ar X iv :1 70 8. 08 49 9v 1 [ m at h. L O ] 2 8 A ug 2 01 7 Non-deterministic algebraization of logics by swap structures Marcelo E. Coniglio1, Aldo Figallo-Orellano2 and Ana C. Golzio3 1Institute of Philosophy and the Humanities (IFCH) and Centre for Logic, Epistemology and The History of Science (CLE), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil. E-mail: coniglio@cle.unicamp.br 2Department of Mathematics, National University of the South (UNS), Bahia Blanca, Argentina and Centre for Logic, Epistemology and The History of Science (CLE), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil. E-mail: aldofigallo@gmail.com 3Centre for Logic, Epistemology and The History of Science (CLE), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil. E-mail: anaclaudiagolzio@yahoo.com.br Abstract Multialgebras (or hyperalgebras, or non-deterministic algebras) have been very much studied in Mathematics and in Computer Science. In 2016 Carnielli and Coniglio introduced a class of multialgebras called swap structures, as a semantic framework for dealing with several logics of formal inconsistency (or LFIs) which cannot be semantically characterized by a single finite matrix. In particular, these LFIs are not algebraizable by the standard tools of abstract algebraic logic. In this paper, the first steps towards a theory of non-deterministic algebraization of logics by swap structures are given. Specifically, a formal study of swap structures for LFIs is developed, by adapting concepts of universal algebra to multialgebras in a suitable way. A decomposition theorem similar to Birkhoff's representation theorem is obtained for each class of swap structures. Moreover, when applied to the 3-valued algebraizable logic J3 the usual class of algebraic models is recovered, and the swap structures semantics became twist-structures semantics (as introduced by Fidel-Vakarelov). This fact, together with the existence of a functor from the category of Boolean algebras to the category of swap structures for each LFI, which is closely connected with Kalman's functor, suggests that swap structures can be considered as non-deterministic twist structures, opening so interesting possibilities for dealing with non-algebraizable logics by means of multialgebraic semantics. 1 Keywords: Non-deterministic algebras, multialgebras, hyperalgebras, twist structures, swap structures, non-deterministic semantics, non-deterministic matrices, logics of formal inconsistency, Kalman's functor, Birkhoff's representation theorem. 1 Introduction As it is well-known, several logics in the hierarchy of the so-called Logics of Formal Inconsistency (in short LFIs, see [10, 9, 8]) cannot be semantically characterized by a single finite matrix. Moreover, they lie outside the scope of the usual techniques of algebraization of logics such as Blok and Pigozzi's method (see [5]). Several alternative semantical tools were introduced in the literature in order to deal with such systems: non-truth-functional bivaluations, possible-translations semantics, and non-deterministic matrices (or Nmatrices), obtaining so decision procedures for these logics. However, the problem of finding an algebraic counterpart for this kind of logic, in a sense to be determined, remains open. A semantics based on an special kind of multialgebra called swap structure was proposed in [8, Chapter 6], which generalizes the characterization results of LFIs by means of finite Nmatrices due to Avron (see [2]). Moreover, the swap structures semantics allows soundness and completeness theorems by means of a very natural generalization of the well-known Lindenbaum-Tarski process (for an example applied to non-normal modal logics see [14] and [21, Chapter 3]). Multialgebras (also known as hyperalgebras or non-deterministic algebras) have been very much studied in the literature. Besides their use in Logic by means of Nmatrices, they have been applied to several areas of Computer Science such as automata theory. Multialgebras has also been studied in Mathematics, in areas such as algebra, geometry, topology, graph theory and probability theory. An historical survey on multialgebras can be found in [21, Chapter 1]. From the algebraic perspective, the formal study of multialgebras is not so immediate: the generalization from universal algebra to multialgebras of even basic conceps such as homomorphism, subalgebras and congruences is far to be obvious, and several different alternatives were proposed in the literature. In particular, the possibility of defining an algebraic theory of non-deterministic structures for logics along the same lines of the so-called abstract algebraic logic (see, for instance, [20]) is an open question which deserves to be investigated. This paper give some steps along this direction, by adapting concepts of universal algebra to multialgebras in a suitable way in order to analyze categories of swap structures for some LFIs. Specifically, we will concentrate our efforts on the algebraic theory of the class KmbC of swap structures for the logic mbC (the weakest system in the hierarchy of LFIs proposed in [9] and [8]). In order to do this, and taking into account that swap structures are special cases of multialgebras, a category of multialgebras over a given signature is considered, based on very natural notions of homomorphism and submultialgebras. From 2 this, products and congruences are analyzed, showing that the class KmbC is closed under substructures and products, but it is not closed under homomorphic images. From this, it is possible to give a representation theorem for KmbC (see Theorem 7.6) which resembles the well-known representation theorem for algebras obtained by G. Birkhoff in 1944 (see [4]). As a consequence of our result, the class KmbC is generated by the structure with five elements, which is constructed over the 2-element Boolean algebra. Such structure is precisely Avron's 5-valued characteristic Nmatrix for mbC introduced in [2]. This approach is extended to several axiomatic extensions of mbC, including the 3-valued paraconsistent logic J3 (see [17]), which is algebraizable. The classes of swap structures for each of such systems are subclasses of KmbC. They are obtained by requiring that its elements satisfy precisely the additional axioms which define the corresponding logic. Analogous Birkhoff-like representation theorems for each class of swap structures are found. This allow a modular treatment of the algebraic theory of swap structures, as happens in the traditional algebraic setting. In the case of the algebraizable 3-valued logic J3, our representation theorem coincides with the original Birkhoff's representation theorem. Moreover, the swap structures became twist structures in the sense of Fidel [19] and Vakarelov [35]. This fact, together with the existence of a functor from the category of Boolean algebras to the category of swap structures for each LFI, which is closely connected with the Kalman's functor naturally associated to twist structures (see [24, 12]), suggests that swap structures can be considered as non-deterministic twist structures, as analyzed in Section 9.1. 2 The category of multialgebras As mentioned in the Introduction, the generalization to multialgebras of concepts from standard algebra such as homomorphism and subalgebras is not unique, and several choices are possible. In this section the basic notions and results concerning the category of multialgebras, adopted here to be used along the paper, will be described (see also [22] and [21]). Notation 2.1 Let A and B be two sets. The set of all the functions f : A→ B will be denoted by BA. If f : A→ B is a function, X ⊆ A and Y ⊆ B then f [X ] and f−1(Y ) will stand for the sets {f(x) : x ∈ X} and {x ∈ X : f(x) ∈ Y }, respectively. If ~a = (a1 . . . , an) ∈ An (for n > 0) then f(~a) will stand for (f(a1), . . . , f(an)). If ~b = (b1 . . . , bn) ∈ Bn (for n > 0) then f−1(~b) will stand for {~a ∈ An : f(~a) = ~b}. If A is a nonempty set then ℘(A)+ denotes the set of nonempty subsets of A. Definition 2.2 A signature is a denumerable family Σ = {Σn : n ≥ 0} of pairwise disjoint sets. Elements of Σn are called operator symbols of arity n. Elements of Σ0 are called constants. 3 Definition 2.3 Let Σ be a signature. A multialgebra (or hyperalgebra or nondeterministic algebra) over Σ is a pair A = (A, σA) such that A is a nonempty set (the support of A) and σA is a mapping assigning, to each c ∈ Σn, a function (called multioperation or hyperoperation) cA : An → ℘(A)+. In particular, ∅ 6= cA ⊆ A if c ∈ Σ0. In the sequel, and when there is no risk of confusion, sometimes we will refer to a multialgebra A = (A, σA) by means of its support A. The support of A will be frequently denoted by |A|. Definition 2.4 Let A = (A, σA) and B = (B, σB) be two multialgebras over Σ. Then B is said to be a submultialgebra of A, denoted by B ⊆ A, if the following conditions hold: (i) B ⊆ A, (ii) if c ∈ Σn and ~a ∈ B n, then cB(~a) ⊆ cA(~a); in particular, cB ⊆ cA if c ∈ Σ0. Definition 2.5 Let A = (A, σA) and B = (B, σB) be two multialgebras, and let f : A→ B be a function. (i) f is said to be a homomorphism from A to B, denoted by f : A → B, if f [cA(~a)] ⊆ cB(f(~a)), for every c ∈ Σn and ~a ∈ An. In particular, f [cA] ⊆ cB for every c ∈ Σ0. (ii) f is said to be a full homomorphism from A to B, which is denoted by f : A →s B, if f [cA(~a)] = cB(f(~a)) for every c ∈ Σn and ~a ∈ An. In particular, f [cA] = cB for every c ∈ Σ0. Remark 2.6 If B and A are two multialgebras over Σ such that |B| ⊆ |A| then: B ⊆ A iff the inclusion map i : |B| → |A| is a homomorphism from B to A. Observe that, if f : |A| → |B| and g : |B| → |C| are homomorphisms of multialgebras then g ◦ f : |A| → |C| is also a homomorphism of multialgebras. On the other hand, the identity mapping iA : A→ A is a homomorphism from A to A, for every multialgebra A = (A, σA). This means that there is a category of multialgebras over Σ and their morphisms, that will be called MAlg(Σ). The following results will be useful in the sequel: Proposition 2.7 Let A = (A, σA) and B = (B, σB) be two multialgebras over Σ, and let f : A → B be a function. Then, f is an isomorphism f : A → B in the category MAlg(Σ) iff f is a full homomorphism f : A →s B which is a bijective function. Proof: It is an immediate consequence of the definitions.  Proposition 2.8 Let A = (A, σA) and B = (B, σB) be two multialgebras over Σ, and let f : A → B be a homomorphism. If f : A→ B is an injective function then f is a monomorphism in the category MAlg(Σ). 4 Proof: It is also an immediate consequence of the definitions.  Proposition 2.9 Let A = (A, σA) and B = (B, σB) be two multialgebras over Σ, and let f : A → B be a function. Then, f is an epimorphism f : A → B in the category MAlg(Σ) iff f is a homomorphism in MAlg(Σ) such that f is a surjective function. Proof: If f is a surjective homomorphism then it is clear that it is an epimorphism in MAlg(Σ). Conversely, suppose that f : A → B is an epimorphism in MAlg(Σ) and let A′ be a multialgebra over Σ with domain {0, 1} such that cA ′ (~a) = {0, 1} for every c ∈ Σn and ~a ∈ {0, 1}n; in particular, cA ′ = {0, 1} for every c ∈ Σ0. Consider g : B → {0, 1} such that g(x) = 1 if there exists y ∈ A such that x = f(y), and g(x) = 0 otherwise. Clearly, g is a homomorphism g : B → A′ in MAlg(Σ). Finally, let h : B → {0, 1} such that h(x) = 1 for every x ∈ B. It is also clear that h is a homomorphism g : B → A′ in MAlg(Σ). Since g ◦ f = h ◦ f and f is epimorphism in MAlg(Σ) then g = h. This means that f is a surjective function.  Proposition 2.10 The category MAlg(Σ) has arbitrary products. Proof: Let {Ai : i ∈ I} be a family of multialgebras over Σ. If I = ∅ then the result is obvious: the multialgebra 1 = ({∗}, σ1) such that c1(∗, . . . , ∗) = {∗} for every c ∈ Σn (with n > 0) and c1 = {∗} for every c ∈ Σ0 is the terminal object in MAlg(Σ). Now, assume that I 6= ∅, and let A = ∏ i∈I Ai be the standard construction of the cartesian product of the family of sets {Ai : i ∈ I} with canonical projections πi : A → Ai for every i ∈ I. That is, A = { a ∈ ( ⋃ i∈I Ai )I : a(i) ∈ Ai for every i ∈ I } and, for every i ∈ I and every a ∈ A, πi(a) = a(i). Consider the multialgebra A = (A, σA) over Σ such that, for every c ∈ Σn and every ~a ∈ An, cA(~a) = ∏ i∈I c Ai(πi(~a)). In particular, cA = ∏ i∈I c Ai for every c ∈ Σ0. It is easy to see that each πi is a (full) homomorphism from A to Ai such that 〈A, {πi : i ∈ I}〉 is the product in MAlg(Σ) of the family {Ai : i ∈ I}.  Definition 2.11 Let A = (A, σA) and B = (B, σB) be two multialgebras over Σ, and let f : A → B be a homomorphism in MAlg(Σ). The direct image of f is the submultialgebra f(A) = (f [A], σf(A)) of B such that, for every c ∈ Σn and ~b ∈ f [A], cf(A)(~b) = ⋃ { f [cA(~a)] : ~a ∈ f−1(~b) } . In particular, cf(A) = f [cA] for every c ∈ Σ0. Observe that, if ~b ∈ f [A] and ~a ∈ f−1(~b) then f [cA(~a)] ⊆ cB(f(~a)) = cB(~b) whence cf(A)(~b) ⊆ cB(~b). This means that f(A) is, indeed, a submultialgebra of B. Moreover, the following useful result holds in MAlg(Σ): Proposition 2.12 (Epi-mono factorization) Consider two multialgebras A = (A, σA) and B = (B, σB) over Σ, and let f : A → B be a homomorphism in MAlg(Σ). Let f : A → f [A] be the mapping given by f(x) = f(x) for every 5 x ∈ A, and let g : f [A] → B be the inclusion map. Then f and g are homomorphisms f : A → f(A) and g : f(A) → B such that f is an epimorphism in MAlg(Σ), g is a monomorphism in MAlg(Σ), and f = g ◦ f . A f // f ''❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖ B f(A) ? g OO Moreover, if f is injective (as a function) then f is an isomorphism in MAlg(Σ). Proof: It is immediate from the previous results.  It is important to observe that our epi-mono factorization could not be unique (up to isomorphism). Definition 2.13 Let A = (A, σA) be a multialgebra, and let Θ ⊆ A×A. Then Θ is said to be a multicongruence over A if the following properties hold: (i) Θ is an equivalence relation; (ii) for every n > 0, c ∈ Σn and ~a,~b ∈ An: if (ai, bi) ∈ Θ for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n then, for every a ∈ cA(~a) there is b ∈ cA(~b) such that (a, b) ∈ Θ; (iii) for every c ∈ Σ0 and every a, b ∈ A: if a, b ∈ cA then (a, b) ∈ Θ. Definition 2.14 Let A = (A, σA) be a multialgebra, and let Θ be a multicongruence over A. The quotient multialgebra (or factor multialgebra) of A modulo Θ is the multialgebra A/Θ = (A/Θ, σA/Θ) such that, for every c ∈ Σn and every (a1/Θ, . . . , an/Θ) ∈ (A/Θ)n, cA/Θ(a1/Θ, . . . , an/Θ) = { a/Θ : a ∈ cA(~a) } . In particular, cA/Θ = { a/Θ : a ∈ cA } for every c ∈ Σ0. The canonical map p : A→ A/Θ is given by p(a) = a/Θ for every a ∈ A. Proposition 2.15 Let A = (A, σA) be a multialgebra, and let Θ be a multicongruence over A. Then A/Θ is a multialgebra, and the canonical map p : A → A/Θ determines a (full) homomorphism of multialgebras p : A → A/Θ such that p(A) = A/Θ. 3 From CPL+ to the logic mbC The class of paraconsistent logics known as Logics of Formal Inconsistency (LFIs, for short) was introduced by W. Carnielli and J. Marcos in [10]. In its simplest form, they have a non-explosive negation ¬, as well as a (primitive or derived) consistency connective ◦ which allows to recover the explosion law in a controlled way. 6 Definition 3.1 Let L = 〈Θ,⊢〉 be a Tarskian, finitary and structural logic defined over a propositional signature Θ, which contains a negation ¬, and let ◦ be a (primitive or defined) unary connective. Then, L is said to be a Logic of Formal Inconsistency with respect to ¬ and ◦ if the following holds: (i) φ,¬φ 0 ψ for some φ and ψ; (ii) there are two formulas α and β such that (ii.a) ◦α, α 0 β; (ii.b) ◦α,¬α 0 β; (iii) ◦φ, φ,¬φ ⊢ ψ for every φ and ψ. Condition (ii) of the definition of LFIs is required in order to satisfy condition (iii) in a non-trivial way. The hierarchy of LFIs studied in [9] and [8] starts from a logic called mbC, which extends positive classical logic CPL+ by adding a negation ¬ and an unary consistency operator ◦ satisfying minimal requirements in order to define an LFI. From now on, the following three signatures will be mainly considered: Σ+ = {∧,∨,→}; ΣBA = {∧,∨,→, 0, 1}; and Σ = {∧,∨,→,¬, ◦}. If Θ is a propositional signature, then For(Θ) will denote the (absolutely free) algebra of formulas over Θ generated by a given denumerable set V = {pn : n ∈ N} of propositional variables. Definition 3.2 (Classical Positive Logic) The classical positive logic CPL+ is defined over the language For(Σ+) by the following Hilbert calculus: Axiom schemas: α→ ( β → α ) (Ax1) ( α→ ( β → γ ) ) → ( ( α→ β ) → ( α→ γ ) ) (Ax2) α → ( β → ( α ∧ β ) ) (Ax3) ( α ∧ β ) → α (Ax4) ( α ∧ β ) → β (Ax5) α → ( α ∨ β ) (Ax6) β → ( α ∨ β ) (Ax7) ( α→ γ ) → ( (β → γ) → ( (α ∨ β) → γ ) ) (Ax8) ( α → β ) ∨ α (Ax9) 7 Inference rule: α α→ β β (MP) Definition 3.3 The logic mbC, defined over signature Σ, is obtained from CPL+ by adding the following axiom schemas: α ∨ ¬α (Ax10) ◦α→ ( α→ ( ¬α→ β ) ) (bc1) For convenience, the expansion of CPL+ over signature Σ will be considered from now on, besides CPL+ itself. This logic, denoted by CPL+ e , is nothing more than CPL+ defined over Σ by adding ¬ and ◦ as additional unary connectives without any axioms or rules for them. 4 Swap structures for CPL+e In [8] was introduced the notion of swap structures for mbC, as well as for some axiomatic extensions of it. In this section, these structures will be reintroduced in a slightly more general form, in order to define a hierarchy of classes of multialgebras associated to the corresponding hierarchy of logics. This is in line with the traditional approach of algebraic logic, in which hierarchies of classes of algebraic models are associated to hierachies of logics. From now on, Σ will denote the signature for mbC. Since mbC is an axiomatic extension of CPL+ e , it is natural to begin with swap structures for the latter logic. Recall the following: Definition 4.1 An implicative lattice is an algebra A = 〈A,∧,∨,→〉 where 〈A,∧,∨〉 is a lattice such that ∨ {c ∈ A : a ∧ c ≤ b} exists for every a, b ∈ A,1 and → is the induced implication given by a → b = ∨ {c ∈ A : a ∧ c ≤ b} for every a, b ∈ A (note that 1 def = a → a is the top element of A, for any a ∈ A). If, additionally, a ∨ (a → b) = 1 for every a, b then A is said to be a classical implicative lattice.2 The following results are well-known: Proposition 4.2 Let A be an implicative lattice. Then: (1) If A has a bottom element 0, then it is a Heyting algebra. (2) If A is a classical implicative lattice and it has a bottom element 0, then it is a Boolean algebra. 1Here, ≤ denotes the partial order associated with the lattice, namely: a ≤ b iff a = a ∧ b iff b = a ∨ b, and ∨ X denotes the supremum of the set X ⊆ A w.r.t. ≤, provided that it exists. 2The name was taken from H. Curry, see [16]. 8 The algebraic semantics for CPL+ is given by classical implicative lattices. In formal terms: Theorem 4.3 Let Γ ∪ {α} be a set of formulas over the signature Σ+. Then: Γ ⊢ CPL + α iff, for every classical implicative lattice A and for every homomorphism h : For(Σ+) → A, if h(γ) = 1 for every γ ∈ Γ then h(α) = 1. Now, a semantics of multialgebras of triples over a given Boolean algebra A, which are called swap structures, will be introduced for CPL+e . The idea is that a triple (z1, z2, z3) in such structures represents a (complex) truth-value in which z1 interprets a given truth-value for a formula α, while z2 and z3 represent a possible truth-value for ¬α and ◦α, respectively. The reason to take a Boolean algebra instead of a classical implicative lattice is the following: given an LFI extending CPL+e , in order to prove completeness w.r.t. swap structures a classical implicative lattice is naturally defined by means of a Lindenbaum-Tarski process. Since any LFI can define a bottom formula, the obtained classical implicative lattice becomes a Boolean algebra, by Proposition 4.2(2). In the case of CPL+ e , a technical result (see propositions 5.8 and 5.9 below) will allow to extend each classical implicative lattice to a Boolean algebra. Let A = 〈A,∧,∨,→, 0, 1〉 be a Boolean algebra and let π(j) : A 3 → A be the canonical projections, for 1 ≤ j ≤ 3. Observe that, if z ∈ A3 and zj = π(j)(z) for 1 ≤ j ≤ 3 then z = (z1, z2, z3). Definition 4.4 Let A be a Boolean algebra with domain A. The universe of swap structures for CPL+e over A is the set B CPL + e A = A 3. Definition 4.5 Let A = 〈A,∧,∨,→, 0, 1〉 be a Boolean algebra, and let B ⊆ B CPL + e A . A swap structure for CPL + e over A is any multialgebra B = 〈B,∧B,∨B, →B,¬B, ◦B〉 over Σ such that 0 ∈ π1[B] and the multioperations satisfy the following, for every z and w in B: (i) ∅ 6= z#Bw ⊆ {u ∈ B : u1 = z1#w1}, for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) ∅ 6= ¬B(z) ⊆ {u ∈ B : u1 = z2}; (iii) ∅ 6= ◦B(z) ⊆ {u ∈ B : u1 = z3}. When there is no risk of confusion, the subscript 'B' will be omitted when referring to the multioperations of B. Definition 4.6 Let K CPL + e be the class of swap structures for CPL+e . The full subcategory in MAlg(Σ) of swap structures for CPL+e will be denoted by SW CPL + e . From the previous definition, the class of objects of SW CPL + e is K CPL + e , and the morphisms between two given swap structures are just the homomorphisms between them as multialgebras. 9 Definition 4.7 Let A be a Boolean algebra. The full swap structure for CPL+ e over A, denoted by B CPL + e A , is the unique swap structure for CPL + e over A with domain B CPL + e A = A 3 such that, for every z and w in A3: (i) z#w = {u ∈ A3 : u1 = z1#w1}, for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) ¬(z) = {u ∈ A3 : u1 = z2}; (iii) ◦(z) = {u ∈ A3 : u1 = z3}. Remark 4.8 The term "full" is adopted in Definition 4.7 in analogy with the terminology used by S. Odintsov in [27] with respect to twist structures. This is justified by the fact that swap structures can be considered as non-deterministic twist structures (or, from the opposite perspective, twist structures are particular cases of swap structures), as it will be argued in Section 9. Observe that, if B is a swap structure for CPL+ e over A, then B is a submultialgebra of B CPL + e A in the sense of Definition 2.4. Thus, B CPL + e A is the greatest swap structure for CPL+ e over A. Proposition 4.9 Let B be a swap structure for CPL+e over A and let A(B) def = π1[|B|]. Then, A(B) is a Boolean subalgebra of A. Moreover, A ( B CPL + e A ) = A. Proof: Let B be a swap structure for CPL+ e over A. For each a ∈ A(B) choose an element z(a) in |B| such that π1(z(a)) = a. Observe that 0 ∈ A(B), by Definition 4.5. Since |B| is closed under the multioperations of B then z(0) → z(0) ⊆ |B| and so {1} = π1[z(0) → z(0)] ⊆ A(B). That is, 1 ∈ A(B). For each # ∈ {∧,∨,→} observe that π1[z(a)#z(b)] = {a#b} for every a, b ∈ A(B), by Definition 4.5. This means that a#b ∈ A(B) for every a, b ∈ A(B) and for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}. Therefore A(B) is a Boolean subalgebra of A.  Elements of a swap structure for CPL+e are called snapshots for CPL + e . Since no axioms or rules are given in CPL+ e for the unary connectives ¬ and ◦, the multioperations associated to them in a swap structure just put in evidence (or 'swap') on the first coordinate the corresponding value, leaving free the values of the other coordinates. This produces two (nonempty) sets of snapshots, defining so multioperations for the conectives ¬ and ◦. As we shall see in the next sections, when axioms are considered for these unary connectives, the multioperations (and the domain of the swap structures themselves) must be restricted accordingly, obtaining so different classes of multialgebras. 5 Swap structures semantics for CPL+e Recall the semantics associated to Nmatrices introduced by A. Avron and I. Lev: 10 Definition 5.1 ([1]) Let M = (B, D) be an Nmatrix over a signature Θ. A valuation over M is a function v : For(Θ) → |B| such that, for every c ∈ Θn and every φ1, . . . , φn ∈ For(Θ): v(c(φ1, . . . , φn)) ∈ c B(v(φ1), . . . , v(φn)). In particular, v(c) ∈ cB, for every c ∈ Θ0. Definition 5.2 Let M = (B, D) be an Nmatrix over a signature Θ, and let Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Θ). We say that φ is a consequence of Γ in the Nmatrix M, denoted by Γ |=M φ, if the following holds: for every valuation v over M, if v[Γ] ⊆ D then v(φ) ∈ D. In particular, φ is valid in M, denoted by |=M φ, if v(φ) ∈ D for every valuation v over M. The generalization of Nmatrix semantics to classes of Nmatrices is immediate: Definition 5.3 Let M be a nonempty class of Nmatrices over a signature Θ, and let Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Θ) be a set of formulas over Θ. We say that φ is a consequence of Γ in the class M of Nmatrices, denoted by Γ |=M φ, if Γ |=M φ for every M ∈ M. In particular, φ is valid in M, denoted by |=M φ, if it is valid in every M ∈ M. Remark 5.4 Given a signature Θ, the (absolutely free) algebra of formulas For(Θ) over Θ generated by the set V of propositional variables can be considered as a multialgebra For(Θ) over Θ in which the multioperators (the conectives of Θ themselves) are single-valued. That is, cFor(Θ)(α1, . . . , αn) def = {c(α1, . . . , αn)} for every n-ary connective c ∈ Θ and every α1, . . . , αn ∈ For(Θ). Being so, it is interesting to notice that a valuation v : For(Θ) → |B| over an Nmatrix M = (B, D) in the sense of Definition 2.5(i) is an homomorphism v : For(Θ) → B in the category MAlg(Θ) of multialgebras. This means that the semantics of Nmatrices constitutes a genuine generalization of the standard matrix semantics, provided that the category of multiagebras into consideration is precisely MAlg(Θ). Recall that K CPL + e denotes the class of swap structures for CPL+ e . As it was done in [8, Chapter 6] with several LFIs, it is easy to see that each B ∈ K CPL + e induces naturally a non-deterministic matrix such that the class of such Nmatrices semantically characterizes CPL+ e . More precisely: Definition 5.5 For each B ∈ K CPL + e let DB = {z ∈ |B| : z1 = 1}. The Nmatrix associated to B is M(B) = (B, DB). Let Mat(K CPL + e ) = { M(B) : B ∈ K CPL + e } . In this particular case, Definition 5.1 assumes the following form: 11 Definition 5.6 Let B ∈ K CPL + e and M(B) as above. A valuation over M(B) is a function v : For(Σ) → |B| such that, for every φ1, φ2 ∈ For(Σ): (i) v(φ1#φ2) ∈ v(φ1)#v(φ2), for every # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) v(¬φ1) ∈ ¬v(φ1); (iii) v(◦φ1) ∈ ◦v(φ1). In order to prove the adequacy of CPL+e w.r.t. swap structures (that is, w.r.t. the class Mat(K CPL + e ) of Nmatrices, by using Definition 5.3), some previous technical results must be obtained. Given a classical implicative lattice A, it is always possible to formally "duplicate"A by considering A∗ def = A×{0, 1} such that, for any a ∈ A, the pairs (a, 1) and (a, 0) can be considered in A∗ as representing uniquely a and its Bolean complement ∼a, respectively. In formal terms: Definition 5.7 Let A = 〈A,∧,∨,→〉 be a classical implicative lattice, and let A∗ def = A × {0, 1}. Consider the operations ∧, ∨ and → defined over A∗ as follows, for every a, b ∈ A: (a, 1)#(b, 1) = (a#b, 1), for # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (a, 1) ∧ (b, 0) = (b, 0) ∧ (a, 1) = (a→ b, 0); (a, 0) ∧ (b, 0) = (a ∨ b, 0); (a, 1) ∨ (b, 0) = (b, 0) ∨ (a, 1) = (b→ a, 1); (a, 0) ∨ (b, 0) = (a ∧ b, 0); (a, 1) → (b, 0) = (a ∧ b, 0); (a, 0) → (b, 1) = (a ∨ b, 1); (a, 0) → (b, 0) = (b→ a, 1). Proposition 5.8 The structure A∗ = 〈A∗,∧,∨,→, 0∗, 1∗〉, where the binary operators {∧,∨,→} are defined as in Definition 5.7, is a Boolean algebra such that 0∗ def = (1, 0) and 1∗ def = (1, 1). Proof: By considering (a, 1) and (a, 0) as representing in A∗ the elements a of A and its Bolean complement ∼a, respectively, the proof is straightforward.  Proposition 5.9 Given a classical implicative lattice A, let A∗ as in Proposition 5.8. (1) Let i∗ : A → A∗ be the mapping given by i∗(a) = (a, 1), for every a ∈ A. Then i∗ is a monomorphism of classical implicative lattices. (2) The pair (A∗, i∗) has the following universal property: if A′ is a Boolean algebra and h : A → A′ is a homomorphism of classical implicative lattices then 12 there exists a unique homomorphism of Boolean algebras h∗ : A∗ → A′ such that h = h∗ ◦ i∗. That is, the diagram below commutes. A  i∗ // h ''◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ A∗ h∗  A′ Proof: Let h∗(a, 1) = h(a) and h∗(a, 0) = ∼h(a) for every a ∈ A, where ∼ denotes the Boolean complement in A′. The details of the proof are left to the reader.  Consider now the consequence relation |=Mat(K CPL + e ) as in Definition 5.3, generated by the class Mat(K CPL + e ) of Nmatrices associated to swap structures for CPL+e . Thus: Theorem 5.10 (Adequacy of CPL+ e w.r.t. swap structures) Let Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Σ) be a set of formulas of CPL+e . Then: Γ ⊢CPL+e φ iff Γ |=Mat(K CPL + e ) φ. Proof: 'Only if' part (Soundness): Observe that, if v is a valuation over a swap structure B for CPL+e then h = π1 ◦ v : For(Σ) → A is a Σ+-homomorphism such that h(γ) = 1 iff v(γ) ∈ DB, by the very definitions. Thus, suppose that Γ ⊢ CPL + e φ, and let v is a valuation over B ∈ K CPL + e such that v[Γ] ⊆ DB. As observed above, h = π1 ◦ v is a Σ+-homomorphism such that h[Γ] ⊆ {1} and so, by Theorem 4.3, h(φ) = 1. Hence v(φ) ∈ DB, showing that Γ |=Mat(K CPL + e ) φ. 'If' part (Completeness): Suppose that Γ 0 CPL + e φ. Define in For(Σ) the following relation: α ≡Γ β iff Γ ⊢CPL+e α → β and Γ ⊢CPL+e β → α. It is clearly an equivalence relation. Let AΓ def = For(Σ)/≡Γ be the quotient set, and define over AΓ the following operations: [α]Γ # [β]Γ def = [α#β]Γ, for # ∈ {∧,∨,→} (here, [α]Γ denotes the equivalence class of α w.r.t. ≡Γ). These operations are clearly well-defined, and so they induce a structure of classical implicative lattice over the set AΓ. Let AΓ be the obtained classical implicative lattice, and let (AΓ)∗ be the Boolean algebra induced by AΓ as in Definition 5.7. Let B CPL + e (AΓ)∗ be the corresponding swap structure in K CPL + e as in Definition 4.7, and let M CPL + e Γ def = M(B CPL + e (AΓ)∗ ). Consider now a mapping v∗Γ : For(Σ) → (A ∗ Γ) 3 given by v∗Γ(α) = (([α]Γ, 1), ([¬α]Γ, 1), ([◦α]Γ, 1)). Then, it is easy to see that v ∗ Γ is a valuation over the Nmatrix M CPL + e Γ such that v ∗ Γ(α) ∈ D B CPL + e (AΓ) ∗ iff Γ ⊢ CPL + e α, for every α. Hence, v∗Γ(γ) ∈ D B CPL + e (AΓ) ∗ for every γ ∈ Γ, but v∗Γ(φ) 6∈ D B CPL + e (AΓ) ∗ . From this Γ 6|=Mat(K CPL + e ) φ, by Definition 5.3.  13 6 Swap structures for mbC A special subclass of K CPL + e is formed by the swap structures for mbC, defined as follows: Definition 6.1 The universe of swap structures for mbC over a Boolean algebra A is the set BmbCA = {z ∈ A 3 : z1 ∨ z2 = 1 and z1 ∧ z2 ∧ z3 = 0}. Definition 6.2 Let A be a Boolean algebra. A swap structure for CPL+e over A is said to be a swap structure for mbC over A if its domain is included in B mbC A . Let KmbC = {B ∈ KCPL+e : B is a swap structure for mbC} be the class of swap structures for mbC. If M is an Nmatrix and (ax) is an axiom schema over the same signature, we say that M validates (ax) whenever |=M γ for every instance γ of (ax). Then: Proposition 6.3 KmbC = {B ∈ KCPL+e : M(B) validates (Ax10) and (bc1)}. Proof: Let B be a swap structure for mbC, and let v be a valuation over B. By definition of BmbCA it follows that π1(v(α)) ∨ π2(v(α)) = 1 and π1(v(α)) ∧ π2(v(α)) ∧ π3(v(α)) = 0. Let γ = α ∨ ¬α and γ ′ = ◦α → (α → (¬α → β)) be instances of axioms (Ax10) and (bc1), respectively. By Definition 5.6 it follows that π1(v(◦α)) = π3(v(α)) and π1(v(¬α)) = π2(v(α)). Hence π1(v(γ)) = π1(v(α)) ∨ π1(v(¬α)) = π1(v(α)) ∨ π2(v(α)) = 1, obtaining so that B validates (Ax10). On the other hand, π1(v(γ ′)) = π3(v(α)) → (π1(v(α)) → (π2(v(α)) → π1(v(β)))) = 1, since π1(v(α)) ∧ π2(v(α)) ∧ π3(v(α)) = 0. This means that B validates (bc1). Conversely, let B ∈ K CPL + e such that M(B) validates (Ax10) and (bc1), and let p and q be two different propositional variables. Let z ∈ |B|, and consider a valuation v over B such that v(p) = z and π1(v(q)) = 0 (this is always possible since, by Definition 4.5, 0 ∈ π1[|B|]). Then v(¬p) ∈ {w ∈ |B| : w1 = π2(v(p))} = {w ∈ |B| : w1 = z2} and so v(p∨¬p) ∈ {u ∈ |B| : u1 = z1∨ π1(v(¬p))} = {u ∈ |B| : u1 = z1∨z2}. But v(p∨¬p) ∈ DB, by hypothesis, then π1(v(p∨¬p)) = z1 ∨ z2 = 1. On the other hand v(◦p→ (p→ (¬p→ q))) ∈ DB, since by hypothesis B validates (bc1). Hence, π1(v(◦p→ (p→ (¬p → q)))) = 1. From this, and reasoning as above, π3(v(p)) → (π1(v(p)) → (π2(v(p)) → 0)) = 1. This means that π1(v(p)) ∧ π2(v(p)) ∧ π3(v(p)) = 0, that is, z1 ∧ z2 ∧ z3 = 0. Therefore |B| ⊆ BmbCA , whence B ∈ KmbC, by Definition 6.2.  Definition 6.4 The full subcategory in SW CPL + e of swap structures for mbC will be denoted by SWmbC. Clearly, SWmbC is a full subcategory in MAlg(Σ). Thus, the class of objects of SWmbC is KmbC, and the morphisms between two given swap structures for mbC are the homomorphisms between them, seeing as multialgebras over Σ. 14 Definition 6.5 Let A be a Boolean algebra. The full swap structure for mbC over A, denoted by BmbCA , is the unique swap structure for mbC with domain B mbC A such that, for every z and w in B mbC A : (i) z#w = {u ∈ BmbCA : u1 = z1#w1}, for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) ¬(z) = {u ∈ BmbCA : u1 = z2}; (iii) ◦(z) = {u ∈ BmbCA : u1 = z3}. Let {Ai : i ∈ I} be a family of Boolean algebras such that I 6= ∅, and Ai = 〈Ai,∧i,∨i,→i, 0i, 1i〉 for every i ∈ I. Let A = ∏ i∈I Ai be the standard construction of the cartesian product of the family of sets {Ai : i ∈ I} with canonical projections πi : A → Ai for every i ∈ I. Let A be the algebra with domain A such that, for every a, b ∈ A and # ∈ {∧,∨,→}, a#b ∈ A is given by (a#b)(i) = a(i)#ib(i), for every i ∈ I. Let 0A, 1A ∈ A such that 0A(i) = 0i and 1A(i) = 1i, for every i ∈ I. It is well known that A = 〈A,∧,∨,→ , 0, 1〉 is a Boolean algebra where the canonical projections πi : A → Ai are homomorphisms of Boolean algebras such that 〈A, {πi : i ∈ I}〉 is the product of the family {Ai : i ∈ I} in the category of Boolean algebras. The Boolean algebra A will be denoted by ∏ i∈I Ai. The case for I = ∅ is obvious, producing the one element Boolean algebra. Consider again a family F = {Ai : i ∈ I} of Boolean algebras such that I 6= ∅, and let A = ∏ i∈I Ai be its product in the category of Boolean algebras, as described above. We want to show that the product B = ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai in MAlg(Σ) (recall Proposition 2.10) of the family of multialgebras {BmbCAi : i ∈ I} is isomorphic in MAlg(Σ) (recall Proposition 2.7) to the multialgebra BmbCA (recall Definition 6.5). To begin with, some notation is required. Let πi(j) : (Ai) 3 → Ai be the canonical projections, for i ∈ I and 1 ≤ j ≤ 3. Observe that, if a ∈ |B| = ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai and i ∈ I then a(i) ∈ BmbCAi ⊆ (Ai) 3. Thus, for every 1 ≤ j ≤ 3 let zj ∈ ∏ i∈I Ai such that, for every i ∈ I, zj(i) = π i (j)(a(i)). Then z = (z1, z2, z3) belongs to |A|3. Moreover, it can be proven that z belongs to BmbCA . Indeed, for every i ∈ I, z1(i) ∨i z2(i) = πi(1)(a(i)) ∨i π i (2)(a(i)) = 1i since a(i) ∈ B mbC Ai . From this, z1 ∨ z2 = 1A. Analogously it can be proven that z1 ∧ z2 ∧ z3 = 0A. This allows to define a mapping fF : ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai → BmbC∏ i∈I Ai such that, for every a ∈ ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai , fF(a) = z where z = (z1, z2, z3) is defined as above. Proposition 6.6 Let F = {Ai : i ∈ I} be a family of Boolean algebras such that I 6= ∅. Then, the mapping fF : ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai → BmbC∏ i∈I Ai is an isomorphism in MAlg(Σ). Proof: Clearly fF is a bijective mapping such that its inverse mapping is given by f−1F : B mbC∏ i∈I Ai → ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai where f−1F (z1, z2, z3) = a, with a(i) = (z1(i), z2(i), z3(i)) for every i ∈ I. It is also clear that, for every a, b ∈ ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai and # ∈ {∧,∨,→}: 15 (i) fF [a#b] = fF(a)#fF (b); (ii) fF [¬a] = ¬fF(a); and (iii) fF [◦a] = ◦fF(a) (the details are left to the reader). The result follows from Proposition 2.7.  Proposition 6.7 The category SWmbC has arbitrary products. Proof: Let F = {Bi : i ∈ I} be a family of swap structures for mbC, and assume that I 6= ∅ (the case I = ∅ is trivial). By definition of KmbC, for each i ∈ I there is a Boolean algebra Ai such that Bi ⊆ BmbCAi . Since SWmbC is a subcategory of MAlg(Σ) (where Σ is the signature of mbC), and the latter has arbitrary products (cf. Proposition 2.10), there exists the product 〈B, {πi : i ∈ I}〉 of F in MAlg(Σ). By the proof of Proposition 2.10, it is possible to define B in such a way that B ⊆ ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai , where the multialgebra ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai is also constructed as in the proof of Proposition 2.10. Let h : B → ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai be the inclusion homomorphism. Now, let G = {Ai : i ∈ I} and let fG : ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai → BmbC∏ i∈I Ai be the isomorphism in MAlg(Σ) of Proposition 6.6. Then, the homomorphism fG ◦ h : B → BmbC∏ i∈I Ai is an injective function B  h // t fG◦h ''❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖❖ ❖ ∏ i∈I B mbC Ai fG  BmbC∏ i∈I Ai and so it induces an isomorphism fG ◦ h in MAlg(Σ) between B and the submultialgebra B′ = (fG ◦ h)(B) of BmbC∏ i∈I Ai , by Proposition 2.12. This means that 〈B′, {πi ◦ (fG ◦ h)−1 : i ∈ I}〉 is another realization of the product of F in MAlg(Σ). B πi   ✂✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂ ✂  fG◦h // BmbC∏ i∈I Ai Bi B ′ (fG◦h) −1 gg❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖ ? OO πi◦(fG◦h) −1 oo Given that SWmbC is a full subcategory of MAlg(Σ) and by observing that B′ is an object of SWmbC, it follows that 〈B′, {πi ◦ (fG ◦ h)−1 : i ∈ I}〉 is a construction for the product in SWmbC of the family F .  Let BAlg be the category of Boolean algebras defined over signature ΣBA = {∧,∨,→, 0, 1}, with Boolean algebras homomorphisms as their morphisms. Then, the assignment A ∈ BAlg 7→ BmbCA ∈ SWmbC is functorial, as it will be stated in Corollary 6.9 below. 16 Proposition 6.8 Let f : A → A′ be a homomorphism between Boolean algebras. Then it induces a homomorphism f∗ : BmbCA → B mbC A′ of multialgebras given by f∗(z) = (f(z1), f(z2), f(z3)). Moreover, (f ◦ g)∗ = f∗ ◦ g∗ and (idA)∗ = idBmbC A , where idA : A → A and idBmbC A : BmbCA → B mbC A are the corresponding identity homomorphisms. Proof: Given a homomorphism f : A → A′ between Boolean algebras, let f∗ : B mbC A → B mbC A′ be the mapping such that f∗(z) = (f(z1), f(z2), f(z3)) for every z ∈ BmbCA . If z, w ∈ B mbC A and # ∈ {∧,∨,→} then, for every u ∈ (z#w), u1 = z1#w1 and so f(u1) = f(z1)#f(w1). That is, (f∗(u))1 = (f∗(z))1#(f∗(w))1. This means that f∗[z#w] = {f∗(u) : u ∈ (z#w)} ⊆ {u′ ∈ B mbC A′ : u ′ 1 = (f∗(z))1#(f∗(w))1} = f∗(z)#f∗(w). On the other hand, if z ∈ B mbC A and u ∈ ¬z then u1 = z2 whence (f∗(u))1 = f(u1) = f(z2) = (f∗(z))2. This means that f∗(u) ∈ {u ′ ∈ BmbCA′ : u ′ 1 = (f∗(z))2} = ¬f∗(z) and so f∗[¬z] ⊆ ¬f∗(z). Analogously it can be proven that f∗[◦z] ⊆ ◦f∗(z). This shows that f∗ is indeed a homomorphism f∗ : BmbCA → B mbC A′ in SWmbC. The rest of the proof is immediate, by the very definition of f∗.  Corollary 6.9 There exists a functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC given by K∗ mbC (A) = BmbCA for every Boolean algebra A, and K ∗ mbC (f) = f∗ for every homomorphism f : A → A′ in BAlg. Definition 6.10 The functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC of Corollary 6.9 is called dual Kalman's functor for SWmbC. Remark 6.11 (Kalman's construction and twist structures) The name dual Kalman's functor was used in Definition 6.10 because of the analogy with a construction proposed in 1958 by J. Kalman (see [24]). This point will be clarified in sections 9.2 and 9.3. Proposition 6.12 The dual Kalman's functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC preserves arbitrary products. Proof: It is an immediate consequence of Proposition 6.6 and the fact that SWmbC is a full subcategory of MAlg(Σ).  