## Abstract Czelakowski introduced the Suszko operator as a basis for the development of a hierarchy of non‐protoalgebraic logics, paralleling the well‐known abstract algebraic hierarchy of protoalgebraic logics based on the Leibniz operator of Blok and Pigozzi. The scope of the theory of the Leibn
Categorical Abstract Algebraic Logic: Structurality, protoalgebraicity, and correspondence
✍ Scribed by George Voutsadakis
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2009
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 191 KB
- Volume
- 55
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0044-3050
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
The notion of an ℐ ‐matrix as a model of a given π ‐institution ℐ is introduced. The main difference from the approach followed so far in Categorical Abstract Algebraic Logic (CAAL) and the one adopted here is that an ℐ ‐matrix is considered modulo the entire class of morphisms from the underlying N ‐algebraic system of ℐ into its own underlying algebraic system, rather than modulo a single fixed (N,N ′)‐logical morphism. The motivation for introducing ℐ ‐matrices comes from a desire to formulate a correspondence property for N ‐protoalgebraic π ‐institutions closer in spirit to the one for sentential logics than that considered in CAAL before. As a result, in the previously established hierarchy of syntactically protoalgebraic π ‐institutions, i. e., those with an implication system, and of protoalgebraic π ‐institutions, i. e., those with a monotone Leibniz operator, the present paper interjects the class of those π ‐institutions with the correspondence property, as applied to ℐ ‐matrices. Moreover, this work on ℐ ‐matrices enables us to prove many results pertaining to the local deduction‐detachment theorems, paralleling classical results in Abstract Algebraic Logic formulated, first, by Czelakowski and Blok and Pigozzi. Those results will appear in a sequel to this paper. (© 2009 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract Equivalent deductive systems were introduced in [4] with the goal of treating 1‐deductive systems and algebraic 2‐deductive systems in a uniform way. Results of [3], appropriately translated and strengthened, show that two deductive systems over the same language type are equivalent if
## Abstract The study of structure systems, an abstraction of the concept of first‐order structures, is continued. Structure systems have algebraic systems as their algebraic reducts and their relational component consists of a collection of relation systems on the underlying functors. An analog of
Given a π-institution I, a hierarchy of π-institutions I (n) is constructed, for n ≥ 1. We call I (n) the n-th order counterpart of I. The second-order counterpart of a deductive π-institution is a Gentzen π-institution, i. e. a π-institution associated with a structural Gentzen system in a canonica
## Abstract In this note, it is shown that, given a __π__ ‐institution ℐ = 〈**Sign**, SEN, __C__ 〉, with __N__ a category of natural transformations on SEN, every theory family __T__ of ℐ includes a unique largest theory system $ \overleftarrow T $ of ℐ. $ \overleftarrow T $ satisfies the important