arXiv:1709.06502v1 [] 19 Sep 2017

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES ON PSEUDO MV-ALGEBRAS
ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ1,2

1

Mathematical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences
Štefánikova 49, SK-814 73 Bratislava, Slovakia
2
Depart. Algebra Geom., Palacký Univer.
17. listopadu 12, CZ-771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic
E-mail: dvurecen@mat.savba.sk
Abstract. We introduce Riesz space-valued states, called (R, 1R )-states, on
a pseudo MV-algebra, where R is a Riesz space with a fixed strong unit 1R .
Pseudo MV-algebras are a non-commutative generalization of MV-algebras.
Such a Riesz space-valued state is a generalization of usual states on MValgebras. Any (R, 1R )-state is an additive mapping preserving a partial addition in pseudo MV-algebras. Besides we introduce (R, 1R )-state-morphisms
and extremal (R, 1R )-states, and we study relations between them. We study
metrical completion of unital ℓ-groups with respect to an (R, 1R )-state. If the
unital Riesz space is Dedekind complete, we study when the space of (R, 1R )states is a Choquet simplex or even a Bauer simplex.

1. Introduction
The notion of a state is a basic one in the theory of quantum structures, see e.g.
[DvPu]. It is an analogue of a ﬁnitely additive probability measure. MV-algebras
as well as its non-commutative generalization, pseudo MV-algebras, introduced in
[GeIo, Rac], form an important subclass of quantum structures. Mundici deﬁned
a notion of a state on an MV-algebra in [Mun2] as averaging the truth-value in
Lukasiewicz logic. States on MV-algebras are studied very intensively last 10–15
years when many important results as an integral representation of states by regular
σ-additive probability measures, [Kro, Pan], or the MV-algebraic approach to de
Finetti’s notion of coherence, see [KuMu], have been established. Some applications
of states on MV-algebras can be found in [RiMu].
In the last period, the so-called Riesz MV-algebras have been studied in the
frames of MV-algebras, see [DiLe]. A prototypical example of Riesz MV-algebras
is an interval in a unital Riesz space, when we use Mundici’s representation functor Γ, see [Mun1, CDM]. The converse is also true: For any Riesz MV-algebra
M , there is a unital Riesz space (R, 1R ) such that M ∼
= Γ(R, 1R ), [DiLe, Thm 3].
Whereas MV-algebras are algebraic semantic of the Lukasiewicz logic, [Cha], Riesz
MV-algebras are an extension of the Lukasiewicz logic: The propositional calculus
1
Keywords: MV-algebra, pseudo MV-algebra, state, state-morphism, unital Riesz space,
(R, 1R )-state, extremal (R, 1R )-state, (R, 1R )-state-morphism, R-Jordan signed measure, Choquet simplex, Bauer simplex
AMS classification: 06D35, 06C15
The paper has been supported by grant of the Slovak Research and Development Agency under
contract APVV-16-0073, by the grant VEGA No. 2/0069/16 SAV and GAČR 15-15286S.

1

2

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

that has Riesz MV-algebras as models is a conservative extension of Lukasiewicz
inﬁnite-valued propositional calculus, [DiLe]. Moreover, these structures have also
several applications, among which we mention artiﬁcial neural networks, image compression, game theory, etc., see [ADG, KrMa]. Fuzzy logics with noncommutative
conjunctions inspired by pseudo MV-algebras were studied in [Haj].
For more information about MV-algebras, see [CDM] and about states on MValgebras, see [Mun3], and for the most fresh survey on states on MV-algebras, see
[FlKr].
States on pseudo MV-algebras have been studied in [Dvu1]. For pseudo MValgebras there is a basic representation by unital ℓ-groups not necessarily Abelian,
[Dvu2], which generalizes Mundici’s representation of MV-algebras, see [Mun2].
A state on a pseudo MV-algebra is deﬁned as an additive functional with nonnegative real values which at the top element of the MV-algebra attains the value
1. Whereas every MV-algebra (with 0 6= 1) admits at least one value, this is
not a case for pseudo MV-algebras, because as it was shown in [Dvu1], there are
stateless pseudo MV-algebras. Moreover, a pseudo MV-algebra admits at least one
state if and only if the pseudo MV-algebra has at least one normal ideal that is
also maximal. Therefore, every linearly ordered pseudo MV-algebras, representable
pseudo MV-algebras or normal valued ones have at least one state.
Riesz space-valued states on MV-algebras have been ﬁrstly introduced in [BDV]
under the name generalized states. In the present paper, we introduce an (R, 1R )state on a pseudo MV-algebra as a mapping which attains values in the interval
[0, 1R ] of the unital Riesz space (R, 1R ), where R is a Riesz space and 1R is a
ﬁxed strong unit of R, Section 3. Besides we introduce extremal (R, 1R )-states
and (R, 1R )-state-morphisms as homomorphisms of pseudo MV-algebras into the
interval [0, 1R ]. We show relations between them and we discuss when the latter
two kinds of (R, 1R )-states coincide and when not. Whereas according to [Dvu1],
there is a one-to-one correspondence among extremal states, state-morphisms and
maximal ideals that are normal, respectively, we show that for (R, 1R )-states this
is not a case, in general. We will study cases when (R, 1R ) is an Archimedean
unital Riesz space or even a Dedekind complete unital Riesz space. In Section 4, we
present metrical completion of a unital ℓ-group by an (R, 1R )-state. In Section 5, we
introduce also R-measures and R-Jordan signed measures and we study situations
when the (R, 1R )-state space is a simplex, or a Choquet simplex or even a Bauer
simplex and when every (R, 1R )-state lies in the weak closure of the convex hull of
extremal (R, 1R )-states.
The paper is endowed with a couple of illustrating examples.
2. Pseudo MV-algebras and Riesz Spaces
In the present section we gather basic notions and results on pseudo MV-algebras
and Riesz spaces.
Pseudo MV-algebras as a non-commutative generalization of MV-algebras were
deﬁned independently in [GeIo] as pseudo MV-algebras and in [Rac] as generalized
MV-algebras.
Definition 2.1. A pseudo MV-algebra is an algebra (M ; ⊕,− ,∼ , 0, 1) of type (2, 1, 1,
0, 0) such that the following axioms hold for all x, y, z ∈ M with an additional binary
operation ⊙ defined via
y ⊙ x = (x− ⊕ y − )∼

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

(A1)
(A2)
(A3)
(A4)
(A5)
(A6)
(A7)
(A8)

3

x ⊕ (y ⊕ z) = (x ⊕ y) ⊕ z;
x ⊕ 0 = 0 ⊕ x = x;
x ⊕ 1 = 1 ⊕ x = 1;
1∼ = 0; 1− = 0;
(x− ⊕ y − )∼ = (x∼ ⊕ y ∼ )− ;
x ⊕ x∼ ⊙ y = y ⊕ y ∼ ⊙ x = x ⊙ y − ⊕ y = y ⊙ x− ⊕ x;
x ⊙ (x− ⊕ y) = (x ⊕ y ∼ ) ⊙ y;
(x− )∼ = x.

We shall assume that 0 6= 1. If we deﬁne x ≤ y iﬀ x− ⊕ y = 1, then ≤ is a
partial order such that M is a distributive lattice with x ∨ y = x ⊕ (x∼ ⊙ y) and
x ∧ y = x ⊙ (x− ⊕ y). We recall that a pseudo MV-algebra is an MV-algebra iﬀ ⊕ is
a commutative binary operation. As usually, we assume that ⊙ has higher binding
priority than ∧ and ⊕, and ⊕ is higher than ∨.
A non-void subset I of M is an ideal of M if (i) a ≤ b ∈ I implies a ∈ I, and (ii)
if a, b ∈ I, then a ⊕ b ∈ I. The sets M and {0} are ideals of M . An ideal I 6= M
of M is maximal if it is not a proper subset of any proper ideal of M . An ideal I
of M is normal if a ⊕ I := {a ⊕ b : b ∈ I} = {c ⊕ a : c ∈ I} =: I ⊕ a for any a ∈ M .
For basic properties of pseudo MV-algebras see [GeIo].
Pseudo MV-algebras are intimately connected with ℓ-groups. We remind that a
po-group is a group (G; +, −, 0) written additively endowed with a partial order ≤
such that, for g, h ∈ G with g ≤ h we have a + g + b ≤ a + h + b for all a, b ∈ G.
If the partial order ≤ is a lattice order, G is said to be an ℓ-group. The positive
cone of a po-group G is the set G+ = {g ∈ G : 0 ≤ g}. A po-group G satisﬁes
interpolation if, for x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 ∈ G with x1 , x2 ≤ y1 , y2 , there is an element z ∈ G
such that x1 , x2 ≤ z ≤ y1 , y2 . An element u ≥ 0 is a strong unit of G if, given
g ∈ G, there is an integer n ≥ 1 such that g ≤ nu. A couple (G, u), where G is an
ℓ-group and u is a ﬁxed strong unit of G, is said to be a unital ℓ-group. An ℓ-group
G is (i) Archimedean if, for a, b ∈ G, na ≤ b for each integer n ≥ 1 implies a ≤ 0,
(ii) Dedekind σ-complete if any sequence {gn } of elements
of G that is bounded
W
from above by some element g0 ∈ G has supremum n gn ∈ G, and (iii) Dedekind
complete if any family {gt : t ∈ T } of W
elements of G which is bounded from above by
some element g0 ∈ G has supremum t∈T gt ∈ G. An ℓ-ideal of an ℓ-group G is any
ℓ-subgroup P of G such that a ∈ P and |a| ≤ |b| yield a ∈ P . Here |g| = g + + g − ,
g + = g ∨ 0 and g − = −(g ∧ 0) for each g ∈ G. For non-explained notions about
ℓ-groups, please, consult e.g. [Fuc, Gla].
A prototypical example of pseudo MV-algebras is from ℓ-groups: If u is a strong
unit of a (not necessarily Abelian) ℓ-group G,
Γ(G, u) := [0, u]
and
x ⊕ y := (x + y) ∧ u,
x− := u − x,
x∼ := −x + u,
x ⊙ y := (x − u + y) ∨ 0,
then Γ(G, u) := ([0, u]; ⊕,− ,∼ , 0, u) is a pseudo MV-algebra [GeIo]. Conversely,
for every pseudo MV-algebra M , there is a unique unital ℓ-group (G, u) (up to

4

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

isomorphism of unital ℓ-groups) such that M ∼
= Γ(G, u), and there is a categorical
equivalence between the category of pseudo MV-algebras and the category of unital
ℓ-groups as it follows from the basic representation theorem [Dvu2] given by the
functor (G, u) 7→ Γ(G, u).
We deﬁne a partial operation, +, on M in such a way: x + y is deﬁned in M iﬀ
x ⊙ y = 0, and in such a case, we set x + y := x ⊕ y. Using representation of pseudo
MV-algebras by unital ℓ-groups, we see that the partial operation + coincides with
the group addition restricted to M . The operation + is associative. We note, that
if x ≤ y for x, y ∈ M , then there are two unique elements z1 , z2 ∈ M such that
z1 + x = y = x + z2 . We denote them by z1 = y − x and z2 = −x + y, and
using the group representation, − coincides with the group subtraction. Since +
is associative, we say that a ﬁnite system (ai )ni=1 of M is summable if there is an
element a = a1 + · · · + an ∈ M ; a is said to be the sum of (ai )ni=1 and the sequence
(ai )ni=1 is said to be summable.
Since there is a categorical equivalence between pseudo MV-algebras and unital
ℓ-groups, [Dvu2], for the partial addition + on any pseudo MV-algebra the following
form of the Riesz Decomposition property, called the strong Riesz Decomposition
Property, RDP2 for short, holds: If for any a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 ∈ M such that a1 + a2 =
b1 + b2 there are four elements c11 , c12 , c21 , c22 ∈ M such that a1 = c11 + c12 ,
a2 = c21 + c22 , b1 = c11 + c21 , b2 = c12 + c22 and c12 ∧ c21 = 0. It is derived from
such a decomposition holding in ℓ-groups, see [Fuc, Thm V.1] and [DvVe1, DvVe2].
Equivalently, if a1 , . . . , am and b1 , . . . , bn are elements of a pseudo MV-algebra M
such that a1 + · · ·+ am = b1 + · · ·+ bn , there is a system {cij : 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ n}
of elements of M satisfying
ai = ci1 + · · · + cin ,

bj = c1j + · · · + cmj ,

(2.1)

for all 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, and
(ci+1,j + · · · + cmj ) ∧ (ci,j+1 + · · · + cin ) = 0,

i < m, j < n.