Proposition 6.13 The dual Kalman's functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC preserves subalgebras in the following sense: if A is a subalgebra de A′ in the category of Boolean algebras, then BmbCA ⊆ B mbC A′ according to Definition 2.4. Proof: It is an immediate consequence of the definitions.  Moreover, the following holds: Proposition 6.14 The dual Kalman's functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC preserves monomorphisms. 17 Proof: Let f : A → A′ be a monomomorphism between Boolean algebras, and let f∗ : BmbCA → B mbC A′ be the induced homomorphism of multialgebras given by f∗(z) = (f(z1), f(z2), f(z3)). It is well-known that every monomorphism in BAlg is an injective function, and then f is injective. From this it is immediate to see that f∗ is also an injective function. As a consequence of Proposition 2.8, f∗ is a monomorphism in the category MAlg(Σ). Given that SWmbC is a full subcategory of MAlg(Σ), it follows that f∗ is a monomorphism in the category SWmbC.  7 Swap structures semantics for mbC As it was done in Definition 5.5, each B ∈ KmbC induces naturally a nondeterministic matrix M(B) = (B, DB). Moreover, in [8, Theorem 6.4.8] it was proven that the class Mat(KmbC) = {M(B) : B ∈ KmbC} semantically characterizes mbC, by considering the consequence relation |=Mat(KmbC) as in Definition 5.3. However, the proof given in [8] is indirect: it lies on the equivalence between the swap-structures semantics and the Fidel structures semantics for mbC, together with the adequacy of mbC w.r.t. the latter structures. Now, a direct proof of the adequacy of mbC w.r.t. swap structures will be given (recalling the consequence relation introduced in Definition 5.3). Theorem 7.1 (Adequacy of mbC w.r.t. swap structures) Let Γ∪{φ} ⊆ For(Σ) be a set of formulas. Then: Γ ⊢mbC φ iff Γ |=Mat(KmbC) φ. Proof: The proof is similar to that for Theorem 5.10. 'Only if' part (Soundness): Assume that Γ ⊢mbC φ. Let B be a swap structure for mbC, and let v be a valuation over B such that v(γ) ∈ DB for every γ ∈ Γ. By Theorem 5.10, v validates every axiom of CPL+. On the other hand, v also validates (Ax10) and (bc1), by Proposition 6.3. In addition, v(β) ∈ DB whenever v(α) ∈ DB and v(α → β) ∈ DB, and so trueness in v is preserved by (MP). Hence, it follows that v(φ) ∈ DB. This shows that Γ |=Mat(KmbC) φ. 'If' part (Completeness): Assume that Γ 0mbC φ. Define in For(Σ) the following relation: α ≡Γ β iff Γ ⊢mbC α → β and Γ ⊢mbC β → α. As in the proof of Theorem 5.10 it follows that ≡Γ is an equivalence relation such that the quotient set AΓ def = For(Σ)/≡Γ is a classical implicative lattice, where [α]Γ # [β]Γ def = [α#β]Γ, for # ∈ {∧,∨,→}. Moreover, 0Γ def = [p1 ∧¬p1 ∧ ◦p1]Γ and 1Γ def = [p1 → p1]Γ are the bottom and top elements of AΓ, respectively, and so AΓ is the domain of a Boolean algebra AΓ, by Proposition 4.2(2). Let BmbCAΓ be the corresponding full swap structure for mbC (recall Definition 6.5), and let MmbCΓ def = M(BmbCAΓ ). The mapping vΓ : For(Σ) → B mbC AΓ given by vΓ(α) = ([α]Γ, [¬α]Γ, [◦α]Γ) is a valuation over the Nmatrix MmbCΓ such that vΓ(α) ∈ DBmbC AΓ iff Γ ⊢mbC α, for every α. From this, vΓ[Γ] ⊆ DBmbC AΓ but vΓ(φ) 6∈ DBmbC AΓ . Therefore Γ 6|=Mat(KmbC) φ, by Definition 5.3.  18 The Nmatrix MmbC5 = M ( BmbC A2 ) induced by the full swap structure BmbC A2 defined over the two-element Boolean algebra A2 (see Definition 6.5) was originally introduced by A. Avron in [2], in order to semantically characterize the logic mbC. The domain of the multialgebra BmbC A2 is the set BmbCA2 = { T, t, t0, F, f0 } such that T = (1, 0, 1), t = (1, 1, 0), t0 = (1, 0, 0), F = (0, 1, 1), and f0 = (0, 1, 0). Let D be the set of designated elements of the Nmatrix MmbC5 . Then, D = {T, t, t0}. Let ND = { F, f0 } be the set of non-designated truth-values. The multioperations proposed by Avron over the set BmbCA2 corresponds exactly with that for BmbC A2 described in Definition 6.5. Namely, ∧M T t t0 F f0 T D D D ND ND t D D D ND ND t0 D D D ND ND F ND ND ND ND ND f0 ND ND ND ND ND ∨M T t t0 F f0 T D D D D D t D D D D D t0 D D D D D F D D D ND ND f0 D D D ND ND →M T t t0 F f0 T D D D ND ND t D D D ND ND t0 D D D ND ND F D D D D D f0 D D D D D ¬M T ND t D t0 ND F D f0 D ◦M T D t ND t0 ND F D f0 ND It was proved in [2] that mbC is adequate for MmbC5 : Theorem 7.2 For every set of formulas Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Σ): Γ ⊢mbC φ iff Γ |=MmbC5 φ. A new proof of the latter result was obtained in [8, Corollary 6.4.10], by relating bivaluations for mbC with the Nmatrix M ( BmbC A2 ) . Definition 7.3 ([9]) A function μ : For(Σ) → { 0, 1 } is a bivaluation for mbC if it satisfies the following clauses: (vAnd) μ(α ∧ β) = 1 iff μ(α) = 1 and μ(β) = 1 (vOr) μ(α ∨ β) = 1 iff μ(α) = 1 or μ(β) = 1 (vImp) μ(α → β) = 1 iff μ(α) = 0 or μ(β) = 1 (vNeg) μ(¬α) = 0 implies μ(α) = 1 (vCon) μ(◦α) = 1 implies μ(α) = 0 or μ(¬α) = 0. The consequence relation of mbC w.r.t. bivaluations is defined as follows: for every set of formulas Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Σ), Γ |=2 mbC φ iff μ(φ) = 1 for every bivaluation for mbC such that μ[Γ] ⊆ {1}. 19 Theorem 7.4 ([9]) For every set of formulas Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Σ): Γ ⊢mbC φ iff Γ |=2 mbC φ. Definition 7.5 ([8]) Let μ be a bivaluation for mbC. The valuation over the Nmatrix M ( BmbC A2 ) induced by μ is given by vmbCμ (α) def = (μ(α), μ(¬α), μ(◦α)) for every formula α. By showing that vmbCμ is indeed a valuation over M ( BmbC A2 ) such that vmbCμ (α) ∈ D iff μ(α) = 1, Theorem 7.2 follows easily (see [8, Corollary 6.4.10]). As observed in [8, Chapter 6], Avron's result means that the Nmatrix induced by the full swap structure BmbC A2 defined over the two-element Boolean algebra A2 is sufficient for characterizing the logic mbC, and so it represents, in a certain way, the whole class KmbC of swap structures for mbC. One interesting question is to prove that the 5-element multialgebra BmbC A2 generates (in some sense) the class KmbC, in analogy to the fact that the 2-element Boolean algebra A2 generates the class of Boolean algebras. Indeed, in [3] G. Birkhoff proves that, for every Boolean algebra A, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of Boolean algebras h : A → ∏ i∈I A2. Moreover, in 1944 he obtained the nowadays known as Birkhoff's representation theorem, which states that if K is an equationally defined class of algebras then every algebra in the class is a subdirect product of subdirectly irreducible algebras of K (see [4]). The generalization of this theorem to multialgebras is an open problem (see Section 10). From the representation theorem for Boolean algebras [3], and taking into account the properties of the dual Kalman's functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC, a representation theorem for the class KmbC of swap structures for mbC can be obtained: Theorem 7.6 (Representation Theorem for KmbC) Let B be a swap structure for mbC. Then, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of multialgebras ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B mbC A2 . Proof: Let B be a swap structure for mbC. Then, there is a Boolean algebra A such that B ⊆ BmbCA . Let g : B → B mbC A be the inclusion monomorphism in SWmbC. Using Birkhoff's representation theorem for Boolean algebras, there exists a set I and a monomorphism h : A → ∏ i∈I A ′ i of Boolean algebras, where A′i = A2, for every i ∈ I. By Proposition 6.14, there is a monomorphism h∗ : BmbCA → B mbC∏ i∈I A′ i . Let fG : ∏ i∈I B mbC A′ i → BmbC∏ i∈I A′ i be the isomorphism in MAlg(Σ) of Proposition 6.6, where G = {A′i : i ∈ I}. By definition of A ′ i it follows that BmbCA′ i = BmbC A2 , for every i ∈ I. Then ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B mbC A2 is a monomorphism in MAlg(Σ), where ĥ = f−1G ◦ h∗ ◦ g.  Remark 7.7 It is not clear whether the latter result is a representation theorem in the stronger sense of [4]. Indeed, the notion of subdirectly irreducible multialgebras should be studied. After this, it should be proved that the factors BmbC A2 are indeed subdirectly irreducible in that sense. 20 In universal algebra, a variety is an equationally defined class of algebras. It is equivalent to require that the class is closed under products, subalgebras and homomorphic images. From the previous result, and given that an equation theory for multialgebras is still incipient, it is natural to ask about the possibility of the class KmbC being closed under products, submultialgebras and homomorphic images. We known that KmbC is closed under products (by Proposition 6.7) and submultialgebras (by the very definitions). Unfortunately, the class is not closed under homomorphic images. Indeed, recall the notions of multicongruence (Definition 2.13), quotient multialgebra (Definition 2.14) and the canonical map p : A→ A/Θ for every multicongruence Θ (Proposition 2.15). Now, let D = {z1, z2, z3} and ND = { z4, z5 } be an enumeration of the elements of the domain BmbC A2 = D ∪ ND of the multialgebra BmbC A2 . Let Θ be the equivalence relation asociated to the partition {a, b} of BmbC A2 such that a = {z1, z4} and b = {z2, z3, z5}. The relation Θ has the following property: for every z ∈ D there exists some w ∈ ND such that (z, w) ∈ Θ, and vice versa. From this, and by observing the definition of the multioperations in the multialgebra BmbC A2 , it follows that Θ is a multicongruence over BmbC A2 . It is easy to prove that the multioperations in the quotient multialgebra BmbC A2 /Θ are trivial, that is: for every x, y ∈ {a, b} and # ∈ {∧,∨,→}, (x#y) = ¬x = ◦x = {a, b}. Clearly BmbC A2 /Θ is not a swap structure for mbC: otherwise, it would generate a trivial Nmatrix where the set of designated values is the whole domain. This would contradict [8, Proposition 6.4.5(ii)], where it was proven that no Nmatrix in the class Mat(KmbC) is trivial. This shows that BmbC A2 /Θ, the homomorphic image of the canonical map p : BmbC A2 → BmbC A2 /Θ, does not belong to the class KmbC, despite its domain BmbC A2 is in KmbC. We thus prove the following: Proposition 7.8 The class KmbC of multialgebras is closed under submultialgebras and (direct) products, but it is not closed under homomorphic images. 8 Swap structures for some extensions of mbC In [8, Chapter 6] the concept of swap structure for mbC was generalized to some axiomatic extensions of mbC. As observed in the beginning of Section 6, these structures will be reintroduced here in a slightly modified form, more suitable to an algebraic study of them. Definition 8.1 ([8, Definition 3.1.1]) The logic mbCciw is obtained from mbC by adding the axiom schema ◦α ∨ (α ∧ ¬α) (ciw) Definition 8.2 Let A be a Boolean algebra. The universe of swap structures for mbCciw over A is the set BciwA = {z ∈ B mbC A : z3 ∨ (z1 ∧ z2) = 1}. 21 Clearly, BciwA = {z ∈ A 3 : z1 ∨ z2 = 1 and z3 = ∼(z1 ∧ z2)}.3 Definition 8.3 Let A be a Boolean algebra. A swap structure for mbC over A is said to be a swap structure for mbCciw over A if its domain is included in BciwA . Let KmbCciw = {B ∈ KmbC : B is a swap structure for mbCciw} be the class of swap structures for mbCciw. The following result justifies Definition 8.3: Proposition 8.4 The following holds: KmbCciw = {B ∈ KmbC : M(B) validates (ciw)} = {B ∈ K CPL + e : M(B) validates (Ax10), (bc1) and (ciw)}. Proof: Let B be a swap structure for mbCciw, and let γ = ◦α ∨ (α ∧ ¬α) be an instance of axiom (ciw). Let v be a valuation over B. Since v(α) ∈ BciwA it follows that π3(v(α)) ∨ (π1(v(α)) ∧ π2(v(α))) = 1. By the fact that B ∈ KmbC and by Definition 5.6 it follows that π1(v(◦α)) = π3(v(α)) and π1(v(¬α)) = π2(v(α)), whence π1(v(◦α ∨ (α ∧ ¬α))) = π3(v(α)) ∨ (π1(v(α)) ∧ π2(v(α))) = 1. This means that v(γ) ∈ DB for every instance γ of axiom (ciw). Conversely, let B ∈ KmbC such that M(B) validates (ciw), and let p be a propositional variable. Let z ∈ |B|, and consider a valuation v over B such that v(p) = z. Reasoning as in the proof of Proposition 6.3 it can be seen that π1(v(◦p ∨ (p ∧ ¬p))) = z3 ∨ (z1 ∧ z2). Since B validates (ciw), by hypothesis, it follows that z3 ∨ (z1 ∧ z2) = 1. That is, |B| ⊆ B ciw A , whence B ∈ KmbCciw, by Definition 8.3.  Definition 8.5 The full subcategory in SW CPL + e of swap structures for mbCciw will be denoted by SWmbCciw. By the very definitions, SWmbCciw is a full subcategory in SWmbC, and a full subcategory in MAlg(Σ). Hence, the class of objects of SWmbCciw is KmbCciw, and the morphisms between two given swap structures for mbCciw are just the homomorphisms between them as multialgebras over Σ. Definition 8.6 Let A be a Boolean algebra. The full swap structure for mbCciw over A, denoted by BmbCciwA , is the unique swap structure for mbCciw over A with domain BciwA such that, for every z and w in B ciw A : (i) z#w = {u ∈ BciwA : u1 = z1#w1}, for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) ¬(z) = {u ∈ BciwA : u1 = z2}; (iii) ◦(z) = {u ∈ BciwA : u1 = z3}. 3Recall that, in this paper, ∼ denotes the Boolean complement in a Bolean algebra. 