Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2018 Jun 15;23(12):3935–3944. doi: 10.1007/s00500-018-3309-4

Operations and structures derived from non-associative MV-algebras

Ivan Chajda 1, Radomir Halaš 1, Helmut Länger 1,2,
PMCID: PMC6500511  PMID: 31123427

Abstract

The so-called non-associative MV-algebras were introduced recently by the first author and J. Kühr in order to have an appropriate tool for certain logics used in expert systems where associativity of the binary operation is excluded, see, e.g., Botur and Halaš (Arch Math Log 48:243–255, 2009). Since implication is an important logical connective in practically every propositional logic, in the present paper we investigate the implication reducts of non-associative MV-algebras. We also determine their structures based on the underlying posets. The natural question when a poset with the greatest element equipped with sectional switching involutions can be organized into an implication NMV-algebra is solved. Moreover, congruence properties of the variety of implication NMV-algebras with, respectively, without zero are investigated. Analogously to classical propositional logic, we introduce a certain kind of Sheffer operation and we obtain a one-to-one correspondence between NMV-algebras and certain algebras built up by a Sheffer-like operation together with a unary operation.

Keywords: MV-algebra, Non-associative MV-algebra, Implication, Congruence conditions, Sheffer operation

Introduction

The role of MV-algebras introduced in Chang (1958) for multiple-valued reasoning is well known, see, e.g., the monograph (Cignoli et al. 2000). As shown by Botur and Halaš (2009), in some problems concerning expert systems in particular or in artificial intelligence in general, associativity of the binary operation of an MV-algebra can produce serious problems, see also, e.g., Chajda and Länger (2017) for motivation. This was the reason why the so-called non-associative MV-algebras were introduced and studied in Chajda and Kühr (2007) and Chajda and Länger (2017). Since MV-algebras form an algebraic semantics of fuzzy logics and because implication is the most fundamental logical connective, some attempts were made to describe so-called implication reducts of MV-algebras. Such reducts were investigated for MV-algebras in Chajda et al. (2004a) under the name weak implication algebras. However, it turns out that these implication reducts are in fact BCK-algebras and the investigations in Chajda et al. (2004a) provide a new axiomatization of BCK-algebras which is very similar to that derived by Abbott (1967).

Our first goal is to derive an implication algebra (or implication reduct) of the above-mentioned non-associative MV-algebras. The main difference to other implication reducts, e.g., for Boolean algebras in Abbott (1967), for MV-algebras in Chajda et al. (2004a) or for orthomodular lattices or ortholattices in Abbott (1976), Chajda et al. (2001), Chajda et al. (2004b) and Chajda et al. (2008) is that non-associative MV-algebras do not have a lattice as their underlying structure. Namely, their underlying structure is only a bounded poset equipped with involutions on principal order filters. Hence, our attempt is rather exceptional, but it turns out that it works well and the results are fully comparable with that corresponding to lattice structures.

The second motivation is the fact that the so-called Sheffer operation alias Sheffer stroke was studied by several authors in Boolean algebras (Sheffer 1913), MV-algebras, basic algebras (Oner and Senturk 2017), orthomodular lattices and ortholattices (Chajda 2005), but to our knowledge not on structures which are posets only. In the present paper, we show that we can also introduce and investigate a Sheffer stroke operation in non-associative MV-algebras.

Implication NMV-algebras

For the reader’s convenience, we repeat the definition of our basic concept.

Definition 2.1

A non-associative MV-algebra (NMV-algebra, for short) is an algebra A=(A,,¬,0) of type (2, 1, 0) satisfying the identities

xyyx, 1
x0x, 2
x11, 3
¬(¬x)x, 4
¬(¬xy)y¬(¬yx)x, 5
¬x(xy)1, 6
x(¬(¬(¬(xy)y)z)z)1, 7

where 1 denotes the algebraic constant ¬0. Identity (5) is called the Łukasiewicz axiom. We define

xyif and only if¬xy=1

(x,yA).

As shown in Chajda and Kühr (2007), (A,) is a poset with the least element 0 and the greatest element 1 which we call the poset induced by A.