(2.2)

For any x ∈ M and any integer n ≥ 0, we deﬁne
x0 = 1, xn+1 = xn ⊙ x, n ≥ 1,
0 ⊙ x = 0, (n + 1) ⊙ x = (n ⊙ x) ⊙ x, n ≥ 1,
0x = 0, (n + 1)x = nx + x, n ≥ 1, if nx + x exists in M.
A real vector space R with a ﬁxed partial order ≤ is a Riesz space if
(i) R with respect to ≤ is an ℓ-group;
(ii) f ∈ R+ implies af ∈ R+ for every real number a ≥ 0.
A Riesz space R is Archimedean if it is Archimedean as an ℓ-group, analogously R
is Dedekind σ-complete or Dedekind complete if so is R as an ℓ-group. We note that
if R is Dedekind complete, then it is Dedekind σ-complete, and if R is Dedekind
σ-complete then it is Archimedean. A Riesz ideal of R is any ℓ-ideal of R. We note
that any Riesz ideal of R is a Riesz subspace of R.
A unital Riesz space is a couple (R, 1R ) where R is a Riesz space and 1R is a
ﬁxed strong unit of R. Important examples of unital Archimedean Riesz spaces
are spaces of real-valued functions on some topological space: Let T 6= ∅ be a
compact Hausdorﬀ topological space. We denote by C(T ) and Cb (T ) the system of
all continuous real-valued functions of T and the system of all bounded real-valued
functions on T , respectively. Then C(T ) and Cb (T ) are Archimedean Riesz spaces

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

5

with respect to the partial order of functions f ≤ g iﬀ f (t) ≤ g(t) for each t ∈ T .
The function 1T deﬁned by 1T (t) = 1 for each t ∈ T is a strong unit for both C(T )
and Cb (T ). Both spaces are closed under usual product of two functions, so that
both spaces are Banach algebras. The space C(T ) has an important property: If T ′
is another non-void compact Hausdorﬀ space, then there is an isomorphism of Riesz
spaces between (C(T ), 1T ) and (C(T ′ ), 1T ′ ) preserving product of functions iﬀ T
and T ′ are homeomorphic, see [DuSc, Thm IV.6.26]. In addition, let T ′ = M(C(T ))
denote the space of maximal ideals of C(T ). Under the hull-kernel topology, T ′ is
homeomorphic to T and C(T ) and C(T ′ ) are isometric and isomorphic Riesz spaces,
see [LuZa, Ex 45.7].
In the last period, there has appeared a class of important MV-algebras, Riesz
MV-algebras, which are connected with Riesz spaces, for more details, see [DiLe].
We note that if (R, 1R ) is a unital Riesz space, then the MV-algebra Γ(R, 1R ) is a
characteristic example of a Riesz MV-algebra.
For Archimedean unital Riesz spaces there is a representation theorem by Yosida,
see [Yos] or [LuZa, Thm 45.3]:
Theorem 2.2. [Yosida Theorem] Let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space.
Then there is a compact Hausdorff topological space T such that R can be embedded
as a Riesz subspace into C(T ), the Riesz space of continuous real-valued functions
on T , such that 1R maps to the constant function 1T , where 1T (t) = 1, t ∈ T . In
addition, T can be chosen such that the image of the embedding of R into C(T ) is
uniformly dense in C(T ), i.e. the uniform closure of the image of R is C(T ).
We remind that there are nice topological characterizations, Nakano’s theorems,
when the Riesz space C(T ) (T 6= ∅ compact and Hausdorﬀ) is Dedekind σ-complete
and Dedekind complete, respectively: (1) C(T ) is Dedekind σ-complete iﬀ T is a
basically disconnected space, that is, the closure of every open Fσ subset of T is
open, see e.g. [Go, Cor 9.3], [LuZa, Thm 43.9]. (2) C(T ) is Dedekind complete iﬀ
T is extremally disconnected, that is, the closure of every open set of T is open,
see [LuZa, Thm 43.11]. We note that the same characterizations hold also for the
Riesz space Cb (T ) of bounded real-valued functions on T .
General Dedekind σ-complete unital Riesz spaces are characterized as follows,
see [LuZa, Thm 45.4]:
Theorem 2.3. If (R, 1R ) is a Dedekind σ-complete Riesz space, then it is isomorphic to some (C(T ), 1T ), where T 6= ∅ is a compact basically disconnected Hausdorff
topological space.
In addition, if (R, 1R ) is even Dedekind complete, then T is extremally disconnected. In both cases, the space T can be chosen as the set of maximal ideals of R
topologized by the hull-kernel topology.
More about Riesz spaces can be found in [LuZa] and some information about
representations of Archimedean Riesz spaces by systems of functions attaining also
inﬁnite values are in the survey [Fil].
3. (R, 1R )-states on Pseudo MV-algebras
In the present section, we deﬁne states on pseudo MV-algebras and then we
deﬁne (R, 1R )-states as additively deﬁned mappings on a pseudo MV-algebra M
which preserve the partial addition + on M and have values in the interval [0, 1R ]

6

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

of a unital Riesz space (R, 1R ) mapping the top element 1 ∈ M onto the strong
unit 1R ∈ R. We introduce also extremal (R, 1R )-states, (R, 1R )-state-morphisms,
and we show relationships between them.
States, analogues of ﬁnitely additive measures, on pseudo MV-algebras were
introduced in [Dvu1] as follows: Let M be a pseudo MV-algebra. A state on M is
any real-valued mapping s : M → [0, 1] such that (i) s(1) = 1, and (ii) s(x + y) =
s(x) + s(y) whenever x + y is deﬁned in M . According to [Dvu1, Prop 4.1], if s is a
state on M , then (i) s(0) = 0, (ii) s(a) ≤ s(b) if a ≤ b, (iii) s(x− ) = 1−s(x) = s(x∼ ),
(iv) s(x= ) = s(x) = s(x≈ ), (v) s(x∨y)+ s(x∧y) = s(x)+ s(y) = s(x⊕ y)+ s(x⊙ y),
(vi) s(x ⊕ y) = s(y ⊕ x). A state s is extremal if from s = λs1 + (1 − λ)s2 for states
s1 , s2 on M and λ ∈ (0, 1) we have have s1 = s2 . Let S(M ) and S∂ (M ) denote
the set of all states and extremal states, respectively, on M . It can happen that
S(M ) = ∅, see [Dvu1, Cor 7.4], however, if M is an MV-algebra, M has at least
one state, [Go, Cor 4.4]. We note that a pseudo MV-algebra possesses at least one
state iﬀ M has at least one maximal ideal that is also normal, see [Dvu1]. We say
that a net {sα }α of states on M converges weakly to a states s if s(x) = limα sα (x)
for each x ∈ M . Then S(E) and S∂ (M ) are either simultaneously the empty sets
or non-void compact Hausdorﬀ topological spaces, and due to the Krein–Mil’man
Theorem, every state s on M is a weak limit of a net of convex combinations of
extremal states.
Now we extend the notion of a state to a Riesz space-valued mapping.
Definition 3.1. Let 1R be a strong unit of a Riesz space R. An (R, 1R )-state on a
pseudo MV-algebra M is any mapping s : M → [0, 1R ] such that (i) s(1) = 1R and
(ii) s(x + y) = s(x) + s(y) whenever x + y is defined in M .
An (R, 1R )-state-morphism on a pseudo MV-algebra M is any homomorphism of
pseudo MV-algebras s : M → Γ(R, 1R ). We denote by R the group of real numbers.
It is evident that any (R, 1)-state is a state on M . An (R, 1)-state-morphism on
M is said to be a state-morphism. It is clear that any (R, 1R )-state-morphism is in
fact an (R, 1R )-state on M . The converse is not true, in general.
We can deﬁne also an (R, 1R )-state on every unital ℓ-group (G, u) as follows: It
is a mapping s : G → R such that (i) s(g) ≥ 0 if g ≥ 0, (ii) s(g + h) = s(g) + s(h)
for all g, h ∈ G, and (iii) s(u) = 1R . The restriction of any (R, 1R )-state on
(G, u) onto the pseudo MV-algebra Γ(G, u) gives an (R, 1R )-state on Γ(G, u), and
using the categorical equivalence between pseudo MV-algebras and unital ℓ-groups,
see [Dvu2, Thm 6.4], every (R, 1R )-state on Γ(G, u) can be extended to a unique
(R, 1R )-state on (G, u).
It is worthy of recalling that if s is an (R, 1R )-state on Γ(S, 1S ), where (S, 1S ) is
a unital Riesz space, then s(tx) = ts(x) for each x ∈ Γ(S, 1S ) and any real number
t ∈ [0, 1]. Indeed, since s(x) = s(n n1 x) = ns( n1 x), i.e. s( n1 x) = n1 s(x). Then
1
1
m
for each integer m = 0, 1, . . . , n, we have s( m
n x) = s(m n x) = ms( n x) = n s(x).
The statement is trivially satisﬁed if t = 0, 1. Thus let t ∈ (0, 1). There are two
sequences of rational numbers {pn } and {qn } from the interval (0, 1) such that
{sn } ր t and {qn } ց t which implies pn s(x) = s(pn x) ≤ s(tx) ≤ s(qn x) = qn s(x),
so that s(tx) = ts(x).
In addition, if s is an (R, 1R )-state on a unital Riesz space (S, 1S ), we can show
that s(ta) = ts(a) for each a ∈ S and t ∈ R.
Proposition 3.2. Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on a pseudo MV-algebra M . Then

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

7

(i) s(0) = 0.
(ii) If x ≤ y, then s(x) ≤ s(y), and
s(y ⊙ x− ) = s(y) − s(x) = s(x∼ ⊙ y).
s(x− ) = 1 − s(x) = s(x∼ ).
s(x= ) = s(x) = s(x≈ ).
s(x ∨ y) + s(x ∧ y) = s(x) + s(y).
s(x ⊕ y) + s(x ⊙ y) = s(x) + s(y).
s(x ⊕ y) ⊕ s(x ⊙ y) = s(x) ⊕ s(y).
The kernel of s, Ker(s) := {x ∈ M : s(x) = 0}, is a normal ideal of M .
[x] = [y] if and only if s(x) = s(x ∧ y) = s(y), where where [x] and [y] are
the cosets in M/Ker(s) determined by x, y ∈ M .
(x) There is a unique (R, 1R )-state s̃ on M/Ker(s) such that s̃([x]) = s(x) for
each [x] ∈ M/Ker(s).
(xi) s̃([x]) = 0 if and only if [x] = [0].
(xii) s(x⊕y) = s(y ⊕x) whenever R is an Archimedean Riesz space. In addition,
M/Ker(s) is an Archimedean MV-algebra.

(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)

Proof. Assume M = Γ(G, u) for some unital ℓ-group (G, u). Properties (i)–(iv)
follow directly from deﬁnition of pseudo MV-algebras and (R, 1R )-states.
(v) It follows from equalities (x∨y)⊙ y − = (x∨y)− y = x− (x∧y) = x⊙ (x∧y)−
which hold in the ℓ-group G and the pseudo MV-algebra M .
(vi) It follows from the identity x = (x ⊕ y) ⊙ y − + (y ⊙ x), see [GeIo, Prop 1.25]
and (ii).
(vii) It follows from (vi) and from the identity r1 ⊕ r1 = (r1 + r2 ) ∧ 1R for
r1 , r2 ∈ [0, 1R ].
(viii) If s(x), s(y) = 0, then by (vi), we have s(x ⊕ y) = 0. By (ii) we conclude
Ker(s) is an ideal of M . To show that Ker(s) is normal, let a ∈ M and x ∈
Ker(s). Then s(a ⊕ x) = s(a) = s(x ⊕ a) and a ⊕ x = (a ⊕ x) ⊙ a− ⊕ a so that,
s((a ⊕ x) ⊙ a− ) = 0. In a similar way, we prove that x ⊕ a = a ⊕ (a∼ ⊙ (x ⊕ a))
and a∼ ⊙ (x ⊕ a)) ∈ Ker(s).
(ix) It is evident.
(x) Let [x] ≤ [y]− . We deﬁne x0 = x ∧ y − . Then x0 ≤ y − and [x0 ] = [x ∧ y − ],
so that
s̃([x] + [y]) = s̃([x ⊕ y]) = s̃([x0 + y]) = s(x0 + y) = s(x0 ) + s(y)
= s̃([x0 ]) + s̃([y]) = s̃([x]) + s̃([y])
which proves that s̃ is an (R, 1R )-state on M/Ker(s). By (ix), [x] = [y] implies
s(x) = s(y).
(xi) It follows from (ix).
(xii) Due to (xi), s̃([x]) = 0 iﬀ [x] = [0]. We claim that M/Ker(s) is an
Archimedean pseudo MV-algebra. Indeed, let n[x] be deﬁned in M/Ker(s) for
any integer n ≥ 1. Then s̃(n[x]) = ns̃([x]) = n s(x) ≤ 1R for any n. Therefore,
s̃([x]) = s(x) = 0. The Archimedeanicity of M/Ker(s) entails the commutativity of
M/Ker(s), see [Dvu1, Thm 4.2]. Therefore, s(x ⊕ y) = s̃([x ⊕ y]) = s̃([x] ⊕ [y]) =
s̃([y] ⊕ [x]) = s̃([y ⊕ x]) = s(y ⊕ x).

In the same way as for states, we can deﬁne extremal (R, 1R )-states. Let
S(M, R, 1R ), SM(M, R, 1R ), and S∂ (M, R, 1R ) denote the set of (R, 1R )-states,

8

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

(R, 1R )-state-morphisms and extremal (R, 1R )-states, respectively, on M . Analogously, we can deﬁne extremal (R, 1R )-states on unital ℓ-groups. In addition, using
the categorical equivalence [Dvu2, Thm 6.4], if M = Γ(G, u), then an (R, 1R )state s on M is extremal iﬀ the unique extension of s to an (R, 1R )-state on (G, u)
is extremal and vice-versa, that is, an (R, 1R )-state on (G, u) is extremal iﬀ its
restriction to Γ(G, u) is extremal.
Lemma 3.3. An (R, 1R )-state s on M is extremal if and only if s̃ is extremal on
M/Ker(s).
Proof. (1) Let s be extremal and let s̃ = λm1 + (1 − λ)m2 , where m1 , m2 are
(R, 1R )-states on M/Ker(s) and λ ∈ (0, 1). Then si (x) := mi ([x]), x ∈ M , i = 1, 2,
is an (R, 1R )-state on M , and s = λs1 + (1 − λ)s2 so that s1 = s2 and m1 = m2
proving s̃ is extremal.
Conversely, let s̃ be extremal and let s = λs1 + (1 − λ)s2 for (R, 1R )-states
s1 , s2 on M and λ ∈ (0, 1). Then Ker(s) = Ker(s1 ) ∩ Ker(s2 ). We assert that
mi ([x]) := si (x), [x] ∈ M/Ker(s), is an (R, 1R )-state on M/Ker(s) for i = 1, 2.
Indeed, ﬁrst we show that mi is correctly deﬁned. Thus let [x] = [y]. By (ix) of
Proposition 3.2, we have s(x) = s(x ∧ y) = s(y) so that s(x ⊙ y − ) = 0 = s(y ⊙ x− )
which yields si (x ⊙ y − ) = 0 = si (y ⊙ x− ) and si (x) = si (x ∧ y) = si (y) for i = 1, 2.
So that, we have mi ([x]) = mi ([y]). Therefore, mi is an (R, 1R )-state. Then
s̃ = λm1 + (1 − λ)m2 implying m1 = m2 and s1 = s2 .

We note that it can happen that on M there is no (R, 1R )-state even for (R, 1R ) =
(R, 1) as it was already mentioned. In the following proposition, we show that if
M is an MV-algebra, then S(M, R, 1R ) is non-void.
Proposition 3.4. Every MV-algebra has at least one (R, 1R )-state for every unital
Riesz space (R, 1R ).
Proof. Due to [Go, Cor 4.4], any MV-algebra M has at least one state; denote it
by s0 . Then the mapping s : M → [0, 1R ] deﬁned by s(x) := s0 (x)1R , x ∈ M , is an
(R, 1R )-state on M .

The following result was established in [Dvu1] for states on MV-algebras. In the
following proposition, we extend it for (R, 1R )-states.
Proposition 3.5. Let (R, 1R ) be a unital Riesz space. The following statements
are equivalent:
(i) The pseudo MV-algebra M possesses at least one (R, 1R )-state.
(ii) M has has at least one maximal ideal that is normal.
(iii) M has at least one state.
(1) Every linearly ordered pseudo MV-algebra possesses at least one (R, 1R )-state.
The same is true if M is representable, i.e. it is representable as a subdirect product
of linearly ordered pseudo MV-algebras.
(2) If M is a linearly ordered pseudo MV-algebra and (R, 1R ) is an Archimedean
unital Riesz space, then M possesses only a unique (R, 1R )-state.
Proof. By [Dvu1, Prop 4.3], (ii) and (iii) are equivalent.
(i) ⇒ (ii). Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on M . Since Γ(R, 1R ) is an MV-algebra, it
has at least one state, say s0 . Then the mapping s0 ◦ s is a state on M , which by
[Dvu1, Prop 4.3] means that M has at least one maximal ideal that is normal.

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

9

(ii) ⇒ (i). Let I be a maximal ideal of M that is normal. By [Dvu1, Cor 3.5],
M/I is an MV-algebra. Due to Proposition 3.4, M/I possesses at least one (R, 1R )state, say s0 . Then the mapping s(x) := s0 (x/I), x ∈ M , is an (R, 1R )-state on
M.
(1) Now suppose that M is linearly ordered. By [Dvu1, Prop 5.4], M possesses a
unique maximal ideal and this ideal is normal. Applying just proved equivalences,
M possesses an (R, 1R )-state.
Q
If M is representable, then it can be embedded into a direct product t Mt∈T
of linearly ordered pseudo MV-algebras
{Mt : t ∈ T }, i.e. there is an embedding
Q
of pseudo MV-algebras h : M
→
M
such
that πt ◦ h : M → Mt is a surjective
t
t
Q
homomorphism, where πt : t∈T Mt → Mt is the t-th projection for each t ∈ T .
Every Mt possesses an (R, 1R )-state st , so that st ◦ πt ◦ h is an (R, 1R )-state on M .
(2) Let M be linearly ordered and (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz
space. By the Yosida Representation Theorem, Theorem 2.2, there is a compact
Hausdorﬀ topological space such that R can be embedded into the Riesz space C(T )
of continuous real-valued functions on T as its Riesz subspace. Given t ∈ T , deﬁne
a mapping st : Γ(C(T ), 1T ) → [0, 1] deﬁned by st (f ) = f (t), f ∈ Γ(C(T ), 1T ); it
is a state on Γ(C(T ), 1T ). Due to (1) of the present proof, M admits at least one
(R, 1R )-state. Let s1 , s2 be (R, 1R )-states on M . Then st ◦ si is a state on M for
i = 1, 2 and each t ∈ T . According to [Dvu1, Thm 5.5], M admits only one state.
Therefore, st ◦ s1 = st ◦ s2 for each t ∈ T , i.e. s1 = s2 .

For additional relationships between (R, 1R )-state-morphisms and their kernels
as maximal ideals, see Propositions 3.20–3.21 below.
We note that in (2) of the latter proposition, if (R, 1R ) is not Archimedean, then
it can happen that M has uncountably many (R, 1R )-states and each of these states
is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism, see Example 3.8 below.
Proposition 3.6. (1) An (R, 1R )-state s on a pseudo MV-algebra M is an (R, 1R )state-morphism if and only if
s(x ∧ y) = s(x) ∧ s(y),

x, y ∈ M.

(3.1)

(2) An (R, 1R )-state s on M is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism if and only if the (R, 1R )state s̃ on M/Ker(s) induced by s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M/Ker(s).
Proof. (1) Assume that s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism. Then s(x ∧ y) = s(x ⊙
(x− ⊕ y)) = s(x) ⊙ (s(x− ) ⊕ s(y)) = s(x) ∧ s(y).
Conversely, let (3.1) hold. Then x ⊕ y = x + (x∼ ⊙ (x ⊕ y)) = x + (x∼ ∧ y), so that
s(x⊕y) = s(x)+s(x∼ ∧y) = s(x)+(1R −s(x))∧s(y) = (s(x)+s(y))∧1R = s(x)⊕s(y)
proving s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism.
(2) Using Proposition 3.2, we have s(x ∧ y) = s̃([x ∧ y]) = s̃([x] ∧ [y]). Applying
(1), we have the assertion in question.

By [Dvu1, Prop 4.3], a state s on a pseudo MV-algebra M is a state-morphism
iﬀ Ker(s) is maximal. In what follows, we exhibit this criterion for the case of
(R, 1R )-state-morphisms.
Proposition 3.7. (1) Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on M . If Ker(s) is a maximal ideal
of M , then s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism.
(2) In addition, let (R, 1R ) be a unital Riesz space such that every element of
R+ \ {0} is a strong unit. If s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism, then Ker(s) is a
maximal ideal.

10

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

Proof. (1) Assume Ker(s) is a maximal ideal of M . By [GeIo, (i) Prop 1.25],
x ⊙ y − ∧ y ⊙ x− = 0 for all x, y ∈ M , that is [x] ⊙ [y]− ∧ [y] ⊙ [x]− = [0] and
due to [Dvu1, Cor 3.5], M/Ker(s) is an Archimedean linearly ordered MV-algebra
which entails either s(x ⊙ y − ) = 0 or s(y ⊙ x− ) = 0. In the ﬁrst case we have
0 = s(x ⊙ y − ) = s(x ⊙ (x ∧ y)− ) = s(x) − s(x ∧ y). Similarly, 0 = s(y ⊙ x− )
entails s(y) − s(x ∧ y) = 0, i.e., s(x ∧ y) = min{s(x), s(y)} = s(x) ∧ s(y), which by
Proposition 3.6 means that s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism.
(2) Let (R, 1R ) be a Riesz space such that every strictly positive element of R is
a strong unit; then R is Archimedean. Let s be an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M
and let x ∈ M be an element such that s(x) 6= 0.
Denote by Ker(s)x the ideal of M generated by Ker(s) and x. By [GeIo, Lem 3.4],
Ker(s)x = {y ∈ M : y ≤ n ⊙ x ⊕ h for some n ≥ 1 and some h ∈ Ker(s)}. Let z be
an arbitrary element of M . Since s(x) is a strong unit of R, there exists an integer
n ≥ 1 such that s(z) < ns(x), so that s(z) ≤ n ⊙ s(x). Then s((n ⊙ x)∼ ⊙ z) = 0.
Since z = (n⊙x)∧z⊕((n⊙x)∧z)∼ ⊙z = (n⊙x)∧z⊕(n⊙x)∼ ⊙z ≤ n⊙x⊕(n⊙x)∼ ⊙z,
it proves that z ∈ Ker(s)x , consequently, M = Ker(s)x which shows that Ker(s) is
a maximal ideal of M .

We notify that (2) of the preceding proposition follows directly from Theorem
3.12. We have left here the proof of (2) only to present diﬀerent used methods.
We note that if s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism and (R, 1R ) is not Archimedean,
then Ker(s) is not necessarily maximal as the following example shows. In addition,
it can happen that every (R, 1R )-state is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism but not every
(R, 1R )-state-morphism is extremal.
→
−
Example 3.8. Let M = Γ(Z × Z, (1, 0)), where Z is the group of integers, R =
→
−
R × R be the lexicographic product of the real line R with itself, and choose 1R =
(1, 0). Then R is a linearly ordered Riesz space that is not Archimedean, and every
element of the form (0, x), where x > 0, is strictly positive but no strong unit for
R. The mapping s : M → [0, 1R ] defined by s(a, b) = (a, b) for (a, b) ∈ M is an
(R, 1R )-state-morphism and Ker(s) = {(0, 0)} is an ideal that is not a maximal
ideal of M because it is properly contained in the maximal ideal I = {(0, n) : n ≥ 0}
which is a unique maximal ideal of M .
In addition, M has uncountably many (R, 1R )-states, any (R, 1R )-state on M
is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism, and there is a unique (R, 1R )-state having maximal
kernel and it is a unique extremal (R, 1R )-state M .
Proof. Let s be any (R, 1R )-state on M . Then s(0, 1) = (a, b) for some unique
→
−
(a, b) ∈ Γ(R × R, (1, 0)), where a ≥ 0. Since s(0, n) = (na, nb) ≤ (1, 0), n ≥ 0, we
have a = 0 and b ≥ 0. Therefore, s(1, −n) = (1, −nb). We denote this (R, 1R )state by sb . Hence, there is a one-to-one correspondence between (R, 1R )-states
on M and the positive real axis [0, ∞) given by b 7→ sb , b ∈ [0, ∞). Then every
(R, 1R )-state sb is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism, Ker(sb ) = {(0, 0)} for b > 0 which
is an ideal of M but not maximal, and only s0 is an extremal (R, 1R )-state on M
and Ker(s0 ) = {(0, n) : n ≥ 0} is a maximal ideal.

We note that in Example 3.17 and Proposition 3.18 we will show also cases of
(R, 1R )-state-morphisms for an Archimedean Riesz space (R, 1R ) whose kernel is
not maximal.

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

11

We remind the following result from [Dvu1, Lem 4.4] which follows e.g. from
[CDM, Prop 7.2.5].
Lemma 3.9. (i) Let G1 and G2 be two subgroups of (R; +) each containing a
common non-zero element g0 . If there is an injective group-homomorphism φ of
G1 into G2 preserving the order such that φ(g0 ) = g0 , then G1 ⊆ G2 and φ is the
identity on G1 . If, in addition, φ is surjective, then G1 = G2 .
(ii) Let M1 and M2 be two MV-subalgebras of the standard MV-algebra [0, 1]. If
there is an MV-isomorphism ψ from M1 onto M2 , then M1 = M2 , and ψ is the
identity.
Theorem 3.10. Let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space. Let s1 , s2 be
two (R, 1R )-state-morphisms on a pseudo MV-algebra M such that their kernels are
maximal ideals of M and Ker(s1 ) = Ker(s2 ). Then s1 = s2 .
Proof. Since R is an Archimedean Riesz space with a strong unit 1R , due to the
Yosida Representation Theorem, Theorem 2.2, there is a compact Hausdorﬀ topological space T 6= ∅ and an injective homomorphism of Riesz spaces φ : R → C(T )
with φ(1R ) = 1T , where (C(T ), 1T ) is the unital Riesz space of continuous realvalued functions on T . Then Mi := si (M ) are MV-subalgebras of the MV-algebra
Γ(R, 1R ) for i = 1, 2. Deﬁne a mapping sit : φ(Mi ) → [0, 1] for each t ∈ T by
sit (φ(si (x))) = (φ(si (x)))(t) for each t ∈ T . Then the mapping ŝit := sit ◦ φ ◦ si
is a state-morphism on M , and
Prop 4.3], each Ker(ŝit ) is a maximal
T by [Dvu1,
i
ideal of M . Since Ker(si ) = t∈T Ker(ŝt ) and Ker(si ) ⊆ Ker(ŝit ) are also maximal ideals of M , we conclude that Ker(ŝ1t ) = Ker(s1 ) = Ker(s2 ) = Ker(ŝ2t ) for
each t ∈ T which by [Dvu1, Prop 4.5] means that s1t = s2t for each t ∈ T . Then
φ(s1 (x))(t) = φ(s2 (x))(t), t ∈ T , i.e. s1 = s2 .

We note that if (R, 1R ) is not Archimedean, then Theorem 3.10 is not necessarily
valid, see Example 3.8.
Proposition 3.11. Let I be a maximal and normal ideal of a pseudo MV-algebra
M and let (R, 1R ) be a unital Riesz space. Then there is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism
s such that Ker(s) = I. If, in addition, R is Archimedean, there is a unique (R, 1R )state-morphism s such that Ker(s) = I.
Proof. Since M/I is by [Dvu1, Prop 3.4] an Archimedean linearly ordered MValgebra, it is isomorphic by Lemma 3.9 to a unique MV-subalgebra of Γ(R, 1);
identify it with its image in R. Deﬁne a mapping s : M → R as follows: s(x) =
x/I1R , x ∈ M . Then s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M such that Ker(s) = I.
Let, in addition, R be an Archimedean Riesz space. By Theorem 3.10, if s′ is
another (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M with Ker(s′ ) = I, then s = s′ .

The following result says about a one-to-one correspondence between (R, 1R )states and states on pseudo MV-algebras for a special kind of Archimedean unital
Riesz spaces.
Theorem 3.12. Let (R, 1R ) be a unital Riesz space such that every strictly positive
element of R is a strong unit for R. Given a state m on M , the mapping
s(x) := m(x)1R ,
is an (R, 1R )-state on M .

x ∈ M,

12

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

Conversely, if s is an (R, 1R )-state on a pseudo MV-algebra M , there is a unique
state ms on M such
s(x) := ms (x)1R ,

x ∈ M.

The mapping s 7→ ms is a bijective affine mapping from S(M ) onto S(M, R, 1R ).
In addition, the following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

s is an extremal (R, 1R )-state on M .
s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M .
s(x ∧ y) = s(x) ∧ s(y), x, y ∈ M .
s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M if an only if ms is a state-morphism
on M .

Proof. First, we characterize Riesz spaces from the assumptions of the theorem:
Since every strictly positive element of R is a strong unit, by [Go, Lem 14.1], R is a
simple ℓ-group, i.e., the only ℓ-ideals of R are {0} and R. Therefore, the ideal {0} is
a unique maximal ideal of Γ(R, 1R ), so that by Proposition 3.7(1) and Proposition
3.11, there is a unique state µ on Γ(R, 1R ), it is a state-morphism as well as an
extremal state, so that, Ker(µ) = {0} and µ(a) = µ(b) for a, b ∈ Γ(R, 1R ) if and
only if a = b.
Now, let m be a state on M . Then the mapping s(x) := m(x)1R , x ∈ M , is
trivially an (R, 1R )-state on M . This is true for each unital Riesz space.
Conversely, let s be an arbitrary (R, 1R )-state on M . By the Yosida Theorem
2.2, there is a compact Hausdorﬀ topological space T 6= ∅ such that the unital Riesz
space (R, 1R ) can be injectively embedded into the unital Riesz space (C(T ), 1T )
of continuous functions on T as its Riesz subspace. If φ is this embedding, then
(φ(R), 1R ) is a unital Riesz space whose every strictly positive element is a strong
unit for φ(R).
For any t ∈ T , let us deﬁne st : Γ(φ(R), 1T ) → [0, 1] by st (f ) := f (t), f ∈
Γ(φ(R), 1T ). Then each st is a state-morphism on Γ(φ(R), 1T ). Deﬁne a mapping
ŝt : M → [0, 1] as ŝt = st ◦ φ ◦ s. Since every strictly positive element of φ(R) is
a strong unit for it, by the above ﬁrst note from the beginning of our proof, we
conclude that st = st′ for all t, t′ ∈ T . Hence, ŝt = ŝt′ . Thus we denote by ŝ = ŝt0
for an arbitrary t0 ∈ T . Consequently, ŝ(x) is a constant function on T for each
x ∈ M , and the range of ŝ is a linearly ordered set, therefore, the range of s(M ) is
a linearly ordered set in R.
If we deﬁne ms (x) := st0 (φ(s(x))), x ∈ M , then ms is a state on M . Consequently, s(x) := ms (x)1R , x ∈ M .
Now it is clear that the mapping Φ : S(M, R, 1R ) → S(M ) deﬁned by Φ(s) :=
ms , s ∈ S(M, R, 1R ), is a bijective aﬃne mapping.
Due to this bijective aﬃne mapping Φ, we see that in view of [Dvu1, Prop 4.7],
statements (i)–(iv) are mutually equivalent.

We note that the results of the precedent theorem are not surprising because if
(R, 1R ) is a unital Riesz space, whose every strictly positive element is a strong unit
for R, then (R, 1R ) ∼
= (R, 1). Indeed, since every ℓ-ideal of R is also a Riesz ideal of
R and vice versa (this is true for each Riesz space), then {0} is a unique proper Riesz
ideal of R, see [Go, Lem 14.1], therefore, it is maximal, and since R is Archimedean,
by the proof of the Yosida Representation Theorem, see [LuZa, Chap 45], T is in

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

13

fact the set of maximal Riesz ideals of (R, 1R ) which is topologized by the hullkernel topology and in our case, T is a singleton. Consequently, (R, 1R ) ∼
= (R, 1),
and we can apply [Dvu1, Prop 4.7].
In the next proposition we show that if every strictly positive element of a unital
ℓ-group (G, u) is a strong unit for G and (R, 1R ) is Archimedean, then M = Γ(G, u)
possesses a unique (R, 1R )-state.
Proposition 3.13. Let M = Γ(G, u) and every non-zero element of M be a strong
unit for G. Then every (R, 1R )-state s on M is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism for
every unital Riesz space (R, 1R ), Ker(s) is a maximal ideal of M , M is an MValgebra, and S(M, R, 1R ) 6= ∅. If, in addition, (R, 1R ) is an Archimedean unital
Riesz space, then |S(M, R, 1R )| = 1.
Proof. The hypotheses imply that M is Archimedean, and by [Dvu2, Thm 4.2], M
is an MV-algebra. Whence, every strictly positive element of G is a strong unit of
G, where (G, u) is a unital ℓ-group such that M ∼
= Γ(G, u). Therefore, (G, u) is an
Abelian unital ℓ-group. By [Go, Lem 14.1], G is a simple ℓ-group, so that G has
a unique proper ℓ-ideal, namely the zero ℓ-ideal. Then {0} is a unique maximal
ℓ-ideal of M . Hence, by Proposition 3.4, M possesses an (R, 1R )-state for every
unital Riesz space (R, 1R ).
Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on M . Since Ker(s) 6= M , Ker(s) = {0}, and hence
Ker(s) is a maximal ideal of M . By Proposition 3.7(1), s is an (R, 1R )-statemorphism on M .
Now let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space. Let s1 and s2 be (R, 1R )states on M . Then s := 1/2s1 + 1/2s2 is also an (R, 1R )-state on M and in view of
the ﬁrst part of the present proof, s, s1 , s2 are (R, 1R )-state-morphisms such that
Ker(s) = Ker(s1 ) = Ker(s2 ) = {0} are maximal ideals of M , which by Theorem 3.10
yields s1 = s = s2 . In particular, the unique (R, 1R )-state on M is extremal.

Proposition 3.14. Let T be a non-void set and R = Cb (T ) be the Riesz space of
bounded real-valued functions on T , and let 1T be the constant function 1T (t) = 1,
t ∈ T . Then 1R = 1T is a strong unit for R. Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on a pseudo
MV-algebra M . The following statements are equivalent:
(i) s is an extremal (R, 1R )-state on M .
(ii) s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M .
(iii) s(x ∧ y) = s(x) ∧ s(y), x, y ∈ M .
In addition,
S∂ (M, R, 1R ) = SM(M, R, 1R ).
(3.2)
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Let s be an extremal (R, 1R )-state on M . If we deﬁne an MValgebra Γ(R, 1R ), then every mapping st : Γ(R, 1R ) → [0, 1] deﬁned by st (f ) = f (t),
f ∈ Γ(R, 1R ), is a state-morphism on Γ(R, 1R ). We assert that st ◦ s is an extremal
state on M for each t ∈ T . Indeed, let mt1 , mt2 be states on M and λ ∈ (0, 1) such
that st ◦ s = λmt1 + (1 − λ)mt2 . Deﬁne a function mi : M → [0, 1R ] such that
(mi (x))(t) = mti (x) for t ∈ T where x ∈ M and i = 1, 2. Then m1 (x), m2 (x) ∈
Cb (T ) for each x ∈ M , so that m1 , m2 are (R, 1R )-states on M such that s =
λm1 + (1 − λ)m2 . Since s is extremal, s = s1 = s2 which gives st ◦ s = mt1 = mt2
for each t ∈ T , and st ◦ s is an extremal state on M .
By [Dvu1, Prop 4.7], st ◦ s is a state-morphism on M , therefore, st (s(x ∧ y)) =
min{st (s(x)), st (s(y))}, that is s(x ∧ y) = s(x) ∧ s(y) for all x, y ∈ M and s is an
(R, 1R )-state morphism, see Proposition 3.6.

14

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

(ii) ⇒ (i). Let s be an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M and let s1 , s2 be (R, 1R )states on M such that s = λs1 + (1 − λ)s2 for some λ ∈ (0, 1). Let st be a
state-morphism from the foregoing implication for every t ∈ T . Then st ◦ s =
λst ◦ s1 + (1 − λ)st ◦ s2 . Applying [Dvu1, Prop 4.7], we have st ◦ s is an extremal
state because st ◦ s is a state-morphism on M . Therefore, st ◦ s = st ◦ s1 = st ◦ s2 for
each t ∈ T which in other words means that s = s1 = s2 , that is, s is an extremal
(R, 1R )-state on M .
The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) was established in Proposition 3.6. Equation
(3.2) follows from the equivalence of (i) and (ii).

Corollary 3.15. Let (R, 1R ) = (Rn , 1Rn ), n ≥ 1, where 1R = (1, . . . , 1), and let
s be an (R, 1R )-state on a pseudo MV-algebra M . The following statements are
equivalent:
(i) s is an extremal (R, 1R )-state on M .
(ii) s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M .
(iii) s(x ∧ y) = s(x) ∧ s(y), x, y ∈ M .
Moreover, (3.2) holds.
Proof. It follows from Proposition 3.14 because (Rn , 1Rn ) ∼
= (Cb (T ), 1T ), where
|T | = n.

The latter result extends a characterization of state-morphisms and extremal
states from [Dvu1, Prop 4.7], because if T is a singleton, then (C(T ), 1T ) corresponds in fact to (R, 1).
Theorem 3.16. Let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space, M a pseudo
MV-algebra, and s, s1 , s2 be (R, 1R )-states on M .
(1) If s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M , then s is an extremal (R, 1R )-state.
(2) If s is an (R, 1R )-state such that Ker(s) is a maximal ideal, then s is an
(R, 1R )-state-morphism and an extremal (R, 1R )-state on M as well.
(3) Let s1 , s2 be (R, 1R )-states on M such that Ker(s1 ) = Ker(s2 ) and Ker(s1 )
is a maximal ideal. Then s1 and s2 are (R, 1R )-state-morphisms and extremal
(R, 1R )-states such that s1 = s2 .
(4) Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on M such that Ms = M/Ker(s) is linearly ordered.
Then s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism and an extremal (R, 1R )-state, and Ker(s) is
a maximal ideal of M .
Proof. (1) Due to the Yosida Representation Theorem 2.2, there is a compact Hausdorﬀ topological space T 6= ∅ such that (R, 1R ) can be embedded into (C(T ), 1T )
as its Riesz subspace; let φ be the embedding. For each t ∈ T , the function
st : Γ(C(T ), 1T ) → [0, 1] deﬁned by st (f ) := f (t), f ∈ C(T ), is a state-morphism
on Γ(C(T ), 1T ) for each t ∈ T . Then the mapping mt := st ◦ φ ◦ s is a statemorphism on M , so that by [Dvu1, Prop 4.7], mt is an extremal state on M . Let
s = λs1 + (1 − λ)s2 , where s1 , s2 are (R, 1R )-states on M and λ ∈ (0, 1). Then
mt = st ◦ φ ◦ s = λst ◦ φ ◦ s1 + (1 − λ) ◦ φs2 ,
which implies mt = st ◦ φ ◦ s1 = st ◦ φ ◦ s2 for each t ∈ T . Hence, φ(s(x)) =
φ(s1 (x)) = φ(s2 (x)) for every x ∈ M , that is s(x) = s1 (x) = s2 (x), and ﬁnally
s = s1 = s2 .

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

15

(2) Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on M such that Ker(s) is a maximal ideal. By
Proposition 3.7, s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism which by the ﬁrst part of the present
proof entails s is extremal.
(3) Let s1 , s2 be (R, 1R )-states on M such that Ker(s1 ) = Ker(s2 ) and Ker(s1 )
is a maximal ideal. By (2), s1 and s2 are extremal, and by Proposition 3.7, s1 and
s2 are also (R, 1R )-state-morphisms on M , so that Theorem 3.10 implies s1 = s2 .
(4) Assume Ms is linearly ordered. By Proposition 3.2(xii), Ms is an MVsubalgebra of the standard MV-algebra Γ(R, 1) of the real line R. Then, for the
(R, 1R )-state s̃ on M/Ker(s) = Ms induced by s, we have Ker(s̃) = {0} is a maximal
ideal of Ms and Ker(s) is a maximal ideal of M . Hence, there is a subgroup R0
of R such that 1 ∈ R0 and Ms ∼
= Γ(R0 , 1). Then there is a unique state-morphism
(= extremal state in this case) m on Ms . The mapping s0 (x) := m(x)1R for
each x ∈ M is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M . Since R0 is a simple ℓ-group,
applying Proposition 3.13, we have s = s0 and s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism and
an extremal (R, 1R )-state on M , as well.

By [Dvu1, Prop 4.3], a state s on a pseudo MV-algebra is a state-morphism iﬀ
Ker(s) is a maximal ideal. In the following example and proposition we show that
it can happen that an (R, 1R )-state-morphism s, consequently an extremal (R, 1R )state, has the kernel Ker(s) that is not maximal even for an Archimedean Riesz
space (R, 1R ). We note that in Example 3.8 we had an analogous counterexample
for a non-Archimedean Riesz space.
Example 3.17. There are a pseudo MV-algebra M , an Archimedean unital Riesz
space (R, 1R ), and an (R, 1R )-state-morphism s on M , consequently an extremal
(R, 1R )-state, such that Ker(s) is not maximal.
Proof. Let (R, 1R ) = (Rn , 1Rn ), M = Γ(Rn , 1Rn ) and s : M → [0, 1Rn ] be such that
s(x) = x, x ∈ M . Then s is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism, and by Theorem 3.16(1)
it is an extremal (R, 1R )-state. Because Ker(s) = {0}, then Ker(s) is a maximal
ideal of M iﬀ n = 1.

According to [GeIo], we say that an element e of a pseudo MV-algebra M is
Boolean if e ∧ e− = 0, equivalently, e ∧ e∼ = 0, equivalently e ⊕ e = e. Let
B(M ) be the set of Boolean elements, then B(M ) is a Boolean algebra that is an
MV-algebra and subalgebra of M , and e− = e∼ ; we put e′ = e− . If s is an (R, 1R )state-morphism and e is a Boolean element of M , then s(e) is a Boolean element
of the MV-algebra Γ(R, 1R ). We recall that for a sequence (ai )ni=1 of Boolean
elements of M we have that it is summable iﬀ ai ∧ aj = 0 for i 6= j; in such a case,
a1 + · · · + an = a1 ∨ · · · ∨ an . If we say that for an ordered ﬁnite system (a1 , . . . , an )
of Boolean elements of M we assume that a1 + · · · + an = 1, it can happen that
some of ai are zeros.
We exhibit the latter example in more details. We note that the MV-algebra
Γ(Rn , 1Rn ) has each ideal I of M of the form I = I1 × · · · × In , where Ii ∈ {{0}, R}
for each i = 1, . . . , n. In particular, all maximal ideals are of the form I1 × · · · × In
where exactly one Ii = {0} and Ij = R for j 6= i.
Proposition 3.18. Let M = Γ(Rn , 1Rn ), (R, 1R ) = (Rn , 1Rn ), and let B(M ) be
the set of Boolean elements of M .

