.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0123053404
[Hájek(2011)] Hájek, P., 2011. Deductive systems of fuzzy logic. In: Benthem, J. V., Gupta, A., Parikh, R. (Eds.),
Proof, Computation and Agency: Logic at the Crossroads. Vol. 352 of Synthese Library. Springer Science
& Business Media, pp. 67–78.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9400700806
[Hamacher(1976)] Hamacher, H., 1976. On logical connectives of fuzzy statements and their affiliated truth
function”. In: Trappi, R. (Ed.), Cybernetics and Systems '76: Proceedings of the Third European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[Hardegree(1979)] Hardegree, G. M., May 31 1979. The conditional in abstract and concrete quantum logic. In:
Hooker, C. A. (Ed.), The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics: Volume II: Contemporary
Consolidation. The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Ontario University of Western Ontario. Kluwer, pp. 49–108.
URL http://www.amazon.com/dp/9027707073
[Hausdorff(1937)] Hausdorff, F., 1937. Set Theory, 3rd Edition. Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, 1957
translation of the 1937 German Grundzüge der Mengenlehre.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0828401195
[Heitzig and Reinhold(2002)] Heitzig, J., Reinhold, J., August 2002. Counting finite lattices. Journal Algebra Universalis 48 (1), 43–53.
URL http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/486156.html
[Heyting(1930a)] Heyting, A., 1930a. Die formalen regeln der intuitionistischen logik i. In: Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 42–56, english translation of title: “The formal rules of
intuitionistic logic I”. English translation of text in Mancosu 1998 pages 311–327.
[Heyting(1930b)] Heyting, A., 1930b. Die formalen regeln der intuitionistischen logik ii. In: Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 57–71, english translation of title: “The formal rules of
intuitionistic logic II”.
[Heyting(1930c)] Heyting, A., 1930c. Die formalen regeln der intuitionistischen logik iii. In: Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 158–169, english translation of title: “The formal rules of
intuitionistic logic III”.
[Heyting(1930d)] Heyting, A., 1930d. Sur la logique intuitionniste. Bulletin de la Classe des Sciences 16, 957–
963, english translation of title: “On intuitionistic logic”. English translation of text in Mancosu 1998 pages
306–310.
[Holland(1970)] Holland, Jr., S. S., 1970. The current interest in orthomodular lattices. In: Abbott, J. C. (Ed.),
Trends in Lattice Theory. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York, pp. 41–126, from Preface: “The present volume contains written versions of four talks on lattice theory delivered to a symposium on Trends in Lattice
Theory held at the United States Naval Academy in May of 1966.”.
URL http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfA-AAAAIAAJ
[Huntington(1904)] Huntington, E. V., July 1904. Sets of independent postulates for the algebra of logic. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 5 (3), 288–309.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1986459
[Huntington(1933)] Huntington, E. V., January 1933. New sets of independent postulates for the algebra of logic,
with special reference to whitehead and russell's principia mathematica. Transactions of the American
Mathematical Society 35 (1), 274–304.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1989325
[Husimi(1937)] Husimi, K., 1937. Studies on the foundations of quantum mechanics i. Proceedings of the
Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan 19, 766–789.

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 60

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

[Iturrioz(1985)] Iturrioz, L., July 29–August 2 1985. Ordered structures in the description of quantum systems:
mathematical progress. In: Methods and applications of mathematical logic: proceedings of the VII Latin
American Symposium on Mathematical Logic held July 29-August 2, 1985. Vol. 69. Sociedade Brasileira
de Lógica, Sociedade Brasileira de Matemática, and the Association for Symbolic Logic, AMS Bookstore
(1988), Providence Rhode Island, pp. 55–75.
[Jager(1995)] Jager, R., 1995. Fuzzy Logic in Control. René Jager.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9090083189
[Jaskowski(1936)] Jaskowski, S., 1936. Investigations into the system of intuitionistic logic. In: McCall, S. (Ed.),
Polish Logic, 1920–1939. Oxford University Press, pp. 259–263, collection published in 1967.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0198243049&pg=PA259
[Jenei(2003)] Jenei, S., 2003. Structure of girard monoids on [0,1]. In: Rodabaugh, S. E., Klement, E. P. (Eds.),
Topological and Algebraic Structures in Fuzzy Sets: A Handbook of Recent Developments in the Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets. Vol. 20 of Trends in Logic. Springer, pp. 277–308.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1402015151
[Jevons(1864)] Jevons, W. S., 1864. Pure Logic or the Logic of Quality Apart from Quantity; with Remarks on
Boole's System and the Relation of Logic and Mathematics. Edward Stanford, London.
URL http://books.google.com/books?id=WVMOAAAAYAAJ
[Johnstone(1982)] Johnstone, P., 1982. Stone Spaces. Cambridge University Press, London, library QA611.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521337798
[Jun et al.(1998)Jun, Xu, and Qin] Jun, Y. B., Xu, Y., Qin, K., 1998. Positive implicative and associative filters of
lattice implication algebras. Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Soceity, 53–61.
URL http://www.mathnet.or.kr/mathnet/kms_tex/31983.pdf
[Kalmbach(1973)] Kalmbach, G., 1973. Orthomodular logic. In: Proceedings of the University of Houston. Lattice Theory Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, pp. 498–503.
URL http://www.math.uh.edu/~hjm/1973_Lattice/p00498-p00503.pdf
[Kalmbach(1974)] Kalmbach, G., 1974. Orthomodular logic. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 20 (25–27), 395–406.
URL http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/malq.19740202504/abstract
[Kalmbach(1983)] Kalmbach, G., 1983. Orthomodular Lattices. Academic Press, London, New York.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0123945801
[Kamide(2013)] Kamide, N., May 22–24 2013. On natural eight-valued reasoning. Multiple-Valued Logic (ISMVL), 2013 IEEE 43rd International Symposium on, 231–236.
URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6524669
[Karpenko(2006)] Karpenko, A., January 1 2006. Łukasiewicz's Logics and Prime Numbers. Luniver Press, Beckington, Frome BA11 6TT UK.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0955117038
[Kaufmann(1975)] Kaufmann, A., June 1 1975. Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets Volume 1. Academic
Press.
URL http://www.amazon.com/dp/0124023010
[Kleene(1938)] Kleene, S. C., December 1938. On notation for ordinal numbers. The Journal of Symbolic Logic
3 (4).
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2267778
[Kleene(1952)] Kleene, S. C., 1952. Introduction to Metamathematics.
[Korselt(1894)] Korselt, A., March 1894. Bemerkung zur algebra der logik. Mathematische Annalen 44 (1), 156–
157, referenced by Birkhoff(1948)p.133.
URL http://www.springerlink.com/content/v681m56871273j73/

