pdf version of the entry

Algebraic Propositional Logic

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/logic-algebraic-propositional/ Algebraic Propositional Logic
from the Summer 2022 Edition of the First published Mon Dec 12, 2016; substantive revision Fri May 20, 2022

Stanford Encyclopedia George Boole was the first to present logic as a mathematical theory in
algebraic style. In his work, and in that of the other algebraists of the
of Philosophy algebraic tradition of logic of the nineteenth century, the distinction
between a formal language and a mathematically rigorous semantics for it
was still not drawn. What the algebraists in this tradition did was to build
algebraic theories (of Boolean algebras, and relation algebras) with among
other interpretations a logical one.

Edward N. Zalta Uri Nodelman The works of Frege and Russell introduced a different perspective on the
Principal Editor Senior Editor
way to approach logic. In those works, a logic system was given by a
Colin Allen Hannah Kim Paul Oppenheimer formal language and a deductive calculus, namely a set of axioms and a
Associate Editor Associate Editor Associate Editor
set of inference rules. Let us (for this entry) call such a pair a logical
Faculty Sponsors: R. Lanier Anderson & Thomas Icard
Editorial Board: https://plato.stanford.edu/board.html
deduction system, and the formulas derivable in the calculus its theorems
Library of Congress ISSN: 1095-5054
(nowadays it is common practice in algebraic logic to refer to this type of
calculi as Hilbert-style and in proof complexity theory as Frege systems).
Notice: This PDF version was distributed by request to mem- In Frege and Russell’s approach, a formal (mathematical) semantics of
bers of the Friends of the SEP Society and by courtesy to SEP whatever kind (algebraic, model-theoretic, etc.) for the formal languages
content contributors. It is solely for their fair use. Unauthorized
they used was lacking. The only semantics present was of an intuitive,
distribution is prohibited. To learn how to join the Friends of the
informal kind.
SEP Society and obtain authorized PDF versions of SEP entries,
please visit https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/ .
The systems introduced by Frege and Russell were systems of classical
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy logic, but soon after systems of non-classical logics were considered by
c 2022 by the publisher
Copyright
other logicians. The first influential attempts to introduce logics different
The Metaphysics Research Lab
Department of Philosophy from classical logic remained within the Frege-Russell tradition of
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 presenting a logical deduction system without any formal semantics.
Algebraic Propositional Logic These attempts lead to the first modal systems of C.I. Lewis (1918, 1932)
c 2022 by the author
Copyright
Ramon Jansana
and to the axiomatization of intuitionistic logic by Heyting (1930).
All rights reserved.
Copyright policy: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/copyright/

1
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
The idea underlying the design of Frege and Russell’s logical deduction
systems is that the theorems should be the formulas that correspond
(intuitively) to the logical truths or logical validities. The concept of
logical consequence was not central to the development, and this was also
the case in the many systems of non-classical logics that were to be
designed following in the footsteps of the first modal systems of C.I.
Lewis. This situation influenced the way in which the research on some
non-classical logics has usually been presented and sometimes also its real
evolution. However, the concept of logical consequence has been the one
that logic has traditionally dealt with. Tarski put it once again into the
center of modern logic, both semantically and syntactically. Nowadays, a
general theory of the algebraization of logics around the concept of logical
consequence has grown from the different algebraic treatments of the
different logics obtained during the last century.
The concept of logical consequence has proved much more fruitful than
those of theorem and of logical validity for the development of such a
general theory. The first attempts in the process of building the general
theory of the algebraization of logics can be found in the study of the class
of implicative logics by Rasiowa (1974) and in the systematic presentation
by Wójcicki (1988) of the investigations of a general nature on
propositional logics as consequence operations carried out mainly by
Polish logicians, following the studies of Tarski, Lindenbaum,
Łukasiewicz and others in the first part of the twentieth century.
It was only in the 1920s that algebras and logical matrices (an algebra
together with a set of designated elements) started to be taken as models of
logical deduction systems, that is, as providing a formal semantics for
formal languages of logic. Moreover, they were also used to define sets of
formulas with similar properties to the ones the sets of theorems of the
known logical deduction systems have, in particular the property of being
2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
closed under substitution instances; soon after logical matrices were also
used to define logics as consequence relations.
Algebraic logic can be described in very general terms as the discipline
that studies logics by associating with them classes of algebras, classes of
logical matrices and other algebra related mathematical structures and that
relates the properties that the logics may have with properties of the
associated algebras (or algebra related structures) with the purpose that the
understanding of these algebras can be used to better understand the logic
at hand.
From the algebraic study of particular logics, a general theory of the
algebraization of logics slowly emerged during the last century with the
aim, more or less explicitly stated during the process, of obtaining general
and informative results relating the properties a logic may have with the
algebraic properties the class of algebras (or algebra related structures)
associated with it might enjoy. Those algebraic studies assumed somehow
an implicit conception of what is the process by which to associate with
any given logic a class of algebras as its natural algebraic counterpart. The
development of that general theory speeded up and consolidated at the
beginning of the 1980s with the introduction of the notion of algebraizable
logic, and at that time also the assumptions about the class of algebras that
deserves to be taken as the natural one to associate with a given logic
started to be made more and more explicit.
In this entry we concentrate on the general theory of the algebraization of
propositional logics taken as consequence relations. This theory has
evolved into the field known as Abstract Algebraic Logic (AAL). The
entry can be taken as a mild introduction to this field.
1. Abstract consequence relations
2. Logics as consequence relations
Summer 2022 Edition 3
 Algebraic Propositional Logic Ramon Jansana

3. Some examples of logics 1. Abstract consequence relations

3.1 Classical propositional logic
3.2 Intuitionistic propositional logic Tarski’s work (1930a, 1930b, 1935, 1936) on the methodology of the
3.3 Local Normal Modal logics deductive sciences of the 1920s and 1930s studies the axiomatic method
3.4 Global Normal Modal logics abstractly and introduces for the first time the abstract concept of
3.5 Intuitionistic Linear Logic without exponentials consequence operation. Tarski had mainly in mind the different
3.6 The system R of Relevance Logic mathematical axiomatic theories. On these theories, the sentences that are
4. Algebras proved from the axioms are consequences of them but (of course) almost
4.1 Some concepts of universal algebra and model theory all of them are not logical truths; under a suitable formalization of these
4.2 Varieties and quasivarieties theories, a logical calculus like Frege’s or Russell’s can be used to derive
5. Algebraic semantics the consequences of the axioms. Tarski set the framework to study the
6. Logical matrices most general properties of the operation that assigns to a set of axioms its
7. The Lindenbaum-Tarski method for proving algebraic consequences.
completeness theorems
8. The natural class of algebras of a logic system Given a logical deduction system H and an arbitrary set of formulas X, a
9. When a logic is algebraizable and what does this mean? formula a is deducible in H from X if there is a finite sequence of
10. A classification of logics formulas any one of which belongs to X or is an axiom of H or is obtained
11. Replacement principles from previous formulas in the sequence by one of the inference rules of H .
12. Beyond protoalgebraic logics Such a sequence is a deduction (or proof) in H of a with premises or
12.1 The logic of conjunction and disjunction hypotheses in X . Let Cn(X) be the set of formulas deducible in H from the
12.2 Positive Modal Logic formulas in X taken as premises or hypothesis. This set is called the set of
12.3 Visser’s subintuitionistic logic consequences of X (relative to the logical deduction system H ). Cn is then
12.4 The strict implication fragment of the local modal logic lK an operation that is applied to sets of formulas to obtain new sets of
13. Abstract logics and generalized matrices formulas. It has the following properties: For every set of formulas X

1. X ⊆ Cn(X)
14. The Frege hierarchy
2. Cn(Cn(X)) = Cn(X)
15. Extending the setting
3. Cn(X) = ⋃{Cn(Y) : Y ⊆ X, Y finite}
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources The third condition stipulates that Cn(X) is equal to the union of the set of
Related Entries formulas derivable from finite subsets of X. Tarski took these properties to
define the notion of consequence operation axiomatically. In fact, he added

4 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2022 Edition 5

 Algebraic Propositional Logic
that there is a formula x such that Cn({x}) is the set A of all the formulas
and that this set must be finite or of the cardinality of the set of the natural
numbers. Condition (3) implies the weaker, and important, condition of
monotonicity
4. if X ⊆ Y ⊆ A , then Cn(X) ⊆ Cn(Y).
To encompass the whole class of logic systems one finds in the literature, a
slightly more general definition than Tarski’s is required. We will say that
an abstract consequence operation C on an arbitrary set A is an operation
that applied to subsets of A gives subsets of A and for all X, Y ⊆ A
satisfies the conditions (1), (2) and (4) above. If in addition C satisfies (3)
we say that it is a finitary consequence operation.
Consequence operations are present not only in logic but in many areas of
mathematics. Abstract consequence operations are known as closure
operators in universal algebra and lattice theory, for instance. In topology
the operation that sends a subset of a topological space to its topological
closure is a closure operator. In fact, the topologies on a set A can be
identified with the closure operators on A that satisfy the additional
conditions that C(∅) = ∅ and C(X ∪ Y) = C(X) ∪ C(Y) for all X, Y ⊆ A.
Given a consequence operation C on a set A, a subset X of A is said to be
C -closed, or a closed set of C , if C(X) = X .
A different, but mathematically equivalent, (formal) approach is to
consider consequence relations on a set of formulas instead of
consequence operations. A(n) (abstract) consequence relation on the set of
formulas of a formal language is a relation ⊢ between sets of formulas and
formulas that satisfies the following conditions:
1. if a ∈ X, then X ⊢ a
2. if X ⊢ a and X ⊆ Y, then Y ⊢ a
6 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
3. if X ⊢ a and for every b ∈ X, Y ⊢ b, then Y ⊢ a .
It is finitary if in addition it satisfies
4. if X ⊢ a, then there is a finite set Y ⊆ X such that Y ⊢ a.
Given a logical deduction system H, the relation ⊢ defined by X ⊢ a if a
is deducible from X in H is (according to all we have already seen) a
finitary consequence relation. Nonetheless, we are used not only to
syntactic definitions of consequence relations but also to semantic
definitions. For example, we define classical propositional consequence
using truth valuations, first-order consequence relation using structures,
intuitionistic consequence relation using Kripke models, etc. Sometimes
these model-theoretic definitions of consequence relations define non-
finitary consequence relations, for example, the consequence relations for
infinitary formal languages and the consequence relation of second-order
logic with the so-called standard semantics.
In general, an abstract consequence relation on a set A (not necessarily the
set of formulas of some formal language) is a relation ⊢ between subsets
of A and elements of A that satisfies conditions (1)–(3) above. If it also
satisfies (4) it is said to be finitary. If ⊢ is an abstract consequence relation
and X ⊢ a, then we can say that X is a set of premises or hypothesis with
conclusion a according to ⊢ and that a follows from X, or is entailed by X
(according to ⊢) . The abstract consequence relations correspond to
Koslow’s implication structures; see Koslow 1992 for the closely related
but different approach to logics (in a broad sense) as consequence relations
introduced by that author.
The consequence operations on a set A are in one-to-one correspondence
with the abstract consequence relations on A. The move from a
consequence operation C to a consequence relation ⊢C and, conversely,
Summer 2022 Edition 7
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
from a consequence relation ⊢ to a consequence operation C⊢ is easy and
given by the definitions:
X ⊢C a iff a ∈ C(X) and a ∈ C⊢ (X) iff X ⊢ a.
Moreover, if C is finitary, so is ⊢C and if ⊢ is finitary, so is C⊢ .
For a general discussion on logical consequence see the entry Logical
Consequence.
2. Logics as consequence relations
In this section we define what propositional logics are and explain the
basic concepts relating to them. We will call the propositional logics (as
defined below) simply logic systems.
One of the main traits of the consequence relations we study in logic is
their formal character. This roughly means that if a sentence a follows
from a set of sentences X and we have another sentence b and another set
of sentences Y that share the same form with a and X respectively, then b
also follows from Y . In propositional logics this boils down to saying that
if we uniformly replace basic sub-sentences of the sentences in X ∪ {a}
by other sentences obtaining Y and b , then b follows from Y . (The reader
can find more information on the idea of formality in the entry Logical
Consequence.)
To turn the idea of the formal character of logics into a rigorous definition
we need to introduce the concept of propositional language and the
concept of substitution.
A propositional language (a language, for short) L is a set of connectives,
that is, a set of symbols each one of which has an arity n that tells us in
case that n = 0 that the symbol is a propositional constant, and in case that
8 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
n > 0 whether the connective is unary, binary, ternary, etc. For example
{∧, ∨, →, ⊥, ⊤} is (or can be) the language of several logics, like classical
and intuitionistic, (⊥ and ⊤ are 0-ary and the other connectives are
binary), {¬, ∧, ∨ →, ◻, ◊} is the language of several modal logics,
(¬, ◻, ◊ are unary and the other connectives binary) and
{∧, ∨, →, ∗, ⊤, ⊥, 1, 0} is the language of many-valued logics and also of
a fragment of linear logic (⊥, ⊤, 1, and 0 are propositional constants and
the other symbols binary connectives).
Given a language L and a set of propositional variables V (which is
disjoint from L), the formulas of L, or L-formulas, are defined inductively
as follows:
1. Every variable is a formula.
2. Every 0-ary symbol is a formula.
3. If ∗ is a connective and n > 0 is its arity, then for all formulas
ϕ1, … , ϕn, ∗ϕ1 … ϕn is also a formula.
A substitution σ for L is a map from the set of variables V to the set of
formulas of L. It tells us which formula must replace which variable when
we perform the substitution. If p is a variable, then σ(p) denotes the
formula that the substitution σ assigns to p . The result of applying a
substitution σ to a formula ϕ is the formula σ(ϕ) obtained from ϕ by
simultaneously replacing the variables in ϕ, say p1 , … , pk , by,
respectively, the formulas σ(p1 ), … , σ(pk ). In this way, a substitution σ
gives a unique map σ from the set of formulas to itself that satisfies
1. σ(p) = σ(p), for every variable p,
2. σ(†) = †, for every 0-ary connective †,
3. σ(∗ϕ1 … ϕn ) = ∗σ(ϕ1 ) … σ(ϕn), for every connective ∗ of arity
n > 0 and formulas ϕ1, … , ϕn.
Summer 2022 Edition 9
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
A formula ψ is a substitution instance of a formula ϕ if there is a
substitution σ such that when applied to ϕ gives ψ , that is, if σ(ϕ) = ψ.
In order to avoid unnecessary complications we will assume in the sequel
that all the logics use the same denumerable set V of variables, so that the
definition of formula of L depends only on L . A logic system (or logic for
short) is given by a language L and a consequence relation ⊢ on the set of
formulas of L that is formal in the sense that for every substitution σ,
every set of formulas Γ and every formula ϕ ,
if Γ ⊢ ϕ, then σ[Γ] ⊢ σ(ϕ)
where σ[Γ] is the set of the formulas obtained by applying the substitution
σ to the formulas in Γ. The consequence relations on the set of formulas of
a language that satisfy this property are called structural and also
substitution-invariant in the literature. They were considered for the first
time in Łoś & Suszko 1958. Tarski only explicitly considered closed sets
also closed under substitution instances for some consequence relations;
he never considered (at least explicitly) the substitution invariance
condition for consequence relations.
We will refer to logic systems by the letter L with possible subindices, and
we set L = ⟨L, ⊢L ⟩ and Ln = ⟨Ln , ⊢Ln ⟩ with the understanding that
L (Ln ) is the language of L (Ln ) and ⊢L (⊢Ln ) its consequence relation.
A logic system L is finitary if ⊢L is a finitary consequence relation.
The consequence relation of a logic system can be given in several ways,
some using proof-theoretic tools, others semantic means. A substitution-
invariant consequence relation can be defined using a proof system like a
Hilbert-style axiom system, a Gentzen-style sequent calculus or a natural
deduction style calculus, etc. One can also define a substitution-invariant
consequence relation semantically using a class of mathematical objects
10 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
(algebras, Kripke models, topological models, etc.) and a satisfaction
relation.
If L1 = ⟨L, ⊢L1 ⟩ is a logic system with ⊢L1 defined by a proof-system and
L2 = ⟨L, ⊢L2 ⟩ is a logic system over the same language with ⊢L2 defined
semantically, we say that the proof-system used to define ⊢L1 is sound for
the semantics used to define ⊢L2 if ⊢L1 is included in ⊢L2 , namely if
Γ ⊢L1 ϕ implies Γ ⊢L2 ϕ. If the other inclusion holds the proof-system is
said to be complete with respect to the semantics that defines ⊢L2 , that is,
when Γ ⊢L2 ϕ implies Γ ⊢L1 ϕ .
A set of L-formulas Γ is called a theory of a logic system L , or L -theory,
if it is closed under the relation ⊢L , that is, if whenever Γ ⊢L ϕ it also
holds that ϕ ∈ Γ. In other words, the theories of L are the closed sets of
the consequence operation C⊢L on the set of L -formulas. In order to
simplify the notation we denote this consequence operation by CL . A
formula ϕ is a theorem (or validity) of L if ∅ ⊢L ϕ . Then CL (∅) is the
set of theorems of L and is the least theory of L . The set of all theories of
L will be denoted by Th(L).
Given a logic system L , the consequence operation CL is substitution-
invariant, which means that for every set of L-formulas Γ and every
substitution σ, σ[CL (Γ)] ⊆ CL (σ[Γ] ). Moreover, for every theory T of L
we have a new consequence CLT operation defined as follows:
CLT (Γ) = CL (T ∪ Γ)
that is, CLT (Γ) is the set of formulas that follow from Γ and T according to
L . It turns out that T is closed under substitutions if and only if CLT is
substitution-invariant.
If L is a logic system and Γ, Δ are sets of L-formulas, we will use the
notation Γ ⊢L Δ to state that for every ψ ∈ Δ, Γ ⊢L ψ . Thus Γ ⊢L Δ if
Summer 2022 Edition 11
 Algebraic Propositional Logic Ramon Jansana

and only if Δ ⊆ CL (Γ). 3.2 Intuitionistic propositional logic

If L = ⟨L, ⊢L ⟩ and L′ = ⟨L′ , ⊢L′ ⟩ are logic systems whose languages We take the language of Intuitionistic propositional logic to be the same as
satisfy that L′ ⊆ L (hence all the L′ -formulas are L-formulas) and that of classical propositional logic, namely the set {∧, ∨, →, ⊤, ⊥}. The

Γ ⊢L′ ϕ iff Γ ⊢L ϕ,
consequence relation is defined by the following Hilbert-style calculus.

for every set of L′ -formulas Γ and every L′ -formula ϕ we say that L′ is a Axioms:
fragment L (in fact, the L′ -fragment) and that L is an expansion of L′ .
All the formulas of the forms
3. Some examples of logics
C0. ⊤
We present some examples of logic systems that we will refer to in the C1. ϕ → (ψC2.
→ ϕ) ϕ → (ψ → (ϕ ∧ ψ))
course of this essay, that are assembled here for the reader’s convenience. C3. (ϕ ∧ ψ) → ϕ
Whenever possible we refer to the corresponding entries. C4. (ϕ ∧ ψ) → ψ
C5. ϕ → (ϕ ∨ ψ)
We use the standard convention of writing (ϕ ∗ ψ) instead of ∗ϕψ for C6. ψ → (ϕ ∨ ψ)
binary connectives and omit the external parenthesis in the formulas. C7. (ϕ ∨ ψ) → ((ϕ → δ) → ((ψ → δ) → δ))
C8. (ϕ → ψ) → ((ϕ → (ψ → δ)) → (ϕ → δ))
3.1 Classical propositional logic C9. ⊥→ϕ

We take the language of Classical propositional logic CPL to be the set

Rule of inference
Lc = {∧, ∨, →, ⊤, ⊥}, where ∧, ∨, → are binary connectives and ⊤, ⊥
(Modus Ponens) ϕ, ϕ → ψ/ψ
propositional constants. We assume that the consequence relation is
defined by the usual truth-table method (⊤ is interpreted as true and ⊥
as false) as follows, For more information, see the entry on intuitionistic logic.

Γ ⊢CPL ϕ iff every truth valuation that assigns true to all ψ ∈ Γ 3.3 Local Normal Modal logics
assigns true to ϕ .
The language of modal logic we consider here is the set
The formulas ϕ such that ∅ ⊢CPL ϕ are the tautologies. Note that using
Lm = {∧, ∨, →, ¬, ◻, ⊤, ⊥} that expands Lc by adding the unary
the language Lc , the negation of a formula ϕ is defined as ϕ → ⊥. For
connective ◻. In the standard literature on modal logic a normal modal
more information, see the entry on classical logic.
logic is defined not as a consequence relation but as a set of formulas with

12 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2022 Edition 13

 Algebraic Propositional Logic Ramon Jansana

certain properties. A normal modal logic is a set Λ of formulas of Lm that 3.4 Global Normal Modal logics
contains all the tautologies of the language of classical logic, the formulas
of the form Another consequence relation is associated naturally with each normal
modal logic Λ, defined by the calculus that has as axioms the formulas of
◻(ϕ → ψ) → (◻ϕ → ◻ψ) Λ and as rules of inference Modus Ponens and Modal Generalization. The
logic system given by this consequence relation is called the global
consequence of Λ and will be denoted by gΛ . It has the same theorems as
and is closed under the rules

(Modus Ponens) ϕ, ϕ → ψ/ψ
(Modal Generalization) ϕ/◻ϕ
(Substitution) ϕ/σ(ϕ), for every substitution σ
Note that the set Λ is closed under substitution instances, namely for every
substitution σ , if ϕ ∈ Lm , then σ(ϕ) ∈ Lm .
The least normal modal logic is called K and can be axiomatized by the
Hilbert-style calculus with axioms the tautologies of classical logic and the
formulas ◻(ϕ → ψ) → (◻ϕ → ◻ψ) , and with rules of inference Modus
Ponens and Modal Generalization. Note that since we use schemas in the
presentation of the axioms, the set of derivable formulas is closed under
the Substitution rule.
With a normal modal logic Λ it is associated the consequence relation
defined by the calculus that takes as axioms all the formulas in Λ and as
the only rule of inference Modus Ponens. The logic system given by this
consequence relation is called the local consequence of Λ. We denote it by
lΛ. Its theorems are the elements of Λ and it holds that
the local lΛ , namely the elements of Λ . The difference between lΛ and gΛ
lies in the consequences they allow to draw from nonempty sets of
premises. For example we have p ⊢gK ◻p but p ⊬lK ◻p. This difference
has an enormous effect on their algebraic behavior.
For more information on modal logic, see the entry on modal logic. The
reader can find specific information on modal logics as consequence
relations in Kracht 2006.
3.5 Intuitionistic Linear Logic without exponentials
We take as the language of Intuitionistic Linear Logic without
exponentials the set {∧, ∨, →, ∗, 0, 1, ⊤, ⊥}, where ∧, ∨, →, ∗ are binary
connectives and 0, 1, ⊤, ⊥ propositional constants. We denote the logic by
ILL . The axioms and rule of inference below provide a Hilbert-style
axiomatization of this logic.
Axioms:

Γ ⊢lΛ ϕ iff ϕ ∈ Λ or there are ϕ1, … , ϕn ∈ Γ such that L1. 1

(ϕ1 ∧ … ∧ ϕn) → ϕ ∈ Λ. L2. (ϕ → ψ) → ((ψ → δ) → (ϕ → δ))
L3. (ϕ → (ψ → δ)) → (ψ → (ϕ → δ))
L4. ϕ → (ψ → (ϕ ∗ ψ))
L5. (ϕ → (ψ → δ)) → ((ϕ ∗ ψ) → δ)
L6. 1 → (ϕ → ϕ)

14 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2022 Edition 15

 Algebraic Propositional Logic Ramon Jansana

L7. (ϕ ∧ ψ) → ϕ 4. Algebras
L8. (ϕ ∧ ψ) → ψ
L9. ψ → (ϕ ∨ ψ) The algebraic study of a particular logic has to provide first of all its
L10. ϕ → (ϕ ∨ ψ) formal language with an algebraic semantics using a class of algebras
L11. ((ϕ → ψ) ∧ (ϕ → δ)) → (ϕ → (ψ ∧ δ)) whose properties are exploited to understand which properties the logic
L12. ((ϕ → δ) ∧ (ψ → δ)) → ((ϕ ∨ ψ) → δ) has. In this section, we present how the formal languages of propositional
L13. ϕ→⊤ logics are given an algebraic interpretation. In the next section, we address
L14. ⊥→ψ the question of what is an algebraic semantics for a logic system.

We start by describing the first two steps involved in the algebraic study of
Rules of inference:
propositional logics. Both are needed in order to endow propositional
(Modus Ponens) ϕ, ϕ → ψ/ψ languages with algebraic interpretations. To expound them we will assume
(Adjunction) ϕ, ψ/ϕ ∧ ψ knowledge of first-order logic (see the entries on classical logic and first-
order model theory) and we will call algebraic first-order languages, or
The 0-ary connective 0 is used to define a negation by ¬ϕ := ϕ → 0 . No simply algebraic languages, the first-order languages with equality and
specific axiom schema deals with 0. without any relational symbols, so that these languages have only
operation symbols (also called function symbols), if any, in the set of their
For more information, see the entry on linear logic. non-logical symbols.

3.6 The system R of Relevance Logic The two steps we are about to expound can be summarized in the slogan:

The language we consider is the set {∧, ∨, →, ¬}, where ∧, ∨, → are Propositional formulas are terms.
binary connectives and ¬ a unary connective. A Hilbert style
The first step consist in looking at the formulas of any propositional
axiomatization for R can be given by the rules of Intuitionistic Linear
language L as the terms of the algebraic first-order language with L as its
Logic without exponentials and the axioms L2, L3, L7-L12 of this logic
set of operation symbols. This means that (i) every connective of L of arity
together with the axioms
n is taken as an operation symbol of arity n (thus every 0-ary symbol of L
1. (ϕ → (ϕ → ψ)) → (ϕ → ψ) is taken as an individual constant) and that (ii) the propositional formulas
2. (ϕ → ¬ψ) → (ψ → ¬ψ) of L are taken as the terms of this first-order language; in particular the
3. (ϕ ∧ (ψ ∨ δ)) → ((ϕ ∧ ψ) ∨ ϕ ∧ δ)) propositional variables are the variables of the first-order language. From
4. ¬¬ϕ → ϕ this point of view the definition of L -formula is exactly the definition of L-

For more information, see the entry on relevance logic.