16

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

(1) Let (a1 , . . . , an ) be an n-tuple of summable elements of B(M ) such
1. Then the mapping
s(x) = x1 a1 + · · · + xn an ,

x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ M,

Pn

i=1

ai =
(3.3)

n

n

is both an (R , 1Rn )-state-morphism and an extremal (R , 1Rn )-state on M as well.
Conversely, each (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism on M can be obtained in this way.
(2) If σ is an arbitrary permutation of the set {1, . . . , n}, then sσ (x1 , . . . , xn ) =
(xσ(1) , . . . , xσ(n) ), x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ M , is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism such that
Ker(sσ ) = {0}. If s0 (x) = x, x ∈ M , s0 is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M corresponding to the identical permutation. Conversely, every (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism
s on M such that Ker(s) = {0} can be obtained in this way.
In addition,
S(M, R, 1R ) = S∂ (M, R, 1R ) = {s0 } = SM(M, R, 1R ).
(3) For each i = 1, . . . , n, let πi be the i-th projection from M onto [0, 1]. Then
each si , where si (x) = πi (x)1Rn , x ∈ M , is an (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism such that
Ker(si ) is a maximal ideal of M , and conversely, every (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism
on M whose kernel is a maximal ideal of M is of this form.
(4)
|S∂ (M, Rn , 1Rn )| = nn = |SM(M, Rn , 1Rn )|
and
S(Rn , 1Rn ) = Con(S∂ (Rn , 1Rn )) = Con(SM(Rn , 1Rn )),
where Con denotes the convex hull.
Proof. Since the Archimedean unital Riesz space (Rn , 1Rn ) satisﬁes the conditions
of Corollary 3.15, we have that S∂ (M, Rn , 1Rn ) = SM(M, Rn , 1Rn ). For each i =
1, . . . , n, let ei be the vector of M whose all coordinates are zeros, only at the i-th
place there is 1. The elements e1 , . . . , en are unique atoms of the Boolean algebra
B(M ) and e1 + · · · + en = 1. The set of Boolean elements of M has 2n elements,
and each Boolean element of M is a vector e ∈ M whose coordinates are only 0
and 1. Let s0 (x) = x, x ∈ M . If n = 1, then S∂ (M, R, 1R ) = {s0 }.
(1) Let (a1 , . . . , an ) be a summable sequence of Boolean elements of M such
that a1 + · · · + an = 1. We deﬁne a mapping s by (3.3). Then it is clear that s
is an (Rn , 1Rn )-state on M . To show that s is also an (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism,
we verify the criterion (iii) of Corollary 3.15. Let x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ M and
y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) ∈ M . Then x ∧ y = (x1 ∧ y1 , . . . , xn ∧ yn ). Therefore,
s(x) ∧ s(y)

= (x1 a1 + · · · + xn an ) ∧ (y1 a1 + · · · + yn an )
= (x1 a1 ∨ · · · ∨ xn an ) ∧ (y1 a1 ∨ · · · ∨ yn an )
= (x1 ∧ y1 )a1 + · · · + (xn ∧ yn )an
= s(x ∧ y),

when we have used the fact that in ℓ-groups if, for a, b ∈ G+ , a ∧ b = 0, then
a + b = a ∨ b. Consequently, s is an (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism on M .
Conversely, let n ≥ 2 and let s be an (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism on M . We deﬁne
s
fi = s(ei ). For i = 1, we have s(1, 0, . . . , 0) = s(n/n, 0, . . . , 0) = ns(1/n, 0, . . . , 0)
so that f1s /n = s(1/n, 0, . . . , 0). Now let 0 ≤ m ≤ n. Then s(m/n, 0, . . . , 0) =
s
ms(1/n, 0, . . . , 0) = m
n f1 . Now let t be a real number from (0, 1). Passing to
two monotone sequences of rational numbers {pn } ր t and {qn } ց t, we obtain pn s(1, 0, . . . , 0) ≤ s(t, 0, . . . , 0) ≤ qn s(1, 0, . . . , 0), so that s(t, 0, . . . , 0) = tf1s .

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

17

The same is true for each i, i.e. s(0, . . . , t, . . . , 0) = tfis . Hence, for each x =
(x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ M , we have
n
X
xi fis .
(3.4)
s(x) =
i=1

From (3.4) we see that if we put ai = fis for each i = 1, . . . , n, then we obtain
formula (3.3).
(2) Assume Ker(s) = {0}. Then each fis 6= 0 and all fis ’s are mutually diﬀerent.
Since 1Rn = f1s + · · · + fns , we assert that each fis ∈ {e1 , . . . , en }. Indeed, if some fis
has two coordinates equal 1, then one of fjs for j 6= i has to be zero. Therefore, for
each fis , there is a unique eji such that fis = eji . This deﬁnes a permutation σ such
that s = sσ . Conversely, each sσ is an (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism, consequently an
extremal (Rn , 1Rn )-state whose kernel is {0}.
(3) Now we exhibit (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphisms s whose kernel is a maximal ideal
of M . It is easy to verify that every s1 , . . . , sn deﬁned in the proposition is an
(Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism on M whose kernel is a maximal ideal. Conversely, let s
be an (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism on M such that Ker(s) is a maximal ideal. From
(3.3) we conclude, that there is a unique i = 1, . . . , n such that ai = 1 and aj = 0
for each j 6= i which entails the result.
(4) Let τ : {1, . . . , n} → {1, . . . , n}, i.e. τ ∈ {1, . . . , n}{1,...,n} . Then the mapping
sτ : M → [0, 1Rn ] deﬁned by sτ (x1 , . . . , xn ) = (xτ (1) , . . . , xτ (n) ), x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈
M , is an (Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism on M . Since every ai for i = 1, . . . , n is a
ﬁnite sum of some Boolean elements of e1 , . . . , en , using (3.3), we see that every
(Rn , 1Rn )-state-morphism on M is of this form.
Finally, we say that a net {sα }α of (Rn , 1Rn )-states on M converges weakly to an
w
n
(R , 1Rn )-state s, and we write {sα }α → s, if, for each i = 1, . . . , n, limα πi (sα (x)) =
πi (s(x)) for each x ∈ M . Since πi ◦ s is in fact a state on M , it is easy to see that
we have the weak convergence of states on M which gives a compact Hausdorﬀ
topology on the state space of M . Whence if, for some net {sα }α of (Rn , 1Rn )states, we have that there is, for each i = 1, . . . , n, limα πi (sα (x)) = si (x), x ∈ M ,
then every si is a state on M , so that s(x) := (s1 (x), . . . , sn (x)), x ∈ M , is an
w
(Rn , 1Rn )-state such that {sα }α → s. Consequently, the space S(M, Rn , 1Rn ) is a
non-void convex compact Hausdorﬀ space, so that by the Krein–Mil’man theorem,
[Go, Thm 5.17], we see that every (Rn , 1Rn )-state lies in the weak closure of the convex hull of S∂ (M, Rn , 1Rn ) = SM(M, Rn , 1Rn ). Since the space SM(M, Rn , 1Rn )
has exactly nn elements, let SM(M, Rn , 1Rn ) = {s1 , . . . , snn }, so that every element s of Con(SM(M, Rn , 1Rn )) is of the form s = λ1 s1 + · · · + λnn snn , where each
α
λj ∈ [0, 1] and λ1 + · · · + λnn . Hence, there is a net {λα
1 s1 + · · · + λnn }α from the
n
n
convex hull which converges weakly to the (R , 1R )-state s. In addition, for each
α
αβ
i = 1, . . . , nn , there is a subnet {λi β }β of the net {λα
= λi .
i }α such that limβ λi
Whence λ1 +· · ·+λnn = 1 and s = λ1 s1 +· · ·+λnn λnn which ﬁnishes the proof. 
A more general type of the weak convergence of (R, 1R )-states for a Dedekind
σ-complete Riesz space will be studied in Proposition 5.3 below.
The latter proposition can be extended for (Rm , 1Rm )-state-morphisms on the
MV-algebra Mn = Γ(Rn , 1Rn ) for all integers m, n ≥ 1.
Proposition 3.19. Let n, m ≥ 1 be integers and let (a1 , . . . , an ) be a summable
sequence of Boolean elements from Mm = Γ(Rm , 1Rm ). Then the mapping s(x) :=

18

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

x1 a1 + · · · + xn an , x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Mn , is an (Rm , 1Rm )-state-morphism on Mn ,
and conversely, each (Rm , 1Rm )-state-morphism on Mn can be described in this way.
Equivalently, let τ be any mapping from {1, . . . , m} into {1, . . . , n}. Then the
mapping sτ (x1 , . . . , xn ) = (xτ (1) , . . . , xτ (m) ), x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Mn , is is an
(Rm , 1Rm )-state-morphism on Mn , and conversely, each (Rm , 1Rm )-state-morphism
on Mn can be described in this way.
In particular, |SM(Mn , Rm , 1Rm )| = nm = |S∂ (Mn , Rm , 1Rm )|.
An (Rm , 1Rm )-state-morphism s on Mn has maximal kernel if and only if there
is i = 1, . . . , n such that s(x) = πi (x)1Rm , x ∈ Mn , where πi : Rn → R is the i-th
projection.
Proof. The proof follows methods of the proof of Proposition 3.18.



Now we present a criterion for (R, 1R ) when the kernel of every (R, 1R )-statemorphism on an arbitrary pseudo MV-algebra is a maximal ideal.
Proposition 3.20. Let (R, 1R ) be a unital Riesz space. Then every (R, 1R )-statemorphism on an arbitrary pseudo MV-algebra has the kernel a maximal ideal if and
only if (R, 1R ) is isomorphic to (R, 1).
Proof. Let (R, 1R ) ∼
= (R, 1) and let M be an arbitrary pseudo MV-algebra. Let s
be an (R, 1R )-state-morphism on M . According to [Dvu1, Prop 4.3], Ker(s) is a
maximal ideal of M .
Conversely, let M be an arbitrary pseudo MV-algebra with an (R, 1R )-statemorphism s such that Ker(s) is a maximal ideal of M . Take the special MV-algebra
M = Γ(R, 1R ) and let s(x) = x, x ∈ M . Then clearly s is an (R, 1R )-statemorphism with Ker(s) = {0}, and by the assumption, Ker(s) = {0} is a maximal
ideal of M . Therefore, M has only the zero ideal and M . Due to the categorical
equivalence of Abelian unital ℓ-groups and MV-algebras, the Riesz space (R, 1R )
has only two ℓ-ideals, {0} and R which by [Go, Lem 14.1] yields that every strictly
positive element of R is a strong unit of R. As it was shown just after Theorem
3.12, this means that (R, 1R ) ∼
= (R, 1).
The same result we obtain if take into account that the ℓ-ideal {0} of R is a
maximal ℓ-ideal of R generated by Ker(s). Therefore, R ∼
= R/{0} and the quotient
unital Riesz space (R/{0}, 1R/{0}) can be identify with a unital subgroup (R0 , 1)
of (R, 1). Since α = α1 ∈ R0 for each real number α, we conclude R0 = R.

Now we present another criterion of maximality of Ker(s) for an (R, 1R )-statemorphism s when (R, 1R ) is an Archimedean unital Riesz space.
Proposition 3.21. Let T be a non-void compact Hausdorff space and M be a
pseudo MV-algebra. Then the kernel of a (C(T ), 1T )-state-morphism s on M is a
maximal ideal if and only if there is a state-morphism s0 on M such that s(x) =
s0 (x)1T , x ∈ M .
The same statement holds for a (Cb (T ), 1T )-state-morphism on M .
Proof. Let s be a (C(T ), 1T )-state-morphism on M , and for each t ∈ T , let st :
M → [0, 1] be a mapping given by stT
(x) := s(x)(t), x ∈ M . Then each st is a
state-morphism on M , and Ker(s) = t∈T Ker(st ). Hence, if Ker(s) is maximal,
then from Ker(s) ⊆ Ker(st ) we conclude Ker(s) = Ker(st ) because every Ker(st ) is
a maximal ideal of M , see [Dvu1, Prop 4.3], so that st = st′ for all t, t′ ∈ T which
gives the desired result.
The converse statement is evident.


RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

19

Using [Go, Lem 8.10], it is possible to show that if s is an extremal state on an
MV-algebra M , then for each Boolean element e ∈ B(M ), we have s(e) ∈ {0, 1}.
Using the Proposition 3.18, we can show that this is not true for each extremal
(R, 1R )-state.
Example 3.22. There are an MV-algebra M , an Archimedean unital Riesz space
(R, 1R ), an (R, 1R )-state-morphism, i.e. an extremal (R, 1R )-state-morphism s and
a Boolean element e ∈ B(M ) such that s(e) ∈
/ {0, 1R }.
Proof. Take a particular case of Proposition 3.18, namely (R, 1R ) = (R3 , 1R3 ),
M = Γ(R3 , 1R3 ) and let s be an (R3 , 1R3 )-state-morphism given by (3.3), where
a1 = (1, 0, 0), a2 = (0, 1, 0), e3 = (0, 0, 1). If we take the Boolean element e =
(1, 0, 0), then s(e) = a1 ∈
/ {0, (1, 1, 1)}.

4. Metrical Completion of Unital ℓ-groups with Respect
(R, 1R )-States
In this section, we show that if (R, 1R ) is a unital Archimedean or even a
Dedekind complete Riesz space and s is an (R, 1R )-state on a unital ℓ-group (G, u),
then G can be metrically completed with respect to a norm induced by s. If R is
Dedekind complete, in particular, if (R, 1R ) = (Rn , 1Rn ), where 1Rn = (1, . . . , 1),
then the metrical completion of G gives a Dedekind complete ℓ-group.
Let T be a compact Hausdorﬀ topological space. We endow C(T ) with the
uniform topology generated by the norm k · kT , i.e. kf kT = sup{|f (t)| : t ∈ T }.
Let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space. By the Yosida Representation
Theorem, Theorem 2.2, there is a compact Hausdorﬀ topological space T such
that (R, 1R ) can be embedded into (C(T ), 1T ) as its Riesz subspace. If φ is this
embedding, then the image φ(R) is uniformly dense in C(T ). More precisely, let T
be the set of maximal ideals of (R, 1R ). If we deﬁne the hull-kernel topology on T ,
T becomes a non-void compact Hausdorﬀ topological space. If I is a maximal ideal
of (R, 1R ), then the quotient R/I can be identify with a unital subgroup (R0 , 1)
of (R, 1) (in fact, R0 = R). Moreover, given x ∈ R, the mapping x
b : T → R
given by x
b(I) := x/I, I ∈ T , is a continuous function on T , and the mapping
φ : R → C(T ) deﬁned by φ(x) = x
b, x ∈ R, is by [LuZa, Thm 45.3] an isomorphic
embedding of the unital Archimedean space (R, 1R ) into (C(T ), 1T ) such that φ(R)
is uniformly dense in C(T ). We call this embedding the canonical embedding, the
triple (C(T ), 1T , φ) is said to be the canonical representation of (R, 1R ), and we
shall write (R, 1R ) ∼ (C(T ), 1T , φ). We note that according to [LuZa, Thm 45.4]
if, in addition, (R, 1R ) is Dedekind σ-complete, then φ(R) = C(T ), and φ is an
isomorphism of Riesz spaces.
Thus, let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space with the canonical representation (C(T ), 1T , φ). Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on a pseudo MV-algebra M .
Assume M = Γ(G, u) for some unital ℓ-group (G, u). Due to the categorical equivalence, s can be extended to a unique (R, 1R )-state on (G, u); we denote it by ŝ. Due
to (ix) and (xii) of Proposition 3.2, we have that Ms := M/Ker(s) is an Archimidean
MV-algebra, and Ms ∼
= Γ(Gs , u/Is ), where Gs = G/Is and Is is an ℓ-ideal of G
generated by Ker(s). Then the (R, 1R )-state s̃ on Ms can be uniquely extended to a
unique (R, 1R )-state b̃
s on (Gs , u/Is ). In addition, Is = {x ∈ G : ŝ(|x|) = 0}, where
|x| = x+ + x− , x+ = x ∨ 0 and x− = −(x ∧ 0). In general, if s is an (R, 1R )-state on
a unital ℓ-group (G, u), then the kernel of s is the set Ker(s) = {x ∈ G : s(|x|) = 0}.

20

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

We deﬁne a pseudo norm | · |s on M as follows
|x|s := kφ(s(x))kT := sup{|φ(s(x))(t)| : t ∈ T },

x ∈ M,

This pseudo norm can be extended to a pseudo norm | · |s on G as follows
|x|s := kφ(ŝ(x))kT = sup{|φ(ŝ(x))(t)| : t ∈ T },

x ∈ G.