Example 2.2

The algebra A=(A,,¬,0) of type (2, 1, 0) defined by A={0,a,b,c,d,1},

0abcd100abcd1aadcc11bbcd1d1ccc1111dd1d1111111111andx0abcd1¬x1dcba0

is an NMV-algebra whose induced poset has the Hasse diagram depicted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Hasse diagram of the poset induced by an NMV-algebra

One can immediately see that the above poset is not a lattice. Moreover, A is not an MV-algebra since the operation is not associative:

(aa)b=db=dc=ac=a(ab).

Definition 2.3

An implication NMV-algebra is a non-empty groupoid A=(A,) satisfying the identities

xxyy, 8
x11, 9
1xx, 10
(xy)y(yx)x, 11
x(yx)1, 12
x((((xy)y)z)z)1, 13

where 1 denotes the algebraic constant xx. We define

xyif and only ifxy=1

(x,yA) and put

xy:=(xy)y

for all x,yA. An implication NMV-algebra with 0 is an algebra A=(A,,0) of type (2, 0) satisfying identities (8)–(13) as well as the identity

0x1. 14

We put

¬x:=x0,xy:=¬(¬x¬y)

for all x,yA and call ¬ the negation.

Lemma 2.4

For an implication NMV-algebra (A,), the relation defined above is a partial order relation on A with the greatest element 1.

Proof

Let a,b,cA. Then, aa according to (8). If ab and ba, then

a=1a=(ba)a=(ab)b=1b=b

according to (10) and (11). If ab and bc, then

ac=a(1c)=a((bc)c)=a(((1b)c)c)=a((((ab)b)c)c)=1

according to (10) and (13), i.e., ac. Finally, a1 according to (9).

The partial order relation on A will be called the induced order of (A,).

Let (P,) be a poset with the smallest element p and the greatest element q and f:PP. Then, f is called

  • an involution if f(f(x))=x for all xP,

  • antitone if x,yP and xy together imply f(y)f(x),

  • switching if f(p)=q and f(q)=p.

Lemma 2.5

In every implication NMV-algebra (A,,0) with 0 the negation is a switching involution on (A,).

Proof

We have

¬0001according to (8),¬1100according to (10),¬(¬x)(x0)0(0x)x1xxaccording to (10), (11) and (14).

Analogously, as it was done for MV-algebras in Chajda et al. (2004a), we can introduce the binary operation in NMV-algebras which can be interpreted as the logical connective implication within the corresponding logic. The following theorem justifies the name implication NMV-algebra introduced in Definition 2.3.

Theorem 2.6

Let A=(A,,¬,0) be an NMV-algebra and define

xy:=¬xy

for all x,yA. Then, (A,,0) is an implication NMV-algebra with 0 which we call the implication NMV-algebra with 0 induced by A.

Proof

(8) follows from (2) and (6), (9) from (3), (10) from (1), (2) and (4), (11) from (5), (12) from (1) and (6), (13) from (7) and (14) from (1) and (3).

Example 2.7

The implication NMV-algebra B:=(A,,0) with 0 induced by the NMV-algebra A from Example 2.2 is given by the operation table

0abcd10111111ad1d111bcc1111cbcd1d1dadcc1110abcd1

Since C:={a,b,c,d,1} is a subuniverse of the implication NMV-algebra (B,), the groupoid (C,) is an implication NMV-algebra, too. But there exists no x{a,b,c,d,1} such that (C,,x) is an implication NMV-algebra with 0. The Hasse diagram of the poset induced by (C,) is visualized in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Hasse diagram of the poset induced by an implication NMV-algebra

Theorem 2.8

Let A=(A,,0) be an implication NMV-algebra with 0 and define a binary operation on A by

xy:=¬xy

for all x,yA. Then, (A,,¬,0) is an NMV-algebra if and only if A satisfies the identity

xy¬y¬x. 15

Proof

We have

xy¬(¬x)y¬xy

according to Lemma 2.5. If (A,,¬,0) is an NMV-algebra, then

xy¬xyy¬x¬y¬x

according to (1). If, conversely, A satisfies identity (15), then

  1. xy¬xy¬y¬(¬x)¬yxyx according to Lemma 2.5,

  2. x0¬x0¬(¬x)x according to Lemma 2.5,

  3. x1¬x11 according to (9),

  4. was proved just before,

  5. ¬(¬xy)y(xy)y(yx)x¬(¬yx)x according to (11),

  6. ¬x(xy)¬x(yx)x(¬yx)1 according to (1) and (12),

  7. x(¬(¬(¬(xy)y)z)z)¬x((((¬xy)y)z)z)1 according to (13).