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

page 61

[Lidl and Pilz(1998)] Lidl, R., Pilz, G., 1998. Applied Abstract Algebra. Undergraduate texts in mathematics.
Springer, New York.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0387982906
[Loomis(1955)] Loomis, L. H., 1955. The Lattice Theoretic Background of the Dimension Theory of Operator Algebras. Vol. 18 of Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. American Mathematical Society, Providence RI.
URL http://books.google.com/books?id=P3Vl_lXCFRkC
[MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)] MacLane, S., Birkhoff, G., 1999. Algebra, 3rd Edition. AMS Chelsea Publishing,
Providence.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=isbn0821816462
[Maeda and Maeda(1970)] Maeda, F., Maeda, S., 1970. Theory of Symmetric lattices. Vol. 173 of Die Grundlehren
der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/New York.
URL http://books.google.com/books?id=4oeBAAAAIAAJ
[Maeda(1966)] Maeda, S., 1966. On conditions for the orthomodularity. Proceedings of the Japan Academy
42 (3), 247–251.
URL http://joi.jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.Journalarchive/pjab1945/42.247
[Mancosu(1998)] Mancosu, P. (Ed.), 1998. From Brouwer to Hilbert: The Debate on the Foundations of Mathematics in the 1920s. Oxford University Press.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0195096320
[McKenzie(1970)] McKenzie, R. N., December 1970. Equational bases for lattice theories. Mathematica Scandinavica 27, 24–38.
URL http://www.mscand.dk/article.php?id=1973
[Mittelstaedt(1970)] Mittelstaedt, P., 1970. Quantenlogische interpretation orthokomplementärer quasimodularer verbände. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A 25, 1773–1778, english translation of title: “Quantum
Logical interpretation ortho complementary quasi modular organizations”.
URL http://www.znaturforsch.com/
[Müller(1909)] Müller, K. E., 1909. Abriss der Algebra der Logik (Summary of the Algebra of Logic). B. G. Teubner,
“bearbeitet im auftrag der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung” (produced on behalf of the German
Mathematical Society). “In drei Teilen” (In three parts).
URL http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bams/1183421830
[Müller-Olm(1997)] Müller-Olm, M., September 12 1997. 2. complete boolean lattices. In: Modular Compiler
Verification: A Refinement-Algebraic Approach Advocating Stepwise Abstraction. Vol. 1283 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Ch. 2, pp. 9–14, chapter 2.
URL http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0027455
[Nakano and Romberger(1971)] Nakano, H., Romberger, S., 1971. Cluster lattices. Bulletin De l'Académie
Polonaise Des Sciences 19, 5–7.
URL books.google.com/books?id=gkUSAQAAMAAJ
[Nguyen and Walker(2006)] Nguyen, H. T., Walker, E. A., 2006. A First Course in Fuzzy Logic, 3rd Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1584885262
[Novák et al.(1999)Novák, Perfilieva, and Močkoř] Novák, V., Perfilieva, I., Močkoř, J., 1999. Mathematical Principles of Fuzzy Logic. The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0792385950
[Ore(1935)] Ore, O., April 1935. On the foundation of abstract algebra. i. The Annals of Mathematics 36 (2), 406–
437.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/1968580

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 62

Daniel J. Greenhoe

REFERENCES

[Ore(1940)] Ore, O., 1940. Remarks on structures and group relations. Vierteljschr. Naturforsch. Ges. Zürich 85,
1–4.
[Ovchinnikov(1983)] Ovchinnikov, S. V., March 1983. General negations in fuzzy set theory. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 92 (1), 234–239.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022247X83902822
[Oxley(2006)] Oxley, J. G., 2006. Matroid Theory. Vol. 3 of Oxford graduate texts in mathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0199202508
[Padmanabhan and Rudeanu(2008)] Padmanabhan, R., Rudeanu, S., 2008. Axioms for Lattices and Boolean Algebras. World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ.
URL http://www.worldscibooks.com/mathematics/7007.html
[Pavičić and Megill(2009)] Pavičić, M., Megill, N. D., June 16 2009. Is quantum logic a logic? In: Engesser, K.,
Gabbay, D. M., Lehmann, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures: Quantum
Logic. pp. 23–48, 2008 December 15 version available on arXiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2698v1.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0080931669&pg=PA23
[Peirce(1880)] Peirce, C., March 1880. On the algebra of logic. American Journal of Mathematics 3 (1), 15–57.
URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2369442
[Renedo et al.(2003)Renedo, Trillas, and Alsina] Renedo, E., Trillas, E., Alsina, C., October 2003. On the law (𝑎 ⋅
𝑏′ )′ = 𝑏 + 𝑎′ ⋅ 𝑏′ in de morgan algebras and orthomodular lattices. Soft Computing 8 (1), 71–73.
URL http://www.springerlink.com/content/7gdjaawe55l11260/
[Restall(2000)] Restall, G., 2000. An Introduction to Substructural Logics. Routledge.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN041521534X
[Roman(2008)] Roman, S., 2008. Lattices and Ordered Sets, 1st Edition. Springer, New York.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0387789006
[Saliǐ(1988)] Saliǐ, V. N., 1988. Lattices with Unique Complements. Vol. 69 of Translations of mathematical
monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, translation of Reshetki s edinstvennymi dopolneniíam̀i.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0821845225
[Schröder(1890)] Schröder, E., 1890. Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik: Exakte Logik. Vol. 1. B. G. Teubner,
Leipzig.
URL http://www.archive.org/details/vorlesungenberd02mlgoog
[Shramko and Wansing(2005)] Shramko, Y., Wansing, H., April 2005. Some useful 16-valued logics: How a computer network should think. Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (2), 121–153.
URL http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10992-005-0556-5
[Smets(2006)] Smets, S., 2006. From intuitionistic logic to dynamic operational quantum logic. In: Malinowski,
J., Pietruszczak, A. (Eds.), Essays in Logic and Ontology. Vol. 91 of Poznań studies in the philosophy of the
sciences and the humanities. Rodopi, pp. 257–276.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN9042021306&pg=PA257
[Sobociński(1952)] Sobociński, B., 1952. Axiomatization of a partial system of three-value calculus of propositions. Journal of Computing Systems 1, 23–55.
[Stern(1999)] Stern, M., May 13 1999. Semimodular Lattices: Theory and Applications. Vol. 73 of Encyclopedia
of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0521461057
[Straßburger(2005)] Straßburger, L., 2005. What is logic, and what is a proof? In: Beziau, J.-Y. (Ed.), Logica Universalis: Towards a General Theory of Logic. Mathematics and Statistics. Birkhäuser, pp. 135–145.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3764373040