The simple properties of | · |s are as follows: For x, y, ∈ G, we have
(i) |x + y|s ≤ |x|s + |y|s .
(ii) |φ(ŝ(x))(t) − φ(ŝ(y))(t)| ≤ |x − y|s , t ∈ T .
(ii) |nx|s ≤ |n| · |x|s , n ∈ Z.
(iv) | − x|s = |x|s , |0|s = 0.
(v) If y ∈ G+ and −y ≤ x ≤ y, then |x|s ≤ |y|s .
Since our aim is to study extremal (R, 1R )-states on M and in view of Lemma
3.3, an (R, 1R )-state s on M is extremal iﬀ so is s̃ on Ms := M/Ker(s), without loss
of generality we will assume that M is an Archimedean MV-algebra, (G, u) is an
Archimedean (Abelian) unital ℓ-group, and s(x) = 0 for x ∈ M iﬀ x = 0 because
s̃([x]) = 0 iﬀ [x] = 0. Then | · |s is a norm on M and (G, u), respectively, and
ds (x, y) := |x − y|s deﬁnes a metric called the s-metric.
Because of triangle inequality (i), addition and subtraction in G are uniformly
continuous with respect to ds . Hence, the ds -completion G of G is a topological
Abelian group, and the natural mapping ψ : G → G is a continuous group homomorphism. We deﬁne a relation ≤ on G so that for any x, y ∈ G, we put x ≤ y
iﬀ y − x lies in the closure of ψ(G+ ). We note Ker(ψ) = {x ∈ G : |x|s = 0}. In
the following statement we show, in particular, that this relation is a translationinvariant partial order on G, that is, given x, y, z ∈ G, x ≤ y implies x + z ≤ y + z.
In what follows, we are inspired by ideas and proofs from [Go, Chap 12, Thm 12.2].
Proposition 4.1. Let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space with (R, 1R ) ∼
(C(T ), 1T , φ). Let (G, u) be an Archimedean unital ℓ-group, and s an (R, 1R )-state
on (G, u) such that if s(x) = 0 for some x ≥ 0, then x = 0. Let G be the ds completion of G, ψ : G → G be the natural embedding, and let ds denote the
induced metric on G. Then
(i) G is a directed po-group with positive cone equal to the closure of ψ(G+ ).
(ii) There is a unique continuous mapping s : G → C(T ) such that φ ◦ s = s ◦ ψ,
and s is a positive homomorphism of po-groups.
(iii) ds (g, 0) = ks(g)kT for each g ∈ G, and ds (g, 0) = |g|s = kφ(s(g))kT for
each g ∈ G.
Proof. (i) Let C be the closure of ψ(G+ ) in G. Since ψ(0) = 0, we have 0 ∈ C. As
ψ(G+ ) is closed under addition, the continuity of addition in G entails that G is
closed under addition, so that C is a cone. Now let x, −x ∈ C. Take two sequences
{xn } and {yn } in G+ such that ψ(xn ) → x and ψ(yn ) → −x. Then ψ(xn +yn ) → 0.
Since
ds (ψ(xn + yn ), 0) = ds (xn + yn , 0) = |xn + yn |s = kφ(s(xn + yn ))kT → 0
for all n, consequently, the sum φ(s(xn )) + φ(s(yn )) of positive real-valued continuous functions on T converges uniformly on T to the zero function 0T on T . Then
0T ≤ φ(s(xn )) ≤ φ(s(xn + yn )) for all n. Whence, φ(s(xn )) ⇒ 0T , and therefore,
x = 0. Thus C is a strict cone, and G becomes a po-group with positive cone C.

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

21

Now we show that G is directed. Let x ∈ G, and let us choose a sequence
{xn } in G such that |xn+1 − xn |s < 1/2n for all n. Then xn+1 − xn = an − bn ,
where an = (xn+1 − xn ) ∨ 0 ∈ G+ and bn = −((xn+1 − xn ) ∧ 0) ∈ G+ . Then
|xn+1 − xn |s = |an + bn |s < 1/2n .
n
Since an ≤ an + bn , we have
P |an |s ≤ |an + bn |s < 1/2 for all n. Therefore,
the partial sums of the series n an form a Cauchy sequence with respect to ds .
P
Consequently, the series n ψ(an ) converges to an element a ∈ G. As the partial
+
sums of this series all lie in ψ(G+ ), then a ∈ G . In the same way, the series
P
+
n ψ(bn ) converges to an element b ∈ G . We have
a − b = lim
k

k
X

n=1

ψ(an − bn ) = lim
k

k
X

ψ(xn+1 − xn )

n=1

= lim(ψ(xk+1 ) − ψ(x1 )) = x − ψ(x1 ).
k

Since x1 = c − d for some c, d ∈ G+ , we have x = (a + ψ(c)) − (b + ψ(d)) with
+
a + ψ(c) and b + ψ(d) ∈ G which established G is directed.
(ii) Let g ∈ G. Choose two sequences {fn } and {hn } in G such that ds (fn , g) → 0
and ds (hn , g) → 0. Then φ(s(fn )) ⇒ f ∈ C(T ) and φ(s(hn )) ⇒ h ∈ C(T ). We
assert that f = h. Indeed
kf − hkT = kf − φ(s(fn ))kT + |φ(s(fn )) − φ(s(hn ))|s + kφ(s(hn )) − hkT
= kf − φ(s(fn ))kT + |fn − hn |s + kφ(s(hn )) − hkT → 0,
which yields f = h. Therefore, we can deﬁne unambiguously s : G → C(T ) as
follows: s(g) = limn φ(s(gn )), g ∈ G, for any sequence {gn } of elements of G such
+
that ds (gn , g) → 0. Then evidently s(g) ≥ 0T if g ∈ G , and s(g + h) = s(g) + s(h)
for all f, g ∈ G as well as φ ◦ s = s ◦ ψ. In addition, ds (g, 0) = ks(g)kT , g ∈ G.
If ds (g, gn ) → 0 for g ∈ G and for a sequence {gn } of elements of G, then
ks(g) − s(Gn )kT = ds (g, gn ) → 0, so that s is continuous on G. If s′ : G → C(T )
is a continuous positive homomorphism of po-groups such that φ ◦ s = s′ ◦ ψ, then
s(g) and s′ (g) coincide for each g ∈ G, so that s′ = s.
(iii) It follows from the end of the proof of (ii).

Remark 4.2. The po-group G from the latter proposition is said to be the metrical completion of G with respect to an (R, 1R )-state s. Nevertheless that it was
supposed that G is an Archimedean ℓ-group and s has the property s(x) = 0 for
x ∈ G+ implies x, passing to the (R, 1R )-state b̃
s on Gs , the metrical completion of
Gs from Proposition 4.1 with respect to the (R, 1R )-state b̃
s is also in fact a metrical
completion of G with respect to the (R, 1R )-state s. In other words, G can be
homomorphically embedded into an Abelian metrically complete po-group G.
Proposition 4.3. Let the conditions of Proposition 4.1 hold. If {xα }α and {yα }α
be nets in G such that xα → x and yα → y. If xα ≤ yα for each α, then x ≤ y.
+

Proof. The diﬀerences yα − xα form a net in G which converges to y − x. As G
+

is closed in G, we have that y − x lies in G , and consequently, x ≤ y.
In what follows, we show that the metrical completion G of G enjoys also some
lattice completeness properties. In order to do that, we have to strengthen conditions posed to the Riesz space (R, 1R ) assuming R is Dedekind complete. Then due

22

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

to Theorem 2.3, we have the canonical representation (R, 1R ) ∼ (C(T ), 1T , φ) and
(R, 1R ) ∼
= (C(T ), 1T ), where T 6= ∅ is a compact Hausdorﬀ extremally disconnected
topological space. Such a situation is e.g. when (R, 1R ) = (Rn , 1Rn ), n ≥ 1, then
(R, 1R ) ∼
= (C(T ), T ), where |T | = n and every singleton of T is clopen.
Proposition 4.4. Let (R, 1R ) be a Dedekind complete unital Riesz space with the
canonical representation (R, 1R ) ∼ (C(T ), 1T , φ), where T 6= ∅ is a Hausdorff compact extremally disconnect topological space. Let (G, u) be an Archimedean unital
ℓ-group and let s be an (R, 1R )-state on (G, u) such that if s(x) = 0 for some x ≥ 0,
then x = 0. Let G be the ds -completion of G, ψ : G → G be the natural mapping,
and let ds denote the induced metric on G. Let {xα : α ∈ A} be a net of elements
of G which is bounded above and xα ≤ xβ whenever α ≤ β, α, β ∈ A. Then there
is an element x∗ ∈ G such that xα → x∗ and x∗ is the supremum of {xα : α ∈ A}
in G.
Proof. Since C(T
W ) is Dedekind complete, there is a continuous function f ∈ C(T )
such that f = α s(xα ). Then f (t) = supα s(xα )(t) = limα s(xα )(t) for each t ∈ T .
Applying the Dini Theorem, see e.g. [Kel, p. 239], for the net {s(xα ) : α ∈ A}
of continuous functions on T , the net converges uniformly to f . Consequently,
{xα : α ∈ A} is a Cauchy net in G, so that it converges to some x∗ ∈ G.
For any xα , the subnet {xβ : xβ ≥ xα } also converges to x∗ , whence by Proposition 4.3, x∗ ≥ xα . Now, let z ∈ G be any upper bound for {xα : α ∈ A}. Applying
again Proposition 4.3, we conclude x∗ ≤ z, which proves that x∗ is the supremum
in question.

Proposition 4.5. Let the conditions of Proposition 4.4 hold. Then G has interpolation.
Proof. We show that G has interpolation, that is, if x1 , x2 ≤ y1 , y2 for x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 ∈
G, there is a z ∈ G such that x1 , x2 ≤ z ≤ y1 , y2 . To prove this we follow ideas of
the proof of [Go, Thm 12.7].
There are four sequences of elements of G, {xin }n , {yin }n for i = 1, 2, such that
ds (ψ(xin ), xi ) < 1/2n+5

and ds (ψ(yjn ), yj ) < 1/2n+5

for all i, j = 1, 2 and all n. For all i, n, we have
|xi,n+1 − xin |s = ds (ψ(xi,n+1 ), ψ(xin )) ≤ ds (ψ(xi,n+1 ), xi ) + ds (xi , ψ(xin ))
< 1/2n+6 + 1/2n+5 < 1/2n+4 .
Similarly, |yj,n+1 − yjn |s < 1/2n+4 . We shall construct Cauchy sequences {bn } and
{zn } of elements in G such that bn → 0 and xin ≤ zn ≤ yjn + bn for all i, j, n. The
limit {ψ(zn )} provides an element in G to interpolate between x1 , x2 and y1 , y2 .
We ﬁrst construct elements a1 , a2 , . . . in G such that |an |s < 1/2n+2 for all n
and also
xin − an ≤ xi,n+1 ≤ xin + an

and yjn − an ≤ yj,n+1 ≤ yjn + an

for all i, j, n.
For each i, n, we have ds (ψ(xi,n+1 ), ψ(xin )) < 1/2n+4 , so that
xi,n+1 − xin = pin − qin
+

for some pin , qin ∈ G satisfying |pin + qin |s < 1/2n+4 . Similarly, each
yj,n+1 − yin = rjn − sjn

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

23

for some rjn , sjn ∈ G+ satisfying |rjn + sjn |s < 1/2n+4. Set
an := p1n + q1n + p2n + q2n + r1n + s1n + r2n + s2n
for all n. Then |an |s < 4/2n+4 = 1/2n+2 . Moreover,
xin − an ≤ xin − qin = xi,n+1 − pin ≤ xi,n+1
≤ xi,n+1 + qin = xin + pin ≤ xin + an ,
yjn − an ≤ yjn − sjn = yj,n+1 − rjn ≤ yj,n+1
≤ yj,n+1 + sjn = yjn + rjn ≤ yjn + an
for all i, j, n.
Next, we construct elements b1 , b2 , . . . in G+ such that |bn |s < 1/2n+1 for all n,
while also xin ≤ yjn + bn for all i, j, n.
+
Fix n for a while. Since each yj − xi lies in G , we have
ds (ψ(tij ), yj − xi ) < 1/2n+4
for some tij ∈ G+ . Then
|tij − (yjn − xin )|s = ds (ψ(tij ), ψ(yjn ) − ψ(xin ))
≤ ds (ψ(tij ), yj − xi ) + ds (yj , ψ(yjn )) + ds (ψ(xin ), xi )
< 1/2n+4 + 1/2n+5 + 1/2n+5 = 1/2n+3 ,
and consequently,
tij − yjn + xin = uij − vij
for some uij , vij ∈ G satisfying |uij + vij |s < 1/2n+3 . Set
+

then |bn |s ≤

P

bn := u11 + u12 + u21 + u22 ,
|uij + vij |s < 4/2n+3 = 1/2n+1 . Moreover,

xin ≤ xin + tij = yjn + uij − vij ≤ yjn + uij ≤ yjn + bn

for all i, j.
Finally, we construct elements z1 , z2 , . . . in G such that
xin ≤ zn ≤ yij + bn
for all i, j, n, while also |zn+1 − zn |s ≤ 1/2n .
As xi1 ≤ yj1 + b1 for all i, j, interpolation in G immediately provides us an
element z1 . Now suppose that z1 , . . . , zn have been constructed, for some n. Then
xi,n+1 ≤ yj,n+1 + bn+1 ,

xi,n+1 ≤ xin + an ≤ zn + an ,

zn − bn − an ≤ yjn − an ≤ yj,n+1 ≤ yj,n+1 + bn+1
for all i, j. Hence, there exists zn+1 ∈ G such that
xi,n+1

≤ zn+1

≤ y1,n+1 + bn+1

x2,n+1
z n − b n − an

≤ zn+1
≤ zn+1

≤ y2,n+1 + bn+1
≤ z n + an .

Since −(an + bn ) ≤ zn+1 − zn ≤ an ≤ an + bn , we conclude from property (v) of
| · |s that
|zn+1 − zn |s ≤ |an + bn |s = |an |s + |bn |s < 1/2n+2 + 1/2n+1 < 1/2n

24

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

which completes the induction.
The sequence {zn } is a Cauchy sequence in G, and hence, there is z ∈ G such
that ψ(zn ) → z. In view of
ds (ψ(bn ), 0) = |bn |s < 1/2n+1
for all n, we also have ψ(bn ) → 0. Since
ψ(xin ) ≤ ψ(zn ) ≤ ψ(yjn ) + ψ(bn )
for all i, j, n, we have ﬁnally xi ≤ z ≤ yj for all i, j which proves that G has
interpolation.