Recall the following concept (see, e.g., Chajda and Länger 2011 or Ježek and Quackenbush 1990):

Definition 2.9

A directoid is a groupoid (A,) satisfying the identities

xxx,xyyx,x((xy)z)(xy)z.

A directoid with 1 is an algebra (A,,1) of type (2, 0) such that (A,) is a directoid and the identity x11 is satisfied.

The concept of a directoid was introduced under the name commutative directoid with 1 by Ježek and Quackenbush (1990).

Definition 2.10

A poset(A,) is called directed if for any x,yA we have U(x,y) where U(x,y):={zAx,yz}.

For the following result, see, e.g., Chajda and Länger (2011) or Ježek and Quackenbush (1990).

Proposition 2.11

If A=(A,) is a directoid and we define a binary relation on A by

xyif and only ifxy=y

(x,yA), then P(A):=(A,) is a directed poset satisfying x,yxy. The partial order relation on A just defined will be called the induced order of the directoid (A,). Conversely, if P=(A,) is a directed poset and we define

xy:=max(x,y)ifxandyare comparable andxy=yxU(x,y)otherwise

(x,yA), then D(P):=(A,) is a directoid. (In general, D(P) is not uniquely determined by P.) We have P(D(P))=P for every directed poset P.

In the following, if (A,) is a poset and B a subset of A, then the restriction of to B will again be denoted by the same symbol .

Definition 2.12

A directoid with 1 and sectionally switching involutions is an ordered quadruple (A,,1,(fa;aA)) such that (A,,1) is a directoid with 1 and for every aA, fa is a switching involution on ([a,1],) where is the induced order of (A,).

Theorem 2.13

Let A=(A,) be an implication NMV-algebra and for each aA define a mapping fa:[a,1][a,1] by

fa(x):=xa

for all x[a,1]. Then, D1(A):=(A,,1,(fa;aA)) where denotes the binary operation on A introduced in Definition 2.3 is a directoid with 1 and sectionally switching involutions whose induced order coincides with the induced order of (A,).

Proof

Let a,b,cA. Then,

aa=(aa)a=1a=aaccording to (8) and (10),ab=(ab)b=(ba)a=baaccording to (11),a((ab)c)=(a((((ab)b)c)c))((((ab)b)c)c)=1((((ab)b)c)c)=(((ab)b)c)c=(ab)caccording to (10) and(13),a1=(a1)1=1according to (9),ab=bab=a(ab)=a((ab)b)==a((ba)a)=1according to (11) and (12),ab=1ab=(ab)b=1b=baccording to (10).

If b[a,1], then

fa(b)=baaaccording to (12),fa(fa(b))=(ba)a=(ab)b=1b=baccording to (10) and (11),fa(a)=aa=1according to (8),fa(1)=1a=aaccording to (10).

For an implication NMV-algebra A=(A,), D1(A)=(A,,1,(fa;aA)) will be called the induced directoid.

Example 2.14

For the implication NMV-algebra B from Example 2.7, D1(B)=(A,,1,(fa;aA)) is given by the tables

0abcd100abcd1aaaccd1bbcbcd1ccccc11dddd1d11111111andx0abcd1f0(x)1dcba0fa(x)1cdafb(x)1dcbfc(x)1cfd(x)1df1(x)1

Theorem 2.15

Let D=(A,,1,(fa;aA)) be a directoid with 1 and sectionally switching involutions and define a binary operation on A by

xy:=fy(xy)

for all x,yA. Then, I(D):=(A,) is an implication NMV-algebra.

Proof

We have (xy)yfy(fy(xy)y)fy(fy(xy))xy. Now the following identities are satisfied:

  • (8) xxfx(xx)fx(x)1fy(y)fy(yy)yy,

  • (9) x1f1(x1)f1(1)1,

  • (10) 1xfx(1x)fx(1)x,

  • (11) (xy)yxyyx(yx)x,

  • (12) x(yx)ffx(yx)(xfx(yx))ffx(yx)(fx(yx))1,

  • (13) x((((xy)y)z)z)f(xy)z(x((xy)z))f(xy)z((xy)z)1.

