Full Chapter Algebraic Perspectives On Substructural Logics Davide Fazio PDF

Algebraic Perspectives on
Substructural Logics Davide Fazio

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/algebraic-perspectives-on-substructural-logics-davide
-fazio/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
A General Algebraic Semantics for Sentential Logics 2nd

Edition Josep Maria Font
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-general-algebraic-semantics-
for-sentential-logics-2nd-edition-josep-maria-font/
Lectures on Logarithmic Algebraic Geometry Arthur Ogus
https://textbookfull.com/product/lectures-on-logarithmic-
algebraic-geometry-arthur-ogus/
Buildings Across Time An Introduction to World

Architecture by Michael Fazio Marian Moffett Lawrence
Wodehouse Michael Fazio Marian Moffett Lawrence
Wodehouse
https://textbookfull.com/product/buildings-across-time-an-
introduction-to-world-architecture-by-michael-fazio-marian-
moffett-lawrence-wodehouse-michael-fazio-marian-moffett-lawrence-
wodehouse/
Algebraic Numbers and Algebraic Functions First Edition

Cohn
https://textbookfull.com/product/algebraic-numbers-and-algebraic-
functions-first-edition-cohn/
Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities Davide
Geneletti
https://textbookfull.com/product/planning-for-ecosystem-services-
in-cities-davide-geneletti/
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome 1st Edition Davide

Chiumello (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/acute-respiratory-distress-
syndrome-1st-edition-davide-chiumello-eds/
Dynamic Stability and Bifurcation in Nonconservative

Mechanics Davide Bigoni
https://textbookfull.com/product/dynamic-stability-and-
bifurcation-in-nonconservative-mechanics-davide-bigoni/
Reframing Institutional Logics Substance Practice and

History 1st Edition Alistair Mutch
https://textbookfull.com/product/reframing-institutional-logics-
substance-practice-and-history-1st-edition-alistair-mutch/
Contemporary Perspectives on Relational Wellness

Floriana Irtelli
https://textbookfull.com/product/contemporary-perspectives-on-
relational-wellness-floriana-irtelli/
Trends in Logic 55
Davide Fazio
Antonio Ledda
Francesco Paoli Editors
Algebraic
Perspectives
on Substructural
Logics
Trends in Logic
Volume 55
TRENDS IN LOGIC
Studia Logica Library
VOLUME 55
Editor-in-Chief
Heinrich Wansing, Department of Philosophy, Ruhr University Bochum,
Bochum, Germany
Editorial Board
Arnon Avron, Department of Computer Science, University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel
Katalin Bimbó, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Giovanna Corsi, Department of Philosophy, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Janusz Czelakowski, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Opole,
Opole, Poland
Roberto Giuntini, Department of Philosophy, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
Rajeev Goré, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Andreas Herzig, IRIT, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France
Wesley Holliday, UC Berkeley, Lafayette, CA, USA
Andrzej Indrzejczak, Department of Logic, University of Lódz, Lódz, Poland
Daniele Mundici, Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Florence, Firenze, Italy
Sergei Odintsov, Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk, Russia
Ewa Orlowska, Institute of Telecommunications, Warsaw, Poland
Peter Schroeder-Heister, Wilhelm-Schickard-Institut, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen,
Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Yde Venema, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
Andreas Weiermann, Vakgroep Zuivere Wiskunde en Computeralgebra, University of Ghent,
Ghent, Belgium
Frank Wolter, Department of Computing, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Ming Xu, Department of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Jacek Malinowski, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warszawa, Poland
Assistant Editor
Daniel Skurt, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Founding Editor
Ryszard Wojcicki, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland
The book series Trends in Logic covers essentially the same areas as the journal Studia Logica, that is,
contemporary formal logic and its applications and relations to other disciplines. The series aims at publishing
monographs and thematically coherent volumes dealing with important developments in logic and presenting
significant contributions to logical research.
Volumes of Trends in Logic may range from highly focused studies to presentations that make a subject
accessible to a broader scientific community or offer new perspectives for research. The series is open to
contributions devoted to topics ranging from algebraic logic, model theory, proof theory, philosophical logic,
non-classical logic, and logic in computer science to mathematical linguistics and formal epistemology. This
thematic spectrum is also reflected in the editorial board of Trends in Logic. Volumes may be devoted to
specific logical systems, particular methods and techniques, fundamental concepts, challenging open problems,
different approaches to logical consequence, combinations of logics, classes of algebras or other structures, or
interconnections between various logic-related domains. Authors interested in proposing a completed book or a
manuscript in progress or in conception can contact either christi.lue@springer.com or one of the Editors of the
Series.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6645

Davide Fazio Antonio Ledda
• •
Francesco Paoli
Editors
Algebraic Perspectives
on Substructural Logics
123
Editors
Davide Fazio Antonio Ledda
Dipartimento di Pedagogia Dipartimento di Pedagogia
Psicologia, Filosofia Psicologia, Filosofia
Università di Cagliari Università di Cagliari
Via Is Mirrionis, Cagliari, Italy Via Is Mirrionis, Cagliari, Italy
Francesco Paoli
Dipartimento di Pedagogia
Psicologia, Filosofia
Università di Cagliari
Via Is Mirrionis, Cagliari, Italy
ISSN 1572-6126 ISSN 2212-7313 (electronic)

Trends in Logic
ISBN 978-3-030-52162-2 ISBN 978-3-030-52163-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52163-9
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
The editors gratefully acknowledge the following funding sources: Project “Per un’
estensione semantica della Logica Computazionale Quantistica—Impatto teorico e
ricadute implementative”, Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, (RAS: RASSR40341),
L.R. 7/2017, annualità 2017—Fondo di Sviluppo e Coesione (FSC) 2014–2020;
MIUR, within the projects PRIN 2017: “Logic and cognition. Theory, experiments,
and applications”, CUP: 2013YP4N3, and PRIN 2017: “Theory and applications of
resource sensitive logics”, CUP: 20173WKCM5 and gratefully acknowledge the
support of the Horizon 2020 program of the European Commission: SYSMICS
project, number: 689176, MSCA-RISE-2015. Finally, we thank the community of
researchers in the area of substructural logics and residuated structures, in particular
Hiroakira Ono and Constantine Tsinakis who played a decisive role in creating it and
in fostering the mutual collaboration among its members.
v
Contents
Editorial Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Davide Fazio, Antonio Ledda, and Francesco Paoli
Distributivity and Varlet Distributivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Paolo Aglianò
On Distributive Join Semilattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Rodolfo C. Ertola-Biraben, Francesc Esteva, and Lluís Godo
Implication in Weakly and Dually Weakly Orthomodular Lattices . . . . 41
Ivan Chajda and Helmut Länger
Residuated Operators and Dedekind–MacNeille Completion . . . . . . . . . 57
Ivan Chajda, Helmut Länger, and Jan Paseka
PBZ*–Lattices: Ordinal and Horizontal Sums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Roberto Giuntini, Claudia Mureşan, and Francesco Paoli
EMV-Algebras—Extended MV-Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Anatolij Dvurečenskij and Omid Zahiri
Quasi-Nelson; Or, Non-involutive Nelson Algebras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Umberto Rivieccio and Matthew Spinks
Hyperdoctrines and the Ontology of Stratified Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Shay Allen Logan
vii
Contributors
Paolo Aglianò DIISM, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

Ivan Chajda Faculty of Science, Department of Algebra and Geometry, Palacký
University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Anatolij Dvurečenskij Mathematical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences,
Bratislava, Slovakia; Faculty of Sciences, Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc,
Czech Republic
Rodolfo C. Ertola-Biraben CLE-UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brazil
Francesc Esteva IIIA-CSIC, Belaterra, Spain
Antonio Ledda Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di
Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
Francesco Paoli Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di
Davide Fazio Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di
Roberto Giuntini Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di
Lluís Godo IIIA-CSIC, Belaterra, Spain
Helmut Länger Institute of Discrete Mathematics and Geometry TU Wien
Wiedner Hauptstraße 8-10 1040 Vienna Austria and Department of Algebra and
Geometry, Palacký University Olomouc 17., Olomouc, Czech Republic
Shay Allen Logan Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Claudia Mureşan Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di
ix
x Contributors
Jan Paseka Faculty of Science, Department of Mathematics and Statistics,

Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Umberto Rivieccio Departamento de Informática e Matemática Aplicada,
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil
Matthew Spinks Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di
Omid Zahiri University of Applied Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
Editorial Introduction
Davide Fazio, Antonio Ledda, and Francesco Paoli
Abstract After providing an overview of the algebraic investigations into substruc-

tural logics in a historical perspective, with a special focus on their relationships
with quantum logics, we summarise the contents of the subsequent chapters of this
volume.
1 Algebra, Residuation, and Logic
Although an elective bond with algebra had been a characteristic trait of mathe-
matical logic since its inception—think of Boole’s work, to name the most obvious
example—the XXth century and the first two decades of the XXIst century witnessed
an increasing and ever more fruitful interplay between these two disciplines. The
trailblazing enquiries by Tarski, Lindenbaum, McKinsey and other authors into the
algebraic semantics of classical, intuitionistic and modal logics established bridges
between these provinces of logic and well-trodden algebraic territory, such as the
theories of Boolean algebras, Heyting algebras, and interior algebras [38, 48]. Later,
the birth of Abstract Algebraic Logic as an autonomous field of research, originating
from the confluence of the Polish logicians’ investigations into the theories of logical
matrices and consequence operators and the study of algebraisable logics and their
generalisations [6, 15, 22, 53], was only possible thanks to an extensive recourse to
D. Fazio (B) · A. Ledda · F. Paoli

Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università di Cagliari, Via Is Mirrionis, 1,
Cagliari, Italy
e-mail: dav.faz@hotmail.it
A. Ledda
e-mail: antonio.ledda@unica.it
F. Paoli
e-mail: paoli@unica.it
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