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

REFERENCE INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

page 63

[Sugeno(1977)] Sugeno, M., 1977. Fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals: a survey. In: Gupta, M. M., Saridis, G. N.,
Gaines, B. R. (Eds.), Fuzzy Automata and Decision Processes. North-Holland, pp. 89–102.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0444002316
[Thakare et al.(2002)Thakare, Pawar, and Waphare] Thakare, N. K., Pawar, M. M., Waphare, B. N., September
2002. A structure theorem for dismantlable lattices and enumeration. Journal Periodica Mathematica
Hungarica 45 (1–2), 147–160.
URL http://www.springerlink.com/content/p6r26p872j603285/
[Troelstra and van Dalen(1988)] Troelstra, A., van Dalen, D., 1988. Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction. Vol. 121 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North Holland/Elsevier, Amsterdam/New York/Oxford/Tokyo.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0080570887
[Varadarajan(1985)] Varadarajan, V. S., 1985. Geometry of Quantum Theory, 2nd Edition. Springer.
URL http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0387493867
[von Neumann(1960)] von Neumann, J., 1960. Continuous Geometry. Princeton mathematical series. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
URL http://books.google.com/books?id=3bjqOgAACAAJ
[Whitehead(1898)] Whitehead, A. N., 1898. A Treatise on Universal Algebra with Applications. Vol. 1. University
Press, Cambridge.
URL http://resolver.library.cornell.edu/math/1927624
[Xu(1999)] Xu, Y., 1999. Lattice implication algebras and mv-algebras.
[Xu et al.(2003)Xu, Ruan, Qin, and Liu] Xu, Y., Ruan, D., Qin, K., Liu, J., July 15 2003. Lattice-Valued Logic: An
Alternative Approach to Treat Fuzziness and Incomparability. Vol. 132 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft
Computing. Springer.
URL http://www.amazon.com/dp/354040175X/
[Yager(1979)] Yager, R. R., 1979. On the measure of fuzziness and negation part i: Membership in the unit interval. International Journal of General Systems 5 (4), 221–229.
URL http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081077908547452
[Yager(1980a)] Yager, R. R., November 1980a. On a general class of fuzzy connectives. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
4 (3), 235–242.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165011480900135
[Yager(1980b)] Yager, R. R., March 1980b. On the measure of fuzziness and negation ii: Lattices. Information
and Control 44 (3), 236–260.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019995880901564
[Zadeh(1965)] Zadeh, L. A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338–353.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001999586590241X

Reference Index
[Aliprantis and Burkinshaw(1998)], 4, 5
[Adams(1990)], 29
[Alsina et al.(1980)Alsina, Trillas, and Valverde], 3
[Alsina et al.(1983)Alsina, Trillas, and Valverde], 3, 11, 12
[Avron(1991)], 41, 51, 52

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

[Balbes and Dwinger(1975)],
27
[Bellman and Giertz(1973)],
12–14, 35
[Belnap(1977)], 42, 43, 53
[Beran(1985)], 22, 25–27, 31,
32, 35, 36
[Birkhoff(1933)], 23–25, 27

[Birkhoff and Hall(1934)], 27
[Birkhoff(1938)], 25
[Birkhoff(1948)], 24, 25, 27, 28
[Birkhoff(1967)], 24, 26
[Birkhoff
and
Neumann(1936)], 31, 32
[Burris
and
Sankappanavar(1981)], 25, 27, 28

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 64

SUBJECT INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

[Cattaneo and Ciucci(2009)],
35
[Cignoli(1975)], 43
[Cohen(1989)], 32
[Davey and Priestley(2002)], 25
[Davis(1955)], 27
[Dedekind(1900)], 22, 25–27
[Devidi(2006)], 35
[Devidi(2010)], 35
[de Vries(2007)], 35, 43, 50
[Dilworth(1945)], 29
[Dilworth(1984)], 27
[Dominich(2008)], 24
[Doner and Tarski(1969)], 25
[Dubois(1980)], 6, 7
[Dubois and Padre(1980)], 15
[Dubois et al.(2000)Dubois,
Ostasiewicz, and Padre], 6
[Dunn(1976)], 43
[Dunn(1996)], 34, 35
[Dunn(1999)], 34, 35
[Ellerman(2010)], 5
[Erné et al.(2002)Erné, Heitzig,
and Reinhold], 28
[Farley(1996)], 24
[Farley(1997)], 24
[Fáy(1967)], 35, 36
[Feller(1971)], 4
[Finch(1970)], 46, 53
[Fodor and Yager(2000)], 7–9,
15, 38
[Foulis(1962)], 27
[Givant and Halmos(2009)],
25, 30
[Gottwald(1999)], 35
[Grätzer(1971)], 27
[Grätzer(2003)], 25, 29
[Grätzer(2007)], 29
[Gudder(1988)], 31
[Hájek(2011)], 6, 9
[Hamacher(1976)], 3
[Hardegree(1979)], 45