For a directoid D=(A,,1,(fa;aA)) with 1 and sectionally switching involutions, I(D)=(A,) will be referred to as the induced implication NMV-algebra.

We show that the correspondence between induced directoids and induced implication NMV-algebras is one to one.

Theorem 2.16

  • (i)

    Let A=(A,) be an implication NMV-algebra. Then, I(D1(A))=A.

  • (ii)

    Let D=(A,,1,(fa;aA)) be a directoid with 1 and sectionally switching involutions. Then, D1(I(D))=D.

Proof

  • (i)
    If D1(A)=(A,,1,(fa;aA)), I(D1(A))=(A,) and a,bA, then
    ab=fb(ab)=(ab)b=((ab)b)b==(b(ab))(ab)=1(ab)=ab
    according to (10), (11) and (12).
  • (ii)
    If I(D)=(A,), D1(I(D))=(A,,1,(ga;aA)) and a,bA, then
    ab=(ab)b=fb(fb(ab)b)=fb(fb(ab))=ab,1=aa=fa(aa)=fa(a)=1,b[a,1]ga(b)=ba=fa(ba)=fa(b).

Next we investigate when the sections of an implication NMV-algebra are NMV-algebras again.

Theorem 2.17

Let A=(A,) be an implication NMV-algebra, (A,,1,(fb;bA)) its induced directoid, aA, assume

xy=fa(y)fa(x) 16

for all x,y[a,1] and put

xay:=fa(x)y,¬ax:=fa(x)

for all x,y[a,1]. Then, ([a,1],a,¬a,a) is an NMV-algebra.

Proof

Although some of the following calculations were already done in previous parts of the paper, these calculations were not done in connection with the operations a and ¬a. Hence, for the reader’s convenience, we present the detailed calculations. Let b,c,d[a,1]. Then,

bac=fa(b)ccaaccording to (12),¬ab=fa(b)a,¬abac=fa(fa(b))c=bc,bac=fa(b)c=¬abc,
  • (1) bac=fa(b)c=fa(c)fa(fa(b))=fa(c)b=cab,

  • (2) baa=fa(b)a=fa(a)fa(fa(b))=1b=b according to (10),

  • (3) ba1=fa(b)1=1 according to (9),

  • (4) ¬a(¬ab)=fa(fa(b))=b,

  • (5) ¬a(¬abac)ac=(bc)c=(cb)b=¬a(¬acab)ab according to (11),

  • (6) ¬aba(bac)=fa(fa(b))(fa(b)c)=b(fa(c)fa(fa(b)))=b(fa(c)b)=1 according to (12),

  • (7) ba(¬a(¬a(¬a(bac)ac)ad)ad)=¬ab((((¬abc)c)d)d)=1 according to (13).

Let us note that, contrary to Theorem 2.17, in Theorem 2.15 we do not assume condition (16).

Unfortunately, condition (16) need not be satisfied even in an implication NMV-algebra induced by an NMV-algebra. It is worth noticing that this disadvantage disappears if so-called weak MV-algebras are considered instead of NMV-algebras. These weak MV-algebras were introduced and studied by the Halaš and Plojhar (2008).

Example 2.18

Consider the implication NMV-algebra (C,) from Example 2.7. It is easy to see that the element b satisfies condition (16). Hence, especially, we have

cbd=(cb)d=dd=1=cc=(db)c=dbc.

Contrary to this, the element a from Examples 2.7 and 2.14 does not satisfy condition (16), namely

cd=dc=dc=fa(d)fa(c).

This is in accordance with the observation

cad=(ca)d=cd=dc=dc=(da)c=dac.

If, however, the involution fa would be given by

fa(a)=1,fa(c)=d,fa(d)=c,fa(1)=a,

then (16) would be satisfied also for the element a and hence every interval [x, 1] for x{a,b,c,d,1} could be organized into an NMV-algebra which in fact would be an MV-algebra.