D. Fazio et al. (eds.), Algebraic Perspectives on Substructural Logics,
Trends in Logic 55, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52163-9_1
2 D. Fazio et al.
universal algebra and lattice theory, as well as to the theories of the individual classes
of algebras acting as counterparts of the different logics under investigation.
Substructural logics [23, 39, 44, 46] are no exception to this trend. Here, too,
logic and algebra found fertile synergies after running on separate tracks for quite
some time. Substructural logics are usually defined via certain Gentzen-style sequent
calculi, or variants thereof, where the structural rules are suitably restricted or even
done away with—whence the “substructural” label. These logics did not emerge
together as a uniform corpus. Rather, this name started to enter common usage at
some point1 to refer to a largely heterogeneous family of pre-existing logics with
different origins and motivations:
• Lambek calculus was used since the late 1950s in mathematical linguistics and
especially in type-theoretic grammars [35];
• linear logic had been developed in the 1980s by J.Y. Girard in the context of
the proof theory for constructive logics, but presented interesting connections
with domain theory, the semantics of functional programming and other topics of
interest to computer scientists [26, 49];
• relevance logics had been introduced in the 1950s to solve paradoxes of material
implication and had obvious ramifications into the philosophy of logic and the
philosophy of language [1, 37];
• finally, fuzzy logics [5] had been intensively and fruitfully studied for some decades
before it was realised that they belonged to all intents and purposes to the sub-
structural family [9, 21, 41].
Observe that not all these logics were originally introduced by means of sequent
calculi: in some cases this kind of formulation was given only later, while in other
cases it is not even available now. Substructural logics are united by a series of “family
resemblances”, rather than by their falling under some common all-encompassing
definition. One such resemblance is the validity of some suitable generalisation of the
deduction-detachment equivalence in classical logic2 : ϕ · ψ entails χ iff ψ entails
ϕ\χ iff ϕ entails χ /ψ, for some (possibly non-idempotent and non-commutative)
conjunction · and some implications \, /. In any event, up until the 1990s substructural
logics were mainly investigated by syntactic methods, or by resorting to variants
of Kripke semantics [19, 43, 50]; with the exception of fuzzy logics, algebra was
occasionally employed but was far from being predominant.
Quite independently of these developments, in the 1930s, M. Ward and R.P. Dil-
worth [17, 51, 52] introduced residuated lattices as an abstraction from lattices of
ideals in rings. It is well-known that, given any ring with unit R and any two-sided
ideals I, J of R, upon defining
1 There is even something like an official birth date for the term “substructural logics”. This phrase
was coined by Kosta Došen on the occasion of the Tübingen conference on “Logics with restricted
structural rules” (7–8 October, 1990) co-organised with Peter Schroeder-Heister, which showcased
the Gotha of substructural research at the time.
2 In the commutative case the two implications always give a common result, denoted ϕ → ψ, and
the equivalence assumes the more familiar form: ϕ · ψ entails χ iff ϕ entails ψ → χ.
Editorial Introduction 3

n
I·J= ak bk : ak ∈ I, bk ∈ J, n 1 ;
k=1
I \J = {x ∈ R : I x ⊆ J } ;
J/I = {x ∈ R : x I ⊆ J } ,
such a product of ideals is a residuated operation with respect to set inclusion, with
the two divisions as residuals—namely, for any two-sided ideals I, J, K of R, we
have that:
I · J ⊆ K iff J ⊆ I \K iff I ⊆ K /J .
Abstracting away from this concrete example, a residuated lattice3 L is a lattice

endowed with a monoidal operation · that is residuated with respect to the order
induced by the lattice reduct of L; to wit, if we denote by \, / the two residuals, we
have for any a, b, c ∈ L that
a · b c iff b a\c iff a c/b.
It soon became apparent that this umbrella notion is extremely wide-ranging and
can be appropriately tweaked so as to subsume classes of algebras of prime impor-
tance in algebra and elsewhere4 : lattice-ordered groups; Heyting algebras, hence
Boolean algebras as a special case; Chang’s MV-algebras [14]—and by this list we
have barely started to scratch the surface. At the same time, the structure theory of
residuated lattices is surprisingly robust and elegant, revealing as it does subtle and
profound connections between the structure theories of individual classes of algebras
falling under the concept [7, 8, 23, 39].
Yet, there is another aspect that is even more noteworthy in the present context.
The algebraic residuation equivalence looks amazingly similar to the deduction-
detachment equivalence previously mentioned in connection with substructural log-
ics. This is no coincidence. The operations in residuated lattices, indeed, can be
used to provide an algebraic semantics for connectives in substructural logics, with
product interpreting conjunction and the divisions interpreting implications. More
precisely, all the principal substructural logics turn out to be algebraisable with qua-
sivarieties of (expansions of) residuated lattices as equivalent algebraic semantics.
Thanks to the groundbreaking work by Hiroakira Ono, Constantine Tsinakis and
many other researchers, from the late 1990s onwards there has been a major revolu-
tion in the methods and approaches employed to investigate substructural logics [7,
24, 33, 42]. Not only has the study of residuated lattices grown into a very sophis-
ticated and mathematically advanced theory, but algebraic methods have been put
3 This is not the original definition of a residuated lattice given by Ward and Dilworth, but (essentially)
the definition due to Jipsen and Tsinakis [33] that is nowadays in current use. Observe that other
different usages of the term can be frequently encountered in the literature: for a comparison, see
e.g. [39].
4 In particular, to achieve this goal it may be necessary to expand the signature by an extra constant
in addition to the unit of the monoidal operation.

4 D. Fazio et al.
to good use with increasing frequency to solve open problems concerning substruc-
tural logics, including decidability, interpolation, and completeness. As a matter of
fact, the algebraisability relation has proved to be beneficial in both directions: many
interesting problems concerning classes of residuated lattices have been solved using
proof-theoretic methods, i.e. by working on the associated logics first, and then by
translating back the outputs into the algebraic framework thanks to the bridge granted
by algebraisability [23, 39].
2 Substructural Logics and Quantum Logics
As we have just seen, the assortment of nonclassical logics that can be encompassed
under the substructural heading is impressive: it nearly exhausts the range of the
available alternatives to classical logic (including, as a bonus, classical logic itself
as a limiting case). There is a remarkable outlier, though. However much we may be
willing to stretch the meaning of “substructural”, quantum logics [16, 34] can hardly
be counted in this category. Here’s the reason why: in mainstream quantum logics,
there are no connectives of conjunction and implication that are related by something
like the deduction-detachment (residuation) equivalence. Although many quantum
logics are algebraisable, their equivalent algebraic semantics fail to be quasivarieties
of residuated lattices. As a consequence, quantum logics and substructural logics have
by and large evolved quite separately. In itself, this circumstance is lamentable—the
more interplay you have between two neighbouring fields, the more likely it is that
methods and concepts from either area can be exported into the other, providing
fresh insights into its open problems and contributing to its overall development.
Occasionally, productive exchanges between these areas have emerged; yet, they
all have fallen short of generating a common systematic perspective. We cite a few
examples below.
1. Despite the recurrent slogan “Quantum logics have no implication”, there have been
important studies on implications in orthomodular logic, or in weaker quantum
logics, highlighting inferential patterns to be found also in substructural logics
[31, 32, 45].
2. All the main quantum logics are non-distributive. So are many substructural logics.
Thus, it is not too surprising that proof-theoretic and semantic methods that work
well in the former context can also be adapted to the latter, or vice versa. An example
is phase semantics for linear logic [26], which displays evident similarities with the
Kripke-style semantics for orthologic independently found by Dishkant, Goldblatt
and Dalla Chiara [16, 18, 30].
3. There have been some attempts to introduce common generalisations of quantum
logics and substructural logics. One such effort is Sambin’s basic logic [2], defined
via a sequent calculus that combines the restrictions on structural rules typical
of substructural calculi with the restrictions on contexts characterising Gentzen
systems for quantum logics [40, 47]. Basic logic is thus a common sublogic of
orthologic and of subexponential intuitionistic linear logic.
4. Fuzzy logics stand out among substructural logics because they can be given a
semantics in terms of residuated lattices over the [0, 1] real interval.5 In this respect,
they are close to the so-called unsharp quantum logics [16], which extend the
Birkhoff-von Neumann approach in so far as propositional formulas are assigned
meanings in more general structures than the lattices of closed subspaces of (equiv-
alently, of projection operators on) complex separable Hilbert spaces. The numer-
ous striking similarities between fuzzy logics and unsharp quantum logics have
been duly stressed in the literature [16, 20, 28, 36].
5. Finally, quantum structures have been used by Girard to interpret linear logical
proofs, obtaining a particular variant of denotational semantics for linear logic
[27].
Some recent results and approaches, however, hold promise to do better and to
provide a more comprehensive perspective that may be useful not only in establish-
ing a common framework subsuming both quantum and substructural logics, but
also in opening to researchers in either area the possibility of importing methods
and techniques “from across the street”. On the one hand, Chajda and Länger [10]
proved that the variety of orthomodular lattices is term-equivalent to a certain variety
of pointed left-residuated lattice-ordered groupoids. This suggests that the power-
ful techniques (e.g. nuclear retractions, quasi-completions) developed for residuated
lattice-ordered groupoids [13, 23, 25] can be generalised to the case where a single
residual is present. If so, it is not out of the question that there can be important
repercussions on the long-standing open problems as to whether orthomodular lat-
tices admit completions, or as to whether they have the finite model property.
Also, many quantum structures are not residuated, but they are operator residu-
ated, according to a concept developed in [11] and investigated in this volume in the
paper by Chajda and Paseka. This interesting generalisation of residuation has been
effectively employed with various uses, see e.g. [12].
3 The AsubL Conferences
The AsubL—Algebra and Substructural Logics conferences have been instrumental

in triggering the above-mentioned “algebraic turn” in substructural logics. These
meetings—a brainchild of Hiroakira Ono—have created an unprecedented opportu-
nity of collaboration between logicians working on substructural logics, but with a
primary interest in their algebraic semantics, and specialists of residuated structures
who are intrigued by the idea of finding for them a use over and above their purely
algebraic motivations.
The first installment of the conference, AsubL Take 1, organised by Hiroakira Ono
and Tomasz Kowalski, took place at the Japan Institute of Science and Technology
5 There is an ongoing discussion on the correct definition of a fuzzy logic: see [3, 4, 29].
6 D. Fazio et al.
(JAIST) on 10–14 November 1999. Subsequent meetings were held at the JAIST
(2002), at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków (2006), at the JAIST again (2010)
and at the La Trobe University in Melbourne (2014).
AsubL Take 6 was hosted by the Department of Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy
of the University of Cagliari on June 11–13, 2018. Its programme included invited
talks by Hiroakira Ono, Constantine Tsinakis (cancelled), H.P. Sankappanavar, Ana-
tolij Dvurecenskij, Peter Schroeder-Heister and Tomasz Kowalski, as well as 36
contributed talks focussing on a wide range of different themes: residuated lattices
and their properties, individual classes of residuated lattices (including MV-algebras
and other classes of algebras of fuzzy logic), proof theory for substructural logics,
philosophical and game-theoretical interpretations of substructural logics, topics in
universal algebra and abstract algebraic logic with direct applications to substruc-
tural logics. Many talks were devoted to the connections between substructural and
quantum logics, or between residuated lattices and quantum structures, thus pro-
viding a stimulus for a greater interaction between the substructural and quantum
communities.
This volume includes some of the papers presented at the conference, representing
many of the topics discussed during the sessions.
4 Outline of the Volume
Four crucial threads in the current research into substructural logics and residuated
lattices lie at the centre of the papers that have been collected into the present book.
1. Reducts of residuated lattices. Residuated lattices are algebraic structures with a
very rich signature. Many of their properties, however, rather than depending on
the presence of all the operation symbols, are due to more fundamental features of
certain reducts of theirs. Although quite a lot is known about these aspects, at least
for some particular classes of residuated lattices, practitioners are at work to obtain
further insights. The paper by Paolo Aglianò, “Distributivity and Varlet distribu-
tivity”, explores the relationships between distributivity, Varlet distributivity and
divisibility in residuated semilattices, with applications to some well-known sub-
classes such as hoops. The paper by Rodolfo C. Ertola-Biraben, Francesc Esteva,
and Lluis Godo, “On distributive join-semilattices”, conceives a notion of distribu-
tivity for join semilattices that is motivated by Gentzen’s disjunction elimination
rule in natural deduction, and carefully compares it to many other notions present in
the literature. Moreover, the authors investigate this notion of distributivity in join
semilattices with arrow, the algebraic structures corresponding to the disjunction-
implication fragment of intuitionistic logic.
2. Relationships between substructural logics and quantum logics. Some articles
underscore the relationships between substructural and quantum logics, or between
residuated lattices and quantum structures, about which much was said above. In
“Implication in weakly and dually weakly orthomodular lattices”, Ivan Chajda
and Helmut Länger study the behaviour of some term-definable implications in