22 The class Mat(KmbCciw) of Nmatrices associated to swap structures for mbCciw is defined analogously to the class Mat(K CPL + e ) introduced in Definition 5.5. Let |=Mat(KmbCciw) be the consequence relation associated to the class Mat(KmbCciw) as in Definition 5.3. Then: Theorem 8.7 ([8, Theorem 6.5.4]) Let Γ∪{φ} ⊆ For(Σ) be a set of formulas. Then: Γ ⊢mbCciw φ iff Γ |=Mat(KmbCciw) φ. Remark 8.8 It is possible to give a direct proof of the latter theorem, by extending the proof of Theorem 7.1 presented here. Now, stronger extensions of mbC will be analized: Definition 8.9 Consider the following extensions of mbC: (1) The logic mbCci ([8, Definition 3.1.7]) is obtained from mbC by adding the axiom schema ¬◦α→ (α ∧ ¬α) (ci) (2) The logic Ci ([8, Remark 3.5.18]) is obtained from mbCci by adding the axiom schema ¬¬α → α (cf) (3) The logic CPLe is obtained from mbC by adding the axiom schema ◦α (cons) Proposition 8.10 (1) The logic mbCci properly extends mbCciw, and Ci properly extends mbCci. (2) The logic CPLe is a presentation of CPL over Σ, in which the connective ◦ gives a top particle. Thus, CPLe properly extends Ci and it is semantically characterized by the usual 2-valued truth-tables for CPL plus the operator ◦(x) = 1 for every x ∈ {0, 1}. Proof: (1) For the first part, see [8, Proposition 3.1.10]. The second part can be proved analogously by considering bivaluations semantics for these logics, which is defined from the one for mbC introduced in Definition 7.3. Details can be found in [8, Chapter 3]). (2) Observe that, by (cons), (bc1) and MP, the negation ¬ is explosive in CPLe and so it coincides with the classical negation, by axiom (Ax10). Since CPL+ is included in CPLe then this logic is nothing more than a presentation of CPL by adding an unary connective ◦ such that ◦α is a top particle for every α. The rest of the proof is obvious.  23 Definition 8.11 (1) A swap structure for mbCci is any B ∈ KmbCciw such that, for every z ∈ |B|, ◦(z) def = {(∼(z1 ∧ z2), z1 ∧ z2, 1)}. The class of swap structures for mbCci will be denoted by KmbCci. (2) A swap structure for Ci is any B ∈ KmbCci such that, for every z ∈ |B|, ¬(z) ⊆ {u ∈ |B| : u1 = z2 and u2 ≤ z1}. The class of swap structures for Ci will be denoted by KCi. Definition 8.12 Let A be a Boolean algebra. (1) The full swap structure for mbCci over A, denoted by BmbCciA , is the unique swap structure for mbCci over A with domain BciwA such that, for every z and w in BciwA : (i) z#w = {u ∈ BciwA : u1 = z1#w1}, for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) ¬(z) = {u ∈ BciwA : u1 = z2}; (iii) ◦(z) = {(∼(z1 ∧ z2), z1 ∧ z2, 1)}. (2) The full swap structure for Ci over A, denoted by BCiA , is the unique swap structure for Ci over A with domain BciwA such that the multioperations (other than ¬) are defined as in BmbCciA and, for every z in B ciw A : (ii)' ¬(z) = {u ∈ BciwA : u1 = z2 and u2 ≤ z1}. The classes Mat(KmbCci) and Mat(KCi) of Nmatrices are defined analogously to the class Mat(K CPL + e ) introduced in Definition 5.5. Thus: Theorem 8.13 ([8, Theorems 6.5.11 and 6.5.23]) Let Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Σ) be a set of formulas. Then: (1) Γ ⊢mbCci φ iff Γ |=Mat(KmbCci) φ. (2) Γ ⊢Ci φ iff Γ |=Mat(KCi) φ. Remark 8.14 As in the case of mbCciw, it is possible to give a direct proof of the latter theorem, by extending the proof of Theorem 7.1. Proposition 8.15 The following holds: KmbCci = {B ∈ KmbCciw : M(B) validates (ci)} = {B ∈ KmbC : M(B) validates (ci)} = {B ∈ K CPL + e : M(B) validates (Ax10), (bc1) and (ci)}. and KCi = {B ∈ KmbCci : M(B) validates (cf)} = {B ∈ KmbCciw : M(B) validates (ci) and (cf)} = {B ∈ KmbC : M(B) validates (ci) and (cf)} = {B ∈ K CPL + e : M(B) validates (Ax10), (bc1), (ci) and (cf)}. 24 Proof: Let us begin with KmbCci. Let B be a swap structure for mbCci, and let γ = ¬◦α → (α ∧ ¬α) be an instance of axiom (ci). Let v be a valuation over B, and let z = v(α). Given that v(◦α) = (∼(z1 ∧ z2), z1 ∧ z2, 1) and v(¬◦α) ∈ {w ∈ |B| : w1 = π2(v(◦α))} then v(¬◦α) ∈ {w ∈ |B| : w1 = z1 ∧ z2}. On the other hand v(α ∧ ¬α) ∈ {w ∈ |B| : w1 = z1 ∧ z2}. Being so, v(γ) ∈ {w ∈ |B| : w1 = (z1 ∧ z2) → (z1 ∧ z2)} = DB for every instance γ of axiom (ci). Conversely, let B ∈ KmbCciw such that M(B) validates (ci), and let z ∈ |B|. Let p be a propositional variable, and consider a valuation v over B such that v(p) = z. Then π1(v(¬◦p → (p ∧ ¬p))) = π1(v(¬◦p)) → π1(v(p ∧ ¬p)) = π2(v(◦p)) → (z1∧z2) = 1, since B validates (ci). Hence, π2(v(◦p)) ≤ z1∧z2. On the other hand, π1(v(◦p)) = z3 = ∼(z1 ∧ z2). Therefore z1 ∧ z2 = ∼π1(v(◦p)) ≤ π2(v(◦p)) (by observing that, if u ∈ B ciw A then u1 ∨ u2 = 1 and so ∼u1 ≤ u2). That is, π2(v(◦p)) = z1 ∧ z2. This means that ◦(z) = {(∼(z1 ∧ z2), z1 ∧ z2, 1)}, whence B ∈ KmbCci, by Definition 8.11(1). Finally, let us analyze KCi. Let B be a swap structure for Ci, and let γ = ¬¬α → α be an instance of axiom (cf). Let v be a valuation over B, and let z = v(α). Observe that v(¬α) ∈ {u ∈ |B| : u1 = z2 and u2 ≤ z1}. From this, v(¬¬α) ∈ ¬v(¬α) ⊆ {w ∈ |B| : w1 = π2(v(¬α))} ⊆ {w ∈ |B| : w1 ≤ z1}. Thus, π1(v(γ)) = π1(v(¬¬α)) → z1 = 1 and so v(γ) ∈ DB for every instance γ of axiom (cf). Conversely, let B ∈ KmbCci such that M(B) validates (cf). Let z ∈ |B| and u ∈ ¬(z). Let p be a propositional variable, and consider a valuation v over B such that v(p) = z and v(¬p) = u. Then v(¬¬p) ∈ ¬v(¬p) = ¬u, whence π1(v(¬¬p)) = u2. From this π1(v(¬¬p → p)) = π1(v(¬¬p)) → z1 = u2 → z1 = 1, provided that M(B) validates (cf). Therefore u2 ≤ z1. This means that ¬(z) ⊆ {u ∈ |B| : u1 = z2 and u2 ≤ z1}, whence B ∈ KCi, by Definition 8.11(2).  Finally CPLe, classical propositional logic defined over Σ, will be characterized by means of swap structures. Definition 8.16 Let A be a Boolean algebra with domain A. The universe of swap structures for CPLe over A is the set B CPLe A = {z ∈ B ciw A : z2 = ∼z1} = {(a,∼a, 1) : a ∈ A} ≃ A. Definition 8.17 A swap structure for CPLe is any B ∈ KCi such that |B| ⊆ B CPLe A . The class of swap structures for CPLe will be denoted by KCPLe . Proposition 8.18 The following holds: KCPLe = {B ∈ KCi : M(B) validates (cons)} = {B ∈ KmbC : M(B) validates (cons)} = {B ∈ K CPL + e : M(B) validates (Ax10), (bc1) and (cons)}. 25 Proof: Let B ∈ KCPLe , and let γ = ◦α be an instance of axiom (cons). Let v be a valuation over B, and let z = v(α). Given that z ∈ BCPLeA then z1∧z2 = 0. Since v(◦α) = (∼(z1 ∧ z2), z1 ∧ z2, 1) then v(γ) ∈ DB for every instance γ of axiom (cons). Now, let B ∈ KmbC such that M(B) validates (cons), and let p and q be two different propositional variables. Let z ∈ |B|, and consider a valuation v over B such that v(p) = z and π1(v(q)) = 0 (this is always possible since, by Definition 4.5, 0 ∈ π1[|B|]). As in the proof of Proposition 6.3 it follows that π3(v(p)) → (π1(v(p)) → (π2(v(p)) → 0)) = 1. But z3 = π3(v(p)) = π1(v(◦p)) = 1, since M(B) validates (cons). Therefore π1(v(p)) → (π2(v(p)) → 0) = 1 and so π1(v(p)) ∧ π2(v(p)) = 0. That is, z1 ∧ z2 = 0, whence z2 = ∼z1. This means that z ∈ BCPLeA and so |B| ⊆ B CPLe A . From this is straightforward to see that B ∈ KCi, therefore B ∈ KCPLe .  The full subcategory in SW CPL + e of swap structures for mbCci and for CPLe will be denoted by SWmbCci and SWCPLe , respectively. By the very definitions, they are full subcategories in SWmbC, and full subcategories in MAlg(Σ). Remark 8.19 (1) If B ∈ KCPLe then B can be seen as a Boolean algebra isomorphic to the Boolean algebra π1[|B|]. Indeed, (a,∼a, 1) 7→ a is a bijection. On the other hand, the operations in B are defined as follows, for every (a,∼a, 1) and (b,∼b, 1) in |B|: (i) (a,∼a, 1)#(b,∼b, 1) = {(a#b,∼(a#b), 1)}, for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) ¬(a,∼a, 1) = {(∼a, a, 1)}; (iii) ◦(a,∼a, 1) = {(1, 0, 1)}. (2) Observe that KCPLe ⊂ KCi ⊂ KmbCci ⊂ KmbCciw ⊂ KmbC ⊂ KCPL+e while CPLe ⊃ Ci ⊃ mbCci ⊃ mbCciw ⊃ mbC ⊃ CPL + e . As analyzed in [8, Chapter 6], the logic mbCciw can be characterized by a single 3-valued Nmatrix, by considering the full swap structure over the twovalued Boolean algebra A2. Indeed the Nmatrix MmbCciw3 induced by the full swap structure BmbCciw A2 (recall Definition 8.6) was originally considered by A. Avron in [2], obtaining so a semantical characterization of mbCciw. The domain of the multialgebra BmbCciw A2 is the set BciwA2 = { T, t, F } such that T = (1, 0, 1), t = (1, 1, 0) and F = (0, 1, 1), where D3 = {T, t} is the set of designated values. The multioperations are defined as follows: 26 ∧ T t F T {t, T } {t, T } {F} t {t, T } {t, T } {F} F {F} {F} {F} ∨ T t F T {t, T } {t, T } {t, T } t {t, T } {t, T } {t, T } F {t, T } {t, T } {F} → T t F T {t, T } {t, T } {F} t {t, T } {t, T } {F} F {t, T } {t, T } {t, T } ¬ T {F} t {t, T } F {t, T } ◦ T {t, T } t {F} F {t, T } It is clear that BmbCciw A2 is a submultialgebra of BmbC A2 . Moreover, by an analysis similar to the one presented above, it is possible to prove the following: Theorem 8.20 (Representation Theorem for KmbCciw) Let B be a swap structure for mbCciw. Then, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of multialgebras ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B mbCciw A2 . Concerning mbCci and Ci, similar results can be obtained. Indeed, A. Avron has proven in [2] that mbCci can be characterized by a single 3-valued Nmatrix. In [8, Chapter 6] it was proved that Avron's Nmatrix is exactly the one obtained from the 3-valued full swap structure BmbCci A2 over A2 (see Definition 8.12(1)). The full swap structure BmbCci A2 coincides with BmbCciw A2 with exception of ◦. Indeed, in BmbCci A2 the multioperator ◦ is now single-valued, and it is defined as follows: ◦ T {T } t {F} F {T } Clearly, BmbCci A2 is a submultialgebra of BmbCciw A2 and so of BmbC A2 . Moreover: Theorem 8.21 (Representation Theorem for KmbCci) Let B be a swap structure for mbCci. Then, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of multialgebras ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B mbCci A2 . Consider now Ci. In [2] A. Avron has obtained a semantical characterization of Ci in terms of a single 3-valued Nmatrix MCi. In [8, Chapter 6] it was shown that the underlying multialgebra of MCi is BCiA2 , the full swap structure for Ci over A2 (see Definition 8.12(2)). This multialgebra coincides with BmbCciA2 with exception of the multioperator ¬, which is now defined as follows: 27 ¬ T {F} t {t, T } F {T } It is clear that BCi A2 is a submultialgebra of BmbCci A2 and so of BmbCciw A2 and BmbC A2 . Moreover, the following representation result holds: Theorem 8.22 (Representation Theorem for KCi) Let B be a swap structure for Ci. Then, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of multialgebras ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B Ci A2 . Finally, the case of CPLe is quite simple. By Remark 8.19(1), there is only one swap structure for CPLe with domain B CPLe A , which is precisely the full swap structure denoted by BCPLeA . In particular, the swap structure BCPLe A2 has domain {T, F} where T = (1, 0, 1) and F = (0, 1, 1). The multioperations are single-valued, producing a Boolean algebra isomorphic to A2, by Remark 8.19(1). Using the notation introduced in Definition 2.4 it is clear that BCPLe A2 ⊆ BCiA2 ⊆ B mbCci A2 ⊆ BmbCciwA2 ⊆ B mbC A2 ⊆ B CPL + e A2 . Additionally: Theorem 8.23 (Representation Theorem for KCPLe) Let B be a swap structure for CPLe. Then, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of algebras ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B CPLe A2 . The last theorem is just the original G. Birkhoff's theorem for Boolean algebras [3], under a different presentation. Remark 8.24 Recall from Definition 8.2 that the universe of swap structures for mbCciw over A is BciwA = {z ∈ A 3 : z1 ∨ z2 = 1 and z3 = ∼(z1 ∧ z2)}. Thus, the third coordinate of the snapshots is defined in terms of the other two, being so redundant. This means that, in swap structures for mbCciw and its extensions, the snapshots could be considered as being pairs instead of triples. This feature is obvious in the case of CPLe, in which any snapshot (a,∼a, 1) could be represented as (a,∼a) (or simply by a itself). As it will be discussed in the next section, this fact evidences the close relationship between swap structures and the so-called twist structures. 28 9 Twist structures as special cases of swap structures The swap structures semantics for some LFIs presented in the previous sections was based on multialgebras since the given logics are not algebraizable in the classical sense. Being so, multialgebras arise as a natural alternative to algebras. In sections 9.1 and 9.4 the same techniques will be applied to algebraizable logics which are characterized by a single 3-valued logical matrix. It will be seen that the algebras associated to these logics will be recovered as special cases of swap structures, obtaining so an interesting relationship with the twist-structures semantics. This connection suggest that swap structures can be seen as nondeterministic twist structures, as it will be argued in Section 9.3 below. 9.1 Swap structures for J3: restoring determinism The logic J3 was introduced in 1970 by I. M. L. D'Ottaviano and N. C. A. da Costa as a 3-valued modal logic (see [17]). Afterwards, this logic has been reintroduced independently by several authors, presented in different signatures. For instance, it was re-discovered in 2000 by W. Carnielli, J. Marcos and S. de Amo as a 3-valued LFI called LFI1, apt to deal with inconsistent databases (see [11]). More recently, M. Coniglio and L. Silvestrini propose in [15] a generalization of the notion of quasi-truth (see [25]) based on a 3-valued paraconsistent logic called MPT with was proved to be equivalent, up to laguage, with J3 (and so to LFI1). More historical remarks about this logic can be found in [8, Chapter 4]. A new axiomatization of this logic, presented as an LFI over signature Σ, was proposed in [8] under the name of LFI1◦. For the sake of convenience, this will be the presentation of this logic to be adopted here. From now on we will write α↔ β as an abbreviation of the formula (α → β) ∧ (β → α). Definition 9.1 ([8, Definition 4.4.41]) Let LFI1◦ be the logic over Σ obtained from Ci (see Definition 8.9(2)) by adding the following axiom schemas: α → ¬¬α (ce) ¬(α ∨ β) ↔ (¬α ∧ ¬β) (neg∨) ¬(α ∧ β) ↔ (¬α ∨ ¬β) (neg∧) ¬(α → β) ↔ (α ∧ ¬β) (neg→) As proven in [8, Theorem 4.4.45], the logic LFI1◦ is semantically characterized by a 3-valued logical matrix with domain Bciw A2 = { T, t, F } such that D3 = {T, t} is the set of designated values. The operations are defined as follows: 29 ∧ T t F T T t F t t t F F F F F ∨ T t F T T T T t T t t F T t F → T t F T T t F t T t F F T T T ¬ T F t t F T ◦ T T t F F T This logical matrix corresponds to the usual presentation of LFI1 as a 3valued logic over signature Σ, and it is equivalent to J3 up to language, as mentioned above. Taking into account Remark 8.24, in order to simplify the presentation of swap structures for LFI1◦ the snapshots will taken as pairs instead of triples. That is, along the rest of this paper the universe of swap structures for mbCciw and its extensions will be the set BciwA = {z ∈ A 2 : z1 ∨ z2 = 1}. In particular, the universe of the swap structures over the two-element Boolean algebra A2 will be the set BciwA2 = { T, t, F } such that T = (1, 0), t = (1, 1) and F = (0, 1). The elements of BciwA2 can be identified with the elements of the logical matrix of LFI1 described above (which justifies the use of the same notation for both structures). By using the axioms of LFI1◦ we arrive to the following definition, which will be rigorously justified by Proposition 9.5 below: Definition 9.2 A swap structure for LFI1◦ is any B ∈ KCi such that the multioperations are single-valued and defined as follows, for every (z1, z2), (w1, w2) ∈ |B|: (i) (z1, z2) ∧ (w1, w2) = {(z1 ∧ w1, z2 ∨ w2)}; (ii) (z1, z2) ∨ (w1, w2) = {(z1 ∨ w1, z2 ∧ w2)}; (iii) (z1, z2) → (w1, w2) = {(z1 → w1, z1 ∧ w2)}; (iv) ¬(z1, z2) = {(z2, z1)}; (iii) ◦(z1, z2) = {(∼(z1 ∧ z2), z1 ∧ z2)}. The class of swap structures for LFI1◦ will be denoted by KLFI1◦ . Remark 9.3 It is interesting to notice the similarity between the swap structures for LFI1◦ and the twist structures for paraconsistent Nelson's logic N4 considered by S. Odintsov in [27]. There are two differences between both structures: on the one hand, the latter are defined over implicative lattices, while the 30 former are defined over Boolean algebras (which are implicative lattices with a bottom element satisfying additionally that a ∨ (a→ b) = 1 for every a, b, recall Proposition 4.2). On the other hand, the former are an expansion of the latter by adding the unary operator ◦. This should not be surprising since this fact already appears at the syntactical presentation of the logics as Hilbert calculi: LFI1◦ is obtained from N4 by adding axioms (Ax9) and (Ax10) plus the consistency operator ◦ governed by axioms (bc1) and (ci). As a matter of fact, it is worth noting that LFI1◦ (and so J3) can be presented over the signature Σ0 = {∧,∨,→,¬,⊥}, where ⊥ is a constant for denoting the bottom element. Thus, in this signature LFI1◦ corresponds to an axiomatic extension of N4 ⊥ (the expansion of N4 by adding a bottom ⊥, see [28, Section 8.6]) in which the consistency operator is defined as ◦α def = ∼(α ∧ ¬α), where ∼α def = α → ⊥. The swap/twist structures for this presentation of LFI1◦ are defined as in Definition 9.2, by taking ⊥ def = (0, 1) (hence ∼(z1, z2) = (∼z1, z1)). The close relationship between swap structures and twist structures will be analyzed with more detail in sections 9.2 and 9.3. Definition 9.4 Given a Boolean algebra A, the full swap structure for LFI1◦ over A, denoted by BLFI1◦A , is the unique swap structure for LFI1◦ defined over A with domain BciwA . Proposition 9.5 Let Ax be the set of axioms added to Ci in order to obtain LFI1◦ (recall Definition 9.1). Then: KLFI1◦ = {B ∈ KCi : M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax}. Proof: Part 1: If B ∈ KLFI1◦ then B ∈ KCi such that M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax. Let B ∈ KLFI1◦ , and let v be a valuation over B. Let γ = α → ¬¬α be an instance of axiom (ce), and let z = v(α). Then v(¬α) = (z2, z1) and so v(¬¬α) = z = v(α). From this, π1(v(γ)) = z1 → π1(v(¬¬α)) = z1 → z1 = 1 and so v(γ) ∈ DB for every instance γ of axiom (ce). Now, let γ′ = ¬(α ∨ β) ↔ (¬α ∧ ¬β) be an instance of axiom (neg∨). Let z = v(α) and w = v(β). Then v(α ∨ β) = (z1 ∨ w1, z2 ∧ w2) and so v(¬(α ∨ β)) = (z2 ∧ w2, z1 ∨ w1). On the other hand v(¬α) = (z2, z1) and v(¬β) = (w2, w1), and so v(¬α∧¬β) = (z2 ∧w2, z1 ∨w1) = v(¬(α ∨ β)). Thus, π1(v(γ ′)) = 1 for every instance γ′ of axiom (neg∨). Analogously, it can be proven that B validates all the other axioms in Ax. Part 2: If B ∈ KCi such that M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax then B ∈ KLFI1◦ . Fix B ∈ KCi such that M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax. Let z ∈ |B| and u ∈ ¬(z). Then u1 = z2 and u2 ≤ z1, by Definition 8.11(2). On the other hand, the validation of axiom (ce) forces to have z1 ≤ u2 and so u2 = z1 That is, ¬(z1, z2) = {(z2, z1)}. With respect to the disjunction multioperator, let z, w, u ∈ |B| such that u ∈ z ∨ w. By Definition 8.11(2) it follows that u1 = z1 ∨ w1. Consider two 31 different propositional variables p, q and a valuation v over B such that v(p) = z, v(q) = w and v(p ∨ q) = u. Then π1(v(¬p ∧ ¬q)) = π1(v(¬p)) ∧ π1(v(¬q)) = π2(v(p))∧π2(v(q)) = z2∧w2. On the other hand, π1(v(¬(p∨q))) = π2(v(p∨q)) = u2. By axiom (neg∨), π1(v(¬p ∧ ¬q)) = π1(v(¬(p ∨ q))) and so u2 = z2 ∧ w2. This means that z ∨ w = {(z1 ∨w1, z2 ∧ w2)} for every z, w. The other multioperations are treated in the same way. The details are left to the reader.  The class Mat(KLFI1◦) of Nmatrices is defined analogously to the class Mat(K CPL + e ) introduced in Definition 5.5. The adequacy of LFI1◦ w.r.t. swap structures can be proven by extending the proof of Theorem 7.1 for mbC. Theorem 9.6 (Adequacy of LFI1◦ w.r.t. swap structures) Let Γ∪{φ} ⊆ For(Σ) be a set of formulas. Then: Γ ⊢LFI1◦ φ iff Γ |=Mat(KLFI1◦ ) φ. Proof: The proof is similar to that for Theorem 7.1. 'Only if' part (Soundness): It is a consequence of Proposition 8.18 and the fact that trueness is preserved by (MP). 'If' part (Completeness): Suppose that Γ 0LFI1◦ φ. Define in For(Σ) the following relation: α ≡Γ β iff Γ ⊢LFI1◦ α → β and Γ ⊢LFI1◦ β → α. As in the proof of Theorem 7.1 it follows that ≡Γ is an equivalence relation such that AΓ def = For(Σ)/≡Γ is the domain of a Boolean algebra AΓ in which [α]Γ # [β]Γ def = [α#β]Γ, for # ∈ {∧,∨,→}, 0Γ def = [p1 ∧ ¬p1 ∧ ◦p1]Γ and 1Γ def = [p1 → p1]Γ. Let B LFI1◦ AΓ be the corresponding full swap structure for LFI1◦ (recall Definition 9.4), and let M LFI1◦ Γ def = M(BLFI1◦AΓ ). The mapping vΓ : For(Σ) → B LFI1◦ AΓ given by vΓ(α) = ([α]Γ, [¬α]Γ) is a valuation over the Nmatrix MLFI1◦Γ such that vΓ(α) ∈ DBLFI1◦ AΓ iff Γ ⊢LFI1◦ α, for every α. From this, vΓ[Γ] ⊆ DBLFI1◦ AΓ but vΓ(φ) 6∈ DBLFI1◦ AΓ . Therefore Γ 6|=Mat(KLFI1◦ ) φ, by Definition 5.3.  Let BLFI1◦ A2 be the full swap structure for LFI1◦ over A2. Clearly it is equivalent to the 3-valued logical matrix for LFI1 presented above, in which any truth-value z is replaced by the singleton {z} on each entry of the tables (that is, by considering each operator as a single-valued multioperator). By using a technique similar to the one employed by mbC and the other LFIs analyzed in the previous sections, it will be proven the adequacy of LFI1◦ w.r.t. the 3-valued Nmatrix BLFI1◦ A2 , see Theorem 9.11 below. Clearly, this result corresponds to the adequacy of LFI1◦ w.r.t. the 3-valued standard logical matrix for LFI1/J3 (see [8, Theorem 4.4.45]). Definition 9.7 ([8]) A bivaluation μ : For(Σ) → { 0, 1 } for mbC (recall Definition 7.3) is a bivaluation for LFI1◦ if it satisfies in addition the following 32 clauses: (vCi) μ(¬◦α) = 1 implies μ(α) = μ(¬α) = 1 (vCeCf ) μ(¬¬α) = 1 iff μ(α) = 1 (vDM ∧) μ(¬(α ∧ β)) = 1 iff μ(¬α) = 1 or μ(¬β) = 1. (vDM ∨) μ(¬(α ∨ β)) = 1 iff μ(¬α) = μ(¬β) = 1. (vCIp→) μ(¬(α → β)) = 1 iff μ(α) = μ(¬β) = 1. The consequence relation of LFI1◦ w.r.t. bivaluations is defined as follows: for every set of formulas Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Σ), Γ |=2 LFI1◦ φ iff μ(φ) = 1 for every bivaluation for LFI1◦ such that μ[Γ] ⊆ {1}. Theorem 9.8 ([9]) For every set of formulas Γ ∪ {φ} ⊆ For(Σ): Γ ⊢LFI1◦ φ iff Γ |=2 LFI1◦ φ. Definition 9.9 Let μ be a bivaluation for LFI1◦. The valuation over the Nmatrix M ( BLFI1◦ A2 ) induced by μ is defined as follows: vLFI1◦μ (α) def = (μ(α), μ(¬α)), for every formula α. Observe that, by Remark 8.24, the snapshots are pairs instead of triples. Hence, in difference to vmbCμ (see Definition 7.5), a third coordinate for v LFI1◦ μ is not necessary. Proposition 9.10 Let μ be a bivaluation for LFI1◦. Then v LFI1◦ μ is a valuation over M ( BLFI1◦ A2 ) such that vLFI1◦μ (α) ∈ D iff μ(α) = 1, for every formula α. Proof: It is immediate from Definition 9.2, Definition 9.7 and the definition of the operations in the Boolean algebra A2, by observing that μ(◦α) = ∼(μ(α) ∧ μ(¬α)) and μ(¬◦α) = μ(α)∧μ(¬α) (see [8]). The details are left to the reader.  Theorem 9.11 (Adequacy of LFI1◦ w.r.t. M ( BLFI1◦ A2 ) ) Let Γ ∪ {φ} be a set of formulas in For(Σ). Then: Γ ⊢LFI1◦ φ iff Γ |=M(BLFI1◦ A2 ) φ. Proof: 'Only if' part (Soundness): It is an immediate consequence of Theorem 9.6, given that M ( BLFI1◦ A2 ) ∈Mat(KLFI1◦). 'If' part (Completeness): Suppose that Γ |= M(BLFI1◦ A2 ) φ, and let μ be a bivaluation for LFI1◦ such that μ[Γ] ⊆ {1}. Then vLFI1◦μ is a valuation over M ( BLFI1◦ A2 ) such that vLFI1◦μ [Γ] ⊆ D. By hypothesis, v LFI1◦ μ (φ) = D and so μ(φ) = 1. This means that Γ |=2 LFI1◦ φ, therefore Γ ⊢LFI1◦ φ by Theorem 9.8.  33 The latter result constitutes a new proof, from the perspective of swap structures, of the adequacy of LFI1◦ w.t.r. its 3-valued characteristic matrix. It shows that the standard matrix semantics for J3 (presented as LFI1) can be recovered by means of swap structures semantics. The swap structures for LFI1/J3, seeing as algebras, are nothing else that twist structures. Moreover, this class of algebras is generated by the 3-valued characteristic matrix of J3, as a consequence of Theorem 9.12 below. Thus, the class of algebraic models of J3 (in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi) is recovered as an special case of swap structures semantics, as it will analyzed in Section 9.3. As a first step, recall the dual Kalman's functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC for mbC (see Definition 6.10). Clearly, it can be modified to a functor K∗ LFI1◦ : BAlg → SWLFI1◦ , where SWLFI1◦ is the full subcategory in SWmbC formed by the swap structures for LFI1◦. As in the case of K ∗ mbC , the functor K∗ LFI1◦ preserves arbitrary products and monomorphisms and so a Birkhoff-like representation theorem similar to Theorem 7.6 holds for KLFI1◦ : Theorem 9.12 (Representation Theorem for KLFI1◦) Let B be a swap structure for LFI1◦. Then, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of algebras ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B LFI1◦ A2 . As it will be clarifed in sections 9.2 and 9.3, the algebra BLFI1◦ A2 , together with its 2-element subalgebra {T, F}, are the only subdirectly irreducible algebras in the class KLFI1◦ of algebras for LFI1/J3 (which is polynomially equivalent to the variety of MV-algebras of order 3). From this, Theorem 9.12 is nothing else than the standard Birkhoff's representation theorem for KLFI1◦ . 9.2 From Kalman-Cignoli construction to Fidel-Vakarelov twist structures For the reader's convenience, in this section the notion of twist structures and its relationship with a construction of J. A. Kalman, as it was shown and reworked by R. Cignoli, will be briefly surveyed. Definition 9.13 A De Morgan lattice is an algebra D = 〈D,∧,∨,¬〉 such that the reduct D∧,∨ = 〈D,∧,∨〉 is a distributive lattice and ¬ is an unary operator which is a De Morgan negation, that is: ¬¬a = a and ¬(a ∨ b) = ¬a ∧ ¬b for every a, b (hence ¬(a∧ b) = ¬a∨¬b for every a, b). If D∧,∨ is a bounded lattice with bottom and top elements 0 and 1, respectively, then D = 〈D,∧,∨,¬, 0, 1〉 is called a De Morgan algebra. A De Morgan algebra satisfying a∧¬a ≤ b∨¬b for every a, b is called a Kleene algebra. A Kleene algebra is said to be centered if it has an element c (called a center) such that ¬c = c (it follows that, if a Kleene algebra has a center, it is unique). 