Congruence properties of implication NMV-algebras

The congruence properties of the variety of NMV-algebras were investigated in Chajda and Kühr (2007) and Chajda and Länger (2017). Since implication NMV-algebras form a variety, too, it is natural to ask what congruence properties are satisfied by this variety. One can hardly expect that the variety of implication NMV-algebras satisfies the same congruence properties as the variety of NMV-algebras because in the latter the existence of a zero element plays a fundamental role. On the other hand, we will show that the variety of implication NMV-algebras satisfies similar congruence properties as the varieties of orthoimplication algebras (Abbott 1976), implication MV-algebras (Chajda et al. 2004a) or orthomodular implication algebras (Chajda et al. 2001, 2004b).

Recall that an algebra A=(A,F) is called

  • congruence permutable if ΘΦ=ΦΘ for all Θ,ΦConA,

  • congruence distributive if (ΘΦ)Ψ=(ΘΨ)(ΦΨ) for all Θ,Φ,ΨConA,

  • arithmetical if it is both congruence permutable and congruence distributive,

  • congruence regular if aA, Θ,ΦConA and [a]Θ=[a]Φ together imply Θ=Φ,

  • 3-permutable if ΘΦΘ=ΦΘΦ for all Θ,ΦConA.

An algebra A with an equationally definable constant 1 is called

  • permutable at 1 (or subtractive) if [1](ΘΦ)=[1](ΦΘ) for all Θ,ΦConA,

  • weakly regular if Θ,ΦConA and [1]Θ=[1]Φ together imply Θ=Φ.

A variety (with 1 in its similarity type) is said to have the corresponding property if every of its members has this property.

From Chajda et al. (2012), we take the following well-known facts:

Let V be a variety. Then, the following hold:

  • V is congruence permutable if and only if there exists a ternary term t in V satisfying the identities t(x,x,y)t(y,x,x)y (Theorem 3.1.8),

  • If there exists a ternary term t in V satisfying the identities t(x,x,y)t(x,y,x)t(y,x,x)x, then V is congruence distributive (Corollary 3.2.4),

  • V is congruence regular if and only if there exist a positive integer n and ternary terms t1,,tn in V such that t1(x,y,z)==tn(x,y,z)=z is equivalent to x=y (Theorem 6.1.3),

  • V is 3-permutable if and only if there exist ternary terms t1,t2 of V satisfying the identities t1(x,z,z)x, t1(x,x,z)=t2(x,z,z) and t2(x,x,z)z (Theorem 3.1.18).

A variety V with an equationally definable constant 1 is

  • permutable at 1 if and only if there exists a binary term t in V satisfying the identities t(x,x)1 and t(x,1)x (Theorem 6.6.11),

  • weakly regular if and only if there exist a positive integer n and binary terms t1,,tn in V such that t1(x,y)==tn(x,y)=1 is equivalent to x=y (Theorem 6.4.3).

We are now able to prove

Lemma 3.1

  • (i)

    The variety of groupoids (A,) satisfying identities (8), (10) and (11) is 3-permutable and weakly regular.

  • (ii)

    The variety of groupoids (A,) satisfying identities (8) and (10) is permutable at 1.

Proof

  • (i)
    If
    t1(x,y,z):=(zy)x,t2(x,y,z):=(xy)z,
    then
    t1(x,z,z)(zz)x1xxaccording to (8) and (10),t1(x,x,z)(zx)x(xz)zt2(x,z,z)according to (11) andt2(x,x,z)(xx)z1zzaccording to (8) and (10).
    If
    t1(x,y):=xy,t2(x,y):=yx,
    then
    t1(x,x)xx1according to (8),t2(x,x)xx1according to (8),t1(x,y)=t2(x,y)=1x=1x=(yx)x=(xy)y=1y=yaccording to (10) and (11).
  • (ii)
    If
    t(x,y):=yx,
    then
    t(x,x)xx1according to (8),t(x,1)1xxaccording to (10).

Since implication NMV-algebras satisfy (8), (10) and (11), we obtain

Theorem 3.2

The variety of implication NMV-algebras is 3-permutable, permutable at 1 and weakly regular.

In the case of implication NMV-algebras with 0 and antitone negation, we obtain a stronger result.