certain generalisations of orthomodular lattices, revealing the connection between
such structures and residuated structures. In “Residuated operators and Dedekind–
MacNeille completion”, Ivan Chajda, Helmut Länger and Jan Paseka take as a
starting point operator residuation (see above) in posets with unary operations,
studying the extent to which the multioperations M and R, which generalise prod-
uct and its left residual respectively, can be replaced by lattice terms in such a
way that the Dedekind–MacNeille completions of such posets become residuated
lattices with respect to these terms. The behaviour of these structures is investi-
gated in several special cases, including orthomodular lattices. In “PBZ—lattices:
Ordinal and horizontal sums”, Roberto Giuntini, Claudia Mureşan and Francesco
Paoli focus on two constructions—the ordinal sum construction and the horizontal
sum construction—that have been widely used in the investigation of both quan-
tum structures and residuated structures. These tools are applied to PBZ*–lattices,
common generalisations of orthomodular lattices and expanded Kleene algebras
that arise in the context of the unsharp approach to quantum logic.
3. Special classes of (pointed) residuated lattices. As recalled above, the study of
certain classes of residuated lattices predates the introduction of the general notion
itself, and proceeds unfettered to this day. Many researchers, moreover, are con-
stantly uncovering relationships between particular classes of residuated lattices
and other structures of interest to the algebraic and logical communities. In the
survey paper “EMV-algebras: Extended MV-algebras”, Anatolij Dvurečenskij and
Omid Zahiri devote their attention to EMV-algebras, a common abstraction of MV-
algebras and generalized Boolean algebras. It is shown that every EMV-algebra
with top element is term-equivalent to an MV-algebra, and that EMV-algebras
without a top element can be embedded into EMV-algebras with top element as
maximal ideals. Also, the category of EMV-algebras without top element is shown
to be equivalent to a special category of MV-algebras. In “Quasi-Nelson; or, non-
involutive Nelson algebras”, Umberto Rivieccio and Matthew Spinks introduce
quasi-Nelson algebras, a generalisation of Nelson algebras having a not necessar-
ily involutive negation. The term-equivalence result by Spinks and Veroff between
Nelson algebras and Nelson residuated lattices is generalised to a term-equivalence
between quasi-Nelson algebras and models of the Full Lambek calculus with
exchange and weakening, extended with the Nelson axiom. Three more equiv-
alent presentations of quasi-Nelson algebras are introduced; in one of them, the
celebrated Fidel–Vakarelov twist-structure construction is extended to the non-
involutive case.
4. Beyond algebraic semantics. We already recalled that the semantical investigation
of substructural logics is not exhausted by the use of algebraic methods: Kripke-
style semantics, topological semantics and more ad hoc methods—sometimes a
combination of all these—have been intensively employed. In “Hyperdoctrines and
the ontology of stratified semantics”, Shay Logan presents a version of Kit Fine’s
stratified semantics for the quantified relevant logic RWQ and defines a family
of structures called RW hyperdoctrines, showing a soundness and completeness
theorem.
8 D. Fazio et al.
References
1. A.R. Anderson, N.D. Belnap Jr., Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1975)
2. G. Battilotti, G. Sambin, Basic logic and the cube of its extensions, in Logic and Foundations
of Mathematics, ed. by A. Cantini et al. (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999), pp.
165–186
3. L. Bĕhounek, In which sense is fuzzy logic a logic for vagueness, in Logics for Reasoning
about Preferences, Uncertainty, and Vagueness, ed. by T. Lukasiewicz et al. (2014), pp. 26–38
4. L. Bĕhounek, P. Cintula, Fuzzy logic as the logic of chains. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 157, 604–610
(2006)
5. L. Bĕhounek, P. Cintula, P. Hàjek, Introduction to mathematical fuzzy logic, in Handbook of
Mathematical Fuzzy Logic, ed. by P. Cintula et al., vol. 1 (College Publication, London, 2011)
6. W.J. Blok, D. Pigozzi, Algebraizable Logics. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society
(American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1989)
7. K. Blount, C. Tsinakis, The structure of residuated lattices. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 13(4),
437–461 (2003)
8. M. Botur, J. Kühr, L. Liu, C. Tsinakis, The Conrad program: from -groups to algebras of
logic. J. Algebra 450, 173–203 (2016)
9. E. Casari, Comparative logics and Abelian -groups, in Logic Colloquium’88, ed. by R. Ferro
et al. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1989), pp. 161–190
10. I. Chajda, H. Länger, Orthomodular lattices can be converted into left-residuated -groupoids.
Miskolc Math. Notes 18, 685–689 (2017)
11. I. Chajda, H. Länger, Residuated operators in complemented posets. Asian-Eur. J. Math. 11,
1850097 (2018)
12. I. Chajda, H. Länger, Residuation in modular lattices and posets. Asian-Eur. J. Math. 12(2),
1950092 (2019)
13. A. Ciabattoni, N. Galatos, K. Terui, Algebraic proof theory for substructural logics: cut-
elimination and completions. Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 163, 266–290 (2012)
14. R. Cignoli, I.M.L. D’Ottaviano, D. Mundici, Algebraic Foundations of Many-Valued Reason-
ing. Trends in Logic—Studia Logica Library (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999)
15. J. Czelakowski, Protoalgebraic Logics. Trends in Logic–Studia Logica Library, vol. 10 (Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001)
16. M.L. Dalla Chiara, R. Giuntini, R. Greechie, Reasoning in Quantum Theory. Sharp and Unsharp
Quantum Logics. Trends in Logic—Studia Logica Library (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dor-
drecht, 2004)
17. R.P. Dilworth, Non-commutative residuated lattices. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 46, 426–444 (1939)
18. H. Dishkant, Semantics of the minimal logic of quantum mechanics. Stud. Log. 30, 17–29
(1972)
19. K. Dośen, Sequent systems and groupoid models, I. Stud. Log. 47, 353–385 (1988)
20. A. Dvurečenskij, S. Pulmannová, New Trends in Quantum Structures (Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers/Ister Science, Dordrecht/Bratislava, 2000)
21. F. Esteva, L. Godo, A. García-Cerdaña, On the hierarchy of t-norm based residuated fuzzy
logics, in Beyond Two: Theory and Applications of Multiple-Valued Logic, ed. by M.C. Fitting,
E. Orlowska (Physica, Heidelberg, 2003), pp. 251–272
22. J.M. Font, Abstract Algebraic Logic: An Introductory Textbook (College Publications, London,
2016)
23. N. Galatos, P. Jipsen, T. Kowalski, H. Ono, Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse at Sub-
structural Logics. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (Elsevier, Amsterdam,
2007)
24. N. Galatos, H. Ono, Algebraization, parametrized local deduction theorem and interpolation
for substructural logics over FL. Stud. Log. 83, 279–308 (2006)
25. J. Gil Férez, L. Spada, C. Tsinakis, H. Zhou, Join completions of partially ordered algebras.
Annals. Pure. Appl. Logic. 171(10), 102842 (2020)
26. J.-Y. Girard, Linear logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 50, 1–102 (1987)
27. J.-Y. Girard, Between logic and quantic: a tract, in Linear Logic in Computer Science, ed. by
P. Ruet et al. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004), pp. 346–390
28. R. Giuntini, Quantum MV algebras. Stud. Log. 56, 393–417 (1996)
29. R. Giuntini, F. Paoli, H. Freytes, A. Ledda, G. Sergioli, What is fuzzy logic - and why it matters
to us, in On Fuzziness: A Homage to Lotfi A. Zadeh (Springer, Berlin, 2013), pp. 211–215
30. R. Goldblatt, Semantical analysis of orthologic. J. Philos. Log. 3, 19–35 (1974)
31. G.M. Hardegree, The conditional in quantum logic, in Logic and Probability in Quantum
Mechanics, ed. by P. Suppes (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976), pp. 55–72
32. G.M. Hardegree, Quasi-implication algebras I. Algebra Univers. 12, 30–47 (1981)
33. P. Jipsen, C. Tsinakis, A survey of residuated lattices, in Ordered Algebraic Structures, ed. by
J. Martinez (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002), pp. 19–56
34. G. Kalmbach, Orthomodular Lattices (Academic, New York, 1983)
35. J. Lambek, The mathematics of sentence structure. Am. Math. Mon. 65, 154–170 (1958)
36. A. Ledda, M. Konig, F. Paoli, R. Giuntini, MV algebras and quantum computation. Stud. Log.
82(2), 245–270 (2006)
37. E. Mares, Relevant Logic (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)
38. J.C.C. McKinsey, A. Tarski, On closed elements in closure algebras. Ann. Math. 47(2), 122–162
(1946)
39. G. Metcalfe, F. Paoli, C. Tsinakis, Ordered algebras and logic, in Uncertainty and Rationality,
ed. by H. Hosni, F. Montagna. Publications of the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, vol. 10
(2010), pp. 1–85
40. H. Nishimura, Sequential method in quantum logic. J. Symb. Log. 45, 339–352 (1980)
41. H. Ono, Structural rules and a logical hierarchy, in Mathematical Logic, ed. by P.P. Petkov
(Plenum, New York, 1990), pp. 95–104
42. H. Ono, Substructural logics and residuated lattices: an introduction, in 50 Years of Studia
Logica, ed. by V.F. Hendricks, J. Malinowski. Trends in Logic—Studia Logica Library, vol.
20 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003), pp. 177–212
43. H. Ono, Y. Komori, Logics without the contraction rule. J. Symb. Log. 50, 169–201 (1985)
44. F. Paoli, Substructural Logics: A Primer. Trends in Logic—Studia Logica Library, vol. 13
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002)
45. R. Piziak, Orthomodular lattices as implication algebras. J. Philos. Log. 3, 413–418 (1974)
46. G. Restall, An Introduction to Substructural Logics (Routledge, London, 2000)
47. J. Schülte Monting, Cut elimination and word problem for varieties of lattices. Algebra Univers.
12, 290–321 (1981)
48. A. Tarski, Foundations of the calculus of systems (Engl. transl.), in Logic, Semantics, Meta-
mathematics (Oxford University Press, New York, 1956), pp. 342–383
49. A.S. Troelstra, Lectures on Linear Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford (1992)
50. H. Wansing, The Logic of Information Structures. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol.
681 (Springer, Berlin, 1993)
51. M. Ward, R.P. Dilworth, Residuated lattices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 24, 162–164 (1938)
52. M. Ward, R.P. Dilworth, Residuated lattices. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 45, 335–354 (1939)
53. R. Wojcicki, Theory of Logical Calculi (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1988)
Distributivity and Varlet Distributivity
Paolo Aglianò
Abstract In this note we study the relationships between three properties of resid-
uated (meet) semilattices, i.e.: (1) being divisible, (2) being distributive (3) being
v-distributive.
1 Preliminaries
In this note we study the relationships between three properties of residuated (meet)
semilattices (whose definition is found below), i.e.: (1) being divisible, (2) being
distributive, (3) being v-distributive. While the connection between the first two
properties has been already explored in [1], the third deals with a different aspect
worth investigating.
A semilattice ordered residuated monoid (shortly a residuated semilattice) is
an algebra A = A, ∧, ·, /, \, 1 where
1. A, ∧ is a semilattice;
2. A, ·, 1 is a monoid;
3. / and \ are the left and right residuation w.r.t. ·.
In other words, for a, b, c ∈ A
ab ≤ c iff b ≤ a\c iff a ≤ c/b.
This implies at once that a ≤ b if and only if a\b ≥ 1, if and only if b/a ≥ 1.
Residuated semilattices are clearly related to residuated lattices introduced in [5] and
investigated at length in many other papers (see [11] and the bibliography therein);
residuated lattices have a very rich structure that is largely inherited by residuated
semilattices. Residuated semilattices form a variety, whose axiomatization can be
easily derived from the existing ones for residuated lattices (see again [5] or [13]).
P. Aglianò (B)
DIISM, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
e-mail: agliano@live.com