[Hausdorff(1937)], 4, 5
[Heitzig and Reinhold(2002)],
28
[Heyting(1930a)], 41, 52
[Heyting(1930b)], 41, 52
[Heyting(1930c)], 41, 52
[Heyting(1930d)], 41, 52
[Holland(1970)], 31
[Huntington(1904)], 30
[Huntington(1933)], 30
[Husimi(1937)], 33, 35
[Iturrioz(1985)], 34
[Jager(1995)], 9
[Jaskowski(1936)], 41, 52
[Jenei(2003)], 35
[Jevons(1864)], 30
[Johnstone(1982)], 41, 52
[Jun et al.(1998)Jun, Xu, and
Qin], 45, 53
[Kalmbach(1973)], 45, 46
[Kalmbach(1974)], 46
[Kalmbach(1983)], 31, 33–35,
45, 46
[Kamide(2013)], 55
[Karpenko(2006)], 41, 52
[Kaufmann(1975)], 6
[Kleene(1938)], 41, 51
[Kleene(1952)], 41, 51
[Korselt(1894)], 22, 25, 27
[Lidl and Pilz(1998)], 33, 35
[Loomis(1955)], 31
[Łukasiewicz(1920)], 41, 52
[MacLane and Birkhoff(1999)],
22–25, 29, 30
[Maeda(1966)], 26, 31
[Maeda and Maeda(1970)], 24,
26, 27
[Mancosu(1998)], 41, 52
[McKenzie(1970)], 25
[Mittelstaedt(1970)], 46, 53
[Müller(1909)], 30
[Müller-Olm(1997)], 25

[Nakano and Romberger(1971)],
36
[Nguyen and Walker(2006)], 35
[Novák et al.(1999)Novák, Perfilieva, and Močkoř], 35, 50
[Ore(1935)], 23–25, 27
[Ore(1940)], 27
[Ovchinnikov(1983)], 38
[Oxley(2006)], 24
[Padmanabhan
and
Rudeanu(2008)], 25
[Pavičić and Megill(2009)], 42,
45, 53
[Peirce(1880)], 23
[de la Vallée-Poussin(1915)], 4
[Renedo et al.(2003)Renedo,
Trillas, and Alsina], 33
[Restall(2000)], 42, 43, 53, 54
[Roman(2008)], 29
[Saliǐ(1988)], 29
[Schröder(1890)], 27, 30
[Shramko
and
Wansing(2005)], 55
[Smets(2006)], 53
[Sobociński(1952)], 41, 52
[Stern(1999)], 26, 28, 31
[Straßburger(2005)], 50
[Sugeno(1977)], 9
[Thakare et al.(2002)Thakare,
Pawar, and Waphare], 28
[Troelstra
and
van
Dalen(1988)], 35
[Varadarajan(1985)], 36
[von Neumann(1960)], 27
[Whitehead(1898)], 30
[Xu(1999)], 45
[Xu et al.(2003)Xu, Ruan, Qin,
and Liu], 45, 53, 54
[Yager(1979)], 38
[Yager(1980a)], 9
[Yager(1980b)], 38
[Zadeh(1965)], 6, 7, 9

𝑀6 lattice, 32
𝑂6 lattice, 31, 33
𝑂8 lattice, 31
𝙇2 , 16
𝙇32 sublattice, 19
𝙇3 , 16
𝙈2 lattice, 17, 21
Łukasiewicz 3-valued logic, 41,

45, 52
Łukasiewicz 5-valued logic, 53
Łukasiewicz negation, 9
Łukasiewicz operators, 9, 18,
19, 21
Łukasiewicz t-conorm, 9, 9
Łukasiewicz t-norm, 9, 9
Łukasiewicz t-norm and t-

Subject Index
𝐿1 lattice, 32
𝐿2 lattice, 32
𝐿22 lattice, 32
𝐿32 lattice, 32
𝐿42 lattice, 32
𝐿52 lattice, 32
𝑀2 lattice, 53
𝑀4 lattice, 32

version 0.96

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

SUBJECT INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

conorm, 7
GLB, 24
ł.u.b., 24
λ-negation, 9, 9, 10

bounded lattice, 12, 25, 28, 30–
38, 45

absorption, 30, 49
absorptive, 2, 8, 25, 30, 45
algebra of sets, 5
algebras of sets, 2, 4, 5
anti-symmetric, 23
antitone, 10, 15, 31, 34–43, 46–
49
Aristotelian logic, 50
arithmetic axiom, 27
associative, 2, 8, 25, 30
atomic, 29, 39
Bellman-Giertz 1973 result, 3
Bellman-Giertz 1973 theorem,
3, 14
Benzene ring, 31
bijective, 36
Birkhoff distributivity criterion, 27
BN 4 , 43
BN 4 logic, 45, 54
bold intersection, 9
bold sum, 9
Boolean, 1–3, 15, 20, 22, 28, 30,
32–34, 44, 50, 51, 54
boolean, 26
Boolean 4-valued logic, 45, 53
Boolean algebra, 2, 30, 30, 33
Boolean fuzzy subet logics, 20
Boolean fuzzy subset logic, 16,
21, 22
Boolean fuzzy subset logics, 3
Boolean lattice, 3, 4, 15, 21, 22,
30, 30, 44, 46–50
Boolean lattice 𝙇32 , 22
Boolean lattices, 3
Boolean logic, 13, 15, 50, 50
Boolean logics, 3, 15
Boolean negation, 4
both, 54
bound
greatest lower bound, 24
infimum, 24
least upper bound, 24
supremum, 24
boundary, 13
boundary condition, 10, 12, 32,
35–37
boundary conditions, 12, 36,
42
bounded, 2, 25, 25, 26, 30, 48