Theorem 4.6. Let the conditions of Proposition 4.4 hold. Then G is a Dedekind
complete ℓ-group.
Proof. Let x, y ∈ G. Let A be the set of lower bounds for {x, y}. Then A is a
non-empty set. In view of Proposition 4.5, G has interpolation, so that A is an
upwards directed set, and therefore, if A is indexed by itself, A satisﬁes condition
of Proposition 4.4, so that A has supremum a in G, and clearly, a = x∧y. Similarly,
(−x) ∧ (−y) exists in G, and −((−x) ∧ (−y)) = x ∨ y exists in G proving G is an
ℓ-group. Applying Proposition 4.4, we see G is a Dedekind complete ℓ-group. 
As an important corollary of the latter theorem we have that if (R, 1R ) =
(Rn , 1Rn ), n ≥ 1, then the metrical completion G of G with respect to any (R, 1R )state is a Dedekind complete ℓ-group which generalizes [Go, Thm 12.7]:
Theorem 4.7. Let s be any (Rn , 1Rn )-state on a unital ℓ-group (G, u), n ≥ 1.
There is a metrical completion G of G with respect to s such that G is a Dedekind
complete ℓ-group.
s is in
Proof. By Remark 4.2, the metrical completion G of Gs with respect to b̃
fact a metrical completion of G with respect to s. The desired result follows from
Theorem 4.6.

Theorem 4.8. Let the conditions of Proposition 4.4 hold with an (R, 1R )-state s on
(G, u) and let (R, 1R ) = (C(T ), 1T ), where T 6= ∅ is a Hausdorff compact extremally
disconnected topological space. If G0 is an ℓ-subgroup of G generated by ψ(u), then
the restriction s0 of s onto G0 is an (R, 1R )-state on the unital Dedekind complete
ℓ-group (G0 , ψ(u)), where s is a continuous mapping defined in Proposition 4.1(ii).
In addition, s0 is an extremal (R, 1R )-state on (G0 , ψ(u)) if and only if so is s on
(G, u).
Proof. Let s be an (R, 1R )-state on (G, u) and let G0 be the ℓ-subgroup of G
generated by ψ(u). Due to Theorem 4.6, (G0 , ψ(u)) is an Abelian Dedekind complete unital ℓ-group. By Proposition 4.1(ii), there is a unique continuous mapping
s : G → (R, 1R ) = (C(T ), 1T ) such that φ ◦ s = s ◦ ψ (the mapping φ : R → C(T )
is the identity). Consequently, s0 is an (R, 1R )-state on (G0 , ψ(u)).
Assume that s is an extremal (R, 1R )-state and let s0 = λm1 + (1 − λ)m2 , where
m1 , m2 are (R, 1R )-states on (G0 , ψ(u)) and λ ∈ (0, 1). The mappings si (x) :=
mi (ψ(x)), x ∈ G, are (R, 1R )-states on (G, u) for each i = 1, 2, and s(x) = λs1 (x) +
(1 − λ)s2 (x), x ∈ G. The extremality of s entails s(x) = s1 (x) = s2 (x) for each
x ∈ G. We have to show that s0 = m1 = m2 .

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

25

Since s0 (g), m1 (g), m2 (g) are in fact continuous functions on T , then they are
+
positive functions for each g ∈ G0 , and hence, s0 (g)/λ ≥ m1 (g) and s0 (g)/(1−λ) ≥
+
+
m2 (g) for each g ∈ G0 . For any g ∈ G+
such
0 , there is a sequence {xn } in G
that ψ(xn ) ≤ ψ(xn+1 ) ≤ g and ψ(xn ) → g. Then km1 (g) − m1 (ψ(xn ))kT ≤
ks(g) − s(ψ(xn ))kT /λ → 0 and whence, m1 (g) = limn m1 (ψ(xn )) = limn s1 (xn ) =
limn s(xn ) = s(g). In a similar way we have m2 (g) = limn s2 (xn ) = limn s(xn ) =
s(g). Then m1 (g) = m2 (g) = s(g) = s0 (g) for each g ∈ G0 which shows that s0 is
an extremal (R, 1R )-state on (G0 , ψ(u)).
Conversely, let s0 be an extremal (R, 1R )-state on (G0 , ψ(u)) and let s = λs1 +
(1 − λ)s2 , where s1 , s2 are (R, 1R )-states on (G, u) and λ ∈ (0, 1). We deﬁne
mappings mi : G0 → R for i = 1, 2 as follows. First, we put mi (ψ(x)) = si (x) for
x ∈ G+ and i = 1, 2. Then each mi is a well-deﬁned mapping on ψ(G)+ . Now let
+
g ∈ G+
with ψ(xn ) ≤ ψ(xn+1 ) ≤ g such that
0 . There is a sequence {xn } in G
g = limn ψ(xn ). Since for continuous functions we have 0 ≤ ψ(xm ) − ψ(xn ) for
each m ≥ n, then ks1 (ψ(xm )) − s1 (ψ(xn ))kT ≤ ks0 (ψ(xm )) − s0 (ψ(xn ))kT /λ → 0
and ks2 (ψ(xm )) − s2 (ψ(xn ))kT ≤ ks0 (ψ(xm )) − s0 (ψ(xn ))kT /(1 − λ) → 0 when
m, n → ∞. Then {si (ψ(xn ))} is a Cauchy sequence in C(T ) = R, and there is
fi ∈ C(T )+ such that si (ψ(xn )) ⇒ fi for i = 1, 2. If {yn } in G+ is another sequence
in G+
0 such that ψ(yn ) ≤ ψ(yn+1 ) ≤ g and g = limn ψ(yn ), then limn si ((ψ(xn ))) =
fi = limn si (ψ(yn )), and therefore, the extension of mi to G+
0 is deﬁned by mi (g) :=
limn mi (ψ(xn )) whenever {xn } is a sequence in G+ with ψ(xn ) ≤ ψ(xn+1 ) ≤ g such
that g = limn ψ(xn ). Finally, mi can be extended to the whole G0 , so that every mi
is an (R, 1R )-state on (G, u), and s0 = λm1 + (1 − λ)m2 . This yields s0 = m1 = m2
and consequently, s = s1 = s2 proving s is an extremal (R, 1R )-state on (G, u). 
5. Lattice Properties of R-measures and Simplices
In this section we extend the notion of an (R, 1R )-state to R-measures and RJordan signed measures on a pseudo MV-algebra. If R is a Dedekind complete
Riesz space, we show that the space of R-Jordan signed measures can be converted
into a Dedekind complete Riesz space. This allows us to show when the space
of (R, 1R )-states on a pseudo MV-algebra is a Choquet simplex or even a Bauer
simplex. In addition, we show when every state is a weak limit of a net of convex
combinations of (R, 1R )-state-morphisms.
Thus let M be a pseudo MV-algebra and R be a Riesz space. A mapping
m : M → R is said to be an R-signed measure if m(x + y) = m(x) + m(y) whenever
x + y is deﬁned in M . An R-signed state is (i) an R-measure if m(x) ≥ 0 for each
x ∈ M , (ii) an R-Jordan signed measure if m is a diﬀerence of two R-measures.
It is clear that (i) every (R, 1R )-state is an R-measure, (ii) m(0) = 0 for each
R-signed measure m, (iii) if x ≤ y, then m(x) ≤ m(y) whenever x ≤ y for each Rmeasure m. We denote by J SM(M, R) and M(M, R) the set of R-Jordan signed
measures and R-measures, respectively, on M . Then J SM(M, R) is a real vector
space and if for two R-Jordan signed measures m1 and m2 we put m1 ≤+ m2 , then
J SM(M ) is an Abelian po-group with respect to the partial order ≤+ with positive
cone M(M, R). Using ideas from [Go, p. 38–41], we show that J SM(M, R) is a
Dedekind complete Riesz space whenever R is a Dedekind complete Riesz space.
We note that in [Go] this was established for Abelian interpolation po-groups G
whereas we have functions on M with the partial operation + that is not assumed
to be commutative a priori.

26

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

In this section, let R be a Dedekind complete Riesz space and M be a pseudo
MV-algebra.
A mapping d : M → R is said to be subadditive provided d(0) = 0 and d(x+ y) ≤
d(x) + d(y) whenever x + y ∈ M .
Proposition 5.1. Let M be a pseudo MV-algebra, R a Dedekind complete Riesz
space, and let d : M → R be a subadditive mapping. For all x ∈ M , assume that
the set
D(x) := {d(x1 ) + · · · + d(xn ) : x = x1 + · · · + xn , x1 , . . . , xn ∈ M, n ≥ 1} (5.1)
is bounded
W above in R. Then there is an R-signed measure m : M → R such that
m(x) = D(x) for all x ∈ M .
W
Proof. The map m(x) := D(x) is a well-deﬁned mapping for all x ∈ M . It is
clear that m(0) = 0 and now we show that m is additive on M .
Let x + y ∈ M be given. For all decompositions
x = x1 + · · · + xn and y = y1 + · · · + yk
with all xi , yj ∈ M , we have x + y = x1 + · · · + xn + y1 + · · · + yk , which yields
X
X
d(yj ) ≤ m(x + y).
d(xi ) +
j

i

Therefore, s + t ≤
W m(x + y) for all s, t ∈ D(x). Since R is a Dedekind complete
Abelian ℓ-group, is distributive with respect to +, see [Go, Prop 1.4]. Whence
_

_
(s + m(y))
m(x) + m(y) =
D(x) + m(y) =
=

_ 

s+

u∈D(x)

≤

m(x + y).

_

s∈D(x)


D(y) =

_

_

(s + t)

s∈D(x) y∈D(y)

Conversely, let x + y = z1 + · · · + zn be a decomposition of x + y where each zi ∈
M . Then the strong Riesz decomposition Property RDP2 with (2.1)–(2.2) implies
that there are elements x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn ∈ M such that x = x1 + · · · + xn ,
y = y1 + · · · + yn and zi = xi + yi for i = 1, . . . , n. This yields
!
!
X
X
X
X
d(yi ) ≤ m(x) + m(y),
d(xi ) +
(d(xi ) + d(yi )) =
d(zi ) ≤
i

i

i

i

and therefore, m(x + y) ≤ m(x) + m(y) and ﬁnally, m(x + y) = m(x) + m(y) for
all x, y ∈ M such that x + y is deﬁned in M , so that m is an R-signed measure on
M.

Theorem 5.2. Let M be a pseudo MV-algebra and R be a Dedekind complete Riesz
space. For the set J (M, R) of R-Jordan signed measures on M we have:
(a) J (M, R) is a Dedekind complete ℓ-group with respect to the partial order
≤+ .
(b) If {mi }W
i∈I is a non-empty set of J (M, R) that is bounded above, and if
d(x) = i mi (x) for all x ∈ M , then
!
_
_
mi (x) = {d(x1 ) + · · · + d(xn ) : x = x1 + · · · + xn , x1 , . . . , xn ∈ M }
i

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

27

for all x ∈ M .
(c) If {mi }V
i∈I is a non-empty set of J (M, R) that is bounded below, and if
e(x) = i mi (x) for all x ∈ M , then
!
^
^
mi (x) = {e(x1 ) + · · · + e(xn ) : x = x1 + · · · + xn , x1 , . . . , xn ∈ M }
i

for all x ∈ M .
(d) The set J (M, R) is a Dedekind complete Riesz space.
Proof. Let m0 ∈ J (M, R) be an upper bound for {m
Wi }i∈I . For any x ∈ M , we
have mi (x) ≤ m0 (x), so that the mapping d(x) = i mi (x) deﬁned on M is a
subadditive mapping on the pseudo MV-algebra M . For any x ∈ M and any
decomposition x = x1 + · · · + xn with all xi ∈ M , we conclude d(x1 ) + · · · + d(xn ) ≤
m(x1 ) + · · · + m(xn ) ≤ m0 (x). Hence, m0 (x) is an upper bound for D(x) deﬁned
by (5.1).
By Proposition W
5.1, we conclude that there is an R-signed measure m : M → R
such that m(x) = D(x). For every x ∈ M and every mi we have mi (x) ≤ d(x) ≤
m(x), which gives mi ≤+ m. The mappings m − mi are positive R-measures
−
belonging to J (M, R), so that m − mi =: fi ∈ M(M, R), and m = m+
i + f i − mi ,
−
+
−
where m+
i , mi ∈ M(M, R) and mi = mi − mi . Consequently, m ∈ J (M, R). If
h ∈ J (M, R) is an R-Jordan signed measure such that mi ≤+ h for any i ∈ I, then
d(x) ≤ h(x) for any x ∈ M . As in the preceding paragraph, we can show that h(x)
is also an upper bound for D(x), whence m(x) ≤ h(x) for any x ∈ M , which gives
m ≤+ h. In other words, we have proved that m is the supremum of {mi }i∈I , and
its form is given by (b).
Now if we apply the order anti-automorphism z 7→ −z holding in the Riesz
space R, we see that if the set {mi }i∈I in J (M, R) is bounded below, then it has
an inﬁmum given by (c).
It is clear that J (M, R) is directed. Combining (b) and (c), we see that J (M, R)
is a Dedekind complete ℓ-group.
(d) If m is an R-Jordan signed measure on M and α ∈ R, then clearly αm ∈
J (M, R) and if, in addition α ≥ 0, then αm an R-measure whenever m is an
R-measure. Consequently, J (M, R) is a Dedekind complete Riesz space.

Now let, for an Archimedean unital Riesz space (R, 1R ), (C(T ), 1T , φ) be its
canonical representation, i.e. (R, 1R ) ∼ (C(T ), 1T , φ). We say that a net of (R, 1R )states {sα }α on a pseudo MV-algebra M converges weakly to an (R, 1R )-state s on
w
M , and we write {sα }α → s, if kφ ◦ sα (x) − φ ◦ s(x)kT → 0 for each x ∈ M . We
note that the weak convergence introduced in the proof of (4) of Proposition 3.18
is a special case of the present deﬁnition.
If (R, 1R ) = (R, 1), then (R, 1R )-states are usual states on pseudo MV-algebras,
therefore, the weak convergence of (R, 1R )-states coincides with the weak convergence of states introduced in the beginning of Section 3.
w
First, we show that if, for a net of (R, 1R )-states on M , we have {sα }α → s
w
and {sα }α → s′ , then s = s′ . Indeed, if s′ is another (R, 1R )-state on M such
that kφ ◦ sα (x) − φ ◦ s′ (x)kT → 0 for each x ∈ M , then kφ(s(x) − s′ (x))kT ≤
kφ(s(x) − sα (x))kT + kφ(sα (x) − s′ (x))kT → 0 so that φ(s(x)) = φ(s′ (x)) which
proves s(x) = s′ (x) for each x ∈ M and ﬁnally, we have s = s′ .