12 P. Aglianò
Here we will simply state all the equations we need and that can be easily proved
using the above definition.
To save space it is convenient to define the truncated residuations
x/1 y = x/y ∧ 1 x 1\y = x\y ∧ 1.
The operations / and /1 are monotonic in the first argument and antimonotonic in the
second argument; the operations \ and 1\ are monotonic in the second argument and
antimonotonic in the first argument. Moreover:
Lemma 1 In any residuated semilattice A the following equations hold:
x\x ≥ 1, x/x ≥ 1 (1)

1\x ≈ x/1 ≈ x (2)
x\(y/z) ≈ (x\y)/z (3)
(x y)\z ≈ y\(x\z), z/(x y) ≈ (z/y)/x (4)
x(x\y) ≤ y, (y/x)x ≤ y (5)
x\y ≤ (x\z)/(y\z), y/z ≤ (z/y)\(z/x) (6)
x ≤ y/(x\y), x ≤ (y/x)\y (7)
x ≤ y/(x 1\y), x ≤ (y/1 x)\y (8)
(x\y) ∧ (x\z) ≈ x\(y ∧ z), (y/x) ∧ (z/x) ≈ (y ∧ z)/x (9)
y\((y/x)\x)) ≈ y/x, (y/(x\y))\y ≈ x\y. (10)
Proof Almost all the equations are straightforward consequences of the definition;
however the derivation of (10) is less direct, so we will prove one half of it, just to
illustrate the technique. Let a, b ∈ A; if in (7) we set x = a\b, y = b then
a\b ≤ (b/(a\b))\b.
On the other hand since a ≤ b/(a\b) by antimonotonicity of \ in the first coordinate

we get
(b/(a\b))\b ≤ a\b.
Hence equality holds and so does one half of (10).
A residuated semilattice A is integral if 1 is the largest element and commutative

if the monoid operation is commutative; A is divisible if the ordering is the inverse
divisibility ordering i.e. for all a, b ∈ A
a≤b if and only if ∃c, d with a = cb = bd.

Distributivity and Varlet Distributivity 13
The following lemma can be easily deduced from the results in [11]; we include a
proof for reader’s convenience.
Lemma 2 For a residuated semilattice A the following are equivalent:
1. A is divisible;
2. if a, b ∈ A and a ≤ b, then (a/b)b = a = b(b\a);
3. if a, b ∈ A, then (a/1 b)b = a ∧ b = b(b 1\a).
Proof Assume (1) and let a ≤ b; then there is a c with a = cb which implies c ≤ a/b.
Thus a = cb ≤ (a/b)b; but the converse is always true so equality holds. A similar
argument shows that b(b\a) = a and (2) holds.
Assume (2) and note that for any u ≥ 1 we have (1/u)u = 1; if also u 2 = u then
u = 1 · u = (1/u)u 2 = (1/u)u = 1.
Since for any a ∈ A a/a is idempotent and greater than 1, it follows that a/a = 1.
Now since a ∧ b ≤ b, from (2) follows that
a ∧ b = ((a ∧ b)/b)b = ((a/b) ∧ (b/b))b

= ((a/b) ∧ 1)b = (a/1 b)b,
and the other equality follows by using the corresponding properties of \ and 1\.
Finally that (3) implies (4) is obvious.
While the concept of being distributive is mainly used for lattices, it is possible
to define an analogous concept for semilattices: a semilattice L is distributive if,
for all a, b, c ∈ L, if a ≥ b ∧ c, then there exist b , c ∈ L with b ≤ b , c ≤ c and
b ∧ c = a. This is a real generalization: if a lattice is distributive as a semilattice, then
it is a distributive lattice since it must omit the two five-element lattices M3 and N5
(see [12] for an extended discussion). Distributivity is not inherited by subalgebras
or homomorphic images; it is however inherited by retracts [12] and that can be
used to show that the direct product of distributive residuated semilattices is again
distributive.
Theorem 1 ([1]) Any integral and divisible residuated semilattice is distributive.
In a very old paper [14] J. Varlet considered a different kind of distributivity.
He stated the property for residuated partially ordered groupoids (pogroupoids). A
residuated pogroupoid A = A, ·, /, \, ≤ is v-distributive (short for Varlet distribu-
tive) if for any a, b, c ∈ A if bc ≤ a then there are b ≥ b and c ≥ c with b c = a;
a v-distributive residuated semilattice is just one in which its residuated pogroupoid
reduct is v-distributive. We note in passing that this property (and related ones)
has been considered for quantum structures under the name of Riesz decomposition
property, see [8]. J. Varlet [14] characterized v-distributive pogroupoids by means
of equations; therefore is no surprise that v-distributive residuated semilattices form
a variety.
14 P. Aglianò
Theorem 2 The class of v-distributive residuated semilattices is a variety. More

precisely the following are equivalent:
1. A is v-distributive;
2. A (y/(x\y))(x\y) ≈ y;
3. A (y/x)((y/x)\y) ≈ y.
Proof It is very easy to show the 2. and 3. are equivalent, just using the elementary
properties of residuation; so we will show that 1. and 2. are equivalent. Suppose that
2. holds and let a, b, c ∈ A with ab ≤ c; then b ≤ a\c and from Lemma 1(7) we get
a ≤ c/(a\c).
By 2.
(c/(a\c))(a\c) = c
so A is v-distributive.
Conversely suppose that A is v-distributive; if a, b, c ∈ A we observe that
(c/(a\c))(a\c) ≤ c
always, again by the properties of residuations. Hence there are u, v ∈ A, with

u ≥ c/(a\c) and v ≥ a\c with uv = c. It follows that u(a/c) ≤ uv = c and so
u ≤ c/(a\c), hence u = c/(a\c). Therefore
c = uv = (c/(a\c))v
and by residuation v ≤ (c/(a\c))\c = a\c by Lemma 1(10). Hence v = a\c and (2)
holds.
2 The Relationships
If in a residuated semilattice, the meet coincides with the multiplication (sometimes

these structures are called implicative semilattices) then v-distributive is equivalent
to distributive in the usual sense for semilattices. Implicative semilattice are clearly
integral and divisible so the fact that they are v-distributive is a consequence of
Theorem 1.
There are however nonintegral and divisible residuated semilattices that are v-
distributive. If A is a residuated semilattice, we say that an element a ∈ A is invertible
if there is an a ∈ A with aa = a a = 1; an element a ∈ A is integral if 1/a = 1.
If A is also divisible then it is not hard (but see [9]) to check that for all a ∈ A
• 1/a = a\1;
• a is invertible if and only if a(1/a) = 1 = (a\1)a;
• if a ≥ 1, then a is invertible.
Let G(A) the set of invertible elements of A and I(A) the set of integral elements
of A. Observe that G(A) ∩ I(A) = {1}, since if a ∈ G(A), then a(1/a) = 1 and if
a ∈ I(A), then 1/a = 1. Moreover I(A) is an integral subalgebra of A, while G(A) is
closed under {/, \, ·} but not in general under meets. If G(A) = A, then it is obvious
that A is an -group where a/b = ab−1 and a\b = a −1 b, i.e. a divisible residuated
lattice that in general is not integral. However, any divisible residuated lattice is a
distributive lattice [9] so it is distributive as a semilattice. Moreover for any a, b ∈ A
(b/(a\b))(a\b) = (b/(a −1 b)a −1 b

= b(a −1 b)−1 a −1 b
= bb−1 aa −1 b = b
so any -group is v-distributive by Theorem 2.

Next a residuated semilattice is representable if it is a subdirect product of totally
ordered residuated semilattices; since in a totally ordered semilattice the term
[y/(x 1\y)] ∧ [x/(y 1\x)]
is a join (see [1]) any representable residuated semilattice is a representable residuated

lattice and the characterization in [11] applies.
We do not know if every divisible residuated semilattice is v-distributive; however
Theorem 3 suggests that if an example of the contrary exists, then it must be very
complex.
Theorem 3 Let A be a divisible residuated semilattice. Then any of the following

conditions implies that A is v-distributive:
1. A is integral;
2. A has a top or a bottom element;
3. A is finite;
4. for all a, b ∈ A the least upper bound of a and b exists;
5. A is representable.
Proof If A is integral and a, b ∈ A and ab ≤ b; so b ≤ a\b; by Lemma 2(2)
(b/(a\b))(a\b) = b
and A is v-distributive.
If A has a bottom ⊥ then ⊥/⊥ is clearly a top element. If A has a top element
, then 1 ≤ implies ≤ and so equality holds; however from (the proof of)
Lemma 2 a divisible residuated semilattice cannot have idempotent elements larger
than 1 except for 1 itself. So if such a semilattice has a top, then it must be 1, i.e.
the semilattice must be integral so 1. applies. If A is finite then it has a top (and a
bottom) so the previous case applies.
16 P. Aglianò
To prove 4. we observe that if the least upper bound of any two elements exists in A,
then A is the reduct of a residuated lattice. This is not entirely obvious, in that we have
to prove that the join behaves correctly w.r.t. the residuals, but it is true nevertheless
(see for instance [5]). So let A the divisible residuated lattice of which A is a reduct;
then G(A) = G(A ) and I (A) = I (A ); however, since A is a divisible residuated
lattice, G(A ) is an -group and A ∼ = G(A ) × I (A ) ([9], Theorem 5.2). So A is
a direct product of two v-distributive residuated lattices and hence is v-distributive.
Since v-distributivity is characterized by an equation involving only operations in
the type of A, the latter is v-distributive as well. Finally if A is representable, then
by the above observation is (term equivalent to) a residuated lattice; since it is also
divisible the previous argument applies.
In absence of divisibility distributivity and v-distributivity are totally unrelated

even in the integral case. As a matter of fact all our examples will be integral and
commutative; in this case the two residuals are equal and are usually denoted by the
symbol →.
Consider the following construction: let A be any integral commutative residuated
lattice and define A∗ in the following way. The universe is {0, 1} × A, the ordering
is ⎧
⎨ i = j = 1 and u ≤ v or
i, u ≤ j, v iff i = 0 and j = 1 or
⎩
i = j = 0 and v ≤ u.
and the operations are

⎧
⎪
⎪ (1, uv), i = j = 1;
⎨
(0, 1), i = j = 0;
i, u j, v =
⎪
⎪ (0, u → v), i = 1, j = 0
⎩
(0, v → u), i = 0, j = 1.
⎧
⎪
⎪ (1, u → v), i = j = 1;
⎨
(1, v → u), i = j = 0;
i, u → j, v =
⎪
⎪ (0, uv), i = 1, j = 0;
⎩
(1, 1), i = 0, j = 1.
Since the ordering on A is a lattice ordering, then the ordering on A∗ is a lattice

ordering as well; in particular 0, a ∧ 0, b = 0, a ∨ b. It is clear also that A∗ is an
integral and commutative and also residuated; A it is usually called the disconnected
rotation of A [7, 10]. Note that in principle the construction can be performed also in
case A is neither commutative nor integral, but we do not need that much generality.
There are many properties of A that are inherited by its disconnected rotation; for
instance if A is representable, then so is A∗ and the argument is the following. It is
well-known [11] that prelinear residuated commutative and integral lattices form a
variety axiomatized by the single equation
(x → y) ∨ (y → x) ≈ 1.
So we have only to check that if A satisfies that equation, then so does A∗ , but the
verification is straightforward. Moreover:
Lemma 3 If the underlying lattice of A is distributive, then so is the underlying

lattice of A∗ .
Proof Let A∗0 , A∗1 be the subsets of A∗ whose first coordinate is 0 or 1, respectively.
Then A∗0 ∪ A∗1 = A and for all x ∈ A∗0 , y ∈ A∗1 is x ≤ y. Let then x, y, z ∈ A∗ with
y ∧ z ≤ x; if x, y, z ∈ A∗1 then there is nothing to prove. The same if x, y, z ∈ A∗0
since the ordering there is the dual of the ordering in A and the dual of a distributive
lattice is still distributive.
Suppose then that x ∈ A∗1 and z ∈ A∗0 ; then for all y ∈ A∗ , y ∧ z ≤ x. However
x ∨ y ≥ y, x ≥ z and (x ∨ y) ∧ x = x, so distributivity holds. There are no other
distinct possibilities, hence the proof is complete.
One property that in general is not preserved by disconnected rotations is divisi-

bility; integral, commutative and divisible residuated semilattices are usually called
hoops [4]. A hoop is cancellative if the underlying monoid is cancellative. Note that
a hoop is not necessarily a residuated lattice but representable hoops (usually called
basic hoops [2]) are lattices and we can apply the disconnected rotation to them. A
hoop is a Wajsberg hoop if it satisfies
(x → y) → y ≈ (y → x) → x;
Wajsberg hoops are basic [2] and in them x ∨ y = (x → y) → y. Moreover every

cancellative hoop is a Wajsberg hoop [2] but the converse does not hold. We have:
Lemma 4 ([3]) Let A be a basic hoop; then A∗ is a basic hoop if and only if A is
cancellative.
It follows that we can obtain a non divisible residuated lattice by rotating any non
cancellative basic hoop, but:
Lemma 5 Let A be a Wajsberg hoop; then A∗ is v-distributive.
Proof By Theorem 2 we need only show that A∗ ((x → y) → y)(x → y) ≈ y.

Since Wajsberg hoops are representable it is enough to prove the statement in case A
(and hence A∗ ) is totally ordered. As a final reduction we observe that the equation
is always satisfied if x ≤ y, so only we have to check two cases. First case: x =
1, a, y = 0, b. Then
18 P. Aglianò
((1, a → 0, b) → 0, b) → ((1, a → 0, b) = (0, ab → 0, b) → 0, ab
= 1, b → ab0, ab
= 0, (b → ab) → ab
= 0, b ∨ ab = 0, b,
where we used that A∗ is a Wajsberg hoop in the second coordinate. The other case
is x = 0, u, y = 0, v with u < v; then
((0, u → 0, v) → 0, v) → (0, u → 0, v) = (1, v → u → 0, v) → 1, v → u
= 0, (v → u)v1, v → u
= 0, (v → u) → (v → u)v
= 0, (v → u) → u = 0, v
where again we have used that A∗ is Wajsberg in the second coordinate.
So disconnected rotation of a non cancellative Wajsberg hoop is an example of a v-

distributive residuated semilattice that is not divisible. If we look closely at the proof
of Lemma 5 we observe that if A∗ is v-distributive, then necessarily for all a, b ∈ A
(a → ba) → ba ≈ a, otherwise we could always find a failure of the equation in
Theorem 2. This suggests us the following example; consider the real interval [0, 1]
with the ordinary product and let

1, if x ≤ y;
x→y=
y/x, otherwise.
Then it is easily checked that [0, 1] becomes a totally ordered hoop, called a product
hoop; if we rotate it, then for any x ∈ [0, 1)
(x → 0x) → 0x = (x → 0) → 0 = 0 → 0 = 1 = x
so its disconnected rotation cannot be v-distributive. The reader can check that to
obtain a non representable example we can apply the same procedure to any gener-
alized Skolem lattice as described in [6].
Our last example will be a non distributive but v-distributive residuated semilattice.
Such a semilattice cannot be a divisible lattice o a divisible and integral semilattice (by
[1]) or representable (since the underlying semilattice structure is a subdirect product
of chains, hence distributive). However it can be in principle integral and commutative
and our example is exactly of this kind. The universe of A is {0, a, b, c, d, 1} and the
operation tables are:
Fig. 1 The order structure

of A 1
c
a
b
· 0abcd 1 → 0ab cd 1
0 00000 1 0 111 11 1
a 0a00a a a c1c c1 1
b 00bbb b b aa1 11 1
c 00bbb c c aad 11 1
d 0abbd d d 0ac c1 1
1 0abcd 1 1 0ab cd 1
The reader may check that A is integral and v-distributive but the order structure
is the one in Fig. 1. Hence A is an integral v-distributive residuated semilattice that
is not distributive; thus by Theorem 1 it cannot be divisible.
We close this section with an observation. Let V be the variety of integral, com-
mutative and v-distributive residuated semilattices. By Theorem 2 V is axiomatized,
modulo integral and commutative residuated semilattices, by the single equation
((x → y) → y)(x → y) ≈ y.
By Lemma 2, V contains the variety H of hoops and by the example above it contains
it properly. By some preliminary results, too raw to be reported here, it seems that V
inherits some interesting properties from the variety of hoops. This is a path that we
intend to follow in future investigations.
Acknowledgements We thank Peter Jipsen for drawing our attention to the paper [14], thus orig-
inating this investigation. We thank also the anonymous referee who caught a mistake in the first
version and forced us to write a much better paper.
20 P. Aglianò
References
1. P. Aglianò, A short note on divisible residuated semilattices, 2019, To appear in Soft Computing
2. P. Aglianò, I. Ferreirim, F. Montagna, Basic hoops: an algebraic study of continuous t-norms.
Studia Logica 87, 73–98 (2007)
3. P. Aglianò, S. Ugolini, MTL-algebras as rotations of basic hoops. J. Logic Comput. (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exz005
4. W.J. Blok, I. Ferreirim, On the structure of hoops. Algebra Univ. 43, 233–257 (2000)
5. K. Blount, C. Tsinakis, The structure of residuated lattices. Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 13(4),
437–461 (2003)
6. M. Busaniche, R. Cignoli, Constructive logic with strong negation as a substructural logic. J.
Logic Comput. 20, 761–793 (2008)
7. M. Busaniche, M. Marcos, S. Ugolini, Representation by triples of algebras with an MV-retract.
Fuzzy Sets Syst. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2018.10.024
8. A. Dvurečenskij, T. Vetterlein, Pseudoeffect algebras I. Basic properties. Inter. J. Theor. Phys.
40, 685–701 (2001)
9. N. Galatos, C. Tsinakis, Generalized MV-algebras. J. Algebra 283, 254–291 (2005)
10. S. Jenei, On the structure of rotation-invariant semigroups. Arch. Math. Logic 42, 489–514
(2003)
11. P. Jipsen, C. Tsinakis, A survey of residuated lattices, in Ordered Algebraic Strucures, ed. by
J. Martinez (Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, 1982), pp. 19–56
12. J. Rhodes, Modular and distributive semilattices. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 201, 31–41 (1975)
13. C. Van Alten, Representable Biresiduated Lattices. J. Algebra 247, 672–691 (2002)
14. J. Varlet, On distributive residuated groupoids. Semigroup Forum 6, 80–85 (1973)
On Distributive Join Semilattices
Rodolfo C. Ertola-Biraben, Francesc Esteva, and Lluís Godo
Abstract Motivated by Gentzen’s disjunction elimination rule in his Natural Deduc-

tion calculus and reading inequalities with meet in a natural way, we conceive a notion
of distributivity for join semilattices. We prove that it is equivalent to a notion present
in the literature. In the way, we prove that all notions of distributivity for join semi-
lattices we have found in the literature are linearly ordered. We finally consider the
notion of distributivity in join semilattices with arrow, that is, the algebraic structure
corresponding to the disjunction-conditional fragment of intuitionistic logic.
1 Introduction
Different notions of distributivity for semilattices have been proposed in the literature
as a generalization of the usual distributive property for lattices. As far as we know,
notions of distributivity for semilattices have been given, in chronological order, by
Grätzer and Schmidt [9] in 1962, by Katriňák [12] in 1968, by Balbes [1] in 1969,
by Schein [16] in 1972, by Hickman [11] in 1984, and by Larmerová and Rachůnek
[14] in 1988. Following the names of its authors, we will use the terminology GS-,
K-, B-, Sn -, H-, and LR-distributivity, respectively.
In this paper, motivated by Gentzen’s disjunction elimination rule in his Natural
Deduction calculus, and reading inequalities with meet in a natural way, we conceive
another notion of distributivity for join semilattices, that we call ND-distributivity.
We aim to find out whether it is equivalent to any of the notions already present in
the literature. In doing so, we also compare the different notions of distributivity for
R. C. Ertola-Biraben (B)
CLE-UNICAMP, Campinas, SP 13083-859, Brazil
e-mail: rcertola@cle.unicamp.br
F. Esteva · L. Godo
IIIA-CSIC, 08193 Belaterra, Spain
e-mail: esteva@iiia.csic.es
L. Godo
e-mail: godo@iiia.csic.es

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
wohl an genügendem Materiale weiter zu untersuchen (s.
B u r m e i s t e r Tarsius 1846, 17 u. 126 und W e b e r 265).
Eine jetzigen Anforderungen entsprechende Abbildung 3 von T.

fuscus giebt es nicht; ich hoffe eine, die sich der von T. philippensis
auf Tafel IV zur Seite stellt, bei anderer Gelegenheit bieten zu
können. (Vgl. F i s c h e r : Anat. Maki 1804 T. III, Skelet IV u. V;
B u r m e i s t e r : Tarsius 1846 T. 2 u. 7 f. 8–14, Skelet; S c h l e g e l :
Handleiding 1857 pl. I, 9; Cassels Nat. Hist. I, 249 s. a.)
Die Schwanzbeschuppung kommt, wie wir sehen werden, wohl bei

T. sangirensis, bemerkenswertherweise aber nicht bei T. spectrum
und philippensis vor. (S., ausser bei W e b e r l. c., d e M e i j e r e :
Haren der Zoogdieren, Diss. 1893, 46 u. 119 und R e h : Verh. Ntw.
Ver. Hamburg 3. F. I, 35 1893 u. Jena. Zeitschr. 29, 189 u. 190 1894,
wo sich eine interessante Zusammenstellung des Vorkommens von
Schuppen bei den Säugethierordnungen findet.)
W e b e r nannte die Art fuscomanus, da aber F i s c h e r (Maki 1804,

37) „fuscus s. fuscomanus“ sagt, so ist der erste Name der
berechtigtere. [9]
1 Te i j s m a n n (Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 38, 77 1879) glaubt, dass das

Thierchen hier podi heisse. ↑
2 Ob W a l l a c e (Geogr. Verbr. D. A. I, 496 1876) die Insel Manado tua meinte,
als er sagte: „Soll auch auf einer kleinen Insel an der Nordspitze von Celebes
vorkommen“? (S. auch Is. life 1880, 427.) In seinem Mal. Arch. (1869) hatte er das
in der Minahassa gar nicht seltene Thier nicht näher localisirt, im 2. Bde. der
Geogr. Verbr. (p. 201) dagegen hiess es, dass es „auf einigen Theilen von
Celebes“ gefunden werde. (Vgl. auch J e n t i n k in T. Aardr. Gen. 2. s. VI, 247
1889 und c. S c h u i l i n g 251.) ↑
3 Man findet bei B u r m e i s t e r : Tarsius 1846, 3 alle bis dahin vorhandenen
aufgezählt. ↑
[Inhalt]
7. Tarsius sangirensis n. sp.
Tarsius T. fusco Fisch.-Waldh. simillimus, sed cauda minus pilosa et

tarsis fere nudis.
Hab. In insulis Sangi.
Alle mir bekannten Exemplare 1 von den Sangi Inseln weichen durch
den weniger behaarten Schwanz und die wenig behaarten Tarsen
von dem gleich grossen T. fuscus ab, sie nähern sich also darin der
Philippinen-Form mit ihrem ganz spärlich und kurz behaarten (und
unbeschuppten) Schwanz und ihren so gut wie nackten Tarsen,
während fuscus gut behaarte Tarsen und einen sehr stark behaarten
Schwanz hat. Die langen und dunklen Haare des Schwanzes
reichen bei sangirensis proximal nicht so weit und die Haare sind
kürzer. Die Beschuppung ist dieselbe wie bei fuscus. Das Museum
besitzt ein Exemplar von Siao und eins von Gross Sangi, das
Berliner, Wiener und Braunschweiger je eins von Gross Sangi
(erstere 4 aus meinen Sammlungen, letzteres von Dr. P l a t e n ) mit
denselben Charakteren, 2 das Leidener (Cat. XI, 81 1892) eins von
„Sangi“, von dem Dr. J e n t i n k so freundlich war mir mitzutheilen,
dass der Schwanz und der Tarsus weniger behaart seien als bei
Celebes Exemplaren. Es liegt hierin also eine insulare Abweichung
und eine Hinneigung zur Philippinen Form. Ich hoffe später eine
Abbildung der Art geben zu können.
1 Vgl. Abh. Mus. Dresden 1894/5 Nr. 1 p. 1. ↑

2 Prof. W . B l a s i u s und Dr. v. L o r e n z hatten die Güte, sie mir zum Vergleich
einzusenden, das Berliner Exemplar sah ich an Ort und Stelle wieder. ↑
[Inhalt]
8. Tarsius philippensis A. B. Meyer
Tafel IV
Ich beschrieb diese Art Abh. Mus. Dresden 1894/5 Nr. 1 und habe
dem Gesagten wenig hinzuzufügen, da die Abbildung in n. Gr. zur
weiteren Erkennung der Merkmale genügen dürfte. Nur über die
Behaarung des Schwanzes möchte ich noch einige Worte sagen, da
diese, der Natur der Sache nach, in der Abbildung nicht deutlich
genug wiedergegeben werden konnte. Die proximalen ¾ des
Schwanzes sind fast nackt, nur mit spärlich und einzeln stehenden,
kaum 1 mm langen weissen Härchen besetzt; am distalen Viertel
werden sie allmählich bis 3 mm lang und an den distalen 4
Centimetern stehen sie eng aneinander und sind bräunlich gefärbt.
— Das Museum erhielt inzwischen 2 weitere Exemplare von den
Philippinen, und zwar noch eins von Samar durch Dr.
S c h a d e n b e r g und eins von Nord Mindanao durch Dr. R i z a l .
Das rothbraune Gesicht und überhaupt die braunere Farbe ist bei
allen auffallend, und sie sind hierdurch zusammen mit den fast
nackten Tarsen und dem wenig behaarten Schwanze leicht von
anderen Tarsiern zu unterscheiden.
[Inhalt]
9. Tarsius spectrum (Pall.)
B o r n e o -Exemplare zeigen vorwiegend braune Töne wie die von

den Philippinen, allein sie haben behaarte Tarsen und einen spärlich
behaarten Schwanz mit heller Quaste, wie T. spectrum von anderen
Inseln. Immerhin wäre es möglich, dass auch die Borneo Form als
locale abgetrennt werden könnte. Schon Te m m i n c k (Coup-d’oeil
III, 112 1849) sagt: „La même espèce se trouve aussi dans les
parties méridionales de Bornéo; toutefois elle paraît former une
variété locale propre à cette île. Le Tarsius spectrum de Célèbes a le
bout ou flocon terminal de la queue noir, celui de Bornéo a cette
partie d’un cendré-fauve.“ T. fuscus von Celebes unterscheidet sich
allerdings bedeutend von spectrum, wie wir besonders durch
W e b e r (Zool. Ergebn. III, 262 1893) wissen, ob aber die Borneo
Exemplare von denen der übrigen Inseln, wo Tarsius vorkommt,
hinlänglich und so constant differiren, um einen besonderen Namen
zu verdienen, kann ich wegen zu geringen Materiales von den
anderen Inseln nicht entscheiden. Das Museum besitzt 5 von
Borneo: vier vom Südosten und eins vom Westen. Auch die 3 von
Borneo im Berliner Museum zeichnen sich durch viel Braun aus, es
ist darunter eins vom Nordosten; H o s e führt welche (Mamm.
Borneo, Diss. 1893, 17, inl. Name ingkat) vom Nordwesten, W o l f f
(Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 16, 44 1858/9) welche von der
Ostküste auf, Tarsius ist also über ganz Borneo verbreitet. Auch auf
der [10]Insel K a r i m a t a , westlich von Borneo, kommt er vor
(Te i j s m a n n l. c. 36, 246 1876, inl. Name kebuku) und auf
S i r h a s s e n , einer der Natuna Inseln (T h o m a s & H a r t e r t
Nov. Zool. I, 655 1894). W e b e r (l. c. III, 263 1893) meinte, dass es
nicht ganz sicher gewesen wäre, ob T. spectrum auch auf
S u m a t r a lebe oder nicht, allein es lagen schon früher Exemplare
aus dem Lampongschen (Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 16, 87
1858/9 und 27, 383, 1864, inl. Name krabuku) in Batavia vor. (S.
noch mehrere inländische Bezeichnungen für Tarsius bei
H u b r e c h t l. c. 54, 39 1895.) Von B i l i t o n hat J e n t i n k (Notes
Leyden Mus. XII, 149 1890) die Art registrirt.
Ich hoffe auch von T. spectrum später eine Abbildung geben zu

können, da die vorhandenen den jetzigen Anforderungen nicht mehr
entsprechen. (Vgl. A u d e b e r t : Maki p. 29 Pl. I, an 8, col.;
H o r s f i e l d : Zool. Res. 1824 pl. 4, col. und Taf. zu Nr. 2, Figur G
Zähne; B u r m e i s t e r : Tarsius 1846 T. 1, col.; G. C u v i e r : Règne
animal Mamm. 1849 pl. 22, 1, col., 1 a–c Zähne; G e r v a i s : Mamm.
1854, 162, Skelet s. zu p. 178; B r e h m : Thierl. I, 307 3. Aufl. 1890,
mit nackten Tarsen! — seitens L y d e k k e r : Nat. Hist. I, 236 1893/4
copirt; F o r b e s : Prim. I pl. II 1894, col.)
[Inhalt]
10. Paradoxurus musschenbroeki Schl.
Tafel V und VI
1878 S c h l e g e l Prospectus von „Annals of the R. Zool. Mus. of

(?) the Netherlands at Leyden“ (mit Schädel-Tafel)
1879 S c h l e g e l Notes Leyden Mus. I, 43
1883 J e n t i n k Notes Leyden Mus. V, 178
1885 B l a n f o r d P. Z. S. 790, 806
1887 J e n t i n k Cat. (ost.) IX, 94 Pl. 1 u. 2 (Schädel)
1890 W e b e r Zool. Erg. I, 110
1894 W e b e r Zool. Erg. III, 469 fg.
Dieses grösste Raubthier von Celebes 1 blieb merkwürdig lange

unbekannt, es ist allen früheren Reisenden entgangen, oder wenn
sie davon gehört hatten, wie z. B. v. R o s e n b e r g (Mal. Arch.
1878, 268) und i c h , so war es ihnen nicht gelungen, es zu
erbeuten. Laut Tagebuchnotiz hörte ich am 20. Juni 1871 in Belang
in der Minahassa, dass ein „andjing utan“ (Waldhund) seit einiger
Zeit in der Nähe sei und Hühner weghole. Ich hatte schon früher
einen Preis auf das Thier, von dem Mancher in der Minahassa
sprach, gesetzt, aber erfolglos. Erst v a n M u s s c h e n b r o e k
verschaffte, als er 1875 Resident von Manado war, 5 Exemplare von
Kinilo und Tanawangko, und 1883 kamen durch v. F a b e r noch 7
nach Leiden, die von denselben Localitäten herrührten. 2 Das
Dresdener Museum erhielt seit Anfang 1894 6 Bälge mit den
Skeletten (2 m. u. 1 f. ad., 1 m. u. 1 f. jun., 1 f. juv.), beim Dorfe Kali
in der Nähe von Kakaskassen Februar, Mai und October in Fallen
gefangen, mit den Bezeichnungen andjing utan (mal.) und lonkoi.
Auch P. und F. S a r a s i n bekamen mehrere, wie sie mir unter dem
4. August 1894 mittheilten, und zwar aus den Wäldern, die die
verschiedenen Kraterberge in der Nähe von Rurukan bedecken. „Sie
nähren sich, wie uns die Untersuchung des Magens lehrte, sowohl
von Waldratten, als auch von den reifen Früchten der Papaya.“ Das
Thier ist daher keineswegs selten, wie man, da es so lange
unentdeckt geblieben ist, versucht sein könnte zu vermuthen. Der
Grund hiervon lag vielmehr darin, dass die Eingebornen den Fang
nicht übten, bis sie genügend dazu angespornt wurden, und dass die
Naturforscher früher die Art und Weise des Fanges nicht kannten,
sowie darin, dass das Thier überhaupt verborgen lebt und wohl nur
Nachts auf Raub ausgeht. Die bis jetzt bekannten Fundorte: Kinilo,
Rurukan und Kali liegen dicht bei einander, nicht fern von Manado;
Tanawangko etwas mehr westlich; allein die Art hat gewiss eine viel
weitere Verbreitung. Die R o s e n b e r g schen Angaben (s. bei
J e n t i n k Notes Leyden Mus. V, 179 1883) beziehen sich auf das
Gorontalosche, es ist jedoch noch fraglich, ob es sich dort, wie auch
bei meiner [11]Notiz von Belang, um P. musschenbroeki handelt. Ob
die Art auch in Central, Nordost und Süd Celebes 3 vorkommt, bleibt
festzustellen.
Ein altes Männchen und ein junges Weibchen sind auf Tafel V in ⅕–
⅙ n. Gr. abgebildet.
B l a n f o r d , der vorzügliche Kenner der Paradoxuri, sagt (P. Z. S.

1885, 790): „P. musschenbroeki differs greatly from all other species
in its annulated tail. The skull is intermediate in form between the last
mentioned little group (Paguma) and typical Paradoxuri, but rather
nearer to the former. The shape of the palate is peculiar“. Und (p.
806): „The most remarkable peculiarity of the skull and dentition is
that the rows of upper premolars and molars, instead of diverging
greatly behind, as in all other Paradoxuri, are nearly parallel 4, the
hinder part of the palate being proportionately much narrower than in
other species of the genus. The distance between the anterior
premolars is 0.68 inch [17,3 mm], between the last molars 0.77
[19,6]. In other species the latter measurement exceeds the former
by at least one half“. Die von B l a n f o r d erwähnten Maasse sind
bei dem Tafel VI Figur 1 in ⅓ n. Gr. abgebildeten männlichen adulten
Skelette (2324) 20,6 und 23,6 mm, der Schädel ist auch länger mit
157 mm, gegen 146 (5.75 inches) bei B l a n f o r d . J e n t i n k (p.
179) giebt die Länge eines adulten Schädels auf 148 mm an, die
Breite auf 45, die Jochbogenbreite auf 85, bei dem 157 mm langen
Schädel von 2324 ist die Breite nur 43 und die Jochbogenbreite 79,
er ist also länger und schmäler als der von J e n t i n k abgebildete.
Die ersten Praemolaren sind noch vorhanden, J e n t i n k sagt, sie
fehlen bei adulten Exemplaren, was aber wohl nur bei alten der Fall
sein mag, denn 2324 ist adult, wenn auch etwas jünger als das
Exemplar a (Cat. p. 94), dessen Schädel J e n t i n k abbildete. Länge
des Körpers und Kopfes des ausgestopften Ex. (2310, zu Skelet
2324) 820 mm, Länge vom Vertex zum Anus 680, Länge des
Schwanzes 690.
Da mir das Exemplar 2310 in Spiritus zukam, so liess ich die (linke)
Vola und Planta, ihres bemerkenswerthen Oberflächenreliefs wegen,
photographiren und bilde sie Tafel VI Figur 2 und 3 in n. Gr. ab. Ein
auffallender Unterschied mit anderen von mir daraufhin untersuchten
Paradoxuri besteht darin, dass die Tastballen bei P. musschenbroeki
glatt, bei jenen gefeldert sind.
V o l a (Figur 2). Die 5 Nagel- oder Endballen (a–e) 5 sind relativ

mässig, die sie verbindende Schwimmhaut dagegen ist sehr stark
entwickelt, die 4 Metacarpophalangealballen (α–δ), besonders der 3.
(γ), zeigen mächtige Ausbildung, wie auch der Radial- und der
Ulnarballen (r und u), besonders letzterer, der überhaupt der grösste
Tastballen der Vola ist; der 4. Metacarpophalangealballen (δ) zeigt
proximal eine kleine Abschnürung; ein Pisiformballen (P) ist kaum
angedeutet. Diese Metacarpophalangeal-, Radial- und Ulnarballen
bilden mehr oder weniger ein zusammenhängendes, nur durch
schmale Furchen von einander getrenntes Gebilde, mit der
Ausnahme jedoch, dass sie in der Mitte eine mit groben Warzen
besetzte vertiefte intermediäre Tastfläche 6 umschliessen, auch
proximal und peripher reihen sich den Ballen einige Warzen an; die
Tastballen aber sind ganz glatt und nicht mit Warzen besetzt.
P l a n t a (Figur 3). Die Endballen und Metatarsophalangealballen

verhalten sich sehr ähnlich denen der Vola, so dass die Abbildung
zum Verständnisse genügen dürfte. Der Tibialballen (t) ist
langgestreckt, und verschmälert sich proximalwärts, der
Fibularballen (f) ist etwas kürzer; zwischen beiden liegt eine
längliche intermediäre Tastfläche, die mit unregelmässig
angeordneten polygonalen oder abgerundeten, groben, an einander
stossenden Warzen besetzt ist. Die peripher stehenden Warzen sind
hier regelmässiger (einreihig) angeordnet als auf der Vola.
Untersucht man dagegen dieselben Gebilde z. B. bei P. musanga Gr.

(B 3261 von Sumatra, in Spiritus), so findet man eine grosse Reihe
von Unterschieden, vor Allem aber sieht man schon mit
unbewaffnetem Auge, dass alle Tastballen gleichmässig mit
polygonalen flachen Hautwarzen vollkommen [12]besetzt sind, und
ebenso die intermediären Tastflächen, soweit vorhanden, so dass
ein dichtes Netzwerk, eine Felderung, entsteht; nur die
Schwimmhaut zwischen den Endballen und den Metacarpo- und
Metatarsophalangealballen ist glatt. Die 5 Endballen der Vola und
Planta sind sehr stark entwickelt. Der 1. Metacarpophalangealballen
steht etwas abgegrenzt, die anderen 3 sind aber fast mit einander
verschmolzen; der Ulnarballen ist sehr gross, der Radialballen etwas
kleiner, beide liegen aber direct an den Metacarpophalangealballen;
dem Ulnarballen reiht sich ein kleiner Pisiformballen an. 1. und 2.
Metatarsophalangealballen etwas gegeneinander abgegrenzt, 3. und
4. mit einander verschmolzen; Tibial- und Fibularballen
langgestreckt, letzterer etwas breiter und distal mit dem 1.
Metatarsophalangealballen verschmolzen; zwischen dem Tibial- und
Fibularballen eine lange breite intermediäre Tastfläche mit groben
polygonalen, an einander stossenden Warzen besetzt.
An trockenen Exemplaren lässt sich die Disposition der Tastballen

nicht genau studiren, ihre Felderung aber konnte ich bei P. musanga
von Borneo, fasciatus Desm. von Java, philippensis Jourd. von
Panay und leucomystax Gr. von Borneo (?) als die gleiche erkennen
wie bei P. musanga in Spiritus. K l a a t s c h (Morphol. Jahrb. 14, 417
1888) beschreibt die Ballen von P. typus [niger (Desm.)] auch als mit
grösseren polygonalen, ziemlich flachen Hautwarzen besetzt, es
scheint also, dass die meisten, wenn nicht alle Paradoxurus-Arten,
bis auf P. musschenbroeki, gefelderte Tastballen haben, während
dieser die glatten mit Viverren gemein hat. 7 Das Oberflächenrelief
einer jeden Paradoxus Art wird wohl anders gestaltet sein, allein
wenn alle bis auf P. musschenbroeki gefelderte Tastballen besitzen,
so hat dieses abweichende Verhalten des letzteren doch wohl mehr
Gewicht. Allerdings kommen derartige morphologische
Differenzirungen innerhalb einer Gattung auch sonst vor, wie wir
denn oben (S. 8) eine solche, nach W e b e r , in dem beschuppten
und glatten Tarsier-Schwanze zu erkennen hatten; falls jedoch dies
Verhalten von P. musschenbroeki unter den Paradoxuri wirklich ein
isolirtes ist, und Hand in Hand geht mit den anderen abweichenden
Charakteren (Schädel, Schwanzringelung etc.), so wäre eine
generische Abtrennung vielleicht geboten. Der ganze Habitus von P.
musschenbroeki weicht von dem der anderen Paradoxuri durch
Plumpheit ab, der dicke Kopf ferner mit seinen langen steifen, hellen
und dunklen Schnurren, und die breiten Füsse mit ihren stark
ausgebildeten Schwimmhäuten geben dem Thier etwas otterartiges,
was Jedem sofort in die Augen springt, so dass man zuerst gar
keinen Paradoxurus vor sich zu haben vermeint.
1 Wie Cryptoprocta ferox Th. Benn. das grösste von Madagaskar; Paradoxurus
leucomystax Gr. von Malacca, Borneo und Sumatra ist kleiner als P.
musschenbroeki. ↑
2 F a b e r hatte 1878 auch zwei Exemplare an das Gothaer Museum geschickt. ↑
3 Te i j s m a n n (Natuurk. Tijdschr. Nederl. Ind. 38, 77 1879) hörte, dass sie am
Pik von Bonthain vorkomme, dies bedarf natürlich der Bestätigung; W e b e r
(Zool. Erg. I, 110 1890) fand in Süd Celebes keine Spur davon, ebensowenig wie
W i c h m a n n (l. c.) als er von Palos nach Parigi ging, allein wenn man bedenkt,
wie lange das relativ grosse Thier in der naturwissenschaftlich so viel
durchsuchten Minahassa verborgen blieb, so sind solche negativen Befunde
vorläufig ganz und gar nicht beweisend. ↑
4 Wie aus J e n t i n k s Pl. 2 ersichtlich. ↑
5 Ich folge der Nomenklatur und sonst K l a a t s c h : Zur Morphologie der
Tastballen der Säugethiere (Morphol. Jahrb. 14, 407 1888). ↑
6 K o l l m a n n : Tastapp. d. Hand 1883, 40. ↑
7 Bei Viverra civetta Schreb. fand K l a a t s c h (p. 418) sie glatt und punktirt, was
ich auch für V. tangalunga Gr. angeben kann, die Tastballen bei Paradoxurus
musschenbroeki aber zeigen diese höckerige Punktirung nicht, sie sind ganz
glatt. ↑
[Inhalt]
11. Bubalus mindorensis Heude
Tafel VII und VIII
1860 B l y t h J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal. XXIX, 303 (Misc. pap. rel. to

Indo China II, 295 1886) Tamarao
1878 E v e r e t t P. Z. S. 792 Anoa depressicornis
A . B . M e y e r P. Z. S. 881 Tamarao
B a r t l e t t P. Z. S. 882 Indian Buffalo of small size
1885 J o r d a n a Bosquejo geogr. Fil. 171 Antilope depressicornis
1887 H o f f m a n n Abh. Mus. Dresden 1886/7 Nr. 3 p. 26 Taf. Fig. 6
a–f Bubalus indicus?
1888 (vor Aug.) H e u d e Mém. Hist. Nat. Chin. II, 1 p. 4 und 50
Bubalus mindorensis
(16. Aug.) S t e e r e (bei S c l a t e r ) Nature 38, 363 Anoa
mindorensis
(1. Nov.) A . B . M e y e r Nature 39, 9 Bubalus sp.
(20. Nov.) S t e e r e P. Z. S. 413 Anoa oder Probubalus
mindorensis
(6. Dez.) H e u d e Nature 39, 128 Bubalus mindorensis
(13. Dez.) E v e r e t t Nature 39, 150 Bubalus sp.
G o g o r z a An. Soc. Espan. XVII, II (des S. A.) Anoa
depressicornis
1889 A . B . M e y e r Zool. Garten 251 Bubalus sp.
1890 H e l l e r Abh. Mus. Dresden 1890/1 Nr. 2 p. 3 u. 31 Bubalus
mindorensis
S t e e r e List Phil. 29 Probubalus mindorensis
N e h r i n g Zool. Anz. 448, SB. Ges. naturf. Berlin 101,
Naturw. Wochenschr. V, 227 Bubalus mindorensis[13]
1894 J e n t i n k Notes Leyden Mus. XVI, 199 pl. 8–11 Bubalus
mindorensis
B o u r n s & W o r c e s t e r Notes Exp. Phil. Is. 63 Bubalus
mindorensis
L y d e k k e r Nat. Hist. II, 206 Bos mindorensis
H e u d e Mém. Hist. Nat. Chin. II, 4 p. 204 pl. XIX E Fig. 19
Bubalus mindorensis
1895 O u s t a l e t Bull. Mus. Paris 202 Anoa mindorensis
E l e r a Cat. sist. Fil. I, 33 Bubalus mindorensis
1896 L y d e k k e r Geogr. Hist. Mamm. 47, 279, 305 Bos
mindorensis
Es könnte ein Zweifel darüber entstehen, ob H e u d e oder S t e e r e

als Autor dieser Art zu nennen sei, da S t e e r e s erste Beschreibung
am 16. August 1888 veröffentlicht war, und das 1. Heft des 2.
Bandes der Mémoires concernant l’histoire naturelle de l’empire
chinois par des pères de la compagnie de Jésus in Chang-Hai im
Jahr 1888 ohne Datum erschien. Es lässt sich aber aus
buchhändlerischen Catalogen (z. B. F r i e d l ä n d e r Nat. nov. Sept.
1888, 289) nachweisen, dass H e u d e s Publication vor August statt
gefunden hat, und dieser daher, und nicht S t e e r e , als Autor
figuriren muss.
Der einheimische Name des Zwergbüffels von Mindoro ist, nach

vielfachen Angaben, Ta m a r a o 1, nicht Tamaron oder Tamarou, wie
S t e e r e (P. Z. S. 1888, 414 und List 1890, 29) schreibt. Er ist bis
jetzt nur von Mindoro bekannt, denn dass E l e r a (l. c.) ihn auch von
Celebes aufführt, beruht auf einer Verwechslung mit der Anoa oder
auf einer anderen Unzulänglichkeit, wie man sie auf Schritt und Tritt
in seiner Compilation antrifft. N e h r i n g (SB. Ges. naturf. Berlin
1894, 185) beschrieb von der Mindoro nahen Calamianen Insel
Busuanga noch einen wilden Büffel als B. moellendorffi, der etwas
grösser als der Tamarao sei, allein ich halte ihn nicht für einen
wilden, da Dr. S c h a d e n b e r g mir mittheilte, dass es nach der
Aussage von Don B e r n a r d o A s c a n i o , der 20 Jahr auf den
Calamianen, speziell in Malbató auf Busuanga gelebt hat, dort keine
wilden Büffel gebe. Dass auf der kleinen Insel Jemandem, der so
lange dort als Pflanzer ansässig ist, das Vorhandensein wilder Büffel
unbekannt geblieben sein sollte, kann man ausschliessen; es
handelt sich daher nur um einen verwilderten, oder vielleicht nicht
einmal um einen solchen, 2 falls man darunter nur schon seit
Generationen verwilderte versteht. 3 Dr. S c h a d e n b e r g theilte mir
mit, dass auf Mindoro verwilderte Büffel neben dem Tamarao
vorkommen sollen, er habe aber keine gesehen; man spräche auch
davon, dass sie sich mit Tamaraos kreuzten, worüber er sich jedoch
vorläufig kein Urtheil erlauben wolle. Den Schädel eines solchen
angeblich wilden Carabao von Mindoro sandte er auch ein (B 3199).
Die bis jetzt bekannten Tamaraos geben keinen Anlass zur
Annahme von Kreuzungen, und wenn sie ausnahmsweise statt
hätten, so würde dies bei dem zweifellosen Überwiegen des auf
ganz Mindoro und, wie es scheint, zahlreich vorkommenden
Tamarao wahrscheinlich keinen dauernden Einfluss auf die
Umgestaltung der Art gewinnen können. J o r d a n a (Bosquejo
1885, 172) sagt: „El Tamarao es animal muy agreste y vigoroso, que
á veces lucha victoriosamente con el bufelo silvestre en el seno de
los bosques“, allein auf solche Angaben nach Hörensagen ist vorerst
gar Nichts zu geben.
J e n t i n k (l. c. 204) hält es für möglich, dass der Tamarao ein

Bastard zwischen Bubalus bubalus und Anoa depressicornis von
Celebes sei. Ich kann mir gar nicht vorstellen, wie eine solche
Hybridisation hätte zu Stande kommen sollen. Dazu hätte die Anoa
zahlreich nach Mindoro gebracht worden sein [14]müssen, was
gewiss nicht geschehen ist. Auch ist der Tamarao eine ganz stabile,
typische und gewiss alte Form. Der Schädel 1569 des Museums,
den S e m p e r vor dem Jahr 1865 erhielt, stimmt vollkommen
überein mit denen von in den Jahren 1894 und 1895 durch
S c h a d e n b e r g erlegten Exemplaren. Dies beweist schon die
Constanz, nicht minder wie die in den Museen vorhandenen, ganz
untereinander übereinstimmenden Häute es darthun. Nimmt
J e n t i n k an, dass die Anoa früher auf Mindoro gelebt habe, und
sich dann mit den importirten Büffeln kreuzte? Welche Gründe
könnte man wohl zu Gunsten einer solchen Annahme ins Feld
führen? L y d e k k e r , der (l. c. 306) die Möglichkeit einer
Bastardirung nach J e n t i n k nicht abweist, sagt, der Tamarao
müsse noch als gute Art erwiesen werden. Wenn aber, wie jetzt,
schon viele gleiche Exemplare bekannt sind (Berlin 1, Dresden 6,
Leiden 3, Manila 2, Paris 2, durch Steere 3, Stuttgart 1 etc.), so ist
es mir ganz unerfindlich, wesshalb man noch an der Artberechtigung
zweifeln, oder einen Bastard im Tamarao erblicken wollte. Auch
vermag ich J e n t i n k darin nicht beizustimmen, dass er meint,
wenn der Tamarao kein Bastard sei, so müsse er eine neue
generische Bezeichnung erhalten, da er weder als echter Büffel,
noch als Anoa angesehen werden könne, denn der Tamarao hat, m.
A. n., genügend Büffelcharaktere, um ihn zu den übrigen Büffeln zu
stellen. Doch die Bildung einer neuen Gattung ist in diesem Fall
unwesentlich und mehr oder weniger Geschmacksache. Die
Hypothese, dass der Tamarao ein Bastard sei, halte ich für um so
entbehrlicher, als sie an und für sich wenig plausibel ist. Tamarao
und Anoa können vielmehr als Nachkommen des Sivalikrindes
angesehen werden, daher die vielfache Übereinstimmung. Die
insulare Sonderung führte zu einer Divergenz in ihrer Entwicklung,
auf Celebes zur Anoa, auf Mindoro zum Tamarao. Diese Hypothese,
wenn schon eine aufgestellt werden soll, scheint mir weit
annehmbarer. (Vgl. H e l l e r : A n o a in Abh. Mus. Dresden 1890/1
Nr. 2 p. 34.)

Full Chapter Algebraic Perspectives On Substructural Logics Davide Fazio PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter Algebraic Perspectives On Substructural Logics Davide Fazio PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Algebraic Perspectives on

Substructural Logics Davide Fazio

A General Algebraic Semantics for Sentential Logics 2nd

Lectures on Logarithmic Algebraic Geometry Arthur Ogus

Buildings Across Time An Introduction to World

Algebraic Numbers and Algebraic Functions First Edition

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome 1st Edition Davide

Dynamic Stability and Bifurcation in Nonconservative

Reframing Institutional Logics Substance Practice and

Contemporary Perspectives on Relational Wellness

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6645

ISSN 1572-6126 ISSN 2212-7313 (electronic)

Paolo Aglianò DIISM, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

Jan Paseka Faculty of Science, Department of Mathematics and Statistics,

Davide Fazio, Antonio Ledda, and Francesco Paoli

Abstract After providing an overview of the algebraic investigations into substruc-

1 Algebra, Residuation, and Logic

D. Fazio (B) · A. Ledda · F. Paoli

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

Abstracting away from this concrete example, a residuated lattice3 L is a lattice

a · b c iff b a\c iff a c/b.

in addition to the unit of the monoidal operation.

2 Substructural Logics and Quantum Logics

3 The AsubL Conferences

The AsubL—Algebra and Substructural Logics conferences have been instrumental

4 Outline of the Volume

and Helmut Länger study the behaviour of some term-definable implications in

ab ≤ c iff b ≤ a\c iff a ≤ c/b.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 11

x/1 y = x/y ∧ 1 x 1\y = x\y ∧ 1.

Lemma 1 In any residuated semilattice A the following equations hold:

x\x ≥ 1, x/x ≥ 1 (1)

(x\y) ∧ (x\z) ≈ x\(y ∧ z), (y/x) ∧ (z/x) ≈ (y ∧ z)/x (9)

y\((y/x)\x)) ≈ y/x, (y/(x\y))\y ≈ x\y. (10)

On the other hand since a ≤ b/(a\b) by antimonotonicity of \ in the first coordinate

Hence equality holds and so does one half of (10).

A residuated semilattice A is integral if 1 is the largest element and commutative

a≤b if and only if ∃c, d with a = cb = bd.

a ∧ b = ((a ∧ b)/b)b = ((a/b) ∧ (b/b))b

Theorem 2 The class of v-distributive residuated semilattices is a variety. More

always, again by the properties of residuations. Hence there are u, v ∈ A, with

If in a residuated semilattice, the meet coincides with the multiplication (sometimes

(b/(a\b))(a\b) = (b/(a −1 b)a −1 b

so any -group is v-distributive by Theorem 2.

[y/(x 1\y)] ∧ [x/(y 1\x)]

is a join (see [1]) any representable residuated semilattice is a representable residuated

Theorem 3 Let A be a divisible residuated semilattice. Then any of the following

Proof If A is integral and a, b ∈ A and ab ≤ b; so b ≤ a\b; by Lemma 2(2)

In absence of divisibility distributivity and v-distributivity are totally unrelated

and the operations are

Since the ordering on A is a lattice ordering, then the ordering on A∗ is a lattice

Lemma 3 If the underlying lattice of A is distributive, then so is the underlying

One property that in general is not preserved by disconnected rotations is divisi-

Wajsberg hoops are basic [2] and in them x ∨ y = (x → y) → y. Moreover every

Lemma 5 Let A be a Wajsberg hoop; then A∗ is v-distributive.

Proof By Theorem 2 we need only show that A∗ ((x → y) → y)(x → y) ≈ y.

where again we have used that A∗ is Wajsberg in the second coordinate.

So disconnected rotation of a non cancellative Wajsberg hoop is an example of a v-

Fig. 1 The order structure

Rodolfo C. Ertola-Biraben, Francesc Esteva, and Lluís Godo

Abstract Motivated by Gentzen’s disjunction elimination rule in his Natural Deduc-

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 21

Eine jetzigen Anforderungen entsprechende Abbildung 3 von T.