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

chain, 23
classic 10 Boolean properties,
30
classic Boolean properties, 2
classic implication, 51
classic logic, 50
classical bi-variate logic, 50
classical implication, 4, 16, 17,
21, 22, 42, 44, 46, 50, 51, 53, 54
classical logic, 2, 13, 16, 50, 51
classical set theory, 2
classical subset theory, 4
closed interval, 6
commutative, 2, 8, 12, 25, 30,
37, 47, 49
comparable, 23, 23
complement, 28, 29, 30, 39
lattice, 28
complemented, 2, 26, 28, 29,
29, 30, 33, 39
complemented lattice, 33
complements, 33
conjunctive de Morgan, 36, 37
conjunctive de morgan, 32
conjunctive de Morgan inequality, 35, 37
conjunctive distributive, 12, 27
conjunctive idempotence, 3,
15
conjunctive idempotent, 12
conjunctive identity, 11–14
conjunctive isotone, 11, 13, 14
continuous, 15
convolution, 7
covering relation, 23
covers, 23
crisp subset, 4, 4
crisp subset logic, 5
de Morgan, 2, 9, 29, 30, 36, 37,
39, 48, 54
de Morgan logic, 50, 50
de Morgan negation, 9, 10, 16,
34, 35, 35, 40–43, 50, 54
definitions
Łukasiewicz
3-valued
logic, 52
Łukasiewicz
5-valued
logic, 53
Benzene ring, 31
BN 4 logic, 54
Boolean 4-valued logic,
53
Boolean algebra, 30

page 65

Boolean lattice, 30
Boolean logic, 50
chain, 23
comparable, 23
crisp subset, 4
crisp subset logic, 5
de Morgan logic, 50
diamond, 27
fully ordered set, 23
fuzzy logic, 50
fuzzy subset, 6
fuzzy subset logic, 6
Hasse diagram, 23
hexagon, 31
Heyting 3-valued logic, 52
incomparable, 23
intuitionalistic logic, 50
Kleene 3-valued logic, 51
Kleene logic, 50
lattice, 24
lattice with negation, 35
linearly ordered set, 23
logic, 50
M3 lattice, 27
modular
orthocomplemeted lattice, 34
N5 lattice, 26
O 6 lattice, 31
ordered set, 23
ortho logic, 50
orthocomplemented lattice, 31
pentagon, 26
RM 3 logic, 52
supremum, 24
totally ordered set, 23
diamond, 27
discrete negation, 9, 17, 38, 41
Dishkant implication, 46, 47
disjunctive de Morgan, 36, 37
disjunctive de morgan, 32
disjunctive de Morgan inequality, 35, 37
disjunctive distributive, 12, 27
disjunctive idempotence, 3, 15
disjunctive idempotent, 12
disjunctive identity, 11–14
disjunctive isotone, 11, 13, 14
distibutive, 20
distributive, 1, 2, 11, 13, 16, 17,
19, 20, 26, 27, 27, 28–30, 33, 39,
46, 48, 50, 54
distributive inequalities, 13, 25
distributive lattice, 26
distributivity, 1–3, 12, 21, 22
distributivity relation, 27

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 66

domain, 7
dual discrete negation, 38, 40
dual distributive, 27
dual distributivity relation, 27
Dubois-Padre 1980 result, 2
Dubois-Padre 1980 theorem, 2,
15
Elkan's law, 33
entailment, 44, 45
examples
Łukasiewicz
3-valued
logic, 45
Aristotelian logic, 50
BN 4 , 43
BN 4 logic, 45
Boolean 4-valued logic, 45
classical logic, 50
discrete negation, 38, 41
dual discrete negation,
38, 40
Heyting 3-valued logic,
41, 45, 52
Jaśkowski's first matrix,
41, 52
Kleene 3-valued logic, 45
RM 3 logic, 45
excluded middle, 1–3, 11, 14–
22, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37–39, 46–50
exluded middle, 19
false, 51, 53, 54
finite, 25
finite width, 29, 39
fixed point condition, 14, 16, 17
fully ordered set, 23
function, 34, 35, 39
characteristic, 4
indicator, 4
functions
Łukasiewicz negation, 9
Łukasiewicz operators, 9,
18, 19
Łukasiewicz t-conorm, 9,
9
Łukasiewicz t-norm, 9, 9
Łukasiewicz t-norm and
t-conorm, 7
λ-negation, 9, 9, 10
bold intersection, 9
bold sum, 9
Boolean negation, 4
classic implication, 51
classical implication, 22,
44, 46, 50, 51, 54
complement, 28, 29

version 0.96

SUBJECT INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

de Morgan negation, 9,
10, 16, 35, 35, 40–43, 50
discrete negation, 9, 17
Dishkant implication, 47
fuzzy negation, 4, 10, 16–
19, 21, 22, 35, 36–38, 40–42, 50
implication, 4, 41, 44–49,
51–53, 55
implication function, 3
indicator function, 4, 4, 6
intuitionalistic negation,
50
intuitionistic
negation,
17, 35, 37, 38, 40–42
Kalmbach implication, 47
Kleene negation, 16, 17,
35, 41–44, 50–55
membership function, 4,
6, 6, 20
min-max operator pair, 7
min-max operators, 7, 7,
17–19
minimal negation, 35, 35,
37, 38, 40, 42, 50
negation, 35, 35, 39, 43, 44
negation function, 3
negation functions, 4
negations, 4, 9
non-tollens implication,
48
ortho negation, 4, 5, 16,
18, 19, 21, 22, 32, 35, 37, 39, 41–
44, 47, 50, 51, 53
orthomodular identity, 49
orthomodular negation,
35
probabilistic sum operator, 8
product and probabilistic
sum operators, 7, 8
product sum operator, 8
relevance implication, 46,
49
Sasaki hook, 30
Sasaki implication, 47
set indicator, 5
set indicator function, 4
set indicator functions, 4,
10
standard negation, 9, 9,
16–19, 21, 22
subminimal negation, 34,
35, 38, 39
unique complement, 29
Yager negation, 9, 9
fuzzy, 40, 42, 52