28

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

We note that the weak convergence of (R, 1R )-states on M can be deﬁned also
in another but equivalent form: Let (R, 1R ) be an Archimedean unital Riesz space.
For any r ∈ R, we set
krk1R := inf{α ∈ R+ : |r| ≤ α1R }.
Then k·k1R is a norm on R. In particular, for each f ∈ C(T ), we have kf kT = kf k1T .
In addition, if (R, 1R ) ∼ (C(T ), 1T , φ), then kxk1R = kφ(x)kT for each x ∈ R.
Therefore, a net {sα }α of (R, 1R )-states converges weakly to an (R, 1R )-state s iﬀ
limα ksα (x) − s(x)k1R = 0 for each x ∈ M .
Proposition 5.3. Let M be a pseudo MV-algebra and (R, 1R ) be a Dedekind σcomplete unital Riesz space. Then the space S(M, R, 1R ) is either empty or a nonempty convex compact set under the weak convergence.
Proof. By Proposition 3.5, M has at least one state iﬀ M possesses at least one
normal ideal that is also maximal. In particular, if M is an MV-algebra, with 0 6= 1,
M admits at least one state.
Thus, let M have at least one (R, 1R )-state. Clearly, S(M, R, 1R ) is a convex set.
Since R is Dedekind σ-complete, according to [LuZa, Thm 45.4], see also Theorem
2.3, (R, 1R ) has the canonical representation (C(T ), 1T , φ), and φ is bijective, where
T is the set of maximal ideals of (R, 1R ) with the hull-kernel topology.
Let D := {f ∈ C(T ) : kf kT ≤ 1}. If s is an (R, 1R )-state, then φ ◦ s ∈ DM .
Since D is compact in the norm-topology k · kT , DM is due to Tychonoﬀ’s theorem
a compact Hausdorﬀ topological space in the product topology of DM . The set
φ(S(M, R, 1R )) := {φ ◦ s : s ∈ S(M, R, 1R )} is a subset of the cube DM . Let
us assume that {sα }α is a net of (R, 1R )-states on M such that there exists the
limit µ(x) = limα φ ◦ sα (x) ∈ D ⊂ C(T ) for each x ∈ M . Then µ : x 7→ µ(x),
x ∈ M , is a (C(T ), 1T )-state on M . Put s(x) := φ−1 (µ(x)) for each x ∈ M .
w
Then s : x 7→ s(x), x ∈ M , is an (R, 1R )-state on M such that {sα }α → s, which
says that φ(S(M, R, 1R )) is a closed subset of DM . Since D is compact in the
norm-topology k · kT , and φ(S(M, R, 1R )) is a closed subset of DM , φ(S(M, R, 1R ))
is compact. Consequently, S(M, R, 1R ) is a compact set in the weak topology of
(R, 1R )-states.

Corollary 5.4. Under the conditions of Proposition 5.3 every (R, 1R )-state on M
lies in the closure of the convex hull of extremal (R, 1R )-states on M , where the
closure is given in the weak topology of (R, 1R )-states, i.e.
S(M, R, 1R ) = (Con(S∂ (M, R, 1R )))− .
Proof. It is a direct application of the Krein–Mil’man Theorem, Theorem [Go, Thm
5.17], and Proposition 5.3.

Proposition 5.5. Let M be a pseudo MV-algebra and (R, 1R ) be a unital Riesz
space isomorphic to the unital Riesz space (Cb (T ), 1T ) of bounded real-valued functions on T , where T 6= ∅ is a basically disconnected compact Hausdorff topological
space. Then the set of extremal (R, 1R )-states on M is closed in the weak topology
of (R, 1R )-states.
Proof. According to Proposition 3.14, every extremal (R, 1R )-state on M is an
(R, 1R )-state-morphism on M and vice-versa. Since T is basically disconnected, by
Nakano’s theorem (Cb (T ), 1T ) is a Dedekind σ-complete Riesz space, consequently,

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

29

so is (R, 1R ). By Proposition 5.3, we can introduce the weak topology of (R, 1R )states on M which gives a compact space S(M, R, 1R ). Applying the criterion (iii) of
Proposition 3.14, we see that the space SM(M, R, 1R ) of (R, 1R )-state-morphisms
is closed and compact. Due to (3.2), we have S∂ (M, R, 1R ) = SM(M, R, 1R ) is
also compact.

Corollary 5.6. Under the conditions of Proposition 5.5 every (R, 1R )-state on M
lies in the closure of the convex hull of (R, 1R )-state-morphisms on M , where the
closure is given in the weak topology of (R, 1R )-states, i.e.
S(M, R, 1R ) = (Con(SM(M, R, 1R )))− .
Proof. Due to (3.2), we have S∂ (M, R, 1R ) = SM(M, R, 1R ). Applying Corollary
5.4, we have the result.

Now we present some results when the space of (R, 1R )-states on a pseudo MValgebra is a Choquet simplex or even a Bauer simplex. Therefore, we introduce
some notions about simplices. For more info about them see the books [Alf, Go].
We recall that a convex cone in a real linear space V is any subset C of V such
that (i) 0 ∈ C, (ii) if x1 , x2 ∈ C, then α1 x1 +α2 x2 ∈ C for any α1 , α2 ∈ R+ . A strict
cone is any convex cone C such that C ∩ −C = {0}, where −C = {−x : x ∈ C}.
A base for a convex cone C is any convex subset K of C such that every non-zero
element y ∈ C may be uniquely expressed in the form y = αx for some α ∈ R+ and
some x ∈ K.
Any strict cone C of V deﬁnes a partial order ≤C on V via x ≤C y iﬀ y − x ∈ C.
It is clear that C = {x ∈ V : 0 ≤C x}. A lattice cone is any strict convex cone C
in V such that C is a lattice under ≤C .
A simplex in a linear space V is any convex subset K of V that is aﬃnely
isomorphic to a base for a lattice cone in some real linear space. A simplex K in
a locally convex Hausdorﬀ space is said to be (i) Choquet if K is compact, and (ii)
Bauer if K and K∂ are compact, where K∂ is the set of extreme points of K.
Theorem 5.7. Let M be a pseudo MV-algebra and (R, 1R ) be a Dedekind complete
unital Riesz space. Then the set of (R, 1R )-states on M is either empty set or a
non-void Choquet simplex.
Proof. By Proposition 3.5, M has at least one (R, 1R ) state iﬀ M has at least one
normal ideal that is also normal. Thus assume that M admits at least one (R, 1R )state. According to Theorem 5.2, the space J (M, R) of R-Jordan signed measures
on M is a Dedekind complete Riesz space. Since the positive cone of J (M, R) is
the set M(M, R) of R-measures on M that is also a strict lattice cone of J (M, R),
it is clear that the set S(M, R, 1R ) of (R, 1R )-states is a base for J (M, R). Whence,
S(M, R, 1R ) is a simplex. Now applying Proposition 5.3, we see that S(M, R, 1R )
is compact in the weak topology of (R, 1R )-states, which gives the result.

Something more we can say when (R, 1R ) ∼
= (Cb (T ), 1T ) for some extremally
disconnected space T .
Theorem 5.8. Let M be a pseudo MV-algebra and (R, 1R ) ∼
= (Cb (T ), 1T ) for some
extremally disconnected space T 6= ∅. Then S(M, R, 1R ) is either the empty set or
a non-void a Bauer simplex.

30

ANATOLIJ DVUREČENSKIJ

Proof. Assume that M possesses at least one (R, 1R )-state. Due to the Nakano
theorem, (Cb (T ), 1T ) is a unital Dedekind complete Riesz space, consequently, so is
(R, 1R ). Applying Theorem 5.7, we have S(M, R, 1R ) is compact and by Proposition
5.5, the space of extremal states is compact in the weak topology of (R, 1R )-states,
so that S(M, R, 1R ) is a Bauer simplex.

6. Conclusion
In the paper, we have introduced (R, 1R )-states on pseudo MV-algebras, where
R is a Riesz space with a ﬁxed strong unit 1R , as additive functionals on a pseudo
MV-algebra M with values in the interval [0, 1R ] preserving partial addition +
and mapping the top element of M onto 1R . (R, 1R )-states generalize usual states
because every (R, 1)-state is a state and vice versa. Besides we have introduced
(R, 1R )-state-morphisms and extremal (R, 1R )-states. If (R, 1R ) is an Archimedean
unital Riesz space, every (R, 1R )-state-morphism is an extremal (R, 1R )-state, Theorem 3.16. We note that there are (R, 1R )-state-morphisms whose kernel is not
maximal ideal, Proposition 3.18, whereas, if an (R, 1R )-state has a maximal ideal,
it is an (R, 1R )-state-morphism, Proposition 3.7. Metrical completion of a unital ℓgroup with respect to an (R, 1R )-state, when (R, 1R ) is a Dedekind complete unital
Riesz space, gives a Dedekind complete ℓ-group, Theorem 4.6. Theorem 5.2 shows
that the space of R-Jordan signed measures, when R is a Dedekind complete Riesz
space, can be converted into a Dedekind complete Riesz space. This allows us to
show when the space (R, 1R )-states is a compact set, Proposition 5.3, and when every (R, 1R )-state is in the weak closure of the convex hull of extremal (R, 1R )-states,
Corollary 5.6. We have showed that the space of (R, 1R )-states, when (R, 1R ) is
Dedekind complete, is a Choquet simplex, Theorem 5.7, and we proved when it is
even a Bauer simplex, Theorem 5.8.
References
[Alf]

E.M. Alfsen, “Compact Convex Sets and Boundary Integrals”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1971.
[ADG] P. Amato, A. Di Nola, B. Gerla, Neural networks and rational Lukasiewicz logic, in:
Fuzzy Information Processing Society, 2002. Proceedings. NAFIPS. 2002 Annual Meeting
of the North American, IEEE, 2002, pp. 506–510.
[BDV] A. Boccuto, A. Di Nola, G. Vitale, Aﬃne representations of ℓ-groups and MV-algebras,
Algebra Universalis, to appear.
[Cha]
C.C. Chang, Algebraic analysis of many valued logics, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 88
(1958), 467–490.
[CDM] R. Cignoli, I.M.L. D’Ottaviano, D. Mundici, ”Algebraic Foundations of Many-valued
Reasoning”, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, 2000.
[DiLe] A. Di Nola, I. Leuştean, Lukasiewicz logic and Riesz spaces, Soft Computing 18 (2014),
2349–2363.
[DuSc] N. Dunford, J.T. Schwartz, “Linear Operators, Part I, General Theory”, Interscience
Publ., Inc., New York, 1957.
[Dvu1] A. Dvurečenskij, States on pseudo MV-algebras, Studia Logica 68 (2001), 301–327.
[Dvu2] A. Dvurečenskij, Pseudo MV-algebras are intervals in ℓ-groups, J. Austral. Math. Soc.
72 (2002), 427–445.
[DvPu] A. Dvurečenskij, S. Pulmannová, “New Trends in Quantum Structures”, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, Ister Science, Bratislava, 2000, 541 + xvi pp.
[DvVe1] A. Dvurečenskij, T. Vetterlein, Pseudoeﬀect algebras. I. Basic properties, Inter. J. Theor.
Phys. 40 (2001), 685–701.
[DvVe2] A. Dvurečenskij, T. Vetterlein, Pseudoeﬀect algebras. II. Group representation, Inter. J.
Theor. Phys. 40 (2001), 703–726.

RIESZ SPACE-VALUED STATES

[Fil]
[FlKr]

[Fuc]
[GeIo]
[Gla]
[Go]
[Haj]
[Kel]
[Kro]
[KrMa]
[KuMu]
[LuZa]
[Mun1]
[Mun2]
[Mun3]
[Pan]
[Rac]
[RiMu]
[Yos]

31

W. Filter, Representations of Archimedean Riesz spaces, Rocky Mt. Math. J. 24 (1994),
771–851.
T. Flaminio, T. Kroupa, States on MV-algebras. In: Handbook of Mathematical Fuzzy
Logic, vol. III. Eds. P. Cintula, Ch.G. Fermueller, C. Noguera, Volume 58 of Studies
in Logic, Mathematical Logic and Foundations, College Publications, London, 2015, pp.
1191–1245.
L. Fuchs, “Partially Ordered Algebraic Systems”, Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York,
1963.
G. Georgescu, A. Iorgulescu, Pseudo-MV algebras, Multi-Valued Logic 6 (2001), 95–135.
A.M.W. Glass, “Partially Ordered Groups”, World Scientific, Singapore, 1999.
K.R. Goodearl, “Partially Ordered Abelian Groups with Interpolation”, Math. Surveys
and Monographs No. 20, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, Rhode Island, 1986.
P. Hájek, Fuzzy logics with noncommutative conjunctions, J. Logic Comput. 13 (2003),
469–479.
J.L. Kelley, “General Topology”, Van Nostrand, Priceton, New Jersey, 1955.
T. Kroupa, Every state on semisimple MV-algebra is integral, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
157 (2006), 2771–2782.
T. Kroupa, O. Majer, Nash equilibria in a class of constant-sum games represented by
McNaughton functions, Logic, Algebra and Truth Degrees (2012), 94–97.
J. Kühr, D. Mundici, De Finetti theorem and Borel states in [0, ]-valued algebraic logic,
Inter. J. Approx. Reasoning 46 (2007), 605–616.
W.A.J. Luxemburg, A.C. Zaanen, “Riesz Spaces I”, North-Holland, Amsterdam, London, 1971.
D. Mundici, Interpretations of AF C ⋆ -algebras in Lukasiewicz sentential calculus, J.
Funct. Analysis 65 (1986), 15–63.
D. Mundici, Averaging the truth-value in Lukasiewicz logic, Studia Logica 55 (1995),
113–127.
D. Mundici, “Advanced Lukasiewicz calculus and MV-algebras”, Springer, Netherlands,
2011.
G. Panti, Invariant measures in free MV-algebras, Comm. Algebra 36 (2008), 2849–2861.
J. Rachůnek, A non-commutative generalization of MV-algebras, Czechoslovak Math. J.
52 (2002), 255–273.
B. Riečan, D. Mundici, Probability on MV-algebras, In: Handbook of Measure Theory,
E. Pap (Editor), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2002, Vol. II, pp. 869–909.
K. Yosida, On vector lattice with a unit, Proc. Imper. Acad. Tokyo 17 (1940–41), 121–
124.