Theorem 3.3

The variety of implication NMV-algebras (A,,0) with 0 satisfying the identity

((((xy)y)0)(x0))(x0)x0 17

is arithmetical and congruence regular.

Proof

Identity (17) can be rewritten in the form ¬(xy)¬x¬x which is equivalent to the fact that the negation is antitone. If we define xy:=¬(¬x¬y) for all x,yA, then the De Morgan laws hold and and have similar properties as lattice operations do have. If

t(x,y,z):=((xy)z)((zy)x),

then

t(x,x,z)((xx)z)((zx)x)(1z)(zx)z(zx)zaccording to (8) and (10),t(z,x,x)((zx)x)((xx)z)(zx)(1z)(zx)zzaccording to (8) and (10).

If

t(x,y,z):=((xy)(yz))(zx),

then

t(x,x,y)((xx)(xy))(yx)x(yx)x,t(x,y,x)((xy)(yx))(xx)(xy)xx,t(y,x,x)((yx)(xx))(xy)x(xy)x.

If

v:=(xy)(yx),t1(x,y,z):=vz,t2(x,y,z):=vz,

then

t1(x,x,z)((xx)(xx))z(11)zzaccording to(8),t2(x,x,z)((xx)(xx))z(11)z1zzaccording to (8) and (10),t1(x,y,z)=t2(x,y,z)=zxy,yxv=v(vz)=vz=(vz)z=zz=1according to (8) and hencexy=yx=1whencex=y.

Sheffer stroke NMV-algebras

A binary operation called Sheffer stroke was introduced by Sheffer (1913) in order to have the single operation on a Boolean algebra which generates the clone of all Boolean operations. It has an important application in chip technology since it enables to have all the diods on the chip forming processor in a computer in a uniform manner. This is simpler and cheaper than to produce different diods for disjunction, conjunction and negation. Sheffer operations were also introduced in other algebras which form an algebraic semantic of non-classical logics such as orthomodular lattices, ortholattices (Chajda 2005) or basic algebras (Oner and Senturk 2017). However, all of these algebras have a lattice structure which is not the case for NMV-algebras. Contrary to this, we are able to define a Sheffer operation also for NMV-algebras and their implication reducts.

Definition 4.1

A strong Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra is an algebra (A, |, 1) of type (2, 0) satisfying the identities

x|yy|x,x|01,(x|1)|1x,((x|1)|y)|y((y|1)|x)|x,(x|1)|((x|y)|1)1,x|(((((x|y)|y)|z)|z)|1)1,

where 0 denotes the algebraic constant 1|1. The operation | will be called the strong Sheffer stroke.

We justify the name strong Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra, respectively, strong Sheffer stroke by the following result.

Theorem 4.2

Let A=(A,,¬,0) be an NMV-algebra and put

x|y:=¬x¬y

for all x,yA. Then, S(A):=(A,|,1) is a strong Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra.

Proof

The following identities are satisfied:

1|1¬1¬10,x|y¬x¬y¬y¬xy|x,x|0¬x¬01,x|1¬x¬1¬x,((x|1)|1¬(¬x)x,((x|1)|y)|y¬(¬¬x¬y)¬y¬(¬¬y¬x)¬x((y|1)|x)|x,(x|1)|((x|y)|1)¬¬x¬¬(¬x¬y)¬¬x(¬x¬y)1,x|(((((x|y)|y)|z)|z)|1)¬x¬¬(¬(¬(¬(¬x¬y)¬y)¬z)¬z)1.

Of course, our main goal is to prove that the strong Sheffer stroke acts on NMV-algebras in an analogous way as the Sheffer stroke does on Boolean algebras, i.e., every operation of an NMV-algebra can be expressed by means of the strong Sheffer operation and the constant 1.

Theorem 4.3

Let S=(A,|,1) be a strong Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra and put

xy:=(x|1)|(y|1),¬x:=x|1,0:=1|1

for all x,yA. Then, A(S):=(A,,¬,0) is an NMV-algebra.