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

fuzzy classical logic, 16
fuzzy Heyting 3-valued logic,
16
fuzzy Kleene 3-valued logic, 16
fuzzy logic, 6, 16–19, 21, 22, 50,
50
fuzzy logics, 3
fuzzy min-max boundary theorem, 11, 11, 13
fuzzy min-max theorem, 3, 7,
11, 13, 13
fuzzy negation, 4, 10, 16–19, 21,
22, 34, 35, 36–38, 40–42, 50
fuzzy negation idempotency
theorem, 2, 11, 14
fuzzy negations, 3
fuzzy operators idempotency
theorem, 2, 11, 12, 12
fuzzy set theory, 2
fuzzy subset, 4, 6, 6
fuzzy subset algebras, 2
fuzzy subset lattice, 9
Fuzzy subset logic, 2
fuzzy subset logic, 1–4, 6, 7, 9,
11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 44
fuzzy subset logics, 3, 10
greatest lower bound, 24, 24
Hasse diagram, 23, 23, 24
hexagon, 31
Heyting 3-valued logic, 17, 41,
41, 45, 52
horseshoe, 46
Huntington properties, 29, 29
Huntington's properties, 39
idempotence, 16–19
idempotency, 1–3, 14, 17, 21
idempotent, 1, 2, 8, 9, 11–20,
22, 25, 30, 48
identity, 2, 12, 13, 30
implication, 4, 18, 21, 41, 44,
45, 45, 46–53, 55
implication function, 3
incomparable, 23, 24
independent, 25
indicator function, 4, 4, 6
inequalities
distributive, 25
modular, 25
infimum, 24
interior, 5
intersection, 5
intuitionalistic logic, 50, 50
intuitionalistic negation, 34, 50
intuitionistic, 40, 42, 52

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

SUBJECT INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

intuitionistic negation, 17, 35,
36–38, 40–42
involutory, 2, 10, 30, 31, 35–37,
39–43, 47–49
isotone, 12, 13
Jaśkowski's first matrix, 41, 52
join, 7, 24
join super-distributive, 25
join-identity, 26
Kalmbach implication, 46, 47
Kleene, 40
Kleene 3-valued logic, 17, 41,
45, 51
Kleene condition, 35, 37, 38,
41, 43, 44
Kleene logic, 50
Kleene negation, 16, 17, 34, 35,
41–44, 50–55
lattice, 2–4, 7, 14, 15, 20, 24, 24,
25–27, 30, 33, 35–37, 44, 45, 47
complemented, 28
distributive, 27
M3, 27
N5, 26, 27
relatively complemented,
28
lattice with negation, 9, 10, 35,
46, 50
lattices, 4, 49
least upper bound, 24, 24, 46
linear, 16, 17, 23, 24
linear lattice, 16
linearly ordered, 53
linearly ordered lattice, 52
linearly ordered set, 23, 23, 24
logic, 3, 5, 13, 15, 50, 50
lower bound, 24, 24
lower bounded, 25, 26
M 2 lattice, 54
M 3 , 20
M3 lattice, 27, 28
material implication, 46
median inequality, 25
median property, 27
meet, 7, 24
meet sub-distributive, 25
meet-identity, 26
membership function, 4, 6, 6,
7, 11–14, 16, 17, 20
min-max operator pair, 7
min-max operators, 7, 7, 17–
19, 22
minimal, 40

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

minimal negation, 34, 35, 35,
37–40, 42, 50
modular, 26, 26, 27–29, 34, 39
Modular inequality, 25
modular inequality, 25
modular lattice, 27
modular orthocomplemented,
26, 34
modular orthocomplemeted
lattice, 34
modular-orthocomplemented,
32
modularity, 26
modus ponens, 44–46
Monotony laws, 25
multiply complemented, 29,
29, 33, 39
N 5 , 20
N5 lattice, 26, 27
negation, 35, 35, 39, 43, 44
negation function, 3
negation functions, 4
negations, 4, 9
neither, 54
neutral, 51
non-Boolean, 4, 20, 31–33, 44,
45, 54
non-complemented, 29
non-contradiction, 1–3, 11, 14–
22, 29, 31, 35–44, 48
non-distributive, 11, 28, 54
non-idempotent, 1, 8, 11, 14,
15, 17, 18
non-join-distributive, 33
non-modular, 28
non-modular-orthocomplemented,
31
non-ortho, 16–19
non-orthocomplemented, 33,
45
non-orthocomplented, 44
non-orthomodular, 31
non-tollens implication, 46, 48
not antitone, 39, 44
not idempotent, 2, 18, 19
not pointwise evaluated, 7
not strong modus ponens, 46
number of lattices, 28
O6 , 5
O 6 lattice, 18, 31, 31, 39, 46
O 6 lattice with ortho negation,
54
O 6 orthocomplemented lattice, 54
operations

page 67

convolution, 7
intersection, 5
join, 7, 24
meet, 7, 24
pointwise minimum, 7
set complement, 5
set implication, 5
union, 5
order relation, 22, 23
ordered set, 3, 4, 23, 23, 24
linearly, 23
totally, 23
ordering relation, 20
ortho, 15
ortho fuzzy subet logics, 20
ortho fuzzy subset logic, 21
ortho fuzzy subset logics, 3
ortho logic, 15, 21, 22, 50, 50
ortho logics, 3, 15
ortho negation, 3–5, 16, 18, 19,
21, 22, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41–44,
47, 50, 51, 53
ortho negations, 3
ortho+distributivity=Boolean,
3
ortho-complemented, 39
orthocomplement, 31, 31, 32
orthocomplemented, 26, 29,
31, 31, 32–34, 51
orthocomplemented lattice, 3,
21, 31, 33, 45–49
orthocomplemented lattices,
3, 31
orthomodular, 26, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35
orthomodular identity, 33, 49
orthomodular lattice, 33, 46, 49
orthomodular negation, 34, 35
pentagon, 26
pointwise, 20
pointwise evaluated, 1, 3, 7, 7,
11–15, 20
pointwise evaluation, 7, 11, 20
pointwise evalution, 11
pointwise maximum, 7
pointwise minimum, 7
pointwise ordering, 7
pointwise ordering relation,
20, 21, 23
power set, 4, 5
power sets, 5
preorder, 23
probabilistic sum operator, 8
product and probabilistic sum
operators, 7, 8
product sum operator, 8

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 68

properties
absorption, 30, 49
absorptive, 2, 8, 25, 30, 45
anti-symmetric, 23
antitone, 10, 15, 31, 34–43,
46–49
associative, 2, 8, 25, 30
atomic, 29, 39
bijective, 36
Boolean, 1–3, 15, 20, 22,
28, 30, 32–34, 44, 50, 51, 54
boolean, 26
Boolean algebra, 2
Boolean lattice, 4
boundary, 13
boundary condition, 10,
12, 32, 35–37
boundary conditions, 12,
36, 42
bounded, 2, 25, 25, 26, 30,
48
classic Boolean properties, 2
commutative, 2, 8, 12, 25,
30, 37, 47, 49
comparable, 23
complemented, 2, 26, 28,
29, 29, 30, 33, 39
conjunctive de Morgan,
36, 37
conjunctive de morgan,
32
conjunctive de Morgan
inequality, 35, 37
conjunctive distributive,
12, 27
conjunctive
idempotence, 3, 15
conjunctive idempotent,
12
conjunctive identity, 11–
14
conjunctive isotone, 11,
13, 14
continuous, 15
covers, 23
de Morgan, 2, 9, 29, 30, 36,
37, 39, 48, 54
de Morgan negation, 43,
54
disjunctive de Morgan,
36, 37
disjunctive de morgan, 32
disjunctive de Morgan inequality, 35, 37
disjunctive distributive,

version 0.96

SUBJECT INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

12, 27
disjunctive idempotence,
3, 15
disjunctive idempotent,
12
disjunctive identity, 11–
14
disjunctive isotone, 11,
13, 14
distibutive, 20
distributive, 1, 2, 11, 13,
16, 17, 19, 20, 26, 27, 27, 28–30,
33, 39, 46, 48, 50, 54
distributive inequalities,
13
distributivity, 1–3, 12, 21,
22
dual distributive, 27
Elkan's law, 33
entailment, 44, 45
excluded middle, 1–3, 11,
14–22, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37–39, 46–
50
exluded middle, 19
finite, 25
finite width, 29, 39
fixed point condition, 14,
16, 17
fuzzy, 40, 42, 52
Huntington properties, 29
idempotence, 16–19
idempotency, 1–3, 14, 17,
21
idempotent, 1, 2, 8, 9, 11–
20, 22, 25, 30, 48
identity, 2, 12, 13, 30
incomparable, 24
independent, 25
intuitionistic, 40, 42, 52
intuitionistic negation, 36
involutory, 2, 10, 30, 31,
35–37, 39–43, 47–49
isotone, 12, 13
join super-distributive, 25
join-identity, 26
Kleene, 40
Kleene condition, 35, 37,
38, 41, 43, 44
Kleene negation, 43, 44,
51, 52
linear, 16, 17, 23, 24
linearly ordered, 53
linearly ordered lattice, 52
lower bounded, 25, 26
M 2 lattice, 54
median inequality, 25

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

median property, 27
meet sub-distributive, 25
meet-identity, 26
minimal, 40
modular, 26, 26, 27–29,
34, 39
modular orthocomplemented, 26, 34
modular-orthocomplemented,
32
modus ponens, 44–46
multiply complemented,
29, 29, 33, 39
non-Boolean, 4, 20, 31–
33, 44, 45, 54
non-complemented, 29
non-contradiction, 1–3,
11, 14–22, 29, 31, 35–44, 48
non-distributive, 11, 28,
54
non-idempotent, 1, 8, 11,
14, 15, 17, 18
non-join-distributive, 33
non-modular, 28
non-modularorthocomplemented, 31
non-ortho, 16–19
non-orthocomplemented,
33, 45
non-orthocomplented,
44
non-orthomodular, 31
not antitone, 39, 44
not idempotent, 2, 18, 19
not pointwise evaluated, 7
not strong modus ponens,
46
ortho, 15
ortho negation, 44
ortho-complemented, 39
orthocomplemented, 26,
29, 31, 31, 32–34, 51
orthomodular, 26, 31, 32,
33, 34, 35
orthomodular identity, 33
pointwise, 20
pointwise evaluated, 1, 3,
7, 7, 11–15, 20
pointwise evaluation, 7,
11, 20
pointwise evalution, 11
pointwise ordering, 7
reflexive, 23
strictly antitone, 15
strong entailment, 45–54
strong modus ponens, 45,

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

SUBJECT INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

46, 50–53, 55
transitive, 23
trivial, 16
uniquely complemented,
29, 29, 39
upper bound, 36
upper bounded, 25, 26
weak double negation, 10,
35, 36, 38–40, 42
weak entailment, 45, 49,
52
weak idempotency, 13, 14
weak idempotent, 13
weak modus ponens, 45–
49, 52–54
quantum implication, 46
random subset, 6
real numbers, 10
reflexive, 23
relation, 22, 39
relations
classical implication, 16,
17, 21, 42, 46, 53
complement, 39
covering relation, 23
Dishkant implication, 46
distributivity relation, 27
dual distributivity relation, 27
function, 39
horseshoe, 46
implication, 18, 21, 45, 50
Kalmbach implication, 46
material implication, 46
modularity, 26
non-tollens implication,
46
order relation, 22, 23
ordering relation, 20
pointwise maximum, 7
pointwise ordering relation, 20, 21, 23
quantum implication, 46
relation, 39
relevance implication, 46
Sasaki hook, 46
relevance implication, 46, 49
rings of sets, 4
RM 3 logic, 41, 45, 52
Sasaki hook, 30, 46
Sasaki implication, 47
set complement, 5
set implication, 5
set indicator, 5

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

set indicator function, 4
set indicator functions, 4, 10
set of all functions, 4
set of all indicator functions, 5
set of membership functions, 7
set structures, 4, 5
standard negation, 9, 9, 16–19,
21, 22
strictly antitone, 15
strong entailment, 45–54
strong modus ponens, 45, 46,
50–53, 55
structures
𝐿1 lattice, 32
𝐿2 lattice, 32
𝐿22 lattice, 32
𝐿32 lattice, 32
𝐿42 lattice, 32
𝐿52 lattice, 32
𝑀2 lattice, 53
𝑀4 lattice, 32
𝑀6 lattice, 32
𝑂6 lattice, 31, 33
𝑂8 lattice, 31
𝙇2 , 16
𝙇32 sublattice, 19
𝙇3 , 16
𝙈2 lattice, 17, 21
Łukasiewicz
3-valued
logic, 41, 45, 52
Łukasiewicz
5-valued
logic, 53
Łukasiewicz operators, 21
algebra of sets, 5
algebras of sets, 2, 4, 5
BN 4 logic, 45, 54
Boolean 4-valued logic,
53
Boolean algebra, 2, 30, 30,
33
Boolean fuzzy subet logics, 20
Boolean fuzzy subset
logic, 16, 21, 22
Boolean fuzzy subset logics, 3
Boolean lattice, 3, 15, 21,
22, 30, 30, 44, 46–50
Boolean lattice 𝙇32 , 22
Boolean lattices, 3
Boolean logic, 13, 15, 50,
50
Boolean logics, 3, 15
bounded lattice, 12, 25,
28, 30–38, 45
chain, 23

page 69

classic logic, 50
classical bi-variate logic,
50
classical implication, 4
classical logic, 2, 13, 16, 51
classical set theory, 2
classical subset theory, 4
closed interval, 6
complement, 39
complemented lattice, 33
complements, 33
crisp subset, 4, 4
crisp subset logic, 5
de Morgan logic, 50, 50
de Morgan negation, 34,
41, 42
diamond, 27
distributive lattice, 26
distributivity, 3
domain, 7
fully ordered set, 23
function, 34, 35
fuzzy classical logic, 16
fuzzy Heyting 3-valued
logic, 16
fuzzy Kleene 3-valued
logic, 16
fuzzy logic, 6, 16–19, 21,
22, 50, 50
fuzzy logics, 3
fuzzy negation, 34
fuzzy negations, 3
fuzzy set theory, 2
fuzzy subset, 4, 6, 6
fuzzy subset algebras, 2
fuzzy subset lattice, 9
Fuzzy subset logic, 2
fuzzy subset logic, 1–4, 6,
7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 44
fuzzy subset logics, 3, 10
Hasse diagram, 23, 24
Heyting 3-valued logic,
17, 41, 52
Huntington's properties,
39
interior, 5
intuitionalistic logic, 50,
50
intuitionalistic negation,
34
intuitionistic negation, 40
Kleene 3-valued logic, 17,
41, 45, 51
Kleene logic, 50
Kleene negation, 34, 44
lattice, 2–4, 7, 14, 15, 20,

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

version 0.96

page 70

SUBJECT INDEX

Daniel J. Greenhoe

24, 24, 25–27, 30, 33, 35–37, 44,
45, 47
lattice with negation, 9,
10, 35, 46, 50
lattices, 4, 49
linear lattice, 16
linearly ordered set, 23,
23, 24
logic, 3, 5, 13, 15, 50, 50
M 3 , 20
M3 lattice, 28
membership function, 4,
7, 11–14, 16, 17
min-max operators, 22
minimal negation, 34, 39
modular lattice, 27
modular
orthocomplemeted lattice, 34
N 5 , 20
N5 lattice, 27
negation, 43
O6 , 5
O 6 lattice, 18, 31, 31, 39,
46
O 6 lattice with ortho
negation, 54
O 6 orthocomplemented
lattice, 54
order relation, 23
ordered set, 3, 4, 23, 23, 24
ortho fuzzy subet logics,
20
ortho fuzzy subset logic,
21
ortho fuzzy subset logics,
3
ortho logic, 15, 21, 22, 50,
50
ortho logics, 3, 15
ortho negation, 3, 34, 41,
43, 44, 47
ortho negations, 3
orthocomplemented lattice, 3, 21, 31, 33, 45–49
orthocomplemented lattices, 3, 31
orthomodular lattice, 33,
46, 49
orthomodular negation,

34
power set, 4, 5
power sets, 5
preorder, 23
random subset, 6
real numbers, 10
relation, 22
rings of sets, 4
RM 3 logic, 41, 45, 52
set of all functions, 4
set of all indicator functions, 5
set of membership functions, 7
set structures, 4, 5
subminimal negation, 34,
40
topological space, 5
topologies, 4, 5
topology, 5
totally ordered set, 23
subminimal negation, 34, 34,
35, 38–40
supremum, 24
theorems
Bellman-Giertz 1973 result, 3
Bellman-Giertz 1973 theorem, 3, 14
Birkhoff distributivity criterion, 27
classic 10 Boolean properties, 30
distributive inequalities,
25
Dubois-Padre 1980 result,
2
Dubois-Padre 1980 theorem, 2, 15
fuzzy min-max boundary
theorem, 11, 11, 13
fuzzy min-max theorem,
3, 7, 11, 13, 13
fuzzy negation idempotency theorem, 2, 11, 14
fuzzy operators idempotency theorem, 2, 11, 12, 12
Huntington properties,
29

Modular inequality, 25
Monotony laws, 25
ortho+distributivity=Boolean,
3
topological space, 5
topologies, 4, 5
topology, 5
totally ordered set, 23
transitive, 23
trivial, 16
true, 50, 51, 53, 54
undecided, 51
union, 5
unique complement, 29
uniquely complemented, 29,
29, 39
upper bound, 24, 24, 36
upper bounded, 25, 26
values
GLB, 24
ł.u.b., 24
both, 54
complement, 30
false, 51, 53, 54
greatest lower bound, 24,
24
infimum, 24
least upper bound, 24, 24,
46
lower bound, 24, 24
neither, 54
neutral, 51
orthocomplement, 31, 31,
32
true, 50, 51, 53, 54
undecided, 51
upper bound, 24, 24
weak double negation, 10, 35,
36, 38–40, 42
weak entailment, 45, 49, 52
weak idempotency, 13, 14
weak idempotent, 13
weak modus ponens, 45–49,
52–54
Yager negation, 9, 9

Telecommunications Engineering Department, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan; 國立交通大學
(Gúo Lì Jiāo Tōng Dà Xúe) 電信工程學系 (Diàn Xìn Gōng Chéng Xúe Xì) 新竹，台灣 (Xīn Zhú, Tái Wān)
dgreenhoe@gmail.com
Received: aa bb 20YY

version 0.96

Revised: cc dd 20ZZ

Boolean and ortho fuzzy subset logics

Thursday 7th May, 2015

1:32pm UTC