34 In 1958 J. A. Kalman [24] shown that, for every bounded distributive lattice L = 〈L,∧,∨, 0, 1〉 the set K(L) = {(a, b) ∈ L2 : a∧ b = 0} is a centered Kleene algebra where the operations are defined as follows: (a, b) ∧ (c, d) = (a ∧ c, b ∨ d) (a, b) ∨ (c, d) = (a ∨ c, b ∧ d) ¬(a, b) = (b, a). The center of K(L) is (0, 0). In 1986 R. Cignoli [12] extended Kalman's construction to a functor as follows: K(f)(a, b) = (f(a), f(b)) for every lattice homomorphism f : L → L′ and every (a, b) ∈ K(L). Moreover, among other results, he proves that the functor K has a left adjoint. Definition 9.14 A quasi-Nelson algebra is a Kleene algebra N such that for every a, b there exists the relative pseudocomplement a⇒ (¬a∨ b), which it will be denoted by a → b. That is, a → b def = Max{c : a ∧ c ≤ ¬a ∨ b}. A Nelson algebra is a quasi-Nelson algebra such that (a∧ b) → c = a→ (b→ c) for every a, b, c. In [12] Cignoli observes that M. Fidel [19] and D. Vakarelov [35] have shown independently that the Kalman's construction K(H) produces, for a Heyting algebra H, a Nelson algebra in which (a, b) → (c, d) def = (a → c, a ∧ d) (on the right-hand side of this equation, and as it was done along the paper, the relative pseudocomplement in a Heyting algebra is denoted by →). This construction is what is was called twist structures. In [12] it is obtained the converse of Fidel-Vakarelov result by showing that, for any bounded distributive lattice L, the centered Kleene algebra K(L) is a (centered) Nelson algebra if and only if L is a Heyting algebra. This construction allows us to study Nelson algebras in terms of twist structures over Heyting algebras. It is worth noting that, in 1966 J. M. Dunn obtained in his PhD thesis [18] a representation of De Morgan lattices by means of pairs of sets called proposition surrogates equipped with operations similar to the ones proposed by Kalman and by Fidel-Vakarelov for twist structures. Besides their construction, Fidel-Vakarelov define a matrix semantics over twist structures in order to semantically characterize Nelson's logic. Given a twist structure N , the set of designated is given by DN = {(a, b) ∈ |N | : a = 1}. Aferwards, twist structures semantics have been generalized in the literature to several classes of logics, including modal logics (see, for instance, [29, 30, 32]). In all the cases, each twist structure N have associated a logical matrix M(N ) = (N , DN ) defined as above. Returning to Kalman's construction, Cignoli have shown in [12, Lemma 4.1] that the Kalman's functor K, when restricted to Boolean algebras (which are, of course, special cases of Heyting algebras), produces Nelson algebras which are 35 semisimple. On the other hand, A. Monteiro has shown in [26] that the variety of semisimple Nelson algebras is polynomially equivalent to the variety of MValgebras of order 3 (see [12, Corollary 5.5]). As it is well-known, the latter is the variety associated to Lukasiewicz 3-valued logic L3 by means of the BlokPigozzi algebraization technique. Being so, the Kalman's construction, when restricted to Boolean algebras, produces a twist-structures semantics for L3. In particular, K(A2) produces the 3-valued semisimple Nelson algebra N3 = 〈N3,∧,∨,→,¬, F, T 〉 such that N3 = {F, f, T } where F = (0, 1), f = (0, 0) and T = (1, 0). The tables for ∧ and ∨ correspond to meet and join lattice operations (assuming that F ≤ f ≤ T ), while the De Morgan negation ¬ is given by ¬ T F f f F T By definition of twist structures semantics (see above), the set of designated values is given by DN3 = {T }. It is worth noting that the usual implication →J of L3 can be defined as x →J y def = (x → y) ∧ (¬y → ¬x). Thus, it is clear that this twist structures semantics produces, indeed, the usual class of models of L3. 9.3 Swap structures meet twist structures As it was observed in Section 9.1, the technique of swap structures allows a twist structures semantics for LFI1/J3. An interesting fact is that this semantics is dual to the twist structures semantics for Lukasiewicz 3-valued logic L3 obtained by R. Cignoli in [12, Section 4] by using the Kalman's functor, as described in the previous section. Indeed, consider again the dual Kalman's functorK∗ LFI1◦ : BAlg → SWLFI1◦ described at the end of Section 9.1. It is worth noting that the Kalman's functor K –restricted to the category BAlg of Boolean algebras– and K∗ LFI1◦ , despite being defined in the same way for morphisms, they do not coincide at the level of objects. However, they produce objects which are dual in the following sense: recalling that |K∗ LFI1◦ (A)| = BciwA for every a Boolean algebra A, the mapping ∗ : K(A) → BciwA given by ∗(a, b) = (∼a,∼b) is a bijection such that ∗(z ∧ w) = ∗z ∨ ∗w; ∗(z ∨ w) = ∗z ∧ ∗w; ∗¬z = ¬∗z; ∗T = F ; ∗f = t and ∗F = T .4 On the other hand, in [6, Theorem 4.3] W. Blok and D. Pigozzi have shown that two logic systems which are inter-translatable in a strong sense cannot be 4In order to simplify the presentation, in these equations we are considering the singlevalued full swap structure BLFI1◦ A over A as an ordinary algebra. Additionally, observe that T , t, f and F are defined for every Boolean algebra. 36 distingued from the point of view of algebra, in the sense that if one of the systems is algebraizable then the other will be also algebraizable w.r.t. the same quasi-variety. As an illustrative example, they observe in [6, Example 4.1.2] that the class of algebraic models of J3 is polynomially equivalent to the variety of MV-algebras of order 3, the class of algebraic models of L3, given that both logics are inter-translatable in such sense. Being so, the class of swap structures (seen as algebras) for LFI1◦ generated by K ∗ LFI1◦ (A2) in the sense of Theorem 9.12 coincides, up to language, with the class of algebras for J3 generated by K(A2). The relationship betweenK andK∗ LFI1◦ pointed out above justifies the name dual Kalman's functors given to the functors for swap structures introduced here. Remark 9.15 Reinforcing this argument, recall that Cignoli's construction described at the end of Section 9.2 constitutes an original twist-structure semantics for L3. In such construction, the 3-valued characteristic matrix of L3 can be recovered from K(A2) in which there is only one designated element, namely DN = {T }. Our construction is dual in the sense that the 3-valued characteristic matrix of LFI1/J3 is recovered instead of that of L3, hence there are now two designated elements given by the set DN = {T, t}. This confirms, from a different perspective, that J3 and L3 are dual logics in which the latter is paracomplete (that is, a sentence and its negation can be both false, but never both true at the same time) while the former is paraconsistent (that is, a sentence and its negation can be both true, but never both false at the same time). In terms of pairs: given (a, b) ∈ K(A), a ∧ b = 0 but not necessarily a∨ b = 1. On the other hand, if (a, b) ∈ BciwA then a ∨ b = 1 but it is not always the case that a ∧ b = 0. The logic LFI1◦ is obtained from mbC, mbCciw and the other LFIs studied here by adding enough axioms to such logics. The weaker systems are characterized by non-deterministic swap structures, while LFI1◦, because of the logical power of the additional axioms, produces deterministic swap structures, which can be identified with twist structures. Looking from the opposite perspective, it could be argued that swap structures in general can be seen as non-deterministic twist structures: for instance, the swap structures semantics obtained for mbC, mbCciw, mbCci and Ci in the previous sections could be considered as a non-deterministic twist structures semantics for them. Moreover, the fact that the Kalman-Cignoli functor can be generalized to the wider non-deterministic context of swap structures provides additional support for this claim. Clearly, the wider approach given by swap structures has several disvantages with respect to the more traditional approach given by twist structures. On the one hand, the latter is based on ordinary algebras, thus all the machinery of universal algebra can be used. On the other hand, swap structures are based on non-deterministic algebras and such structures, as it was briefly discussed in Section 1, does not offer a uniform and well-established formal treatment 37 as a generalized class of algebras: each notion from ordinary algebra admits several generalizations to the non-deterministic framework. Being so, it could be not expected that the dual Kalman's functors K∗ L for a given logic L has a left adjoint as in the case of the Kalman's functor. The existence of such left adjoint for each logic L is an interesting topic of further research. 9.4 Swap/twist structures semantics for Ciore Finally, the same techiques will be applied to obtain a twist structures semantics for a 3-valued LFI called Ciore, as a particular (or limiting) case of swap structures. This will give additional support to the idea that swap structures corresponds to non-deterministic twist structures, since when applied to algebraizable logics characterized by twist structures they produce exactly the algebras associated to it through the twist structures. The main feature of Ciore is that it presents a strong property of propagation/retro-propagation of consistency. Thus, ◦α is implied by ◦p, for any propositional p occurring in α. In formal terms: Definition 9.16 ([8, Definition 4.3.9]) Let Ciore be the logic over Σ obtained from Ci (see Definition 8.9(2)) by adding the following axiom schemas: α → ¬¬α (ce) (◦α ∨ ◦β) ↔ ◦(α ∧ β) (co1) (◦α ∨ ◦β) ↔ ◦(α ∨ β) (co2) (◦α ∨ ◦β) ↔ ◦(α → β) (co3) Remark 9.17 It can be proven that ◦α ↔ ◦¬α is derivable in Ciore, for every α. From this, and as mentioned above, ◦p → ◦α is derivable in Ciore, for any propositional variable p occurring in α. As LFI1◦, the logic Ciore is algebraizable in the sense of Blok and Pigozzi (see [8, Theorem 4.3.18]). The semantics of Ciore is given by a 3-valued logical matrix which constitutes a slight variation of the corresponding for LFI1◦. It is defined over the domain Bciw A2 = { T, t, F } such that D3 = {T, t} is the set of designated values, and the operations are defined as follows: ∧ T t F T T T F t T t F F F F F ∨ T t F T T T T t T t T F T T F 38 → T t F T T T F t T t F F T T T ¬ T F t t F T ◦ T T t F F T Consider now the swap structures for Ciore. By means of an analysis similar to that for LFI1/J3, it will be shown tat the swap structures for Ciore are, indeed, twist structures given by single-valued operations. Thus, fix # ∈ {∧,∨,→}. Let B ∈ KCi and let z, w ∈ |B|. If u ∈ z#w then, by Definition 8.11(2), u1 = z1#w1. Hence, π1[◦(z#w)] = {∼((z1#w1) ∧ u2) : u ∈ z1#w1}. On the other hand, π1[◦z ∨ ◦w] = {∼(z1 ∧ z2) ∨ ∼(w1 ∧w2)}. By axioms (co1)-(co3) both sets coincide and so ∼((z1#w1) ∧ u2) = ∼(z1 ∧ z2) ∨ ∼(w1∧w2), that is, (z1#w1)∧u2 = (z1∧z2)∧(w1∧w2) for every u ∈ z#w. This produces a system of two equations on the variable u2 in the Boolean algebra A: a ∧ u2 = b a ∨ u2 = 1 where a = z1#w1 and b = (z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2). It is easy to see that b ≤ a for every #, thus there is just one solution to these equations given by u2 = (z1#w1) → ((z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2)). Since the negation and the consistency operator behave as in LFI1◦, this leads us to the following definition: Definition 9.18 A swap structure for Ciore is any B ∈ KCi such that the multioperations are single-valued and defined as follows, for every (z1, z2), (w1, w2) ∈ |B|: (i) (z1, z2)#(w1, w2) = {(z1#w1, (z1#w1) → ((z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2)))}, for each # ∈ {∧,∨,→}; (ii) ¬(z1, z2) = {(z2, z1)}; (iii) ◦(z1, z2) = {(∼(z1 ∧ z2), z1 ∧ z2)}. The class of swap structures for Ciore will be denoted by KCiore. Definition 9.19 Given a Boolean algebra A, the full swap structure for Ciore over A, denoted by BCioreA , is the unique swap structure for Ciore defined over A with domain BciwA . Proposition 9.20 Let Ax′ be the set of axioms added to Ci in order to obtain Ciore (recall Definition 9.16). Then: KCiore = {B ∈ KCi : M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax ′}. 39 Proof: Part 1: If B ∈ KCiore then B ∈ KCi such that M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax′. Let B ∈ KCiore, and let v be a valuation over B. Let γ = α → ¬¬α be an instance of axiom (ce). As in the proof of Proposition 9.5, it can be seen that v(γ) ∈ DB. Now, let γ′ = (◦α∨◦β) ↔ ◦(α#β) be an instance of an axiom in (co1)-(co3). Let z = v(α) and w = v(β). Hence, v(α#β) = (z1#w1, u2) for u2 = (z1#w1) → ((z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2)). Observe that(z1#w1) ∧ u2 = (z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2) by the analysis before Definition 9.18. Then, by definition of ◦, π1(v(◦(α#β))) = ∼((z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2)). On the other hand π1(v(◦α)) = ∼(z1 ∧ z2) and π1(v(◦β)) = ∼(w1 ∧ w2), and so π1(v(◦α ∨ ◦β)) = ∼(z1 ∧ z2) ∨ ∼(w1 ∧ w2) = π1(v(◦(α#β))). Thus, π1(v(γ′)) = 1 for every instance γ′ of any axiom in (co1)- (co3). Part 2: If B ∈ KCi such that M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax ′ then B ∈ KCiore. Fix B ∈ KCi such that M(B) validates all the axioms in Ax ′. Let z ∈ |B|. As in the proof of Proposition 9.5 it can be seen that ¬(z1, z2) = {(z2, z1)}. With respect to the binary multioperators, fix # ∈ {∧,∨,→} and let z, w, u ∈ |B| such that u ∈ z#w. By Definition 8.11(2) it follows that u1 = z1#w1. Consider two different propositional variables p, q and a valuation v over B such that v(p) = z, v(q) = w and v(p#q) = u. Then π1(v(◦p ∨ ◦q)) = π1(v(◦p)) ∨ π1(v(◦q)) = ∼(z1 ∧ z2) ∨ ∼(w1 ∧ w2). On the other hand, π1(v(◦(p#q))) = ∼((z1#w1) ∧ u2). By axioms (co1)-(co3), π1(v(◦p ∨ ◦q)) = π1(v(◦(p#q))) and so, by applying ∼ to both sides of the last equation, (z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2) = (z1#w1) ∧ u2. Given that (z1#w1) ∨ u2 = 1 (since u ∈ B ciw A ) it follows that u2 = (z1#w1) → ((z1 ∧ z2) ∧ (w1 ∧ w2))), by the analysis done before Definition 9.18. Therefore each binary multioperation # in B is single-valued, and it is defined as in Definition 9.18. That is, B ∈ KCiore.  The following result can be proven by easily adapting the proof of Theorem 9.6: Theorem 9.21 (Adequacy of Ciore w.r.t. swap structures) Let Γ∪{φ} be a set of formulas in For(Σ). Then: Γ ⊢Ciore φ iff Γ |=Mat(KCiore) φ. The logic Ciore can be characterized in terms of the 3-valued Nmatrix defined over A2. This corresponds to the adequacy of Ciore w.r.t. its 3-valued standard logical matrix, see [8, Theorem 4.4.29]. Thus, consider the following notion of bivaluations for Ciore: Definition 9.22 ([8]) A bivaluation for Ciore is a bivaluation μ : For(Σ) → { 0, 1 } for mbC (recall Definition 7.3) which satisfies, in addition, the following clauses: (vCi) μ(¬◦α) = 1 implies μ(α) = μ(¬α) = 1 (vCeCf ) μ(¬¬α) = 1 iff μ(α) = 1 40 (vCo1) μ(◦α) = 1 or μ(◦β) = 1 iff μ(◦(α ∧ β)) = 1. (vCo2) μ(◦α) = 1 or μ(◦β) = 1 iff μ(◦(α ∨ β)) = 1. (vCo3) μ(◦α) = 1 or μ(◦β) = 1 iff μ(◦(α → β)) = 1. The proof of the following result is analogous to that for LFI1◦: Theorem 9.23 (Adequacy of Ciore w.r.t. M ( BCiore A2 ) ) Let Γ ∪ {φ} be a set of formulas in For(Σ). Then: Γ ⊢Ciore φ iff Γ |=M(BCiore A2 ) φ. Finally, and as in the previous cases, a Birkhoff-like decomposition theorem can be obtained for swaps structures for Ciore. Indeed, the dual Kalman's functor K∗ mbC : BAlg → SWmbC for mbC (see Definition 6.10) can be easily modified to a functor K∗ Ciore : BAlg → SWCiore, where SWCiore is the full subcategory in SWmbC formed by the swap structures for Ciore. By adapting the proof for mbC it can be seen that the functor K∗ Ciore preserves arbitrary products and monomorphisms and so the following holds: Theorem 9.24 (Representation Theorem for KCiore) Let B be a swap structure for Ciore. Then, there exists a set I and a monomorphism of algebras ĥ : B → ∏ i∈I B Ciore A2 . Different from the case of LFI1◦, it could not be asserted that the latter result is an ordinary Birkhoff's representation theorem. Indeed, despite the structures of KCiore being ordinary algebras, it is not immediate to see that the algebra BCiore A2 is subdirectly irreducible in the class KCiore of Ciore-algebras. A formal study of the class KCiore deserves future research. 10 Concluding remarks and future work This paper proposes the use of multialgebras as a valid alternative to the standard techniques from algebraic logics, apt to deal with logics which lie outside the scope of such techniques. Specifically, the class of multialgebras known as swap structures are studied from the point of view of universal algebra, by adapting standard concepts to multialgebras in a suitable way. This allows to analyze categories of swap structures for several logics of formal inconsistency (LFIs), obtaining so a representation theorem for each class of swap structures which resembles the well-known Birkhoff's representation theorem for algebras. In the case of the algebraizable 3-valued logic J3 (which is dual to Lukasewicz 3-valued logic L3) studied in Section 9, our representation theorem coincides with the original Birkhoff's representation theorem. In addition, the swap structures became twist structures in the sense of Fidel [19] and Vakarelov [35]. 41 Moreover, the dual Kalman's functor for swap structures can be seen as a generalization of the original construction of Kalman applied to 3-valued logics. This gives us support to argue that the swap structures semantics (which are non-deterministic algebras), together with the associated dual Kalman's functor, would corresponds to non-deterministic twist structures, able to give a multialgebraic counterpart to non-algebraizable logics. However, there are many questions to be answered. The original Kalman's functor (and the associated twist-structures semantics) allows to represent classes of algebras in terms of pairs of elements over other classes of algebras. For instance, Nelson algebras can be represented by means of pairs of elements in a Heyting algebra. It is fundamental to observe that the output of the Kalman functor can be abstracted to an axiomatized class of algebras. Thus, the output of the Kalman's functor applied to the class of Heyting can be abstracted by means of the class of Nelson algebras. In general, it is an important issue to axiomatize a given class of twist structures in order to represent it as a class of standard algebras (see, for instance, [31, 33]). One of the main topics of future research in the present framework is how to axiomatize given classes of swap structures, as it is done for twist structures. This leads us to the theory of varieties and quasi-varieties of multialgebras. More generally, the development of a equation theory in the framework of multialgebras suitable to deal with such structures deserves future research. The study of a theory of identities in multialgebras is also related to another important question to be investigated, namely the Birkhoff's representation theorem for multialgebras (and, in particular, for swap structures). The representation theorems given for KmbC and the other classes of swap structures can be seen as a generalized form of Birkhoff's representation theorem. As mentioned in Remark 7.7, an open question is to characterize the notion of subdirectly irreducible multialgebras, which would lead to a satisfactory generalization of Birkhoff's theorem for multialgebras. Some results related with Birkhoff's theorem for multialgebras were already proposed in the literature, but the problem is far to be absolutely solved. For instance, G. Hansoul propose in [23] a version of Birkhoff's representation theorem only for finitary multialgebras, that is, multialgebras in which the multioperations produce finite sets of possible-values for a given entry. On the other hand, D. Schweigert [34] only sketches a possible proof of Birkhoff's theorem without specifying the basic definitions from the theory of multialgebras being adopted. It is worth mentioning that X. Caicedo obtains in [7] a satisfactory generalization of Birkhoff's representation theorem for first-order structures. However, the application of Caicedo's result to multialgebras is not immediate, despite multialgebras being particular cases of first-order structures. The problem arises because of the tigh notions of homomorphisms and subalgebras coming from Model Theory, which are not compatible with the weaker ones adopted here in the context of multialgebras. This is why obtaining a Birkhoff's representation theorem for swap structures (or, in general, for multialgebras) remains an important open problem. To conclude, we consider that the use of multialgebras, and swap structures 42 in particular, can expands the horizons of the traditional approach to algebraization of logics. Moreover, the study of multialgebras (and first-order structures in general) from the perspective of universal algebra is a topic that deserves further research. Acknowledgments This paper is a revised and extended version of the preprint [13]. Coniglio was financially supported by an individual research grant from CNPq, Brazil (308524/2014-4). Figallo-Orellano acknowledges support from a post-doctoral grant from FAPESP, Brazil (2016/21928-0). Golzio was financially supported by a PhD grant from FAPESP, Brazil (2013/04568-1). References [1] A. Avron and I. Lev. Canonical propositional Gentzen-type systems. In R. Gore, A. Leitsch, and T. Nipkow, editors, Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), volume 2083 of LNAI, pages 529–544. Springer Verlag, 2001. [2] A. Avron. Non-deterministic matrices and modular semantics of rules. In J.-Y. Béziau, editor, Logica Universalis, pages 149–167. Birkhäuser Verlag, 2005. [3] G. Birkhoff. On the structure of abstract algebras. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 31:433–454, 1935. [4] G. Birkhoff. Subdirect unions in universal algebra. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 50(10):764–768, 1944. [5] W. J. Blok and D. Pigozzi. Algebraizable Logics, volume 77(396) of Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA, 1989. [6] W. J. Blok and D. Pigozzi. Abstract algebraic logic and the deduction theorem. Preprint. Available at http://www.math.iastate.edu/dpigozzi/papers/aaldedth.pdf, 2001. [7] X. Caicedo, The subdirect decomposition theorem for classes of structures closed under direct limits. Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, 30:171–179, 1981. [8] W. A. Carnielli and M. E. Coniglio. Paraconsistent Logic: Consistency, Contradiction and Negation. Volume 40 of Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Springer, 2016. 43 [9] W. A. Carnielli, M. E. Coniglio, and J. Marcos. Logics of Formal Inconsistency. In: D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic (2nd. edition), volume 14, pages 1–93. Springer, 2007. [10] W. A. Carnielli and J. Marcos. A taxonomy of C-systems. In: W. A. Carnielli, M. E. Coniglio, and I. M. L. D'Ottaviano, editors, Paraconsistency: The Logical Way to the Inconsistent, volume 228 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, pages 1–94. Marcel Dekker, 2002. [11] W. A. Carnielli, J. Marcos, and S. de Amo. Formal inconsistency and evolutionary databases. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 8:115–152, 2000. [12] R. Cignoli. The class of Kleene algebras satisfying an interpolation property and Nelson algebras. Algebra Universalis, 23, 262–292, 1986. [13] M. E. Coniglio, A. Figallo-Orellano, and A. C. Golzio. Towards an hyperalgebraic theory of non-algebraizable logics. CLE e-Prints, vol. 16, n. 4, 2016. [14] M. E. Coniglio and A. C. Golzio. Swap structures for some non-normal modal logics. Preprint, 2016. [15] M. E. Coniglio and L. H. Silvestrini. An alternative approach for quasitruth. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 22(2):387–410, 2014. [16] H.B. Curry. Foundations of Mathematical Logic. Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1977. [17] I. M. L. D'Ottaviano and N. C. A. da Costa. Sur un problème de Jaśkowski (On a problem of Jaśkowski, in French). Comptes Rendus de l'Académie de Sciences de Paris (A-B), 270:1349–1353, 1970. [18] J. M. Dunn. The algebra of intensional logics. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, USA, 1966. [19] M. M. Fidel. An algebraic study of a propositional system of Nelson. In A. I. Arruda, N. C. A. da Costa, and R. Chuaqui, editors, Mathematical Logic. Proceedings of the First Brazilian Conference on Mathematical Logic, Campinas 1977, volume 39 of Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics, pages 99–117. Marcel Dekker, 1978. [20] J.-M. Font. Abstract Algebraic Logic: An Introductory Textbook. Volume 60 of Studies in Logic. College Publications, 2016. [21] A. C. Golzio. Non-deterministic matrices: theory and applications to algebraic semantics. PhD thesis, IFCH, University of Campinas, Brazil, 2017. [22] A. C. Golzio and M. E. Coniglio. Non-deterministic algebras and algebraization of logics. In: M. Carvalho, C. Braida, J.C. Salles and M.E. Coniglio, editors, Filosofia da Linguagem e da Lógica, Coleção XVI Encontro ANPOF, pages 327–346. ANPOF, 2015. 44 [23] G. E. Hansoul. A subdirect decomposition theorem for multialgebras. Algebra Universalis, 16(1):275–281. Birkhäuser-Verlag, 1983. [24] J. A. Kalman. Lattices with involution. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 87:485– 491,1958. [25] I. Mikenberg, N. C. A. da Costa, and R. Chuaqui. Pragmatic truth and approximation to truth. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 51(1):201–221, 1986. [26] A. Monteiro. Algebras de Nelson Semi-Simples (Abstract). Rev. Unión Mat. Argentina, 21:145–146, 1963. [27] S. P. Odintsov. Algebraic semantics for paraconsistent Nelson's logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(4):453–468, 2003. [28] S. P. Odintsov. Constructive Negations and Paraconsistency, volume 26 of Trends in Logic. Springer, 2008. [29] S. P. Odintsov. On axiomatizing Shramko-Wansings logic. Studia Logica, 91:407–428, 2009. [30] S. P. Odintsov and H. Wansing. Modal logics with Belnapian truth values. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 20:279–301, 2010. [31] H. Ono and U. Rivieccio. Modal twist-structures over residuated lattices. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 22(3):440–457, 2014. [32] F. Ramos and V. Fernandez. Twist-structures semantics for the logics of the hierarchy InP k. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 19:183–209, 2009. [33] U. Rivieccio. Implicative twist-structures. Algebra Universalis, 71(2):155– 186, 2014. [34] D. Schweigert. Congruence relations of multialgebras. Discrete Mathematics, 53(0):249–253, 1985. [35] D. Vakarelov. Notes on N-lattices and constructive logic with strong negation. Studia Logica, 36(1-2):109–125, 1977.