Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:De Morgan algebra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Paradoctor in topic Dunn's algebra

Dunn's algebra

[edit]

"Another example is Dunn's 4-valued logic, in which false < neither-true-nor-false < true and false < both-true-and-false < true, while neither-true-nor-false and both-true-and-false are not comparable."

It is claimed that this algebra has four values but five appear. It is claimed that two of these values are not comparable but the four/five values appear totally ordered.

I think that this situation must be cleared and that some words must be spent to distinguish this De Morgan algebra from the 4-valued boolean algebra. 92.184.108.122 (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

You misquoted that. It's not false < neither-true-nor-false < true and false < both-true-and-false < true.
The correct quote is false < neither-true-nor-false < true and false < both-true-and-false < true (my emphasis). See the difference? Paradoctor (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok for the "and". But I am still unable to distinguish Dunn's algebra from the 4-valued boolean algebra { 0, {a}, {b}, {a,b} } for which we have also 0 ⊂ {a} ⊂ {a,b} and 0 ⊂ {b} ⊂ {a,b} while {a} and {b} are not comparable. Some more words to distinguish them or to say they are the same ? 92.184.107.177 (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
De Morgan algebras are more general than Boolean algebras. The distinction is explained in the second sentence of the lead. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your quick answer. I think that I begin to understand : Dunn's algebra is obtained by taking the two intermediate N and B values equal to their negation. If it is the case I think that this could be added in the article to help the reader's comprehension. 92.184.104.255 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Can you prove that N≠¬B? Paradoctor (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I can't give any answer if I don't know the theory in which I have to work. Please precise your question. 92.184.104.255 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
And therein lies the answer. If you can't prove this for all theories, you cannot presume it is a theorem that Dunn's semantics implies ¬N=N and ¬B=B. Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok Paradoxctor. 92.184.100.248 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
For me it follows from our strange talk that the simplest De Morgan algebra which is nor a boolean algebra is 3-valued : T, M, B with ¬M = M. Mention it in the article ? 92.184.100.248 (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
This implies that all two-valued De Morgan algebras have the complementation laws as theorems. Can you WP:PROVEIT? Paradoctor (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
For me the question is not to prove anything (in which theory , with which logic ?), it is question to check that Dunn's 4-valued algebra and the 3-valued algebra just above are or not De Morgan algebras. I think they are. You ? 92.184.100.248 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Um, Dunn's semantics is explicitly mentioned as an example of a non-Boolean De Morgan algebra.
the question is not to prove anything (in which theory , with which logic ? If I link something, the idea is for you to at least to take a look at it. It's part of what I say. Had you done so, you wouldn't have had to ask. Paradoctor (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply