Online research in philosophy

In this paper we shall introduce the variety FWHA of frontal weak Heyting algebras as a generalization of the frontal Heyting algebras introduced by Leo Esakia in [ 10 ]. A frontal operator in a weak Heyting algebra A is an expansive operator τ preserving finite meets which also satisfies the equation $${\tau(a) \leq b \vee (b \rightarrow a)}$$, for all $${a, b \in A}$$. These operators were studied from an algebraic, logical and topological point of view by Leo Esakia (...) in [ 10 ]. We will study frontal operators in weak Heyting algebras and we will consider two examples of them. We will give a Priestley duality for the category of frontal weak Heyting algebras in terms of relational spaces $${\langle X, \leq, T, R \rangle}$$ where $${\langle X, \leq, T \rangle}$$ is a WH -space [ 6 ], and R is an additional binary relation used to interpret the modal operator. We will also study the WH -algebras with successor and the WH -algebras with gamma. For these varieties we will give two topological dualities. The first one is based on the representation given for the frontal weak Heyting algebras. The second one is based on certain particular classes of WH -spaces. (shrink)

In this note we introduce the variety $${{\mathcal C}{\mathcal D}{\mathcal M}_\square}$$ of classical modal De Morgan algebras as a generalization of the variety $${{{\mathcal T}{\mathcal M}{\mathcal A}}}$$ of Tetravalent Modal algebras studied in [ 11 ]. We show that the variety $${{\mathcal V}_0}$$ defined by H. P. Sankappanavar in [ 13 ], and the variety S of Involutive Stone algebras introduced by R. Cignoli and M. S de Gallego in [ 5 ], are examples of classical modal De Morgan algebras. (...) We give a representation theory, and we study the regular filters, i.e., lattice filters closed under an implication operation. Finally we prove that the variety $${{{\mathcal T}{\mathcal M}{\mathcal A}}}$$ has the Amalgamation Property and the Superamalgamation Property. (shrink)

We generalize Priestley duality for distributive lattices to a duality for distributive meet-semilattices. On the one hand, our generalized Priestley spaces are easier to work with than Celani’s DS-spaces, and are similar to Hansoul’s Priestley structures. On the other hand, our generalized Priestley morphisms are similar to Celani’s meet-relations and are more general than Hansoul’s morphisms. As a result, our duality extends Hansoul’s duality and is an improvement of Celani’s duality.