16 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2022 Edition 17

 Algebraic Propositional Logic
term. We will refer to the algebraic language with L as its set of operation
symbols as the L-algebraic language.
The second step is to interpret the propositional formulas in the same
manner in which terms of a first-order language are interpreted in a
structure. In this way the concept of L-algebra comes into play. On a given
set A, an n-ary connective is interpreted by an n-ary function on A (a map
that assigns an element of A to every sequence ⟨a1 , … , an ⟩ of elements of
A). This procedure is a generalization of the truth-table interpretations of
the languages of logic systems like classical logic and Łukasiewicz and
Post’s finite-valued logics. In those cases, given the set of truth-values at
play the function that interprets a connective is given by its truth-table.
A way to introduce algebras is as the models of some algebraic first-order
language. We follow an equivalent route and give the definition of algebra
using the setting of propositional languages. Let L be a propositional
language. An algebra A of type L, or L-algebra for short, is a set A, called
the carrier or the universe of A , together with a function ∗A on A of the
arity of ∗, for every connective ∗ in L (if ∗ is 0-ary, ∗A is an element of
A). An algebra A is trivial if its carrier is a one element set.
A valuation on an L-algebra A is a map v from the set of variables into its
carrier A. Algebras together with valuations are used to interpret in a
compositional way the formulas of L, assuming that a connective ∗ of L is
interpreted in an L-algebra A by the function ∗A . Let A be an algebra of
type L and v a valuation on A. The value of a compound formula
∗ϕ1 … ϕn is computed by applying the function ∗A that interprets ∗ in A
to the previously computed values v(ϕ1 ), … , v(ϕn ) of the formulas
ϕ1, … , ϕn. Precisely speaking, the value v(ϕ) of a formula ϕ is defined
inductively as follows:
1. v(p) = v(p) , for each variable p ,
v(†) = A
18 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
2. v(†) = †A , if † is a 0-ary connective
3. v(∗ϕ1 … ϕn ) = ∗A (v(ϕ1), … , v(ϕn)), if ∗ is a n -ary (n > 0)
connective.
Note that in this way we have obtained a map v from the set of L-formulas
to the carrier of A . It is important to notice that the value of a formula
under a valuation depends only on the propositional variables that actually
appear in the formula. Accordingly, if ϕ is a formula, then we use the
notation ϕ(p1 , … , pn ) to indicate that the variables that appear in ϕ are in
the list p1 , … , pn, and given elements a1 , … , an of an algebra A we refer
by ϕA [a1 , … , an ] to the value of ϕ(p1 , … , pn ) under any valuation v on A
such that v(p1 ) = a1 , … , v(pn ) = an .
A third and fundamental step in the algebraic study of logics is to turn the
set of formulas of a language L into an algebra, the algebra of formulas of
L, denoted by FmL . This algebra has the set of L-formulas as carrier and
the operations are defined as follows. For every n-ary connective ∗ with
n > 0, the function ∗FmL is the map that sends each tuple of formulas
(ϕ1, … , ϕn ) (where n is the arity of ∗) to the formula ∗ϕ1 … ϕn, and for
every 0-ary connective †, †FmL is †. If no confusion is likely we suppress
the subindex in FmL and write Fm instead.
4.1 Some concepts of universal algebra and model theory
Algebras are a particular type of structure or model. An L-algebra is a
structure or model for the L -algebraic first-order language. Therefore the
concepts of model theory for the first-order languages apply to them (see
the entries on classical logic and first-order model theory). We need some
of these concepts. They are also used in universal algebra, a field that to
some extent can be considered the model theory of the algebraic
languages. We introduce the definitions of the concepts we need.
Summer 2022 Edition 19
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
Given an algebra A of type L, a congruence of A is an equivalence
relation θ on the carrier of A that satisfies for every n -ary connective
∗∈L the following compatibility property: for every
a1 , … , an , b1 , … , bn ∈ A,
if a1 θb1 , … , an θb1 , then ∗A (a1 , … , an ) θ ∗A (b1 , … , bn ).
Given a congruence θ of A we can reduce the algebra by identifying the
elements which are related by θ . The algebra obtained is the quotient
algebra of A modulo θ . It is denoted by A/θ , its carrier is the set A/θ of
equivalence classes [a] of the elements a of A modulo the equivalence
relation θ , and the operations are defined as follows:
1. †A/θ = [†A ] , for every 0-ary connective †,
2. ∗A/θ ([a1 ], … , [an ]) = [∗A (a1 , … , an )] , for every connective ∗ whose
arity is n and n > 0.
The compatibility property ensures that the definition is sound.
Let A and B be L -algebras. A homomorphism h from A to B is a map h
from A to B such that for every 0-ary symbol † ∈ L and every n -ary
connective ∗ ∈ L
1. h(†A ) = †B
2. h(∗A (a1 , … , an )) = ∗B (h(b1 ), … , h(bn )), for all a1 , … , an ∈ A.
We say that B is a homomorphic image of A if there is a homomorphism
from A to B which is an onto map from A to B. An homomorphism from
A to B is an isomorphism if it is a one-to-one and onto map from A to B.
If an isomorphism from A to B exists, we say that A and B are
isomorphic and that B is an isomorphic image (or a copy) of A .
Let A and B be L -algebras. A is a subalgebra of B if (1) A ⊆ B, (2) the
interpretations of the 0-ary symbols of L in B belong to A and A is closed
20 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
under the functions of B that interpret the non 0-ary symbols, and (3) the
interpretations of the 0-ary symbols in A coincide with their
interpretations in B and the interpretations on A of the other symbols in L
are the restrictions to A of their interpretations in B .
We refer the reader to the entry on first-order model theory for the notions
of direct product (called product there) and ultraproduct.
4.2 Varieties and quasivarieties
The majority of classes of algebras that provide semantics for
propositional logics are quasivarieties and in most cases varieties. The
theory of varieties and quasivarieties is one of the main subjects of
universal algebra.
An equational class of L -algebras is a class of L -algebras that is definable
in a very simple way (by equations) using the L -algebraic language. An L-
equation is a formula ϕ ≈ ψ where ϕ and ψ are terms of the L-algebraic
language (that is, L-formulas if we take the propositional logic's point of
view) and '≈ ' is the formal symbol for the equality (always to be
interpreted as the identity relation). An equation ϕ ≈ ψ is valid in an
algebra A , or A is a model of ϕ ≈ ψ, if for every valuation v on
A, v(ϕ) = v(ψ). This is exactly the same as to saying that the universal
closure of ϕ ≈ ψ is a sentence true in A according to the usual semantics
for first-order logic with equality. An equational class of L-algebras is a
class of L-algebras which is the class of all the models of a given set of L-
equations.
A quasi-equational class of L-algebras is a class of L-algebras definable
using the L-algebraic language in a slightly more complex way than in
equational.classes. A proper L-quasiequation is a formula of the form
⋀ i ≈ i → ϕ ≈ ψ.
Summer 2022 Edition 21
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
⋀ ϕi ≈ ψi → ϕ ≈ ψ.
i≤n
An L -quasiequation is a formula of the above form but possibly with an
empty antecedent, in which case it is just the equation ϕ ≈ ψ. Hence, the
L-quasiequations are the proper L-quasiequations and the L -equations. An
L-quasiequation is valid in an L-algebra A , or the algebra is a model of it,
if the universal closure of the quasiequation is sentence true in A. A quasi-
equational class of L-algebras is a class of algebras that is the class of the
models of a given set of L-quasiequations. Since equations are
quasiequations, every equational class is quasi-equational. The converse is
false. Moreover, since in the trivial algebras all the equations and all the
quasiequations of the appropriate algebraic language are valid, equational
and quasi-equational classes are nonempty.
Equational and quasi-equational classes of algebras can be characterized
by the closure properties they enjoy. A nonempty class of L-algebras is a
variety if it is closed under subalgebras, direct products, and homomorphic
images. It is a quasivariety if it is closed under subalgebras, direct
products, ultraproducts, isomorphic images, and contains a trivial algebra.
It is easily seen that equational classes are varieties and that quasi-
equational classes are quasiviarities. Birkhoff's theorem states that all
varieties are equational classes and Malcev's theorem that all
quasivarieties are quasi-equational classes.
The variety generated by a nonempty class K of L-algebras is the least
class of L-algebras that includes K and is closed under subalgebras, direct
products and homomorphic images. It is also the class of the algebras that
are models of the equations valid in K . For example, the variety generated
by the algebra of the two truth-values for classical logic is the class of
Boolean algebras. If we restrict that algebra to the operations for
conjunction and disjunction only, it generates the variety of distributive
22 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
lattices and if we restrict it to the operations for conjunction and
disjunction and the interpretations of ⊤ and ⊥ , it generates the variety of
bounded distributive lattices.
The quasivariety generated by a class K of L-algebras is the least class of
L-algebras that includes K, the trivial algebras and is closed under
subalgebras, direct products, ultraproducts, and isomorphic images.
An SP-class of L-algebras is a class of L-algebras that contains a trivial
algebra and is closed under isomorphic images, subalgebras, and direct
products. Thus quasivarieties and varieties are all SP-classes. The SP-class
generated by a class K of L-algebras is the least class of L -algebras that
includes K, the trivial algebras and is closed under subalgebras, direct
products and isomorphic images.
5. Algebraic semantics
The term ‘algebraic semantics’ was (and many times still is) used in the
literature in a loose way. To provide a logic with an algebraic semantics
was to interpret its language in a class of algebras, define a notion of
satisfaction of a formula (under a valuation) in an algebra of the class and
prove a soundness and completeness theorem, usually for the theorems of
the logic only. Nowadays there is a precise concept of algebraic semantics
for a logic system. It was introduced by Blok and Pigozzi in Blok &
Pigozzi 1989. In this concept we find a general way to state in
mathematically precise terms what is common to the many cases of
purported algebraic semantics for specific logic systems found in the
literature. We expose the notion in this section. To motivate the definition
we discuss several examples first, stressing the relevant properties that
they share. The reader does not need to know about the classes of algebras
that provide algebraic semantics we refer to in the examples. Its existence
is what is important.
Summer 2022 Edition 23
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
The prototypical examples of algebraic semantics for propositional logics
are the class BA of Boolean algebras, which is the algebraic semantics for
classical logic, and the class HA of Heyting algebras, which is the
algebraic semantics for intuitionistic logic. Every Boolean algebra and
every Heyting algebra A has a greatest element according to their natural
order; this element is denoted usually by 1A and interprets the
propositional constant symbol ⊤ . It is taken as the distinguished element
relative to which the algebraic semantics is given. The algebraic semantics
of these two logics works as follows:
Let L be classical or intuitionistic logic and let K(L) be the corresponding
class of algebras BA or HA. It holds that
Γ ⊢L ϕ iff for every A ∈ K(L) and every valuation v on A , if
v(ψ) = 1A for all ψ ∈ Γ, then v(ϕ) = 1A .
This is the precise content of the statement that BA and HA are an
algebraic semantics for classical logic and for intuitionistic logic,
respectively. The implication from left to right in the expression above is
an algebraic soundness theorem and the implication from right to left an
algebraic completeness theorem.
There are logics for which an algebraic semantics is provided in the
literature in a slightly different way from the one given by the schema
above. Let us consider the example in Section 3.5 of Intuitionistic Linear
Logic without exponentials. We denote by IL0 the class of IL-algebras
with zero defined in Troelstra 1992 (but adapted to the language of ILL) .
Each A ∈ IL0 is a lattice with extra operations and thus has its lattice
order ≤A . This lattice order has a greatest element which we take as the
interpretation of ⊤ . On each one of these algebras A there is a designated
element 1A (the interpretation of the constant 1) that may be different from
the greatest element. It holds:
24 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
Γ ⊢ILL ϕ iff for every A ∈ IL0 and every valuation v on A , if
1A ≤A v(ψ) for all ψ ∈ Γ, then 1A ≤A v(ϕ).
In this case one does not consider only a designated element in every
algebra A but a set of designated elements, namely the elements of A
greater than or equal to 1A , to provide the definition. Let us denote this set
by D(A) , and notice that D(A) = {a ∈ A : 1A ∧A a = 1A }. Hence,
Γ ⊢ILL ϕ iff A ∈ IL0 v[Γ] ⊆ D(A),
for every if then
v(ϕ) ∈ D(A) .
Still there are even more complex situations. One of them is the system R
of relevance logic. Consider the class of algebras Ral defined in Font &
Rodríguez 1990 (see also Font & Rodríguez 1994) and denoted there by ‘
R ’. Let us consider for every A ∈ Ral the set
E(A) := {a ∈ A : a ∧A (a →A a) = a →A a}.
Then Ral is said to be an algebraic semantics for R because the following
holds:
Γ ⊢R ϕ iff for every A ∈ Ral and every valuation v on A , if
v[Γ] ⊆ E(A), then v(ϕ) ∈ E(A).
The common pattern in the examples above is that the algebraic semantics
is given by
1. a class of algebras K ,
2. in each algebra in K a set of designated elements that plays the role
1A (more precisely the set {1A }) plays in the cases of classical and
intuitionistic logic, and
3. this set of designated elements is definable (in the same manner on
every algebra) by an equation in the sense that it is the set of elements
of the algebra that satisfy the equation (i.e., its solutions). For BA and
Summer 2022 Edition 25
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
HA the equation is p ≈ ⊤. For Ral it is p → (p ∧ p) ≈ p → p, and
for IL0 it is 1 ∧ p ≈ 1.
The main point in Blok and Pigozzi’s concept of algebraic semantics
comes from the realization, mentioned in (3) above, that the set of
designated elements considered in the algebraic semantics of known logics
is in fact the set of solutions of an equation, and that what practice forced
researchers to look for when they tried to obtain algebraic semantics for
new logics was in fact, although not explicitly formulated in these terms,
an equational way to define uniformly in every algebra a set of designated
elements in order to obtain an algebraic soundness and completeness
theorem.
We are now in a position to expose the mathematically precise concept of
algebraic semantics. To develop a fruitful and general theory of the
algebraization of logics some generalizations beyond the well-known
concrete examples have to be made. In the definition of algebraic
semantics, one takes the move from a single equation to a set of them in
the definability condition for the set of designated elements.
Before stating Blok and Pigozzi’s definition we need to introduce a
notational convention. Given an algebra A and a set of equations Eq in
one variable, we denote by Eq(A) the set of elements of A that satisfy all
the equations in Eq. Then a logic L is said to have an algebraic semantics
if there is a class of algebras K and a set of equations Eq in one variable
such that
(**) Γ ⊢L ϕ iff for every A ∈ K and every valuation v on A , if
v[Γ] ⊆ Eq(A), then v(ϕ) ∈ Eq(A) .
In this situation we say that the class of algebras K is an Eq -algebraic
semantics for L , or that the pair (K, Eq) is an algebraic semantics for L .
If Eq consists of a single equation δ(p) ≈ ε(p) we will simply say that K
26 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
is a δ(p) ≈ ε(p) -algebraic semantics for L . In fact, Blok and Pigozzi
required that Eq should be finite in their definition of algebraic semantics.
But it is better to be more general. The definition clearly encompasses the
situations encountered in the examples.
If K is an Eq-algebraic semantics for a finitary logic L and Eq is finite,
then the quasivariety generated by K is also an Eq-algebraic semantics.
The same does not hold in general if we consider the generated variety.
For this reason, it is customary and useful when developing the theory of
the algebraization of finitary logics to consider quasivarieties of algebras
as algebraic semantics instead of arbitrary subclasses that generate them.
Conversely, if a quasivariety is an Eq-algebraic semantics for a finitary L
and Eq is finite, then so is any subclass of the quasivariety that generates
it.
In the best-behaved cases, the typical algebraic semantics of a logic is a
variety, for instance in all the examples discussed above. But there are
cases in which it is not (see Blok & Pigozzi 1989).
A quasivariety can be an Eq-algebraic semantics for a logic and an Eq′-
algebraic semantics for another logic (with Eq and Eq′ different). For
example, due to Glivenko’s theorem (see the entry on intuitionistic logic)
the class of Heyting algebras is a {¬¬p ≈ 1}-algebraic semantics for
classical logic and it is the standard {p ≈ 1} -algebraic semantics for
intuitionistic logic. Moreover, different quasivarieties of algebras can be
an Eq-algebraic semantics for the same logic. It is known that there is a
quasivariety that properly includes the variety of Boolean algebras that is
also a {p ≈ 1}-algebraic semantics for classical propositional logic. It is
also known that for some logics with an algebraic semantics (relative to
some set of equations), the natural class of algebras that corresponds to the
logic is not an algebraic semantics (for any set of equations) of it. One
Summer 2022 Edition 27
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
example where this situation holds is in the local normal modal logic lK.
Finally, there are logics that do not have any algebraic semantics.
These facts highlight the need for some criteria of the goodness of a pair
(K, Eq) to provide a natural algebraic semantics for a logic L when some
exists. One such criterion would be that L is an algebraizable logic with
(K, Eq) as an algebraic semantics. Another that K is the natural class of
algebras associated with the logic L . The notion of the natural class of
algebras of a logic system will be discussed in Section 8 and the concept
of algebraizable logic in Section 9.
The interested reader can examine Blok & Rebagliato 2003 for a study
devoted to algebraic semantics of logics and Moraschini forthcoming for
the most recent results on the topic (in this paper there is a proof of the
fact that the natural class of algebras of the local normal modal logic lK,
namely the class of modal algebras, is not an algebraic semantics (for any
set of equations) for it).
There is a particular, and important, kind of logics with an algebraic
semantics that includes classical and intuitionistic logics. It is the class of
the so-called assertional logics.
Let K be a class of algebras in an algebraic language with a constant term
for K , i.e., a formula ϕ(p1 , … , pn ) such that for every algebra A ∈ K and
elements a1 , … , an , b1 , … , bn of A, ϕA [a1 , … , an ] = ϕA [b1 , … , bn ], that
is, in every algebra in K, ϕ takes the same value whatever is the way we
interpret the variable in ϕ on A . We denote this value by ϕA . Thus ϕ acts
as a constant (relative to the algebras in K ) and ϕA (for A ∈ K) can be
taken as a designated element.
Given a class of algebras K in an algebraic language with a constant term
ϕ for K , the assertional logic LϕK of (K, ϕ) is defined by
28 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
Γ ⊢Lϕ ϕ iff for every A ∈ K(L) and every valuation v on A , if
v(ψ) = ϕA for all ψ ∈ Γ, then v(ϕ) = ϕA .
K
A logic system L is assertional when there exists a class of algebras K in
the algebraic language of L and a constant term ϕ for K such that L =
LϕK .
The most recent study of assertional logics is Albuquerque et al. 2018. We
address the reader to this paper where the classification of the assertional
logics in the Leibniz and Frege hierarchies of logic systems that we
present in later sections is addressed and several examples are discussed.
6. Logical matrices
In the last section, we saw that to provide a logic with an algebraic
semantics we need in many cases to consider in every algebra a set of
designated elements instead of a single designated one. In the examples
we discussed, the set of designated elements was definable in the algebras
by one equation. This motivated the definition of algebraic semantics in
Section 5. For many logics, to obtain a semantics similar to an algebraic
semantics using the class of algebras naturally associated with them one
needs for every algebra a set of designated elements that cannot be defined
using only the equations of the algebraic language or is not even definable
by using this language only. As we already mentioned, one example where
this happens is the local consequence of the normal modal logic K . Also,
recall that there are logics with no algebraic semantics at all.
To endow every logic with a semantics of an algebraic kind one has to
consider, at least, algebras together with a set of designated elements,
without any requirement about its definability using the corresponding
algebraic language. These pairs are the logical matrices. Tarski defined the
general concept of logical matrix in the 1920s but the concept was already
Summer 2022 Edition 29
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
implicit in previous work by Łukasiewicz, Bernays, Post and others, who
used truth-tables, either in independence proofs or to define logics
different from classical logic. A logical matrix is a pair ⟨A, D⟩ where A is
an algebra and D a subset of the universe A of A ; the elements of D are
called the designated elements of the matrix and accordingly D is called
the set of designated elements (and some authors call it the truth set of the
matrix). Logical matrices were first used as models of the theorems of
specific logic systems, for instance in the work of McKinsey and Tarski,
and also to define sets of formulas with similar properties to those of the
set of theorems of a logic system, namely closure under substitution
instances. This was the case of the n-valued logics of Łukasiewicz and of
his infinite-valued logic. And it was Tarski who first considered logical
matrices as a general tool to define this kind of sets.
The general theory of logical matrices explained in this entry is due
mainly to Polish logicians, starting with Łoś 1949 and continuing in Łoś &
Suszko 1958, building on previous work by Lindenbaum. In Łoś and
Suszko’s paper matrices are used for the first time both as models of logic
systems (in our sense) and to define systems of these kind.
In the rest of the section, we present the relevant concepts of the theory of
logical matrices using modern terminology.
Given a logic L , a logical matrix ⟨A, D⟩ is said to be a model of L if
wherever Γ ⊢L ϕ , then every valuation v on A that maps the elements of
Γ to some designated value (i.e., an element of D) also maps ϕ to a
designated value. When ⟨A, D⟩ is a model of L it is said that D is an L -
filter of the algebra A. The set of L -filters of an algebra A plays a crucial
role in the theory of the algebraization of logic systems. We will come to
this point later.
30 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
A class M of logical matrices is said to be a matrix semantics for a logic L
if
(*) Γ ⊢L ϕ iff for every ⟨A, D⟩ ∈ M and every valuation v on A ,
if v[Γ] ⊆ D, then v(ϕ) ∈ D.
The implication from left to right says that L is sound relative to M, and
the other implication says that it is complete. In other words, M is a matrix
semantics for L if and only if every matrix in M is a model of L and
moreover for every Γ and ϕ such that Γ ⊬L ϕ there is a model ⟨A, D⟩ of
L in M that witnesses the fact, namely there is a valuation on the model
that sends the formulas in Γ to designated elements and ϕ to a non-
designated one.
Logical matrices are also used to define logics semantically. If
 = ⟨A, D⟩ is a logical matrix, the relation defined by
Γ ⊢ ϕ iff for every valuation v on A if v(ψ) ∈ D for all ψ ∈ Γ,
then v(ϕ) ∈ D
is a consequence relation which is substitution-invariant; therefore
⟨L, ⊢ ⟩ is a logic system. Similarly, we can define the logic of a class of
matrices M by taking condition (*) as a definition of a consequence
relation. In the entry on many-valued logic the reader can find several
logics defined in this way.
Every logic (independently of how it is defined) has a matrix semantics.
Moreover, every logic has a matrix semantics whose elements have the
property of being reduced in the following sense: A matrix ⟨A, D⟩ is
reduced if there are no two different elements of A that behave in the same
way. We say that a, b ∈ A behave in the same way in ⟨A, D⟩ if for every
formula ϕ(q, p1 , … , pn ) and all elements d1 , … , dn ∈ A
A
[a, 1, … , n ] ∈ D iff A
[b, 1, … , n ] ∈ D.
Summer 2022 Edition 31
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
ϕA [a, d1 , … , dn ] ∈ D iff ϕA [b, d1 , … , dn ] ∈ D.
Thus a, b ∈ A behave differently if there is a formula ϕ(q, p1 , … , pn ) and
elements d1 , … , dn ∈ A such that one of ϕA [a, d1 , … , dn ] and
ϕA [b, d1 , … , dn ] belongs to D but not both. The relation of behaving in
the same way in ⟨A, D⟩ is a congruence relation of A. This relation is
known after Blok & Pigozzi 1986, 1989 as the Leibniz congruence of the
matrix ⟨A, D⟩ and is denoted by ΩA (D). It can be characterized as the
greatest congruence relation of A that is compatible with D , that is, that
does not relate elements in D with elements not in D . The concept of
Leibniz congruence plays a fundamental role in the general theory of the
algebraization of the logic systems developed during the 1980s by Blok
and Pigozzi. The reader is referred to Font, Jansana, & Pigozzi 2003 and
Czelakowski 2001 for extensive information on the developments around
the concept of Leibniz congruence during this period.
Every matrix  can be turned into a reduced matrix by identifying the
elements related by its Leibniz congruence. This matrix is called the
reduction of  and is usually denoted by ∗ . A matrix and its reduction
are models of the same logic systems, and since reduced matrices have no
redundant elements, the classes of reduced matrices that are matrix
semantics for logic systems are usually taken as the classes of matrices
that deserve study; they are better suited to encoding in algebraic-like
terms the properties of the logics that have them as their matrix semantics.
The proof that every logic system has a reduced matrix semantics (i.e., a
matrix semantics consisting of reduced matrices) is as follows. Let L be a
logic system. Consider the matrices ⟨FmL , T⟩ over the formula algebra,
where T is a theory of L . These matrices are known as the Lindenbaum
matrices of L. It is not difficult to see that the class of those matrices is a
matrix semantics for L . Since a matrix and its reduction are models of the
same logics, the reductions of the Lindenbaum matrices of L constitute a
32 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
matrix semantics for L too, and indeed a reduced one. Moreover, any class
of reduced matrix models of L that includes the reduced Lindenbaum
matrices of L is automatically a complete matrix semantics for L . In
particular, the class of all reduced matrix models of L is a complete matrix
semantics for L . We denote this class by RMatr(L) .
The above proof can be seen as a generalization of the Lindenbaum-Tarski
method for proving algebraic completeness theorems that we will discuss
in the next section.
The class of the algebras of the matrices in RMatr(L) plays a prominent
role in the theory of the algebraization of logics and it is denoted by
Alg∗ L. It has been considered for a long time the natural class of algebras
that has to be associated with a given logic L as its algebraic counterpart.
For instance, in the examples considered above the classes of algebras that
were given as algebraic semantics of the different logics (Boolean
algebras, Heyting algebras, etc.) are exactly the class Alg∗ L of the
corresponding logic L . And in fact, the class Alg∗ L coincides with what
was taken to be the natural class of algebras for all the logics L studied up
to the 1990s. In the 1990s, due to the knowledge acquired of several logics
not studied before, some authors proposed another way to define the class
of algebras that has to be counted as the algebraic counterpart to be
associated with a given logic L . For many logics L , it leads exactly to the
class Alg∗ L but for others it gives a class that extends it properly. We will
discuss it in Section 8.
7. The Lindenbaum-Tarski method for proving
algebraic completeness theorems
We now discuss the method that is most commonly used to prove that a
class of algebras K is a δ(p) ≈ ε(p) -algebraic semantics for a logic L ,
namely the Lindenbaum-Tarski method. It is the standard method used to
Summer 2022 Edition 33
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
prove that the classes of algebras of the examples mentioned in Section 5
are algebraic semantics for the corresponding logics.
The Lindenbaum-Tarski method contributed in two respects to the
elaboration of important notions in the theory of the algebraization of
logics. It underlies Blok and Pigozzi’s notion of algebraizable logic and
reflecting on it some ways to define for each logic a class of algebras can
be justified as providing a natural class. We will consider this issue in
Section 8.
The Lindenbaum-Tarski method can be outlined as follows. To prove that
a class of algebras K is a δ(p) ≈ ε(p) -algebraic semantics for a logic L
first it is shown that K gives a sound δ(p) ≈ ε(p)-semantics for L, namely
that if Γ ⊢L ϕ , then for every A ∈ K and every valuation v in A if the
values of the formulas in Γ satisfy δ(p) ≈ ε(p), then the value of ϕ does
too. Secondly, the other direction, that is, the completeness part, is proved
by what is properly known as the Lindenbaum-Tarski method. This
method uses the theories of L to obtain matrices on the algebra of
formulas and then reduces these matrices in order to get for each one a
matrix whose algebra is in K and whose set of designated elements is the
set of elements of the algebra that satisfy δ(p) ≈ ε(p) . We proceed to
describe the method step by step.
Let L be one of the logics discussed in the examples in Section 5. Let K
be the corresponding class of algebras we considered there and let
δ(p) ≈ ε(p) be the equation in one variable involved in the soundness and
completeness theorem. To prove the completeness theorem one proceeds
as follows. Given any set of formulas Γ :
1. The theory CL (Γ) = {ϕ : Γ ⊢L ϕ} of Γ, which we denote by T , is
considered and the binary relation θ(T) on the set of formulas is
defined using the formula p ↔ q as follows:
34 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ ∈ θ(T) iff ϕ ↔ ψ ∈ T.
2. It is shown that θ(T) is a congruence relation on FmL . The set [ϕ] of
the formulas related to the formula ϕ by θ(T) is called the
equivalence class of ϕ .
3. A new matrix ⟨Fm/θ(T), T/θ(T)⟩ is obtained by identifying the
formulas related by θ(T) , that is, Fm/θ(T) is the quotient algebra of
Fm modulo θ(T) and T/θ(T) is the set of equivalence classes of the
elements of T . Recall that the algebraic operations of the quotient
algebra are defined by:
∗Fm/θ(T) ([ϕ1 ], … , [ϕn]) = [∗ϕ1 … ϕn] and †Fm/θ(T) = [†]
4. It is shown that θ(T) is a relation compatible with T , i.e., that if
⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ ∈ θ(T) and ϕ ∈ T , then ψ ∈ T . This implies that
ϕ ∈ T iff [ϕ] ⊆ T iff [ϕ] ∈ T/θ(T).
5. It is proved that the matrix ⟨Fm/θ(T), T/θ(T)⟩ is reduced, that
Fm/θ(T) belongs to K and that T/θ(T) is the set of elements of
Fm/θ(T) that satisfy the equation δ(p) ≈ ε(p) in Fm/θ(T).
The proof of the completeness theorem then proceeds as follows. (4) and
(5) imply that for every formula ψ, Γ ⊢L ψ if and only if [ψ] satisfies the
equation δ(p) ≈ ε(p) in the algebra Fm/θ(T). Thus, considering the
valuation id mapping every variable p to its equivalence class [p], whose
extension id to the set of all formulas is such that id(ϕ) = [ϕ] for every
formula ϕ , we have for every formula ψ ,
Γ ⊢L ψ iff id(ψ) satisfies the equation δ(p) ≈ ε(p) in Fm/θ(T).
Hence, since by (5), Fm/θ(T) ∈ K , it follows that if Γ ⊬L ϕ, then there is
an algebra A ∈ K (namely Fm/θ(T)) and a valuation v (namely id) such
that the elements of v[Γ] satisfy the equation on A but v(ϕ) does not.
Summer 2022 Edition 35
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
The Lindenbaum-Tarski method, when successful, shows that the class of
algebras {Fm/θ(T) : T is a theory of L} is a δ(p) ≈ ε(p)-algebraic
semantics for L . Therefore it also shows that every class of algebras K
which is δ(p) ≈ ε(p) -sound for L and includes the set {Fm/θ(T) : T is a
theory of L} is also a δ(p) ≈ ε(p) -algebraic semantics for L .
Let us make some remarks on the Lindenbaum-Tarski method just
described. The first is important for the generalizations leading to the
classes of algebras associated with a logic. The others, to obtain the
conditions in the definition of the concept of algebraizable logic.
1. Conditions (4) and (5) imply that θ(T) is in fact the Leibniz
congruence of ⟨FmL , T⟩.
2. When the Lindenbaum-Tarski method succeeds, it usually holds that
in every algebra A ∈ K, the relation defined by the equation
δ(p ↔ q) ≈ ε(p ↔ q),
which is the result of replacing in δ(p) ≈ ε(p) the letter p by the
formula p ↔ q that defines the congruence relation of a theory, is the
identity relation on A.
3. For every formula ϕ, the formulas δ(p/ϕ) ↔ ε(p/ϕ) and ϕ are
interderivable in L (i.e., ϕ ⊢L δ(p/ϕ) ↔ ε(p/ϕ) and
δ(p/ϕ) ↔ ε(p/ϕ) ⊢L ϕ).
The concept of algebraizable logic introduced by Blok and Pigozzi, which
we will discuss in Section 9, can be described roughly by saying that a
logic L is algebraizable if it has an algebraic semantics (K, Eq) such that
(1) K is included in the natural class of algebras Alg∗ L associated with L
and (2) the fact that (K, Eq) is an algebraic semantics can be proved by
using the Lindenbaum-Tarski method slightly generalized.
36 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
8. The natural class of algebras of a logic system
We shall now discuss the two definitions that have been considered as
providing natural classes of algebras associated with a logic L . Both
definitions can be seen as arising from an abstraction of the Lindenbaum-
Tarski method and we follow this path in introducing them. The common
feature of these abstractions is that in them the specific way in which the
relation θ(T) is defined in the Lindenbaum-Tarski method is disregarded.
It has to be remarked that, nonetheless, for many logics both definitions
lead to the same class. The classes obtained from both definitions have
been taken in the algebraic studies of many particular logics (for some
logics one, for others the other) as the natural class that deserves to be
studied.
We already encountered the first generalization in Section 6 when we
showed that every logic has a reduced matrix semantics. It leads to the
class of algebras Alg∗ L. That its definition is a generalization of the
Lindenbaum-Tarski method comes from the realization that the relation
θ(T), associated with an L-theory, defined in the different completeness
proofs in the literature that use the Lindenbaum-Tarski method is in fact
the Leibniz congruence of the matrix ⟨FmL , T⟩ and that therefore the
matrix ⟨Fm/θ(T), T/θ(T)⟩ is its reduction. As we mentioned in Section 6,
for every logic L , every L -sound class of matrices M that contains all the
matrices ⟨Fm/ΩFmL (T), T/ΩFmL (T)⟩ , where T is a theory of L, is a
complete reduced matrix semantics for L . From this perspective the notion
of the Leibniz congruence of a matrix can be taken as a generalization to
arbitrary matrices of the idea that comes from the Lindenbaum-Tarski
procedure of proving completeness. Following this course of reasoning,
the class Alg∗ L of the algebras of the reduced matrix models of a logic L
is a very natural class of algebras to associate with L . It is the class
Summer 2022 Edition 37
 Algebraic Propositional Logic Ramon Jansana

{A/ΩA (F) : A is an L -algebra and F is a L -filter of A} . congruence of matrices has been developed in Czelakowski 2003 and
continued in Albuquerque & Font & Jansana 2016.
The second way of generalizing the Lindenbaum-Tarski method uses a
different fact, namely that in the examples discussed in Section 3 the In the same manner that the concept of Leibniz congruence leads to the
FmL (T) defined by the condition
relation θ(T) is also the relation Ω∼ concept of reduced matrix, the notion of Suszko congruence leads to the
notion of Suszko-reduced matrix. A matrix model of L is Suszko-reduced
⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ ∈ ΩFm
∼
(T) iff ∀T ′ ∈ Th(L),
L
if its Suszko congruence is the identity. Then the class of algebras of the
∀p ∈ V,
Suszko-reduced matrix models of a logic L is another class of algebras
∀γ(p) ∈ FmL (T ⊆ T ′ ⇒ (γ(p/ϕ) ∈ T ′ ⇔ γ(p/ψ) ∈ T ′ )).
that is taken as a natural class of algebras to associate with L . It is the
For every logic L and every L -theory T the relation Ω∼ FmL (T) defined in class
this way is the greatest congruence compatible with all the L -theories that
extend T . Therefore, it holds that AlgL = {A/Ω∼A L (F) : A is an L -algebra and F is a L -filter of A} .

∼
(T) = ΩFmL (T ′ ),
⋂
ΩFmL
This class is nowadays taken in abstract algebraic logic as the natural class
T ′ ∈Th(L)T of algebras to be associated with L and it called its algebraic counterpart.

where Th(L)T = {T ′ ∈ Th(L) : T ⊆ T ′ }. The relation Ω∼ FmL (T) is

known as the Suszko congruence of T (w.r.t. L). Suszko defined it —in an
equivalent way— in 1977.
For every logic L , the notion of the Suszko congruence can be extended to
its matrix models. The Suszko congruence of a matrix model ⟨A, D⟩ of L
(w.r.t. L) is the greatest congruence of A compatible with every L-filter of
A that includes D, that is, it is the relation given by
∼L
(D) = ΩA ( D′)
⋂
ΩA
D′ ∈ FiL (A )D
where FiL (A)D = {D′ : D′ is a L -filter of A and D ⊆ D′}. Notice that
unlike the intrinsic notion of Leibniz congruence, the Suszko congruence
of a matrix model of L is not intrinsic to the matrix: it depends in an
essential way on the logic under consideration. The theory of the Suszko
For an arbitrary logic L , the relation between the classes AlgL and Alg∗ L
is that AlgL is the closure of Alg∗ L under subdirect products, in
particular Alg∗ L ⊆ AlgL. In general, the two classes may be different.
For example, if L is the (∧, ∨)-fragment of classical propositional logic,
AlgL is the variety of distributive lattices (the class that has been always
taken to be the natural class of algebras associated with L) while Alg∗ L is
properly included in it —in fact Alg∗ L is not a quasivariety. Nonetheless,
for many logics L, in particular for the algebraizable and the
protoalgebraic ones to be discussed in the next sections, and also when
Alg∗ L is a variety, the classes AlgL and Alg∗ L are equal. This fact can
explain why in the 1980s, before the algebraic study of non-protoalgebraic
logics was considered worth to be pursued, the conceptual difference
between the two definitions was not needed and, accordingly, it was not
considered (or even discovered).

38 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2022 Edition 39

 Algebraic Propositional Logic
9. When a logic is algebraizable and what does this
mean?
The algebraizable logics are purported to be the logics with the strongest
possible link with their algebraic counterpart. This requirement demands
that the algebraic counterpart of the logic should be an algebraic semantics
but requires a more robust connection between the logic and the algebraic
counterpart than that. This more robust connection is present in the best
behaved particular logics known. The mathematically precise concept of
algebraizable logic characterizes this type of link. Blok and Pigozzi
introduced that fundamental concept in Blok & Pigozzi 1989 and its
introduction can be considered the starting point of the unification and
growth of the field of abstract algebraic logic in the 1980s. Blok and
Pigozzi defined the notion of algebraizable logic only for finitary logics.
Later, Czelakowski and Herrmann generalized it to arbitrary logics and
also weakened some conditions in the definition. We present here the
generalized concept.
We said in Section 7 that, roughly speaking, a logic L is algebraizable
when 1) it has an algebraic semantics, i.e., a class of algebras K and a set
of equations Eq(p) such that K is a Eq -algebraic semantics for L , 2) this
fact can be proved by using the Lindenbaum-Tarski method slightly
generalized and, moreover, 3) K ⊆ Alg∗ L. The generalization of the
Lindenbaum-Tarski method (as we described it in Section 7) consists in
allowing in step (5) (as already done in the definition of algebraic
semantics) a set of equations Eq(p) in one variable instead of a single
equation δ(p) ≈ ε(p) and in allowing in a similar manner a set of formulas
Δ(p, q) in at most two variables to play the role of the formula p ↔ q in
the definition of the congruence of a theory. Then, given a theory T , the
relation θ(T), which has to be the greatest congruence on the formula
40 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
algebra compatible with T (i.e., the Leibniz congruence of T), is defined
by
⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ ∈ θ(T) iff Δ(p/ϕ, q/ψ) ⊆ T.
We need some notational conventions before engaging in the precise
definition of algebraizable logic. Given a set of equations Eq(p) in one
variable and a formula ϕ , let Eq(ϕ) be the set of equations obtained by
replacing in all the equations in Eq the variable p by ϕ . If Γ is a set of
formulas, let
Eq(Γ) := ⋃ Eq(ϕ).
ϕ∈Γ
Similarly, given a set of formulas in two variables Δ(p, q) and an equation
δ ≈ ε , let Δ(δ, ε) denote the set of formulas obtained by replacing p by δ
and q by ε in all the formulas in Δ. Moreover, if Eq is a set of equations,
let
Δ(Eq) = ⋃ Δ(δ, ε).
δ≈ε∈Eq
Given a set of equations Eq(p, q) in two variables, this set defines on
every algebra A a binary relation, namely the set of pairs ⟨a, b⟩ of
elements of A that satisfy in A all the equations in Eq(p, q). In standard
model-theoretic notation, this set is the relation
{⟨a, b⟩ : a, b ∈ A and A ⊨ Eq(p, q)[a, b]}.
The formal definition of algebraizable logic is as follows. A logic L is
algebraizable if there is a class of algebras K, a set of equations Eq(p) in
one variable and a set of formulas Δ(p, q) in two variables such that
1. K is an Eq -algebraic semantics for L , namely
Summer 2022 Edition 41
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
Γ ⊢L ϕ iff for every A ∈ K and every valuation v on A , if
v[Γ] ⊆ Eq(A), then v(ϕ) ∈ Eq(A) .
2. For every A ∈ K, the relation defined by the set of equations in two
variables Eq(Δ(p, q)) is the identity relation on A.
A class of algebras K for which there are sets Eq(p) and Δ(p, q) with
these two properties is said to be an equivalent algebraic semantics for L .
The set of formulas Δ is called a set of equivalence formulas and the set of
equations Eq a set of defining equations.
The conditions of the definition imply:
3. p is inter-derivable in L with the set of formulas Δ(Eq), that is
Δ(Eq) ⊢L p and p ⊢L Δ(Eq).
4. For every L -theory T , the Leibniz congruence of ⟨FmL , T⟩ is the
relation defined by Δ(p, q), namely
⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ ∈ ΩFm (T) iff Δ(p/ϕ, q/ψ) ⊆ T.
5. If Δ and Δ′ are two sets of equivalence formulas, Δ ⊢L Δ′ and
Δ′ ⊢L Δ . Similarly, if Eq(p) and Eq′ (p) are two sets of defining
equations, for every algebra A ∈ K, Eq(A) = Eq′ (A).
6. The class of algebras Alg∗ L also satisfies conditions (1) and (2), and
hence it is an equivalent algebraic semantics for L . Moreover, it is an
SP-class and includes every other class of algebras that is an
equivalent algebraic semantics for L . Accordingly, it is called the
greatest equivalent algebraic semantics of L .
7. For every A ∈ Alg∗ L there is exactly one L -filter F such that the
matrix ⟨A, F⟩ is reduced, and this filter is the set Eq(A). Or, to put it
in other terms, the class of reduced matrix models of L is
{⟨A, Eq(A)⟩ : A ∈ Alg∗ L}.
42 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
Blok and Pigozzi’s definition of algebraizable logic in Blok & Pigozzi
1989 was given only for finitary logics and, moreover, they imposed that
the sets of defining equations and of equivalence formulas should be finite.
Today we say that an algebraizable logic is finitely algebraizable if the sets
of equivalence formulas Δ and of defining equations Eq can both be taken
finite. And we say that a logic is Blok-Pigozzi algebraizable (BP-
algebraizable) if it is finitary and finitely algebraizable.
If L is finitary and finitely algebraizable, then Alg∗ L is not only an SP-
class, but a quasivariety and it is the quasivariety generated by any class of
algebras K which is an equivalent algebraic semantics for L .
We have just seen that in algebraizable logics the class of algebras Alg∗ L
plays a prominent role. Moreover, in these logics the classes of algebras
obtained by the two ways of generalizing the Lindenbaum-Tarski method
coincide, that is, Alg∗ L = AlgL —this is due to the fact that for any
algebraizable logic L, Alg∗ L is closed under subdirect products. Hence,
for every algebraizable logic L its algebraic counterpart AlgL is its
greatest equivalent algebraic semantics, whatever perspective is taken on
the generalization of the Lindenbaum-Tarski method.
Conditions (1) and (2) of the definition of algebraizable logic (instantiated
to Alg∗ L) encode the fact that there is a very strong link between an
algebraizable logic L and its class of algebras AlgL, so that this class of
algebras reflects the metalogical properties of L by algebraic properties of
AlgL and conversely.
The definition of algebraizable logic can be stated, equivalently, in terms
of translations between the logic and an equational consequence relation
⊨K associated with any equivalent algebraic semantics K for it —that
turns to be the same relation no matter what equivalent algebraic
semantics we choose.
Summer 2022 Edition 43
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
The equational consequence ⊨K of a class of algebras K is defined as
follows.
{ϕi ≈ ψi : i ∈ I} ⊨K ϕ ≈ ψ iff for every A ∈ K and every
valuation v on A , if v(ϕi ) = v(ψi ) , for all i ∈ I , then v(ϕ) = v(ψ) .
The translations needed are given by the set of defining equations and the
set of equivalence formulas. A set of equations Eq(p) in one variable
defines a translation from formulas to sets of equations: each formula is
translated into the set of equations Eq(ϕ). Similarly, a set of formulas
Δ(p, q) in two variables defines a translation from equations to sets of
formulas: each equation ϕ ≈ ψ is translated into the set of formulas
Δ(ϕ, ψ).
Condition (1) in the definition of algebraizable logic can be reformulated
as
Γ ⊢L ϕ iff Eq(Γ) ⊨K Eq(ϕ)
and condition (2) as
p ≈ q ⊨K Eq(Δ(p, q)) and Eq(Δ(p, q)) ⊨K p ≈ q.
These two conditions imply
9. {ϕi ≈ ψi : i ∈ I} ⊨K ϕ ≈ ψ iff Δ({ϕi ≈ ψi : i ∈ I}) ⊢L Δ(ϕ, ψ)
and condition (3) above is
p ⊢L Δ(Eq(p)) and Δ(Eq(p)) ⊢L p.
Thus, an algebraizable logic L is faithfully interpreted in the equational
logic of its equivalent algebraic semantics (condition (1)) by means of the
translation of formulas into sets of equations given by a set of defining
44 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
equations, and the equational logic of its equivalent algebraic semantics is
faithfully interpreted in the logic L (condition (9)) by means of the
translation of equations into sets of formulas given by an equivalence set
of formulas. Moreover, both translations are inverses of each other
(conditions (2) and (3)) modulo logical equivalence. In this way we see
that the link between L and its greatest equivalent algebraic semantics is
very strong and that the properties of L should translate into properties of
the associated equational consequence relation. The properties that this
relation actually has of course depend on the properties of the class of
algebras AlgL.
Given an algebraic semantics (K, Eq) for a logic L , a way to stress the
difference between it being merely an algebraic semantics and being an
algebraic semantics that makes L algebraizable is that the translation of
formulas into equations given by the set of equations Eq is invertible in
the sense that there is a translation, say Δ , of equations into formulas
given by a set of formulas in two variables that satisfies condition (9)
above, and such that Eq and Δ provide mutually inverses translations (i.e.,
conditions (2) and (3) hold).
The link between an algebraizable logic L and its greatest equivalent
algebraic semantics given by the set of defining equations and the set of
equivalence formulas allows us to prove a series of general theorems that
relate the properties of L with the properties of AlgL. These kinds of
theorems are called frequently bridge theorems. We will mention as a
sample three of them.
The first concerns the deduction theorem. To prove a general theorem
relating the existence of a deduction theorem with an algebraic property
requires first that a concept of deduction theorem applicable to any logic
has to be defined. A logic L has the deduction-detachment property if
Summer 2022 Edition 45
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
there is a finite set of formulas Σ(p, q) such that for every set of formulas
Γ and all formulas ϕ, ψ
Γ ∪ {ϕ} ⊢L ψ iff Γ ⊢L Σ(ϕ, ψ).
Note that this is a generalization of the standard deduction theorem (the
direction from left to right in the above expression) and Modus Ponens
(equivalent to the implication from right to left) that several logics have
for a connective →. In those cases Σ(p, q) = {p → q}.
Theorem 1.
A finitary and finitely algebraizable logic L has the deduction-
detachment property if and only if the principal relative congruences
of the algebras in AlgL are equationally definable.
The second theorem refers to Craig interpolation. Several notions of
interpolation are applicable to arbitrary logics. We consider only one of
them. A logic L has the Craig interpolation property for the consequence
relation if whenever Γ ⊢L ϕ and the set of variables of ϕ has nonempty
intersection with the set of variables of formulas in Γ, there is a finite set
of formulas Γ′ whose set of variables is included in the set of variables
shared by ϕ and the formulas in Γ such that Γ ⊢L Γ′ and Γ′ ⊢L ϕ.
Theorem 2.
Let L be a finitary and finitely algebraizable logic with the deduction-
detachment property. Then L has the Craig interpolation property if
and only if AlgL has the amalgamation property.
Finally, the third theorem concerns the Beth definability property. The
interested reader can find the definition in Font, Jansana & Pigozzi 2003.
In the general setting we are in, the property is too involved to state it
here.
46 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
Theorem 3.
A finitary and finitely algebraizable logic has the Beth property if and
only if all the epimorphisms of the category with objects the algebras
in AlgL and morphisms the algebraic homomorphisms are surjective
homomorphisms.
Other results relating properties of an algebraizable logic with a property
of its natural class of algebras can be found in Raftery 2011, 2013. They
concern respectively a generalization of the property of having the
deduction-detachment property and the property that generalize the
inconsistency lemmas of classical and intuitionistic logic. Also an abstract
notion of having a theorem like Glivenko’s theorem relating classical and
intuitionistic logic has been proposed and related to an algebraic property
in the case of algebraizable logics in Torrens 2008. More recently Raftery
2016 presents bridge theorems related to admissible rules and to structural
completeness and Lávička et al. 2021 studies bridge theorems for the
property of the weak excluded middle.
For several classes of algebras that are the equivalent algebraic semantics
of some algebraizable logic it has been known for a long time that for
every algebra in the class there is an isomorphism between the lattice of
congruences of the algebra and a lattice of subsets of the algebra with
important algebraic meaning. For example, in Boolean algebras and
Heyting algebras these subsets are the lattice filters and in modal algebras
they are the lattice filters that are closed under the operation that interprets
◻. In all those cases, the sets are exactly the L -filters of the corresponding
algebraizable logic L.
Algebraizable logics can be characterized by the existence of this kind of
isomorphism between congruences and logic filters on the algebras of their
algebraic counterpart. To spell out this characterization we need a couple
of definitions. Let L be a logic. The Leibniz operator on an algebra A
Summer 2022 Edition 47
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
(relative to L) is the map from the L -filters of A to the set of congruences
of A that sends every L-filter D of A to its Leibniz congruence ΩA (D) .
We say that the Leibniz operator of a logic L commutes with the inverses
of homomorphisms between algebras in a class K if for every
homomorphism h from an algebra A ∈ K to an algebra B ∈ K and every
L -filter D of B, h−1 [ΩB (D)] = ΩA (h−1 [D]).
Theorem 4.
A logic L is algebraizable if and only if for every algebra A ∈ AlgL
the Leibniz operator commutes with the inverses of homomorphisms
between algebras in AlgL and is an isomorphism between the set of
all L -filters of A , ordered by inclusion, and the set of congruences θ
of A such that A/θ ∈ AlgL, ordered also by inclusion.
The theorem provides a logical explanation of the known isomorphisms
mentioned above and similar ones for other classes of algebras. For
example, the isomorphism between the congruences and the normal
subgroups of a group can be explained by the existence of an algebraizable
logic L of which the class of groups is its greatest equivalent algebraic
semantics and the normal subgroups of a group are its L-filters.
A different but related characterization of algebraizable logics is this:
Theorem 5.
A logic L is algebraizable if and only if on the algebra of formulas
FmL , the map that sends every theory T to its Leibniz congruence
commutes with the inverses of homomorphisms from FmL to FmL
and it is an isomorphism between the set Th(L) of theories of L,
ordered by inclusion, and the set of congruences θ of FmL such that
FmL /θ ∈ AlgL, also ordered by inclusion.
48 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
10. A classification of logics
Unfortunately, not every logic is algebraizable. A typical example of a
non-algebraizable logic is the local consequence of the normal modal logic
K . Let us discuss this example.
The local modal logic lK and the corresponding global one gK are not
only different, but their metalogical properties differ. For example, lK has
the deduction-detachment property for → :
Γ ∪ {ϕ} ⊢lK ψ iff Γ ⊢lK ϕ → ψ.
But gK does not have the deduction-detachment property (at all).
The logic gK is algebraizable and lK is not. The equivalent algebraic
semantics of gK is the variety MA of modal algebras, the set of
equivalence formulas is the set {p ↔ q} and the set of defining equations
is {p ≈ ⊤} . Interestingly, lK and gK have the same algebraic counterpart
(i.e., AlglK = AlggK) , namely, the variety of modal algebras.
A lesson to draw from this example is that the algebraic counterpart AlgL
of a logic L does not necessarily fully encode the properties of L . The
class of modal algebras encodes the properties of gK because this logic is
algebraizable and therefore the link between gK and AlggK is as strong
as possible. But AlglK, the class of modal algebras, cannot by itself
completely encode the properties of lK.
What causes this difference between gK and lK is that the class of
reduced matrix models of gK is
{⟨A, {1A }⟩ : A ∈ MA},
but the class of reduced matrix models of lK properly includes this class
so that for some algebras A ∈ MA, in addition to {1A } there is some
Summer 2022 Edition 49
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
other lK -filter F with ⟨A, F⟩ reduced. This fact provides a way to show
that lK can not be algebraizable by showing that the lK -filters of the
reduced matrices are not equationally definable from the algebras; if they
where, then for every A ∈ AlglK there would exist exactly one lK -filter
F of A such that ⟨A, F⟩ is reduced.
Nonetheless, we can perform some of the steps of the Lindenbaum-Tarski
method in the logic lK . We can define the Leibniz congruence of every
lK -theory in a uniform way by using formulas in two variables. But in this
particular case the set of formulas has to be infinite. Let
Δ(p, q) = {◻n (p ↔ q) : n a natural number} , where for every formula
ϕ, ◻0 ϕ is ϕ and ◻n ϕ for n > 0 is the formula ϕ with a sequence of n
boxes in front (◻ … ◻ϕ) . Then, for every lK -theory T the relation θ(T)
defined by
⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ ∈ θ(T) iff {◻n (ϕ ↔ ψ) : n a natural number} ⊆ T
is the Leibniz congruence of T . In this case, it happens though that there
are two different lK -theories with the same Leibniz congruence,
something that does not hold for gK.
The logics L with the property that there is a set of formulas (possibly
infinite) Δ(p, q) in two variables that defines in every L -theory T its
Leibniz congruence, that is, that for all L-formulas ϕ, ψ it holds
⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ ∈ ΩFm (T) iff Δ(ϕ, ψ) ⊆ T,
are known as the equivalential logics. If Δ(p, q) is finite, the logic is said
to be finitely equivalential. A set Δ(p, q) that defines in every L -theory its
Leibniz congruence is called a set of equivalence formulas for L . It is
clear that every algebraizable logic is equivalential and that every finitely
algebraizable logic is finitely equivalential.
50 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
The logic lK is, according to the definition, equivalential, and it can be
shown that it is not finitely equivalential. The local modal logic lS4 is an
example of a non-algebraizable logic that is finitely equivalential. A set of
equivalence formulas for lS4 is {◻(p ↔ q)}.
A set of equivalence formulas for a logic L should be considered as a
generalized biconditional, in the sense that collectively the formulas in the
set have the relevant properties of the biconditional, for example in
classical logic, that makes it suitable to define the Leibniz congruences of
its theories. This comes out very clearly from the following syntactic
characterization of the sets of equivalence formulas.
Theorem 6.
A set Δ(p, q) of L-formulas is a set of equivalence formulas for a logic
L if and only if
(RΔ ) ⊢L Δ(p, p)
(MPΔ ) p, Δ(p, q) ⊢L q
(SΔ ) Δ(p, q) ⊢L Δ(q, p)
(TΔ ) Δ(p, q) ∪ Δ(q, r) ⊢L Δ(p, r)
(ReΔ ) Δ(p1 , q1 ) ∪ … ∪ Δ(pn , qn ) ⊢L Δ(∗p1 … pn , ∗q1 … qn ) , for
every connective ∗ of L of arity n greater that 0.
There is some redundancy in the theorem. Conditions (SΔ ) and (TΔ )
follow from (RΔ ), (MPΔ ) and (ReΔ ).
Equivalential logics were first considered as a class of logics deserving to
be studied in Prucnal & Wroński 1974, and they were studied extensively
in Czelakowski 1981; see also Czelakowski 2001.
We already mentioned that the algebraizable logics are equivalential. The
difference between an equivalential logic and an algebraizable one can be
seen in the following syntactic characterization of algebraizable logics:
Summer 2022 Edition 51
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
Theorem 7.
A logic L is algebraizable if and only if there exists a set Δ(p, q) of L -
formulas and a set Eq(p) of L-equations such that the conditions
(RΔ )–(ReΔ ) above hold for Δ(p, q) and
p ⊢L Δ(Eq(p)) and Δ(Eq(p)) ⊢L p.
The set Δ(p, q) in the theorem is then an equivalence set of formulas for L
and the set Eq(p) a set of defining equations.
There are logics that are not equivalential but have the property of having
a set of formulas [p ⇒ q] which collectively behave in a very weak sense
as the implication → does in many logics. Namely, that has the properties
(RΔ ) and (MPΔ ) in the syntactic characterization of a set of equivalence
formulas, i.e.,
(R⇒ ) ⊢L [p ⇒ p]
(MP⇒ ) p, [p ⇒ q] ⊢L q
If a logic is finitary and has a set of formulas with these properties, there is
always a finite subset with the same properties. The logics with a set of
formulas (finite or not) with properties (1) and (2) above are called
protoalgebraic. Thus, every equivalential logic and every algebraizable
logic are protoalgebraic.
Protoalgebraic logics were first studied by Czelakowski, who called them
non-pathological, and slightly later by Blok and Pigozzi in Blok & Pigozzi
1986. The label ‘protoalgebraic logic’ is due to these last two authors.
The class of protoalgebraic logics turned out to be the class of logics for
which the theory of logical matrices works really well in the sense that
many results of universal algebra have counterparts for the classes of
reduced matrix models of these logics and many methods of universal
52 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
algebra can be adapted to its study; consequently the algebraic study of
protoalgebraic logics using their matrix semantics has been extensively
and very fruitfully pursued. But, as we will see, some interesting logics are
not protoalgebraic.
An important characterization of protoalgebraic logics is via the behavior
of the Leibniz operator. The following conditions are equivalent:
1. L is protoalgebraic.
2. The Leibniz operator ΩFmL is monotone on the set of L -theories with
respect to the inclusion relation, that is, if T ⊆ T ′ are L -theories,
then ΩFmL (T) ⊆ ΩFmL (T ′ ).
3. For every algebra A , the Leibniz operator ΩA is monotone on the set
of L -filters of A with respect to the inclusion relation.
Due to the monotonicity property of the Leibniz operator, for every
protoalgebraic logic L the class of algebras Alg∗ L is closed under
subdirect products and therefore it is equal to AlgL. Hence, for
protoalgebraic logics the two ways we encountered to associate a class of
algebras with a logic produce, as we already mentioned, the same result.
There are also characterizations of equivalential and finitely equivalential
logics by the behavior of the Leibniz operator. The reader is referred to
Czelakowski 2001 and Font & Jansana & Pigozzi 2003.
In his Raftery 2006b, Raftery studies Condition 7 in the list of properties
of an algebraizable logic we gave just after the definition. The condition
says:
For every A ∈ Alg∗ L the class of reduced matrix models of L is
{⟨A, Eq(A)⟩ : A ∈ Alg∗ L}, where Eq(p) is the set of defining
equations for L .
Summer 2022 Edition 53
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
The logics with a set of equations Eq(p) with this property, namely such
that for every A ∈ Alg∗ L the class of reduced matrix models of L is
{⟨A, Eq(A)⟩ : A ∈ Alg∗ L}, are called truth-equational, a name
introduced in Raftery 2006b. Some truth-equational logics are
protoalgebraic but others are not. We will see later an example of the last
ones.
The protoalgebraic logics that are truth-equational are in fact the weakly
algebraizable logics studied already in Czelakowski & Jansana 2000.
Every algebraizable logic is weakly algebraizable. In fact, the
algebraizable logics are the equivalential logics that are truth-equational.
But not every weakly algebraizable logic is equivalential. An example is
the logic determined by the ortholattices, namely by the class of the
matrices ⟨A, {1}⟩ where A is an ortholattice and 1 is its greatest element
(see Czelakowski & Jansana 2000 and Malinowski 1990).
The classes of logics we have considered so far are the main classes in
what has come to be known as the Leibniz hierarchy because its members
are classes of logics that can be characterized by the behavior of the
Leibniz operator. We described only the most important classes of logics
in the hierarchy. The reader is referred to Czelakowski 2001, Font, Jansana
& Pigozzi 2003, Font 2016 and 2022, for more information. In particular,
Czelakowski 2001 gathers extensively the information on the different
classes of the Leibniz hierarchy known at the time of its publication and
Font 2016 is an introduction to abstract algebraic logic very well suited to
learn the most important facts about the Leibniz hierarchy and of abstract
algebraic logic in general.
The relations between the classes of the Leibniz hierarchy considered in
this entry are summarized in the following diagram:
54 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
FIGURE. The Leibniz Hierarchy
Recently, the Leibniz hierarchy has been refined in Cintula & Noguera
2010, 2016. The idea is to consider instead of a set of equivalence
formulas Δ (that corresponds to the biconditional) a set of formulas
[p ⇒ q] that has several properties of the usual conditional (→). Among
these properties we have (R⇒ ) and (MP⇒ ) in the definition of
protoalgebraic logic. The set [p ⇒ q] should be such that its symetrization
[p ⇒ q] ∪ [q ⇒ p] is a set of equivalence formulas. New classes arise
when the set [p ⇒ q] has a single element. Extensive information can be
found in the recent book Cintula & Noguera 2021. This book can also be
taken as an introduction to abstract algebraic logic written from the
perspective of the implication.
11. Replacement principles
Two classes of logics that are not classes of the Leibniz hierarchy have
been extensively studied in abstract algebraic logic. They are defined from
a completely different perspective from the one provided by the behavior
of the Leibniz operator, namely from the perspective given by the
replacement principles a logic might enjoy.
The strongest replacement principle that a logic system L might have,
shared for example by classical logic, intuitionistic logic and all its
Summer 2022 Edition 55
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
axiomatic extensions, says that for any set of formulas Γ, any formulas
ϕ, ψ, δ and any variable p
if Γ, ϕ ⊢L ψ and Γ, ψ ⊢L ϕ , then Γ, δ(p/ϕ) ⊢L δ(p/ψ) and
Γ, δ(p/ψ) ⊢L δ(p/ϕ) ,
where δ(p/ϕ) and δ(p/ψ) are the formulas obtained by substituting
respectively ϕ and ψ for p in δ . This replacement property is taken by
some authors as the formal counterpart of Frege’s principle of
compositionality for truth. Logics satisfying this strong replacement
property are called Fregean in Font & Jansana 1996 and are thoroughly
studied in Czelakowski & Pigozzi 2004a, 2004b.
Many important logics do not satisfy the strong replacement property, for
instance almost all the logics (local or global) of the modal family, but
some, like the local consequence relation of a normal modal logic, satisfy
a weaker replacement principle: for all formulas ϕ, ψ, δ,
if ϕ ⊢L ψ and ψ ⊢L ϕ , then δ(p/ϕ) ⊢L δ(p/ψ) and δ(p/ψ) ⊢L δ(p/ϕ) .
A logic satisfying this weaker replacement property is called
selfextensional by Wójcicki (e.g., in Wójcicki 1969, 1988) and
congruential in Humberstone 2005. We will use the first terminology
because it seems more common —at least in the abstract algebraic logic
literature. It has to be mentioned that all fragments of a selfextensional
logic are selfextensional and that the analogous fact also holds for Fregean
logics. Moreover, the difference between being selfextensional and being
Fregean is not only encountered among protoalgebraic logics like the
mentioned local consequence relations of normal modal logics, it is also
encountered among non protoalgebraic logics. The four-valued logic of
Belnap and Dunn (see Font 1997 for information) is selfextensional, non-
protoalgebraic, and non-Fregean.
56 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
Selfextensional logics have a very good behavior from several points of
view. Their systematic study started in Wójcicki 1969 and has been
continued in the context of abstract algebraic logic in Font & Jansana
1996; Jansana 2005, 2006; and Jansana & Palmigiano 2006.
There are selfextensional and non-selfextensional logics in any one of the
classes of the Leibniz hierarchy and also in the class of non-protoalgebraic
logics. These facts show that the perspective that leads to the consideration
of the classes in the Leibniz hierarchy and the perspective that leads to the
definition of the selfextensional and the Fregean logics as classes of logics
worthy of study as a whole are to a large extent different. Nonetheless, one
of the trends of today’s research in abstract algebraic logic is to determine
the interplay between the two perspectives and study the classes of logics
that arise when crossing both classifications. In fact, there is a connection
between the replacement principles and the Suszko congruence (and thus
with the Leibniz congruence). A logic L satisfies the strong replacement
principle if and only if for every L -theory T its Suszko congruence is the
interderivability relation relative to T , namely the relation
{⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ : T, ϕ ⊢L ψ and T, ψ ⊢L ϕ}. And a logic L satisfies the weak
replacement principle if and only if the Suszko congruence of the set of
theorems of L is the interderivability relation {⟨ϕ, ψ⟩ : ϕ ⊢L ψ and
ψ ⊢L ϕ}.
The study of logic systems from the perspective of the replacement
principles lead to the so called Frege hierarchy we expound in Section 14.
12. Beyond protoalgebraic logics
Not all interesting logics are protoalgebraic. In this section we will briefly
discuss four examples of non-protoalgebraic logics: the logic of
conjunction and disjunction, positive modal logic, the strict implication
fragment of lK and Visser’s subintuitionistic logic. All of them are
Summer 2022 Edition 57
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
selfextensional. In the next section, we will expound the semantics of
abstract logics and generalized matrices that serves to develop a really
general theory of the algebraization of logic systems. As we will see, the
perspective changes in an important respect from the perspective taken in
logical matrix model theory.
12.1 The logic of conjunction and disjunction
This logic is the {∧, ∨, ⊥, ⊤} -fragment of Classical Propositional Logic.
Hence its language is the set {∧, ∨, ⊤, ⊥} and its consequence relation is
given by
Γ ⊢ ϕ iff Γ ⊢CPL ϕ.
It turns out that it is also the {∧, ∨, ⊥, ⊤}-fragment of Intuitionistic
Propositional Logic. Let us denote it by L{∧,∨} .
The logic L{∧,∨} is not protoalgebraic but it is Fregean. The class of
algebras AlgL{∧,∨} is the variety of bounded distributive lattices, which is
the class of algebras naturally expected to be the associated with L{∧,∨} ,
but the class Alg∗ L{∧,∨} is strictly included in it. In fact, this last class of
algebras is not a quasivariety, but still it is good enough to be first-order
definable.
{∧,∨}
The logic L is thus a natural example of a logic where the class of
algebras of its reduced matrix models is not the right class of algebras
expected to correspond to it (see Font & Verdú 1991 where the logic is
studied at length). The properties of this example and its treatment in Font
& Verdú 1991 motivated the systematic study in Font & Jansana 1996 of
the kind of models for sentential logics considered in Brown & Suszko
1973, namely, abstract logics.
58 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
12.2 Positive Modal Logic
Positive Modal Logic is the {∧, ∨, ◻, ◊, ⊥, ⊤} -fragment of the local
normal modal logic lK. We denote it by PML. This logic has some
interest in Computer Science.
The logic PML is not protoalgebraic, it is not truth-equational, it is
selfextensional and it is not Fregean. Its algebraic counterpart AlgPML is
the class of positive modal algebras introduced by Dunn in Dunn 1995.
The logic is studied in Jansana 2002 from the perspective of abstract
algebraic logic. The class of algebras AlgPML is different from
Alg∗ PML.
12.3 Visser’s subintuitionistic logic
This logic is the logic in the language of intuitionistic logic that has to the
least normal modal logic K the same relation that intuitionistic logic has to
the normal modal logic S4. It was introduced in Visser 1981 (under the
name Basic Propositional Logic) and has been studied by several authors,
such as Ardeshir, Alizadeh, and Ruitenburg. It is not protoalgebraic, it is
truth-equational and it is Fregean (hence also selfextensional).
12.4 The strict implication fragment of the local modal
logic lK
The strict implication of the language of modal logic is defined using the
◻ operator and the material implication →. We will use ⇒ for the strict
implication. Its definition is ϕ ⇒ ψ := ◻(ϕ → ψ). The language of the
logic SilK, that we call the strict implication fragment of the local modal
logic lK , is the language L = {∧, ∨, ⊥, ⊤, ⇒}. We can translate the
formulas of L to formulas of the modal language by systematically
replacing in an L-formula ϕ every subformula of the form ψ ⇒ δ by
Summer 2022 Edition 59
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
◻(ψ → δ) and repeating the process until no appearance of ⇒ is left. Let
us denote by ϕ∗ the translation of ϕ and by Γ∗ the set of the translations of
the formulas in Γ . Then the definition of the consequence relation of SilK
is:
Γ ⊢SilK ϕ iff Γ∗ ⊢lK ϕ∗ .
The logic SilK is not protoalgebraic and is not truth-equational. It is
selfextensional but it is not Fregean. Its algebraic counterpart AlgSilK is
the class of bounded distributive lattices with a binary operation with the
properties of the strict implication of lK . This class of algebras is
introduced and studied in Celani & Jansana 2005, where its members are
called Weakly Heyting algebras. AlgSilK does not coincide with
Alg∗ SilK.
The logic SilK belongs, as Visser’s logic, to the family of so-called
subintuitionistic logics. A reference to look at for information on these
logics is Celani & Jansana 2003.
The reader can find more information on interesting non-protoalgebaric
logics in Albuquerque et alt. 2017.
13. Abstract logics and generalized matrices
The logical matrix models of a given logic can be thought of as algebraic
generalizations of its theories, more precisely, of its Lindenbaum matrices.
They come from taking a local perspective centered around the theories of
the logic considered one by one and its analogs the logic filters (also taken
one by one). But, as we will see, the properties of a logic depend in
general on the global behavior of the set of its theories taken together as a
bunch; or —to put it otherwise— on its consequence relation. The
consideration of this global behavior introduces a global perspective on
the design of semantics for logic systems. The abstract logics that we are
60 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
going to define can be seen, in contrast to logical matrices, as algebraic
generalizations of the logic itself and its extensions. They are the natural
objects to consider when one takes the global perspective seriously.
Let L be a propositional language. An L-abstract logic is a pair  = ⟨A,
C ⟩ where A is an L -algebra and C an abstract consequence operation on
A.
Given a logic system L , an L-abstract logic  = ⟨A, C⟩ is a model of L if
for every set of formulas Γ and every formula ϕ
Γ ⊢L ϕ iff for every valuation v on A, v(ϕ) ∈ C(v[Γ]).
This definition has an equivalent in terms of the closed sets of C : an
abstract logic  = ⟨A, C⟩ is a model of L if and only if for every C -
closed set X the matrix ⟨A, X⟩ is a model of L (i.e., X is an L -filter).
This observation leads to another point of view on abstract logics as
models of a logic system. It transforms them into a collection of logical
matrices (given by the closed sets) over the same algebra, or, to put it
more simply, into a pair ⟨A, ⟩ where  is a collection of subsets of A. A
structure of this type is called in the literature a generalized matrix
(Wójcicki 1973) and more recently it has been called an atlas in Dunn &
Hardegree 2001. It is said to be a model of a logic system L if for every
X ∈ , ⟨A, X⟩ is a matrix model of L .
A logic system L = ⟨L, ⊢L ⟩ straightforwardly provides us with an
equivalent abstract logic ⟨FmL , C⊢L ⟩ and an equivalent generalized matrix
⟨FmL , Th(L)⟩, where Th(L) is the set of C⊢L -closed sets of formulas (i.e.,
the L -theories). We will move freely from one to the other.
The generalized matrices ⟨A, ⟩ that correspond to abstract logics have
the following two properties: A ∈  and  is closed under intersections of
Summer 2022 Edition 61
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
arbitrary nonempty families. A family  of subsets of a set A with these
two properties is known as a closed-set system and also as a closure
system. There is a dual correspondence between abstract consequence
operations on a set A and closed-set systems on A. Given an abstract
consequence operation C on A, the set C of C -closed sets is a closed-set
system and given a closed-set system  the operation C defined by
C (X) = ⋂{Y ∈  : X ⊆ Y}, for every X ⊆ A, is an abstract consequence
operation. In general, every generalized matrix ⟨A, ⟩ can be turned into a
closed-set system by adding to  ∪ {A} the intersections of arbitrary
nonempty subfamilies, and therefore into an abstract logic, which we
denote by ⟨A, C ⟩ . In that situation we say that  is a base for C . It is
obvious that an abstract logic can have more than one base. Any family of
closed sets with the property that every closed set is an intersection of
elements of the family is a base. The study of bases for the closed set
system of the theories of a logic usually plays an important role in its
study. For example, in classical logic an important base for the family of
its theories is the family of maximal consistent theories and in
intuitionistic logic the family of prime theories. In a similar way, the
systematic study of bases for generalized matrix models of a logic
becomes important.
In order to make the exposition smooth we will now move from abstract
logics to generalized matrices. Let  = ⟨A, ⟩ be a generalized matrix.
There exists the greatest congruence of A compatible with all the sets in
 ; it is known as the Tarski congruence of . We denote it by Ω∼A () and
has the following characterization using the Leibniz operator
∼
() = ΩA (X).
⋂
ΩA
X∈
It can also be characterized by the condition:
62 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
⟨a, b⟩ ∈ Ω∼A () iff for every ϕ(p, q1 , … , qn ), every c1 , … , cn ∈ A
and all X ∈ 
ϕA [a, c1 , … , cn ] ∈ X ⇔ ϕA [b, c1 , … , cn ] ∈ X
or equivalently by
⟨a, b⟩ ∈ Ω∼A () iff for every ϕ(p, q1 , … , qn ) and every
c1 , … , cn ∈ A, C (ϕ [a, c1 , … , cn ]) = C (ϕA [b, c1 , … , cn ]).
A
A generalized matrix is reduced if its Tarski congruence is the identity.
Every generalized matrix ⟨A, ⟩ can be turned into an equivalent reduced
one by identifying the elements related by its Tarski congruence. The
result is the quotient generalized matrix ⟨A/Ω∼ A (), /ΩA ()⟩ , where
∼
/Ω∼A () = {X/Ω∼A () : X ∈ } and for X ∈ , the set X/Ω∼A () is that
of the equivalence classes of the elements of X.
The properties of a logic L depend in general, as we already said, on the
global behavior of the family of its theories. In some logics, this behavior
is reflected in the behavior of its set of theorems, as in classical and
intuitionistic logic due to the deduction-detachment property, but this is by
no means the most general situation, as it is witnessed by the example of
the local and global modal logics of the normal modal logic K . The two
have the same theorems but do not share the same properties. Recall that
the local logic has the deduction-detachment property but the global one
does not. In a similar way, the properties of a logic are in general better
encoded in an algebraic setting if we consider families of L -filters on the
algebras than if we consider a single L -filter as it is done in logical
matrices model theory.
The generalized matrix models that have naturally attracted most of the
attention in the research on the algebraization of logics are the generalized
matrices of the form ⟨A, FiL A⟩ where FiL A is the set of all the L -filters of
Summer 2022 Edition 63
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
A . An example of a property of logics encoded in the structure of the
lattices of L -filters of the L-algebras is that for every finitary
protoalgebraic logic L, L has the deduction-detachment property if and
only if for every algebra A the join-subsemilattice of the lattice of all L-
filters of A that consists of the finitely generated L -filters is dually
residuated; see Czelakowski 2001.
The generalized matrices of the form ⟨A, FiL A⟩ are called the basic full g-
models of L (the letter ‘g’ stands for generalized matrix). The interest in
these models lead to the consideration of the class of generalized matrix
models of a logic L with the property that their quotient by their Tarski
congruence is a basic full g-model. These generalized matrices (and their
corresponding abstract logics) are called full g-models. The theory of the
full g-models of an arbitrary logic is developed in Font & Jansana 1996,
where the notions of full g-model and basic full g-model are introduced.
We will mention some of the main results obtained there.
Let L be a logic system.
1. L is protoalgebraic if and only if for every full g-model ⟨A, ⟩ there
exists an L -filter F of A such that  = {G ∈ FiL A : F ⊆ G} .
2. If L is finitary, L is finitely algebraizable if and only if for every
algebra A and every L -filter F of A , the generalized matrix
⟨A, {G ∈ FiL A : F ⊆ G}⟩ is a full g-model and AlgL is a
quasivariety.
3. The class AlgL is both the class of algebras of the reduced
generalized matrix models of L and the class {A : ⟨A, FiL A⟩ is
reduced} .
4. For every algebra A there is an isomorphism between the family of
closed-set systems  on A such that ⟨A, ⟩ is a full g-model of L and
the family of congruences θ of A such that A/θ ∈ AlgL. The
isomorphism is given by the Tarski operator that sends a generalized
64 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
matrix to its Tarski congruence.
The isomorphism theorem (4) above is a generalization of the
isomorphism theorems we encountered earlier for algebraizable logics.
What is interesting here is that the theorem holds for every logic system.
Using (2) above, theorem (4) entails the isomorphism theorem for finitary
and finitely algebraizable logics. Thus theorem (4) can be seen as the most
general formulation of the mathematical logical phenomena that underlies
the isomorphism theorems between the congruences of the algebras in a
certain class and some kind of subsets of them we mentioned in Section 9.
The use of generalized matrices and abstract logics as models for logic
systems has proved very useful for the study of selfextensional logics in
general and more in particular for the study of the selfextensional logics
that are not protoalgebraic such as the logics discussed in Section 12. In
particular, they have proved very useful for the study of the class of
finitary selfextensional logics with a conjunction and the class of finitary
selfextensional logics with the deduction-detachment property for a single
term, say p → q; the logics in this last class are nevertheless
protoalgebraic. A logic L has a conjunction if there is a formula in two
variables ϕ(p, q) such that
ϕ(p, q) ⊢L p, ϕ(p, q) ⊢L q, p, q ⊢L ϕ(p, q).
The logics in those two classes have the following property: the Tarski
relation of every full g-model ⟨A, C⟩ is {⟨a, b⟩ ∈ A × A : C(a) = C(b)}.
A way of saying it is to say that for these logics the property that defines
selfextensionality, namely that the interderivability condition is a
congruence, lifts or transfers to every full g-model. The selfextensional
logics with this property are called fully selfextensional. This notion was
introduced in Font & Jansana 1996 under the name ‘strongly
selfextensional’. All the natural selfextensional logics considered up to
Summer 2022 Edition 65
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
1996 are fully selfextensional, in particular the logics discussed in Section
12, but Babyonyshev showed (Babyonyshev 2003) an ad hoc example of a
selfextensional logic that is not fully selfextensional. A much more natural
example discovered later of a selfextensional logic that is not fully
selfextensional is the fragment of only the negation and the constant ⊤ of
classical logic.
An interesting result on the finitary logics which are fully selfextensional
logics with a conjunction or with the deduction-detachment property for a
single term is that their class of algebras AlgL is always a variety. It looks
surprising that many finitary and finitely algebraizable logics have a
variety as its equivalent algebraic semantics, when the theory of
algebraizable logics allows in general to prove only that the equivalent
algebraic semantics of a finitary and finitely algebraizable logic is a
quasivariety. The result explains this phenomenon for the finitary and
finitely algebraizable logics to which it applies. For many other finitary
and finitely algebraizable logics to find a convincing explanation is still an
open area of research.
Every abstract logic  = ⟨A, C⟩ determines a quasi-order (a reflexive and
transitive relation) on A. It is the relation defined by
a ≤ b iff C(b) ⊆ C(a) iff b ∈ C(a).
Thus, a ≤ b if and only if b belongs to every C -closed set to which A
belongs. For a fully selfextensional logic L, this quasi-order turns into a
partial order in the reduced full g-models, which are in fact the reduced
basic full g-models, namely, the abstract logics ⟨A, FiL A⟩ with
A ∈ AlgL . Consequently, in a fully selfextensional logic L every algebra
A ∈ AlgL carries a partial order definable in terms of the family of the L -
filters. If the logic is fully selfextensional with a conjunction this partial
66 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
order is definable by an equation of the L-algebraic language because in
this case for every algebra A ∈ AlgL we have:
a ≤ b iff C(b) ⊆ C(a) iff C(a ∧A b) = C(a) iff a ∧A b = a,
where C is the abstract consequence operation that corresponds to the
closed-set system FiL A, and ∧A is the operation defined on A by the
formula that is a conjunction for the logic L .
A similar situation holds for fully selfextensional logics with the
deduction-detachment property for a single term, say p → q, for then for
every algebra A ∈ AlgL
a ≤ b iff C(b) ⊆ C(a) iff C(a →A b) = C(∅) = C(a →A a) iff
a →A b = a →A a.
These observations lead us to view the finitary fully selfextensional logics
L with a conjunction and those with the deduction-detachment property
for a single term as logics definable by an order which is definable in the
algebras in AlgL by using an equation of the L -algebraic language.
Related to this, the following result is known.
Theorem 8.
A finitary logic L with a conjunction is fully selfextensional if and
only if there is a class of algebras K such that for every A ∈ K the
reduct ⟨A, ∧A ⟩ is a meet-semilattice and if ≤ is the order of the
semilattice, then
ϕ1, … , ϕn ⊢L ϕ iff for all A ∈ K and every valuation v on
A v(ϕ1 ) ∧A … ∧A v(ϕn) ≤ v(ϕ)
and
Summer 2022 Edition 67
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
⊢L ϕ iff for all A ∈ K and every valuation v on A a ≤ v(ϕ),
for every a ∈ A.
Moreover, in this case the class of algebras AlgL is the variety generated
by K .
Similar results can be obtained for the selfextensional logics with the
deduction-detachment property for a single term. The reader is referred to
Jansana 2006 for a study of the selfextensional logics with conjunction,
and to Jansana 2005 for a study of the selfextensional logics with the
deduction-detachment property for a single term.
The class of selfextensional logics with a conjunction includes the so-
called logics preserving degrees of truth studied in the fields of
substructural logics and of many-valued logics. The reader can look at
Bou et al. 2009 and the references therein.
14. The Frege hierarchy
A hierarchy of logic systems grounded on the replacement principles
discussed in Section 11 instead of on the behaviour of the Leibniz
congruences is also considered in abstract algebraic logic. It is known as
the Frege hierarchy. Its classes are those of selfextensional logics, fully
selfextensional logics, Fregean logics and the class of fully Fregean logics
that we define now.
In the same way as the fully selfextensional logics are the selfextensional
logic systems that enjoy the property that in every one of their full g-
models the abstract version of the characteristic property defining
selfextensionally holds, the fully Fregean logics are the Fregean logics that
in every one of their full g-models the abstract version of the characteristic
property defining being Fregean holds. The next can be taken as the best
understandable definition.
68 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
A logic system L is fully Fregean when in every one of its basic full g-
models ⟨A, FiL A⟩, for every F ∈ FiL A, the Suszko congruence Ω∼ A (F)
L
coincides with the relation of belonging to the same elements of FiL A that
extend F. It is easy to see that the fully Fregean logics are Fregean and
that they are fully selfextensional.
Examples of fully Fregean logics are classical and intuitionistic logic an
also the logic of conjunction and disjunction discussed in 12.1. The
fragment of just the negation and a constant for true of classical logic
mentioned before is a Fregean logic that is not fully Fregean.
We address the reader to Chapter 7 of Font 2016a for an introduction to
the main facts of the Frege hierarchy and for examples of logic systems in
the families of the Frege hierarchy. A discussion of the Frege and Leibniz
hierarchies related to assertional logics can be found in Albuquerque et al.
2018 where also several examples of logic systems are discussed and
classified.
FIGURE. The Frege Hierarchy
The reader can find a discussion of several natural examples of logics
classified in the Leibniz and Frege hierarchies in Albuquerque et alt. 2017.
15. Extending the setting
The research on logic systems described in the previous sections has been
extended to encompass other consequence relations that go beyond
propositional logics, like equational logics and the consequence relations
Summer 2022 Edition 69
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
between sequents built from the formulas of a propositional language
definable using sequent calculi. The interested reader can consult the
excellent paper Raftery 2006a.
This research arose the need for an even more abstract way of developing
the theory of consequence relations. It has lead to a reformulation (in a
category-theoretic setting) of the theory of logic systems as explained in
this entry. The work has been done mainly by G. Voutsadakis in a series of
papers, e.g., Voutsadakis 2002. Voutsadakis’s approach uses the notion of
a pi-institution, introduced by Fiadeiro and Sernadas, as the analog of the
logic systems in his category-theoretic setting. Some work in this direction
is also found in Gil-Férez 2006. A different approach to a generalization of
the studies encompassing the work done for logic systems and for sequent
calculi is found in Galatos & Tsinakis 2009; Gil-Férez 2011 is also in this
line. The work presented in these two papers originates in Blok & Jónsson
2006. The Galatos-Tsinakis approach has been recently extended in a way
that also encompasses the setting of Voutsadakis in Galatos & Gil-Férez
2017.
Another recent line of research that extends the framework described in
this entry develops a theory of algebraization of many-sorted logic
systems using instead of the equational consequence relation of the natural
class of algebras a many-sorted behavioral equational consequence (a
notion coming from computer science) and a weaker concept than
algebraizable logic: behaviorally algebraizable logic. See Caleiro,
Gonçalves & Martins 2009.
Bibliography
Albuquerque, Hugo, Josep Maria Font, and Ramon Jansana, 2016,
“Compatibility operators in abstract algebraic logic”, The Journal of
Symbolic Logic, 81(2): 417–462. doi:10.1017/jsl.2015.39
70 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
–––, 2017, “The strong version of a sentential logic”, Studia Logica, 105:
703–760. doi: 10.1007/s11225-017-9709-0
Albuquerque, Hugo, Josep Maria Font, Ramon Jansana and Tommaso
Moraschini, 2018, “Assertional logics, truth-equational logics and the
hierarchies of abstract algebraic logic”, in Don Pigozzi on Abstract
Algebraic Logic, Universal Algebra, and Computer Science
(Outstanding Contributions to Logic: Volume 16), Janusz
Czelakowski (ed.), Dordrecht: Springer: 53–79. doi: 10.1007/978-3-
319-74772-9
Babyonyshev, Sergei V., 2003, “Strongly Fregean logics”, Reports on
Mathematical Logic, 37: 59–77. [Babyonyshev 2003 available
online]
Blackburn, Patrick, Johan van Benthem, and Frank Wolter (eds.), 2006,
Handbook of Modal Logic, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Blok, W.J. and Eva Hoogland, 2006, “The Beth property in algebraic
logic”, Studia Logica (Special Issue in memory of Willem Johannes
Blok), 83: 49–90. doi:10.1007/s11225-006-8298-0
Blok, W.J. and Bjarni Jónsson, 2006, “Equivalence of consequence
operations”, Studia Logica, 83: 91–110. doi:10.1007/s11225-006-
8299-z
Blok, W.J. and Don Pigozzi, 1986, “Protoalgebraic logics”, Studia Logica,
45(4): 337–369. doi:10.1007/BF00370269
–––, 1989, Algebraizable logics, (Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., Volume 396),
Providence: A.M.S.
–––, 1991, “Local deduction theorems in algebraic logic”, in Algebraic
Logic (Colloquia Mathematica Societatis János Bolyai: Volume 54),
H. Andréka, J.D. Monk, and I. Németi (eds.), Amsterdam: North
Holland, 75–109.
–––, 1992, “Algebraic semantics for universal Horn logic without
equality”, in Universal Algebra and Quasigroup Theory, Anna B.
Romanowska and Jonathan D.H. Smith (eds.). Berlin: Heldermann,
Summer 2022 Edition 71
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
1–56.
Blok, W.J. and Jordi Rebagliato, 2003, “Algebraic semantics for deductive
systems, ” Studia Logica, Special Issue on Abstract Algebraic Logic,
Part II, 74(5): 153–180. doi:10.1023/A:1024626023417
Bloom, Stephen L., 1975, “Some theorems on structural consequence
operations”, Studia Logica, 34(1): 1–9. doi:10.1007/BF02314419
Bou, Félix, Francesc Esteva, Josep Maria Font, Àngel J. Gil, Lluís Godo,
Antoni Torrens, and Ventura Verdú, 2009, “Logics preserving degrees
of truth from varieties of residuated lattices”, Journal of Logic and
Computation, 19(6): 1031–1069. doi:10.1093/logcom/exp030
Brown, Donald J. and Roman Suszko, 1973, “Abstract logics”,
Dissertationes Mathematicae: Rozprawy Matematyczne, 102: 9–42.
Caleiro, Carlos, Ricardo Gonçalves, and Manuel Martins, 2009,
“Behavioral algebraization of logics”, Studia Logica, 91(1): 63–111.
doi:10.1007/s11225-009-9163-8
Celani, Sergio and Ramon Jansana, 2003, “A closer look at some
subintuitionistic logics”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,
42(4): 225–255. doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1063372244
–––, 2005, “Bounded distributive lattices with strict implication”,
Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 51: 219–246.
doi:10.1002/malq.200410022
Cintula, Petr and Carles Noguera, 2010 “Implicational (semilinear) logics
I: a new hierarchy”, Archive for Mathematical Logic, 49(4): 417–446.
doi:10.1007/s00153-010-0178-7
–––, 2016 “Implicational (semilinear) logics II: additional connectives and
characterizations of semilinearity”, Archive for Mathematical Logic,
55(3): 353–372. doi:10.1007/s00153-015-0452-9
–––, 2021 Logic and Implication. An Introduction to the General
Algebraic Study of Non-classical Logics (Trends in Logic: Volume
51), Cham: Springer.
Czelakowski, Janusz, 1980, “Reduced products of logical matrices”,
72 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
Studia Logica, 39(1): 19–43. doi:10.1007/BF00373095
–––, 1981, “Equivalential logics, I and II”, Studia Logica, 40(3): 227–236
and 40(4): 355–372. doi:10.1007/BF02584057 and
doi:10.1007/BF00401654
–––, 2001, Protoalgebraic Logics (Trends in Logic, Studia Logica Library,
Volume 10), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
–––, 2003, “The Suszko operator. Part I”, Studia Logica, 74(1): 181–231.
doi:10.1023/A:1024678007488
Czelakowski, Janusz and Ramon Jansana, 2000, “Weakly algebraizable
logics”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 65(2): 641–668.
doi:10.2307/2586559
Czelakowski, Janusz and Don Pigozzi, 2004a, “Fregean logics”, Annals of
Pure and Applied Logic, 127: 17–76. doi:10.1016/j.apal.2003.11.008
–––, 2004b, “Fregean logics with the multiterm deduction theorem and
their algebraization”, Studia Logica, 78: 171–212.
doi:10.1007/s11225-005-1212-3
Dunn, J. Michael, 1995, “Positive Modal Logic”, Studia Logica, 55(2):
301–317. doi:10.1007/BF01061239
Dunn, J. Michael and Gary M. Hardegree, 2001, Algebraic methods in
philosophical logic (Oxford Logic Guides, Oxford Science
Publications, Volume 41), New York: Oxford University Press.
Font, Josep Maria, 1997, “Belnap’s four-valued logic and De Morgan
lattices”, Logic Journal of the I.G.P.L, 5: 413–440.
–––, 2016, Abstract Algebraic Logic. An Introductory Textbook, volume
60 of Studies in Logic, London: College Publications.
–––, 2022, “Abstract Algebraic Logic.”, in Hiroakira Ono on Residuated
Lattices and Substructural Logics, Nikolaos Galatos and K. Terui
(eds), series Outstanding Contributions to Logic 23, Springer. 72pp.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-76920-8
Font, Josep Maria and Ramon Jansana, 1996, A general algebraic
semantics for sentential logics (Lecture Notes in Logic: Volume 7),
Summer 2022 Edition 73
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
Dordrecht: Springer; 2nd revised edition, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2016 (for the Association for Symbolic Logic).
Font, Josep Maria, Ramon Jansana, and Don Pigozzi 2003, “A Survey of
Abstract Algebraic Logic”, Studia Logica, 74 (Special Issue on
Abstract Algebraic Logic—Part II): 13–97.
doi:10.1023/A:1024621922509
Font, Josep Maria and Gonzalo Rodríguez, 1990, “Note on algebraic
models for relevance logic”, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 36(6):
535–540. doi:10.1002/malq.19900360606
–––, 1994, “Algebraic study of two deductive systems of relevance logic”,
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 35: 369–397.
doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1040511344
Font, Josep Maria and V. Verdú, 1991, “Algebraic logic for classical
conjunction and disjunction”, Studia Logica, 65 (Special Issue on
Abstract Algebraic Logic): 391–419. doi:10.1007/BF01053070
Galatos, Nikolaos and Constantine Tsinakis, 2009, “Equivalence of
consequence relations: an order-theoretic and categorical
perspective”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 74(3): 780–810.
doi:10.2178/jsl/1245158085
Galatos, Nikolaos and José Gil-Férez, 2017, “Modules over quataloids:
Applications to the isomorphism problem in algebraic logic and π-
institutions”, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 221(1): 1–24.
doi:10.1016/j.jpaa.2016.05.012
Gil-Férez, José, 2006, “Multi-term π-institutions and their equivalence”,
Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 52(5): 505–526.
doi:10.1002/malq.200610010
–––, 2011, “Representations of structural closure operators”, Archive for
Mathematical Logic, 50:45–73. doi:10.1007/s00153-010-0201-z
Herrmann, Bughard, 1996, “Equivalential and algebraizable logics”,
Studia Logica, 57(2): 419–436. doi:10.1007/BF00370843
–––, 1997, “Characterizing equivalential and algebraizable logics by the
74 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
Leibniz operator”, Studia Logica, 58(2): 305–323.
doi:10.1023/A:1004979825733
Heyting, Arend, 1930, “Die formalen Reglen der Intuitionionischen
Logik” (in 3 parts), Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie von
Wissenschaften, 42–56, 57–71, 158–169.
Hoogland, Eva, 2000, “Algebraic characterizations of various Beth
definability properties”, Studia Logica, 65 (Special Issue on Abstract
Algebraic Logic. Part I): 91–112. doi:10.1023/A:1005295109904
Humberstone, Lloyd, 2005, “Logical Discrimination”, in J.-Y. Béziau
(ed.), Logica Universalis, Basel: Birkhäuser. doi:10.1007/3-7643-
7304-0_12
Jansana, Ramon, 2002, “Full models for positive modal logic”,
Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 48(3): 427–445. doi:10.1002/1521-
3870(200204)48:3<427::AID-MALQ427>3.0.CO;2-T
–––, 2005, “Selfextensional logics with implication”, in J.-Y. Béziau (ed.),
Logica Universalis, Basel: Birkhäuser. doi:10.1007/3-7643-7304-0_4
–––, 2006, “Selfextensional logics with conjunction”, Studia Logica,
84(1): 63–104. doi:10.1007/s11225-006-9003-z
Jansana, Ramon and Alessandra Palmigiano, 2006, “Referential algebras:
duality and applications”, Reports on Mathematical Logic (Special
issue in memory of Willem Blok), 41: 63–93. [Jansana and
Palmigiano 2006 available online]
Koslow, Arnold, 1992, A structuralist theory of logic, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609206
Kracht, Marcus, 2006, “Modal Consequence Relations”, in Blackburn, van
Benthem, and Wolter 2006: 497–549.
Lávička, Tomáš, Tommaso Moraschini and James Raftery, 2021, “The
algebraic significance of weak excluded middle laws”, Mathematical
Logic Quarterly, 68(1): 79–94.
Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1918, A Survey of Symbolic Logic, Berkeley:
University of California Press; second edition, New York Dover
Summer 2022 Edition 75
 Algebraic Propositional Logic
Publications, 1960.
Lewis, Clarence Irving and Langford, Cooper H., 1932 Symbolic Logic,
second edition, New York: Dover Publications, 1959.
Łoś, Jerzy, 1949, O matrycach logicznych, Ser. B. Prace Wrocławskiego
Towarzystwa Naukowege (Travaux de la Société et des Lettres de
Wrocław), Volume 19.
Łoś, Jerzy and Roman Suszko, 1958, “Remarks on sentential logics”,
Indagationes Mathematicae (Proceedings), 61: 177–183.
doi:10.1016/S1385-7258(58)50024-9
Łukasiewicz, J. and Alfred Tarski, 1930, “Untersuchungen über den
Aussagenkalkül”, Comptes Rendus des Séances de la Société des
Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie, Cl.III 23: 30–50. English
translation in Tarski 1983: “Investigations into the sentential
calculus”.
Malinowski, Jacek, 1990, “The deduction theorem for quantum logic,
some negative results”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 55(2): 615–
625. doi:10.2307/2274651
McKinsey, J.C.C., 1941, “A solution of the decision problem for the Lewis
systems S2 and S4, with an application to topology”, The Journal of
Symbolic Logic, 6(4): 117–134. doi:10.2307/2267105
McKinsey, J.C.C. and Alfred Tarski, 1948, “Some theorems about the
sentential calculi of Lewis and Heyting”, The Journal of Symbolic
Logic, 13(1): 1–15. doi:10.2307/2268135
Moraschini, T., forthcoming, “On equational completeness theorems ”,
The Journal of Symbolic Logic, first online 13 September 2021.
doi:10.1017/jsl.2021.67
Pigozzi, Don, 1991, “Fregean algebraic logic”, in H. Andréka, J.D. Monk,
and I. Németi (eds.), Algebraic Logic (Colloq. Math. Soc. János
Bolyai, Volume 54), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 473-502.
Prucnal, Tadeusz and Andrzej Wroński, 1974, “An algebraic
characterization of the notion of structural completeness”, Bulletin of
76 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ramon Jansana
the Section of Logic, 3(1): 30–33.
Raftery, James G., 2006a, “Correspondence between Gentzen and Hilbert
systems”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71(3): 903–957.
doi:10.2178/jsl/1154698583
–––, 2006b, “On the equational definability of truth predicates”, Reports
on Mathematical Logic (Special issue in memory of Willem Blok),
41: 95–149. [Raftery 2006b available online]
–––, 2011, “Contextual deduction theorems”, Studia Logica (Special issue
in honor of Ryszard Wójcicki), 99: 279–319. doi:10.1007/s11225-
011-9353-z
–––, 2013, “Inconsistency lemmas in algebraic logic”, Mathematical
Logic Quarterly, 59(6): 393–406. doi:10.1002/malq.201200020
–––, 2016, “Admissible rules and the Leibniz Hierarchy”, Notre Dame
Journal of Formal Logic, 57: 569–606.
Rasiowa, H., 1974, An algebraic approach to non-classical logics (Studies
in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 78),
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Schroeder-Heister, Peter and Kosta Dośen (eds), 1993, Substructural
Logics (Studies in Logic and Computation: Volume 2), Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Suszko, Roman, 1977, “Congruences in sentential calculus”, in A report
from the Autumn School of Logic (Miedzygorze, Poland, November
21–29, 1977). Mimeographed notes, edited and compiled by J.
Zygmunt and G. Malinowski. Restricted distribution.
Tarski, Alfred, 1930a, “Über einige fundamentale Begriffe der
Metamathematik”, C. R. Soc. Sci. Lettr. Varsovie, Cl. III 23: 22–29.
English translation in Tarski 1983: “On some fundamental concepts
of metamathematics”, 30–37.
–––, 1930b, “Fundamentale Begriffe der Methodologie der deduktiven
Wissenschaften I”, Monatfshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 37:
361–404. English translation in Tarski 1983: “Fundamental concepts
Summer 2022 Edition 77
 Algebraic Propositional Logic Ramon Jansana

of the methodology of the deductive sciences”, 60–109. Academic Tools

–––, 1935, “Grundzüge der Systemenkalküls. Erster Teil”, Fundamenta
Mathematicae, 25: 503–526, 1935. English translation in Tarski
1983: “Foundations of the calculus of systems”, 342–383.
–––, 1936, “Grundzüge der Systemenkalküls. Zweiter Teil”, Fundamenta
Mathematicae, 26: 283–301, 1936. English translation in Tarski
1983: “Foundations of the calculus of systems”, 342–383.
–––, 1983, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to
1938, J. Corcoran (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett, second edition.
Torrens, Antoni, 2008, “An Approach to Glivenko’s Theorems in
Algebraizable Logics”, Studia Logica, 88(3): 349–383.
doi:10.1007/s11225-008-9109-6
Troelstra, A.S., 1992, Lectures on Linear Logic (CSLI Lecture Notes 29),
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Visser, Albert, 1981, “A Propositional Logic with Explicit Fixed Points”,
Studia Logica, 40(2): 155–175. A Propositional Logic with Explicit
Fixed Points
Voutsadakis, George, 2002, “Categorical Abstract Algebraic Logic:
Algebraizable Institutions”, Applied Categorical Structures, 10: 531–
568. doi:10.1023/A:1020990419514
Wójcicki, Ryszard, 1969, “Logical matrices strongly adequate for
structural sentential calculi”, Bulletin de l’Académie Polonaise des
How to cite this entry.
Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP
Society.
Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet
Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links
to its database.
Other Internet Resources
Blok, Willem and Don Pigozzi, 1997, “Abstract algebraic logic and
the deduction theorem,” (in PDF), unpublished manuscript.
Related Entries
algebra | Boole, George | Boolean algebra: the mathematics of | logic:
classical | logic: intuitionistic | logic: linear | logic: many-valued | logic:
modal | logic: relevance | logical consequence | model theory: first-order |
Tarski, Alfred
Copyright © 2022 by the author

Sciences, Classe III XVII: 333–335. Ramon Jansana

–––, 1973, “Matrix approach in the methodology of sentential calculi”,

Studia Logica, 32(1): 7–37. doi:10.1007/BF02123806
–––, 1988, Theory of logical calculi. Basic theory of consequence
operations (Synthese Library, Volum 199), Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

78 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2022 Edition 79