Proof

The following identities are satisfied:

¬0(1|1)|11,¬xy((x|1)|1)|(y|1)x|(y|1),
  • (1) xy(x|1)|(y|1)(y|1)|(x|1)yx,

  • (2) x0(x|1)|(0|1)(x|1)|(1|0)(x|1)|1x,

  • (3) x1(x|1)|(1|1)(x|1)|01,

  • (4) ¬(¬x)(x|1)|1x,

  • (5) ¬(¬xy)y(x|(y|1))|(y|1)(((x|1)|1)|(y|1))|(y|1)(((y|1)|1)|(x|1))|(x|1)(y|(x|1))|(x|1)¬(¬yx)x,

  • (6) ¬x(xy)((x|1)|1)|(((x|1)|(y|1))|1)1,

  • (7) x(¬(¬(¬(xy)y)z)z)(x|1)|((((((((((((x|1)|(y|1))|1)|1)|(y|1))|1)|1)|(z|1))|1)|1)|(z|1))|1)(x|1)|((((((x|1)|(y|1))|(y|1))|(z|1))|(z|1))|1)1.

We are now able to prove that the correspondence just considered is one to one.

Theorem 4.4

The above-mentioned correspondence is one to one.

Proof

If A=(A,,¬,0) is an NMV-algebra, S(A)=(A,|,1) and A(S(A))=(A,1,¬1,01), then the identities

x1y(x|1)|(y|1)¬(¬x¬1)¬(¬y¬1)xy,¬1xx|1¬x¬1¬x,011|1¬1¬1¬(¬0)¬(¬0)000

are satisfied and hence A(S(A))=A.

If S=(A,|,1) is a strong Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra, A(S)=(A,,¬,0) and S(A(S))=(A,|1,11), then the identities

x|1y¬x¬y((x|1)|1)|((y|1)|1)x|y,11¬00|11|01

are satisfied and hence S(A(S))=S.

We continue our investigations by considering implication NMV-algebras. Surprisingly, a Sheffer stroke can be introduced also in this case, but some of the axioms must be modified.

Definition 4.5

A weak Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra is an algebra (A, |, 1) of type (2, 0) satisfying the identities

(x|1)|1x,x|(x|1)1,x|(1|1)1,1|xx|1,((x|1)|y)|y((y|1)|x)|x,(x|1)|((y|x)|1)1,x|(((((x|y)|y)|z)|z)|1)1,(1|1)|x1.

The operation | will be called the weak Sheffer stroke.

Similarly as before, the weak Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra can be derived by means of an implication NMV-algebra as follows.

Theorem 4.6

Let A=(A,,0) be an implication NMV-algebra with 0 and put

x|y:=x¬y

for all x,yA. Then, W(A):=(A,|,1) is a weak Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra.

Proof

The following identities are satisfied:

x|1x¬1x0¬x,(x|1)|1¬(¬x)x,x|(x|1)x¬(¬x)xx1,x|(1|1)x¬(¬1)x11,1|x1¬x¬xx0x¬1x|1,((x|1)|y)|y(¬x¬y)¬y(¬y¬x)¬x((y|1)|x)|x,(x|1)|((y|x)|1)¬x¬(¬(y¬x))¬x(y¬x)1,x|(((((x|y)|y)|z)|z)|1)x¬(¬((((x¬y)¬y)¬z)¬z))x((((x¬y)¬y)¬z)¬z)1,(1|1)|x(1¬1)¬x¬1¬x0¬x1.

Analogously, as it was the case for the strong Sheffer stroke, the weak Sheffer operation generates the fundamental operations of an implication NMV-algebra with 0.

Theorem 4.7

Let S=(A,|,1) be a weak Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra and put

xy:=x|(y|1),0:=1|1

for all x,yA. Then, I1(S):=(A,,0) is an implication NMV-algebra with 0.

Proof

The following identities are satisfied:

  • (8) xxx|(x|1)1y|(y|1)yy,

  • (9) x1x|(1|1)1,

  • (10) 1x1|(1|x)(x|1)|1x,

  • (11) (xy)y(x|(y|1))|(y|1)(((x|1)|1)|(y|1))|(y|1)(((y|1)|1)|(x|1))|(x|1)(y|(x|1))|(x|1)(yx)x,

  • (12) x(yx)x|((y|(x|1))|1)((x|1)|1)|((y|(x|1))|1)1,

  • (13) x((((xy)y)z)z)x|(((((x|(y|1))|(y|1))|(z|1))|(z|1))|1)1,

  • (14) 0x(1|1)|(x|1)1.

Again we can prove that the correspondence described by the last two theorems is one to one.

Theorem 4.8

The above-mentioned correspondence is one to one.

Proof

If A=(A,,0) is an implication NMV-algebra with 0, W(A)=(A,|,1) and I1(W(A))=(A,1,01), then the identities

x1yx|(y|1)x¬(y¬1)x¬(y0)x¬(¬y)xy,011|11¬110¬10

are satisfied and hence I1(W(A))=A.

If S=(A,|,1) is a weak Sheffer stroke NMV-algebra, I1(S)=(A,,0) and W(I1(S))=(A,|1,11), then the identities

x|1yx¬yx|((y|((1|1)|1))|1)x|((y|1)|1)x|y,11¬00|(0|1)1

are satisfied and hence W(I1(S))=S.

Let us note, finally, that the weak Sheffer stroke not only determines the operation of the induced implication NMV-algebra with 0, but in fact also the induced poset as well as the induced directoid since we have xy if and only if x|(y|1)=1 and, moreover, the identity xy(x|(y|1))|(y|1) is satisfied.

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by Austrian Science Fund (FWF). This study was funded by ÖAD, project CZ 04/2017, and IGA, project PřF 2018 012, as well as concerning the third author by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project I 1923–N25.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Ivan Chajda, Email: ivan.chajda@upol.cz.

Radomir Halaš, Email: radomir.halas@upol.cz.

Helmut Länger, Email: helmut.laenger@tuwien.ac.at.

References

  1. Abbott JC. Semi-boolean algebra. Mat Vesn. 1967;4:177–198. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbott JC. Orthoimplication algebras. Stud Log. 1976;35:173–177. doi: 10.1007/BF02120879. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Botur M, Halaš R. Commutative basic algebras and non-associative fuzzy logics. Arch Math Log. 2009;48:243–255. doi: 10.1007/s00153-009-0125-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chajda I. Sheffer operation in ortholattices. Acta Univ Palack Olomuc Fac Rerum Nat Math. 2005;44:19–23. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chajda I, Kühr J. A non-associative generalization of MV-algebras. Math Slov. 2007;57:301–312. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chajda I, Länger H. Directoids. An algebraic approach to ordered sets. Lemgo: Heldermann; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chajda I, Länger H. Properties of non-associative MV-algebras. Math Slov. 2017;67:1095–1104. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chajda I, Halaš R, Länger H. Orthomodular implication algebras. Intern J Theor Phys. 2001;40:1875–1884. doi: 10.1023/A:1011933018776. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chajda I, Halaš R, Kühr J. Implication in MV-algebas. Algebra Universalis. 2004;52:377–382. doi: 10.1007/s00012-004-1862-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chajda I, Halaš R, Länger H. Simple axioms for orthomodular implication algebras. Intern J Theor Phys. 2004;43:911–914. doi: 10.1023/B:IJTP.0000048587.50827.93. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chajda I, Halaš R, Länger H. Congruence kernels of orthomodular implication algebras. Discrete Math. 2008;308:4724–4733. doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2007.08.101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chajda I, Eigenthaler G, Länger H. Congruence classes in universal algebra. Lemgo: Heldermann; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chang CC. Algebraic analysis of many valued logics. Trans Am Math Soc. 1958;88:467–490. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1958-0094302-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cignoli RLO, D’Ottaviano IML, Mundici D. Algebraic foundations of many-valued reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  15. Halaš R, Plojhar L. Weak MV-algebras. Math Slov. 2008;58:253–262. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ježek J, Quackenbush R. Directoids: algebraic models of up-directed sets. Algebra Universalis. 1990;27:49–69. doi: 10.1007/BF01190253. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Oner T, Senturk I. The Sheffer stroke operation reducts of basic algebras. Open Math. 2017;15:926–935. doi: 10.1515/math-2017-0075. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sheffer HM. A set of five independent postulates for Boolean algebras, with application to logical constants. Trans Am Math Soc. 1913;14:481–488. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1913-1500960-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Soft Computing are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES