This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# PSEUDO-BCK-ALGEBRAS AND RELATED STRUCTURES

Jan Kuhr ¨

Univerzita Palackeho v Olomouci ´

2007

Preface

Residuation is one of the most important concepts of the theory of ordered algebraic structures which naturally arises in many other ﬁelds of mathematics. The study of abstract residuated structures has originated from the investigation of ideal lattices of commutative rings with 1. In general, a partially ordered monoid is residuated if for all a, b in its universe there exist a → b = max{c : ca ≤ b} and a b = max{c : ac ≤ b}; in other words, if for every a the translations x → xa and x → ax are residuated mappings. If the multiplicative identity is the greatest element in the underlying order then the monoid is integral . Residuated structures include lattice-ordered groups and their negative cones as well as algebraic models of various propositional logics. In the logical context, the monoid operation · can be interpreted as conjunction and the residuals → and as two implications (they coincide iﬀ the conjunction is commutative). The notion of residuation in integral residuated partially ordered commutative monoids can be characterized by Is´ki’s BCK-algebras. Pseudo-BCK-algebras recently e introduced by Georgescu and Iorgulescu are a non-commutative extension of BCKalgebras; roughly speaking, a pseudo-BCK-algebra is an algebra with binary operations → and that satisﬁes certain axioms ensuring the resulting structure to be a BCK-algebra provided → and coincide. It is easily veriﬁed that the residuation subreducts of integral residuated po-monoids are pseudo-BCK-algebras, and hence pseudo-BCK-algebras encompass all known algebras of many-valued logic together with their non-commutative extensions which can be deﬁned in the setting of integral residuated structures. In a sense, pseudo-BCKalgebras also generalize lattice-ordered groups, because every lattice-odered group is determined by its negative cone which can be regarded as a pseudo-BCK-algebra. The text is devided into four chapters. Of course, we begin with basic deﬁnitions and several examples which can illustrate the topic. Since we are concerned with pseudo-BCK-algebras, we skip examples of BCK-algebras that can be found in literature. With the exception of pseudo-MV-algebras, we neither deﬁne non-commutative algebras related to logic which are included among residuated po-monoids. The main goal of Chapter 1 is the proof that pseudo-BCK-algebras are exactly the {→, , 1}subreducts of integral residuated lattices, thus residuation in the non-commutative case is characterized by pseudo-BCK-algebras. We also present a generalization of BCKlogic corresponding to pseudo-BCK-algebras. In Chapter 2, we deal with deductive systems of pseudo-BCK-algebras. We describe the kernels of relative congruences as so-called compatible deductive systems which form a complete sublattice of the lattice of all deductive systems. This allows us to characterize representable pseudo-BCK-algebras (= subdirect products of linearly ii

Preface

iii

ordered pseudo-BCK-algebras), which is one of our major results. The third chapter is devoted mainly to pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices. We ﬁrst study deductive systems in depth and show that many properties of lattices of convex -subgroups of lattice-ordered groups can be obtained for lattices of deductive systems of pseudo-BCK-semilattices. The notion of a state plays a central role throughout the second part of Chapter 3. The deﬁnition is adopted from pseudo-BL-algebras and states retain most of expected properties, but it may happen that a linearly ordered pseudoBCK-algebra has no states, and in case of good pseudo-BCK-semilattices, Rieˇan states c do not agree with Bosbach states. In Chapter 4, we deal with commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras which are deﬁned as a natural generalization of well-known commutative BCK-algebras. We focus especially on commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras with the relative cancellation property (pseudoLBCK-algebras). We show that every pseudo-LBCK-algebra can be embedded into a pseudo-MV-algebra. In the ﬁnal section, we prove a theorem of Cantor-Bernstein type for orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge cooperation with Ivan Chajda, Radom´ Halaˇ and Jiˇ´ Rach˚nek. I am also grateful to my parents for their constant ır s rı u encouragement and patience.

J. K.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Cantor-Bernstein theorem .1 The lattice of deductive systems . 2. . . . . . . . . . .1 Deﬁnitions and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography List of symbols Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Pseudo-BCK-logic . . . . .4 States on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices 3. . .3 Spectral topology . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . .2 More on the lattice DS(A) . 4. . 44 . . . . 39 . . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Some properties of pseudo-LBCK-algebras 4. . . . .2 Embedding into residuated lattices . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . .6 Good pseudo-BCK-semilattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . 3. . . . . . . . .2 Relative cancellation property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Congruence kernels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . 2 Deductive systems and congruences 2. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 4.5 State space . . . . . . 3. . . . . . .3 Representable pseudo-BCK-algebras . . . . 65 65 69 73 79 86 89 91 iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . 3 Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 12 16 16 24 29 36 . . .Contents 1 Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras 1. .1 Basic properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Compatible deductive systems . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1). . and . . y = 0. ≤. We also present a logical system which is a non-commutative version of BCK-logic and whose equivalent algebraic semantics is the quasivariety of pseudo-BCK-algebras. .1. Special attention is then devoted to the relation with integral residuated lattices and it is proved that all pseudo-BCKalgebras are subreducts of (complete) integral residuated lattices. A bounded pseudo-BCK-algebra is one which possesses a greatest element. z ∈ A. y) ≤ y. 0) where (A.Chapter 1 Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras In this introductory chapter. y. we ﬁrst give basic deﬁnitions and examples of pseudoBCK-algebras with emphasis on pseudo-MV-algebras. . ≤). 1. y) ≤ y. and show that the class of pseudo-BCK-algebras is a proper quasivariety. . 1 denoting the top element of (A. 0 . we shall consider bounded pseudo-BCK-algebras as algebras (A. 0. . because the dual approach makes apparent the connections with propositional logic and commutative residuated po-monoids. for all x. are binary operations on A such that.1 Deﬁnitions and examples BCK-algebras introduced by Is´ki [38]. x≤y iﬀ x Since the partial order ≤ is determined by either of the two diﬀerence operations .1 [26] A pseudo-BCK-algebra is a structure (A. 2. [39] as algebras with a binary operation ∗ (cape turing basic features of set-theoretical diﬀerence) and constant 0 which is the least element in the induced partial order are frequently considered as algebras with a dual operation → and constant 1 which is the greatest element in the induced order of the algebra. 0) of type 2. . we have (z x y) (x (z iﬀ x x) ≤ x x y=0 y. The same situation arises in case of pseudo-BCK-algebras. 1 . we can eliminate ≤ from the signature and treat pseudo-BCK-algebras as algebras (A. (x (z y) (z x) ≤ x y. The original deﬁnition can be phrased as follows: Deﬁnition 1. ≤) is a poset with a least element 0.

Every pseudoMV-algebra bears a natural lattice order that is given by x ≤ y iﬀ x− ⊕ y = 1 (or.1.∼ . if y ⊕ x∼ = 1). 0. where the binary operation · is deﬁned by x · y = (x− ⊕ y − )∼ . Example 1. Hence an arbitrary poset (P. x ⊕ (y · x∼ ) = y ⊕ (x · y ∼ ) = (y − · x) ⊕ y = (x− · y) ⊕ x. (x− ⊕ y − )∼ = (x∼ ⊕ y ∼ )− . we may regard its positive cone G+ = {g ∈ G : 0 ≤ g} equipped with the order ≤ associated with the lattice operations ∨. ∨. Obviously.1) .1.1.1. Indeed. and a b = a b = a otherwise. ⊕. ≤) with a least element 0 can be made into a (pseudo-)BCKalgebra by putting a b = a b = 0 if a ≤ b. (x− ⊕ y) · x = y · (x ⊕ y ∼ ).− . ∧ as a pseudo-BCK-algebra where g h = g − (g ∧ h) = (g − h) ∨ 0 and g h = −(g ∧ h) + g = (−h + g) ∨ 0. We have = iﬀ α ≤ ω + 1. 0. given by x y = min{z ∈ α : z + y ≥ x} and x y = min{z ∈ α : y + z ≥ x}. 1) is an MV-algebra (see [27] and [61]).∼ .2 Any ordinal number α is a pseudo-BCK-algebra with respect to its natural order and the operations . ⊕.1. As proved in [26]. the induced lattice is distributive and we have x ∨ y = y ⊕ (x · y ∼ ) = (y − · x) ⊕ y and x ∧ y = x · (y ⊕ x∼ ) = (x− ⊕ y) · x. Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras 2 It is clear that every BCK-algebra is a pseudo-BCK-algebra in which = . Pseudo-MV-algebras generalize MV-algebras in such a way that if ⊕ is commutative then the two negations coincide and (A. equivalently. pseudo-MV-algebras are equivalent to bounded pseudo-BCKalgebras satisfying the identities x x (x (x y) = y y) = y (y (y x). for any pseudo-MV-algebra (A. x).3 Given any lattice-ordered group (G.4 A pseudo-MV-algebra (or a GMV-algebra) (A. ⊕. Let us present here several examples of proper pseudo-BCK-algebras: Example 1.− . 0) endowed with a constant 1 and two supplementary unary operations satisfying the equations: x ⊕ 1 = 1 = 1 ⊕ x. ⊕. 1). 1) is a monoid (A. +. = if the group addition + is commutative. (1. 0. Example 1. −. .− . For background on -groups we refer to [1] or [29]. ∧). 0. if we deﬁne the operations by x y = (y ⊕ x∼ )− and x y = (x− ⊕ y)∼ . 1− = 0 = 1∼ . x−∼ = x.

1.5 [36] A pseudo-BCK-algebra 1 is a structure (A. . in the algebraic model of a given propositional logic the partial order should naturally reﬂect deducibility in the logic). z ∈ A. are binary operations on A such that. We shall prove later that pseudoBCK-algebras as algebras (A.3) (1. In particular. Deﬁnitions and examples 3 then (A. . we have x → y ≤ (y → z) x ≤ (x → y) x≤y y. in many other relevant partially ordered structures we should have to reverse the initial order so as to obtain a pseudo-BCK-algebra in the sense of Deﬁnition 1. 1) is a pseudo-MV-algebra. ≤.1. x].1. Though there exist natural examples of pseudo-BCK-algebras. . Hilbert algebras.). ≤) is a poset with a greatest element 1. 2. BL. (1.1. 1). The following example is therefore fundamental: 1 Pedantically. (x → z). →. MV.and pseudo-MV-algebras. →. Typically the operations → and can be interpreted as truth functions of the implication connectives of a logical system and 1 as “the true”. . y. etc. →. x→y=x y= y otherwise.1.1. 0.2) (1. x =1 x and x = 1 the structure (A. 1) is a bounded pseudo-BCK-algebra.− . then upon deﬁning x⊕y =1 − [(1 x) y] = 1 ∼ [(1 y) x. The BCK-algebra so obtained will be referred to as the BCK-algebra associated to the poset (P. Iorgulescu: Deﬁnition 1. ≤).1. . z) → (x z). Heyting algebras. 1) of type 2. . 0 form a quasivariety which is not a variety. x ≤ (x iﬀ x x y ≤ (y y = 1. 1) such that (A. A BCK-algebra is a pseudo-BCK-algebra in which the operations → and coincide.1. ⊕.4) and hence we may equivalently regard (A. 1) to be an algebra (A. 0.1.) or can be isomorphically embedded into the implication reducts of certain residuated structures (Tarski algebras. →. By a bounded pseudo-BCK-algebra we mean an algebra (A. ≤. 1) where (A. these algebras were termed “reversed left pseudo-BCK-algebras” in [36]. . The correspondence is one-toone. for all x.∼ . etc. and →.1). →. Algebras that arise from logic usually are deﬁnitionally equivalent to certain bounded residuated lattices (Boolean algebras. . 1) is a bounded pseudo-BCK-algebra satisfying (1. . if (A. we shall mostly use the dual formulation which is due to A. Conversely. . .4) y) → y.1 (for instance. 0. Accordingly. 1) is a pseudo-BCK-algebra with least element 0.and pseudo-BL-algebras. 0. ≤) with a greatest element 1 is a (pseudo-)BCK-algebra where 1 if x ≤ y. Many important examples come from what is called “algebras of logic”. →. iﬀ x → y = 1 The underlying order ≤ can be retrieved via (1. every poset (P.

6) are studied in depth in Chapter 4 under the name commutative pseudoBCK-algebras. 1) is a monoid whose identity 1 is the greatest element of (P. →. 1) for a suitable integral residuated lattice. 0. ∧. 1.1.1.− .1.1 (see Example 1. ·. Then (G− .9 (cf. and g h = (g ∨ h)−1 · g.7 A porim (= partially ordered residuated integral monoid) is a structure (P. 1) satisfying 0. 1) is a monoid whose identity 1 is the greatest element of the lattice. ∧) be an -group with the negative cone G− = {g ∈ G : g ≤ 1}. 1). →. satisﬁes the x.5) holds for all a. Unbounded pseudo-BCK-algebras satisfying the identities (1.1.6 An integral residuated lattice [46] is an algebra (L.6).2.1. (1. the rules x → y = x− ⊕ y and x y = y ⊕ x∼ . ·.∼ . →. (1. pseudo-BCK-algebras expanded by a binary operation · which satisﬁes the equation (x · y) → z = x → (y → z).− . Indeed.∼ .5) for all a. identities (x → y) (x y) → y = (y y = (y → x) x) → x. ≤. →. Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras 4 Example 1.6) . x− = x → 0 and x∼ = x The correspondence is one-to-one.1. . . ·.1.1. 0. . Example 1.6) to (A. ⊕.8 Pseudo-MV-algebras are especially nice.1. c ∈ P .−1 . For any porim.1.3) Let (G. Example 1. where g → h = h · (g ∨ h)−1 is a pseudo-BCK-algebra.e. b. The residuals → and coincide iﬀ the multiplication · is commutative. 1) is given by x ⊕ y = (x 0) → y = (y → 0) x. and the condition (1.1. ·. 0. ∨. → and coincide iﬀ · is commutative. More generally: Example 1. 1). i. ⊕.1. 1) is a pseudo-BCKalgebra. The reverse passage from a bounded pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. every pseudo-BCK-algebra is isomorphic to a subalgebra of (L. 0. →. →.1. because with respect to the natural order given by x ≤ y iﬀ x− ⊕ y = 1 they can be viewed as pseudo-BCK-algebras in the sense both of Deﬁnition 1. for any a pseudo-MV-algebra (A. c ∈ L. 1) is a pseudo-BCK-algebra. . Example 1. 1) which. A straightforward veriﬁcation yields that (L.1. . 1) where (P.g. in addition.1. b. Again.2. 1) such that (L. and a · b ≤ c iﬀ a ≤ b → c iﬀ b ≤ a c (1.5. As we shall see in Theorem 1. ∧) is a lattice. →. ≤) is a poset. Example 1. It is worth noticing that there exist pseudo-BCK-algebras which do not admit such a multiplication (e. deﬁne a bounded pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. Porims can be described as pseudo-BCK-algebras with the condition (P). ∨. →. (P. .4) and of Deﬁnition 1. (P. ·.. . ≤). (L. ∨.

then so do the inﬁma y) and we have (xi → y) and xi i∈I →y= i∈I y= i∈I (xi y). In particular.1.10 An algebra (A. x → y ≤ (z → x) → (z → y). x = x.1.8) (1. (1. 0 is a pseudo-BCK-algebra if and only if it satisﬁes the following identities and quasi-identity: 2 (x → y) (x 1 1 → x = x. Deﬁnitions and examples 5 In addition to (1.1. Conversely. if x → y = 1 then x y = x ((x → y) y) = 1.12) y) → [(y z) → (x Proof: Every pseudo-BCK-algebra certainly fulﬁls (1.11) (1. x → ((x y) → y) = (1 x) → ((x y) → (1 y)) = 1 by (1.1. z. →. →.8) and (1. the class of pseudo-BCK-algebras is a quasivariety: Theorem 1. Moreover. if x y = 1 then x → y = x → ((x y) → y) = 1. if the supremum i∈I (xi i∈I (xi → y) and xi i∈I i∈I xi exists in the underlying poset. assume that an algebra (A.1. x→y=1 [(y → z) (x → z)] = 1.10).1.12). →. 2. 1) into a pseudo-BCK-algebra.9) we have x ((x → y) y) = (1 → x) ((x → y) (1 → y)) = 1.7)—(1.7)—(1.1.10) (1.1. is a partial order making the structure (A.7) and (1.1. x = 1.1. x = x. and analogously.1.1. and similarly.1. Thus x → y = 1 iﬀ x y = 1. 1}-subreducts of integral residuated lattices. (y → z) = y → (x x≤y x≤y→z x ≤ y → x. ((x → y) y) → y = x → y. & y→x=1 ⇒ x = y. pseudo-BCK-algebras satisfy the following easily derivable properties (see [26] or [36]) that will be used without explicit references: x→1=x 1→x=1 x→x=x x≤y x≤y x ⇒ ⇒ 1 = 1. ≤. 1) satisﬁes (1.2)—(1.12). y). x → 1 = 1.1. z)] = 1. Further. z→x≤z→y y→z≤x→z z).1. . It is therefore easily seen that the relation ≤ deﬁned by x≤y ⇔ x→y=1 . By (1. x. the {→.7) (1.1.1.1. ⇔ y≤x & z & y x≤z z≤x y.4). x x=x ((x → x) x) = 1 and x → x = x → ((x x) → x = 1. . 2 The same identities and quasi-identity were used by van Alten [68] as an axiomatization of his biresiduation algebras which are. ((x x y) → y) y ≤ (z x) y=x (z y. 1) of type 2. z. .9) (1. As we have anticipated. by deﬁnition. .1.

(A. →.15) (1. b ∈ A. . enjoys no particular properties (except that 1 is a greatest element). Therefore. →. ∧) is a meet-semilattice. 1) where (A. . →. ∨.1. 1) such that (A.13) (1. in the sense that y ≤ x iﬀ y = x · u = v · x for some u.1.7)—(1. . →. if (A. ∧.13 An algebra (A. which is the case we are often interested in. an algebra (A. ∧) is a meet-semilattice and it satisﬁes the identities (1. →. . .11) and x ∨ [(x → y) y] = (x → y) y. . Deﬁnition 1.15) and (1. .1.1. 1) is a pseudo-BCK-algebra and a ∧ b = a iﬀ a → b = 1.1.7)—(1.12 A pseudo-BCK-meet-semilattice is an algebra (A. (A. in general. . Indeed. ∨. which are not closed under homomorphic images.11 A pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice is an algebra (A. (1. and a → b = 1 iﬀ a ∨ b = b (iﬀ a ∧ b = a) for all a. ∨. ∧. →. Although the underlying poset of a pseudo-BCK-algebra.16) (x ∧ y) → y = 1. →. .1. In other words.1.1. (1. 0 is a pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice if and only if (A.1. it follows that the quasivariety of pseudo-BCK-algebras is not a variety (for a proper pseudo-BCK-algebra whose homomorphic image is not a pseudoBCK-algebra see Example 2.11). 1) is a pseudo-BCK-meet-semilattice in which x ∧ y = x · (x y) = (x → y) · x.1. As a particular kind of pseudo-BCK-meet-semilattices we mention pseudo-hoops (see [28]) that are naturally ordered porims. ≤. ∨) is a join-semilattice. .1.1. 1) of type 2. As can be easily shown. →. 2.1.1. 1) is a pseudo-BCK-algebra. ·.1. 1) of type 2. also pseudo-BCK-lattices form a variety that is axiomatized by the deﬁning identities of lattices and by the identities (1. Deﬁnition 1. 1) is a join-semilattice with the associated join operation ∨.1.2. 0 is a pseudoBCK-meet-semilattice if and only if (A. 1) is a pseudo-hoop. ∧.3).16).14). 2. 2. respectively. Like pseudo-BCK-semilattices. →. v.1. ∧) is a lattice. ≤) of (A. Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras 6 Since pseudo-BCK-algebras include BCK-algebras. the induced poset (A. →. →.1.1. (1. (A. the class of all pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices forms a variety. or by (1. 1) is called a pseudo-BCK-lattice if (A.7)—(1. . ∨) is a join-semilattice and it satisﬁes the identities (1.1. then (A. and a ∨ b = b iﬀ a → b = 1 for all a.11). It can be easily seen that an algebra (A. Deﬁnition 1.14) x → (x ∨ y) = 1. 2. ∨. 1) is a pseudo-BCK-algebra. b ∈ A.11) together with x ∧ [(x → y) y] = x.13) and (1. ∧. (1.7)—(1. . it may happen to be a semilattice or even a lattice.

1. . ur and y1 . . . . . . Let Q be the set of all ﬁnite non-empty subsets of W . 1). 1}-reduct of a complete integral residuated lattice in such a way that also existing ﬁnite suprema are preserved. ∨. respectively. . we equip the quotient set P = Q/ ∼ with two binary operations and ∗. . . j = 1. . →. . The purpose of the present section is to show that pseudo-BCK-algebras are the {→. . . m. xm y1 . →. . . 1) is a pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice. . . . y ∈ W . x1 . [23]. . if w → (xi → (yj → a)) = w → (xi yj → a) = 1 for all i = 1. ∨. . xn ∈ W and an element a ∈ A we shall write x → a = x1 → (· · · → (xn → a) · · · ) and x Observe that x → a = 1 iﬀ xR a = 1. xm = u1 . . . One readily sees that the relation ∼ deﬁned by the stipulation {x1 . . . n a = x1 (· · · (xn a) · · · ). . . . . ∧. The converse was proved in [51] and slightly improved in [48]: Theorem 1. 1}-subreducts of (noncommutative) integral residuated lattices.1 Every pseudo-BCK-algebra can be isomorphically embedded into the {→. . Embedding into residuated lattices 7 1. . . 1) then every subalgebra of the reduct (L. xm ∗ y1 . →. . . . . . . In order to show that so is the deﬁnition of the multiplication ∗ suppose x1 . xR and xy stand for the reverse word of x ∈ W and for the concatenation of x. . . m. An independent proof can be found in [68]. we let W denote over A. . . xm . . 1}-reduct of a complete integral residuated lattice. . . One direction is straightforward: If we are given an arbitrary integral residuated lattice (L. . . y1 . . . .2 Embedding into residuated lattices It is commonly known that BCK-algebras are exactly the {→. . xn (n ∈ N) . yn = v1 . . Hence every pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice can be isomorphically embedded into the {∨. yn = xi yj : i = 1. . Further. . xn . yn } iﬀ for all w ∈ W and a ∈ A we have w → (xi → a) = 1 for all i = 1. . . . vs . . . . As usual. . . . . as follows: x1 . .2. . . . . . xn } will be brieﬂy denoted as x1 . . . . For any word x = x1 . For arbitrary w ∈ W and a ∈ A. 1}-subreducts of commutative integral residuated lattices (see [58]. . →. yn = x1 . . . .2. the set of all words x = x1 . . . . m ⇔ w → (yj → a) = 1 for all j = 1. . xm } ∼ {y1 . . . →. j = 1. the ∼-class containing {x1 . . Given a ﬁxed (but arbitrary) pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. . 1) is a pseudo-BCK-algebra and every subalgebra of (L. is an equivalence on Q. . . The proof we present here is essentially based on the embedding construction from [58]. n . yn . [60]). . . . . ·. . n. The deﬁnition of is obviously correct.

. . a ∈ A.. . . . . m ⇒ w → (yj → a) = 1 for all j = 1. . . . ∧) augmented by ∅. . . k = 1. . . zq ). . . . . →. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ∧. zq = = x1 . . . . . (M. . yn ). . . . . Indeed. vs . . = 1. . . . For (M. . xm = u1 . . . s since y1 . . . . . . .e. 8 By a meet-semilattice-ordered monoid we mean an algebra (M. x1 .2. . . q} = ( x1 . . . vs . . n by the assumption x1 . . e) such that (M. . . . . ·. . r. . y1 . . . . a ∈ A. n = x1 . . . Lemma 1. . . . and (x ∧ y) · z = (x · z) ∧ (y · z) and z · (x ∧ y) = (z · x) ∧ (z · y) for all x. . . The multiplication ∗ is associative and for every x1 . . . . xn since w → (xi 1 → a) = w → (xi → (1 → a)) = w → (xi → a) for all w ∈ W . . ∧. . . . . . . zq ) and similarly z1 . yn ) = ( z1 . . if w → (1 → a) = w → a = 1 then w → (x → a) = 1 for every x ∈ W . . yn ) ∗ z1 . . xn . . . the structure (P. . . yn = v1 . . . . . . . . . . . xn ∈ P we have x1 . . zq ∗ ( x1 . . is a dually integral meet-semilattice-ordered monoid. . . xn ∈ P . . n. e) a dually integral meet-semilattice-ordered monoid let FM be the set of all ﬁlters of (M. xm ∗ z1 . . zq ∈ P we have ( x1 . . . . . . For every x1 . . xm ) It is worth noticing that for the partial order associated with the meet operation we have: x1 . ) is a semilattice with least element 1 since for every x1 . Thus x1 . . xn ∗ 1 = xi 1 : i = 1. m. . yn . . . xn . j = 1. . . . . . . xm y1 . xn 1 = x1 . . . . ur ∗ v1 . z1 . . y1 . q} ∪ {yj zk : j = 1. . w → (xi → a) = 1 for all i = 1. . . yn ∗ z1 .1. . . . xm . xm ( z1 . . then M is called dually integral . . yn ∗ z1 . because w → (x → a) ≥ w → a. . . r. . . ( y1 . . k = 1. . . y1 . . and similarly w → (uk → (v → a)) = 1 for all k = 1. . . . ur . . 1 = 1 . n. . . . Similarly 1 ∗ x1 . . . 1). . zq ∗ y1 . 1 ) Proof: It is evident that (P. . . ∧) is a meet-semilattice. . . . . . yn = u1 . xm . xm ∗ y1 . . ∗. . . If the identity element e is the least element of M . . .2 For every pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. xn = x1 . . . zq ∗ x1 . . xm y1 . . . . . FM consists of possibly empty subsets X ⊆ M such that . . y. . . . given any w ∈ W . . . . . . Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras then w → (uk → (yj → a)) = 1 for all k = 1. . . . yn iﬀ for all w ∈ W and a ∈ A. . ·. There remains to be shown that ∗ distributes over . i. . ·. . . . . . . . . . z ∈ M . e) is a monoid. . zq = {xi zk : i = 1. .

we must verify the residuation equivalences X ·Y ⊆Z iﬀ X ⊆ Y → Z iﬀ Y ⊆ X Z. M ) is a complete integral residuated lattice. One similarly proves that X · Y ⊆ Z is equivalent to Y ⊆ X Z. Y ∈ FM . In order to see that X · Y satisﬁes the above condition (i). respectively. Similarly M · X = X. if a ∈ X · M then a ≥ x · b for some x ∈ X and b ∈ M . where x1 ∧ x2 ∈ X and y1 ∧ y2 ∈ Y . b ∈ X · Y . since y · z ∈ Y · Z. so a ∧ b ∈ X · Y . y ∈ Y }. Embedding into residuated lattices (i) x1 ∧ x2 ∈ X for all x1 . M ) is a monoid. where b ≥ x · y for some x ∈ X. ∨.. X · Y = {a ∈ M : a ≥ x · y for some x ∈ X. respectively. Thus (a ∧ b) · X ⊆ Y . ∅.e. y ∈ Y . It is plain that a ∈ x · Y . If c ∈ (a ∧ b) · X then c ≥ (a ∧ b) · x = (a · x) ∧ (b · x) for some x ∈ X. The condition (ii) easily follows from the fact that a ≤ b implies b · X ⊆ a · X. Conversely. b ∈ X → Y . so x · Y ⊆ Z.2. ·.2. . Let a ∈ X · Y . assume a. X Y = {a ∈ M : X · {a} ⊆ Y }. . Since a · x ∈ a · X ⊆ Y and b · x ∈ b · X ⊆ Y . Now we show that X → Y ∈ FM . FM partially ordered by set-theoretical inclusion is a complete lattice with ∨ and ∩ (set-theoretical intersection) as the join and meet. let a. we shall write a·X and X ·a instead of {a}·X and X ·{a}. which yields a ∈ X.2 and 1. y ∈ Y . Z ∈ FM .3 (FM . Suppose that X ⊆ Y → Z. i. we have (a · x) ∧ (b · x) ∈ Y whence c ∈ Y . Lemma 1. Then for every x ∈ X. x · Y ⊆ Z. The condition (ii) is obvious.2. To complete the proof. Then a ∧ b ≥ (x1 · y1 ) ∧ (x2 · y2 ) ≥ (x1 ∧ x2 ) · (y1 ∧ y2 ). proving X · M ⊆ X. thus (X · Y ) · Z ⊆ X · (Y · Z). so X · M = X. and hence x ∈ Y → Z proving X ⊆ Y → Z. The argument for X Y ∈ FM is parallel. a ≥ x · y for some x ∈ X. Let X.e. Lemmata 1. x2 ∈ X.2. a ≥ x1 · y1 and b ≥ x2 · y2 for some x1 . and since e is the least element of M . 9 (1. 1}-reduct contains an isomorphic copy of (A. we have a ≥ x · b ≥ x · e = x. i. . It follows a ∈ Z and X · Y ⊆ Z. X → Y = {a ∈ M : {a} · X ⊆ Y }. Y ∈ FM : X ∨ Y = {a ∈ M : a ≥ x ∧ y for some x.3 allow us to construct a complete integral residuated lattice whose {→. it follows a ∈ X · (Y · Z). ·. From x ≥ x · e for all x ∈ X we also obtain X ⊆ X · M . so that (X · Y ) · Z = X · (Y · Z). Hence a ≥ (x · y) · z = x · (y · z) and. y ∈ X ∪ Y }. hence X · Y ∈ FM .1) For convenience.2. assume X · Y ⊆ Z. →. Let us introduce the following notations for X. and by hypothesis we have x ∈ Y → Z. Let X. →. For (i). If a ∈ (X · Y ) · Z then a ≥ b · z for some b ∈ X · Y and z ∈ Z. Proof: Clearly. Further. . The proof of the other inclusion is analogous.. y2 ∈ Y . We have proved that (FM . Y. (ii) if x ∈ X and y ≥ x then y ∈ X. ∩. x2 ∈ X and y1 . which entails a ∧ b ∈ X · Y . 1) as a subalgebra.1.

2) is an isomorphic embedding of (A. . . yn ∈ f (a). a ≤ (a → b) b yields the inequality 1 = yj → a ≤ yj → ((a → b) b) = (a → b) (yj → b). . . . Conversely. . . . . . . . (ii) if x1 . 1) according to Lemma 1. then 1 → (xi → a) = 1 → 1 = 1 for all i = 1. We have 1 = yR a j j R R R ≤ yj ((a b) → b) = (a b) → (yj b). m. . . . Thus yj (xi → b) = 1 and. . . . . . . . ∗. .e. . (ii) We show next that f preserves →. . . . .2. . m. . so that y1 . which settles f (a) → f (b) ⊆ f (a → b). x1 . . . . →. . . . . . zq ∈ x1 . . . . xm y1 . zq x1 . y1 . . .2. . yn ∈ f (a). . ∨. . b ∈ A. . xn ∈ P : xi → a = 1 for all i = 1. . xm ⊆ f (b) is an easy consequence of (1. We conclude x1 . Essential to the proof is the equivalence yj → a = 1 iﬀ yR a = 1. . 1 ) by Lemma 1. . . . . j = 1. hence a = b. . . . Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras 10 Let (P. . . →. Like in the previous claim we ﬁrst prove that y1 . j = 1. . . n}. ∩. . . . yn ∈ f (a) whenever x1 . . . xm y1 . . so (a b) → (yj b) = 1 and a b ≤ yR b.2. . .2. . n. yn for some y1 . . . xm ∗ a ∈ f (b). . the rest is parallel to the argument for (1. . j = 1. then a ∈ f (a) and b ∈ f (b) imply a → b = 1 and b → a = 1..4) for every y1 .4 The map f : A → FP deﬁned by (1. m ∈ f (b) (1. for every j = 1. . . . n. which yields yj → a = 1 → (yj → a) = 1 for all j = 1. . . .3) Indeed. . yn = xi yj : i = 1. yn ∈ f (a).2. . It follows that x1 . . . . (1. yj xi → b = yj → (xi → b) = 1. xm . . n. n. ∅. . Let x1 . . b ∈ A. .4). 1 ) be the meet-semilattice-ordered monoid associated to our ﬁxed pseudoBCK-algebra (A. . . yn ∈ f (a).2. . . . . . . . . .3. . Then for every y1 . xm = yj xi : j = 1. . . . . . . yn ∗ x1 . hence x1 . zq ∈ f (b). f (a → b) = f (a) → f (b) for all a. . . b ∈ A. xm ∈ f (a) and x1 .2. Let x1 . and for any a ∈ A put f (a) = { x1 . . then z1 . m = x1 . . . . . It is also evident that f (1) = P since x → 1 = 1 for each x ∈ W . . because (i) x1 .e. Proof: (i) If f (a) = f (b) for some a. . n ∈ f (b). ∗. . . . . . ≤) then f (a ∨ b) = f (a) ∨ f (b). thus xi yj → b = 1 for all i = 1.2. . . yn ∈ f (a). . . proving f (a → b) ⊆ f (a) → f (b). xm ∈ f (a) → f (b). . P ). Moreover. Proposition 1. . xm ∗ f (a). . m. . xm ∈ f (a) → f (b) together with a ∈ f (a) implies xi a : i = 1. m. . . x1 . (iii) For completeness we include the proof that f (a b) = f (a) f (b) for all a. . . though it is similar to (ii).2. i. if a ∨ b exists in (A. so (a → b) (yj → b) = 1 and a → b ≤ yj → b. yn . . equivalently. →. . . xm ∈ f (a → b). . xm ∗ y1 . whence 1 = xi → (a → b) ≤ xi → (yj → b) = xi yj → b. . . let (FP . . . . . 1) into (FP . . . i = 1.2) Observe that f (a) belongs to FP . . . . whence 1 = xi → (a b) ≤ xi → (yR b) = yR (xi → b) j j j R for all i = 1. . i. xm ∗ y1 . . . . ∗. Thus f is injective. . . xm ∈ f (a → b). . .. . n. .2. xm ∈ f (a b). . . so xi → (a → b) = xi a → b = 1 for every i. (1. . . . . . . .1. . . z1 . . . . . . . . . →. .3). The desired inclusion f (a) ∗ x1 . . . xm ∗ f (a) ⊆ f (b): if z1 . P ) be the residuated lattice assigned to (P.

i. i. In conclusion. As a matter of fact. . Hence. so R R R a≤w c and b ≤ w c whence a ∨ b ≤ w c. w → (xi → c) = 1. xn ∈ f (a) ∩ f (b). .2. . . . . Let w → (a → c) = 1 and w → (b → c) = 1. pseudo-BCK-lattices) are not the corresponding subreducts of integral residuated lattices (see the example below). . a pseudo-BCK-meetsemilattice (A. .1 (cf. xi → a = 1 and xi → b = 1 for all i = 1. assume that x1 . where the operations → and are given by → 0 a b 1 0 1 b 0 0 a 1 1 a a b 1 b 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 0 a b 1 0 1 0 a 0 a 1 1 a a does not satisfy (1. . which is equivalent to w → ((a ∨ b) → c) = 1.2. . xn ∈ f (a ∧ b) ⇔ ⇔ ⇔ ⇔ xi → (a ∧ b) = 1 for all i = 1.2. From a ∈ f (a) we obtain axi : i = 1. . For that purpose we observe that if a ∨ b exists in A then a b = a.2. if (A. . b → (a ∧ b) = 0 = a = (b → a) ∧ (b → b).6)—for instance. xn ∈ f (a ∨ b). 1}-subreduct of some integral residuated lattice. a ∈ f (a) and b ∈ f (b). .2. . Embedding into residuated lattices 11 Conversely. . . This proves (1. 1. . . which yields 1 = w → ((a ∨ b) → c) ≤ w → (xi → c). 1) from Fig. →.5 It should be emphasized here that pseudo-BCK-meet-semilattices (respectively. →. [68]) b 1 b 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 (1. .6 The pseudo-BCK-lattice (A. . . .e. . we must show that f respects ﬁnite joins. . ∧. Thus (a ∨ b) → (wR c) = 1. . . The other inclusion easily follows from a. . . . ∧. xm ∈ f (a) f (b). so x1 . →. and so a b ∈ f (a) ∨ f (b) which along with (1. ∧. . . . for all a. b x1 . . . . n. Remark 1. . x1 . . . n.. the above identity then. xn (1. hence (a ∨ b) → c ≤ xi → c. . Now a ∨ b ≤ ((a ∨ b) → c) c implies 1 = xi → (a ∨ b) ≤ xi → (((a ∨ b) → c) c) = ((a ∨ b) → c) (xi → c). 1) can be embedded into the {∧.2.6) . . 1) satisﬁes Example 1. . .e. . the embedding cannot preserve ∧.1. .5) for x1 .5) entails x1 . . Indeed. . Then a → (wR c) = wR (a → c) = 1 and b → (wR c) = wR (b → c) = 1. →. . b ∈ A and x1 . . →. . xn ∈ P . . (xi → a) ∧ (xi → b) = 1 for all i = 1. (iv) Finally. . which is easily seen to hold in residuated lattices. ∨.. . xm ∈ f (b). . ∨. and therefore f (a ∨ b) ⊆ f (a) ∨ f (b). . . therefore a → (xi → b) = axi → b = 1 and xi → (a b) = a (xi → b) = 1. . . xi → (a ∨ b) = 1 for every i = 1.2.2. m = a ∗ x1 . . →. b ≤ a ∨ b. . . 1) is a {∨. n. xm ∈ f (a b). although (A. 1}-reduct of an integral residuated lattice if and only if it satisﬁes the identity x → (y ∧ z) = (x → y) ∧ (x → z). xn ∈ f (a) ∨ f (b). Let w ∈ W and c ∈ A be arbitrary.5). . . n.2. x1 .

(ψ → ϑ)) → (ψ → (ϕ (K1) ϕ → (ψ → ϕ). →. The axioms are the following formulas: (B1) (ϕ → ψ) → ((ψ → ϑ) (B2) (ϕ ψ) → ((ψ (ϕ → ϑ)). pseudo-BCK-algebras are the models of the pseudo-BCKlogic. .3 Pseudo-BCK-logic One of the convincing arguments for treating BCK-algebras as algebras (A. which turns out to stand to pseudo-BCK-algebras as BCK-logic stands to BCK-algebras. ϑ)).. The inference rules are: (MP) {ϕ. i. ϑ) → (ϕ (C1) (ϕ → (ψ (C2) (ϕ ϑ)) → (ψ (ϕ → ϑ)).1. from ϕ and ϕ → ψ we infer ψ.3. ψ .2.e. 0) is that the approach dual to the original one makes obvious the connection with Meredith’s BCK-logic—the propositional logic with the axioms (B) (ϕ → ψ) → ((ψ → ϑ) → (ϕ → ϑ)). (C) (ϕ → (ψ → ϑ)) → (ψ → (ϕ → ϑ)). (K) ϕ → (ψ → ϕ).1 The formulas of the pseudo-BCK-logic (psBCK for short) are built from propositional variables and the primitive connectives → and . In this short section we present a non-commutative version of BCK-logic. ϑ)). pseudoBCK-logic psBCK. ∗.1 b 1. (K2) ϕ → (ψ ϕ).e. and modus ponens as the only infrence rule. Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras 12 1 a 0 Figure 1. Our deﬁnition is motivated by H´jek’s deﬁnition of a non-commutative extension a of his basic logic (see [33]): Deﬁnition 1. i. 1) rather than (A.. ϕ → ψ}.

We ﬁrst observe that psBCK is an algebraizable logic in the sense of [2]: Proposition 1. by [2]. i. Since ϕ∆ϕ = {ϕ → ϕ}.. so (1. hence ϕ∆ψ (ϕ ϕ1 ). ϕ1 . y → x} and the deﬁning equation x = x → x. By replacing (ϕ → ϕ1 ) → (ψ → ϕ1 ).3) ϕ1 ) (ψ (ψ ψ1 )).7. ϑ. ψ1 ). from ϕ → ψ we infer ϕ ψ. for all formulas ϕ.3. (ii) ϕ∆ψ (iii) ϕ∆ψ.3. Pseudo-BCK-logic (Imp1) {ϕ → ψ}. and so (1. Recalling (B1).3. ψ∆ϑ ϕ and ϑ we obtain ϕ∆ψ. ψ. . we must check the following properties.3. 13 ψ}. ψ1 : 3 (i) ϕ∆ϕ. i. (ii) is trivial.4) (ψ → ϕ1 )∆(ψ → ψ1 ). ψ∆ϑ (iv) ϕ∆ψ. from ϕ ψ we infer ϕ → ψ. Proof: Following the notation of [2]. which proves (iii). (ϕ ϕ1 )∆(ψ ψ1 ).2) (ϕ ϕ1 )∆(ψ (ϕ1 → ψ1 ) ((ψ → ϕ1 ) → (ψ → ψ1 )). whence ϕ → ϕ using Imp2. ϕ∆ψ ψ and we have ϕ∆ψ Further. ϕ (Imp2) {ϕ ψ . so ϕ∆ψ. ϕ1 ) → (ψ (1. ψ. by (B2) and (C2) we have (ϕ1 ψ1 ) → ((ψ which along with ϕ1 ∆ψ1 ϕ1 ψ1 yields ϕ1 ∆ψ1 (ψ ϕ1 ) ϕ1 ∆ψ1 (ψ ϕ1 ) → (ψ ψ1 ). given arbitrary formulas ϕ. Hence ϕ1 ∆ψ1 3 (ψ ϕ1 )∆(ψ ψ1 ). ϕ∆ψ (ψ → ϑ) (ϕ → ϑ). In order to show that psBCK is algebraizable. By Imp1. thus (ϕ → ϕ1 )∆(ψ → ϕ1 ) ϕ. the condition (i) is settled. (1. (ϕ → ϕ1 )∆(ψ → ψ1 ). we shall write ϕ∆ψ as an abbreviation of {ϕ → ψ. Analogously. unless we want to be more exact.1) ϕ1 ) by (B2). ϕ∆ϑ. ϕ1 ∆ψ1 (v) ϕ ϕ∆(ϕ → ϕ). ψ → ϕ}.2 The pseudo-BCK-logic is algebraizable with the set of equivalence formulas ∆ = {x → y.. from (B1) and (C1) we get ϕ1 ∆ψ1 ϕ → ϑ. Theorem 4. (K1) and MP. (ϕ → (ϕ → ϕ)) (ϕ → ϕ) by (C1).1. ϕ → ψ .e. ψ∆ϕ. By (B1) and Imp2 we have ϕ∆ψ ϕ∆ψ by symmetry. because ϕ∆ψ = ψ∆ϕ. ψ∆ϑ ϑ → ϕ. We have ϕ → ((ϕ → (ϕ → ϕ)) ϕ) by (K2).3. We write brieﬂy instead of psBCK .e.3.

) of type 2.2) and (1. (ii) for every formulas ϕ. y → x} and x = x → x.3. by (i) we have ((ϕ → ϕ) → ϕ) ((ϕ → ϕ) → ϕ). so that ϕ (ϕ → ϕ) ϕ and ϕ (ϕ → ϕ) → ϕ. Proof: We ﬁrst note that ϕ → ((ψ → ψ) ϕ). Hence |=K ϕ = ψ iﬀ ( psBCK ϕ→ψ & psBCK ψ → ϕ) iﬀ psBCK ϕ∆ψ. Thus ϕ ϕ∆(ϕ → ϕ). 2 satisfying certain identities and quasi-identities. which are derived from the axioms and inference rules of psBCK using ∆ = {x → y. Let us recall from [2] that the equivalent quasivariety semantics for the logic psBCK is a quasivariety K of algebras (A. We have the following analogue of Theorem 5. Σ psBCK ϕ iﬀ {ψ = ψ → ψ : ψ ∈ Σ} |=K ϕ = ϕ → ϕ.3. Trivially. Thus (ϕ → ϕ)∆(ψ → ψ) by symmetry. and likewise |=K ψ → ϕ = (ψ → ϕ) → (ψ → ϕ) iﬀ psBCK ψ → ϕ. The proof is complete. By (i) and Imp1 (ϕ → ϕ) (ϕ → ϕ). Therefore ϕ∆(ϕ → ϕ) ϕ.3 The quasivariety of pseudo-BCK-algebras is (termwise equivalent to) the equivalent quasivariety semantics for the pseudo-BCK-logic. Let K ∗ be the class consisting of algebras . Elements of pseudo-BCK-algebras Now. Since ϕ → ϕ. such that (i) for every set of formulas Σ and every formula ϕ. which means that the equivalent algebraic semantics K satisﬁes the identities x → x = y → y = y y.3. it follows ((ϕ → ϕ) → ϕ) ϕ and ((ϕ → ϕ) → ϕ) → ϕ. whence ϕ → ((ϕ → ϕ) ϕ).11 in [2]: Theorem 1. (ϕ ϕ1 )∆(ψ ψ1 ). ) in K possesses a constant 1 where 1 = a → a = a a for all a ∈ A.3.4) yield ϕ∆ψ.3. ϕ ϕ → (ϕ → ϕ). →. ψ → ϕ = (ψ → ϕ) → (ψ → ϕ)}. ϕ = ψ =||=K {ϕ → ψ = (ϕ → ψ) → (ϕ → ψ). ϕ1 ∆ψ1 We have just proved (iv). which implies (ϕ → ϕ) → (((ϕ → ϕ) → ϕ) ϕ). whence (ψ → ψ) (ϕ → ϕ) and (ψ → ψ) → (ϕ → ϕ). from (1.1) and (1. 14 There remains to prove (v).3) it follows ϕ∆ψ. Observe that |=K ϕ → ψ = (ϕ → ψ) → (ϕ → ψ) iﬀ psBCK ϕ → ψ. by virtue of the property (iii). →. It can be analogously shown that (ϕ → ϕ)∆(ϕ ϕ) and (ϕ ϕ)∆(ψ ψ). Conversely. Therefore every algebra (A. ψ. (ϕ → ϕ1 )∆(ψ → ψ1 ).1. ϕ1 ∆ψ1 and similarly (1.

12). (x → z)) = 1.3.3. ⇒ x = y. .11) and (1. let (A.3. whence (1 → x) x = 1 by (1.3.10) (1.8) (1. the quasivariety K ∗ is axiomatized as follows: (x → y) → ((y → z) (x (y y) → ((y (x → (y z)) → (y (x → z)) = 1. and consequently. & y→x=1 It is obvious that every pseudo-BCK-algebra satisﬁes (1.3. Conversely.10 we have to show that it satisﬁes the equations 1 → x = x.3.7).3.3. (1.3. . →. z)) = 1. (1.3.3. so the quasivariety of pseudo-BCK-algebras is included in K ∗ .9) (1. and so (1 → x) → x = 1 by (1. By [2].3.3. by (1. The argument for x = 1 x is similar. 1 x = x and x → 1 = 1.14).3.5)—(1.11) since x → 1 = x → (x → x) = 1. and the identity x → 1 = 1 follows from (1. Theorem 2.12) (1. But by (1. x → (y x=1 x x → x = 1.3.3. .17. y = 1.15) it follows that the identity x → (y z) = y (x → z) holds in K ∗ . z)) = 1. Hence 1 → ((1 → x) x) = (1 → x) (1 → x) = 1 using (1.8) and (1.15) we obtain x = 1 → x.15).3.3.9) and (1. We conclude that K ∗ is precisely the quasivariety of all pseudo-BCK-algebras.15) ⇒ ⇒ x z) → (x (x → z)) → (x → (y x) = 1.6) (1.3. x→y=1 y=1 x→y=1 x → y = 1.3.3.13).11) ⇒ y = 1. By Theorem 1. Pseudo-BCK-logic 15 (A. 1) be an algebra belonging to K ∗ .14) (1.3.7) (1.1. 1) such that (A.1. →. From (1.3.3.13) (1.3. (1. →. ) belongs to K .9) we also have x → (1 → x) = 1. & x→y=1 x → (y → x) = 1.5) (1.

[46]). 16 .1 The lattice of deductive systems The concept of a deductive system was introduced in [35] as a natural generalization of convex subalgebras (or preﬁlters in [67]) of integral residuated lattices (cf. because several diﬀerent names are used for such subsets: for instance.3. ·. if a ∈ D and a → b ∈ D. a deductive system of A if (DS1) 1 ∈ D.−1 . Some of the results we present here and in the next section were independently obtained in [68] and [53] (our manuscript [35] has been submitted in 2005). In Section 2. 1. From the logical point of view. . →. deductive systems correspond to those sets of formulas which are closed under the inference rule modus ponens (MP). . ·. 2. 1) iﬀ D = G− ∩ K for some convex -subgroup K (actually. we prove that representable integral residuated lattices and pseudo-BCK-algebras can be characterized by the identity ((x y) u) (([([((y x) z) z] → w) → w] u) u) = 1. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. b ∈ A. (DS2) for all a. →. ∨. K is the convex -subgroup generated by D) of an -group (G.Chapter 2 Deductive systems and congruences In this chapter.1 Let (A. Deﬁnition 2. [4]. ∧). It is not hard to show that the deductive systems of the reduct (L. →. The terminology in literature is a bit confusing. since D ⊆ G− is a deductive system of (G− .1. In a sense. we study the lattice of deductive systems and its sublattice of compatible deductive systems. 1) can be characterized as non-empty subsets which are closed under · and are order-ﬁlters. ∨. which correspond to the relative congruences of a pseudoBCK-algebra. . and ﬁlters in case of pseudo-BLalgebras [11]. deductive systems can also be regarded as an analogue of convex -subgroups of lattice-ordered groups. 1) of an integral residuated lattice (L. preﬁlters in case of integral residuated lattices [67]. →. then b ∈ D. ∧. We say that D ⊆ A is .

Moreover. Proof: Assume that D ⊆ A is a deductive system. . .2. D(∅) = {1}. In particular. Proof: Trivially. it is denoted by D(X) and called the deductive system generated by X. m. →. We have proved M ∈ DS(A). To see that M is a deductive system assume a ∈ M and a b ∈ M . . x n y is deﬁned in the same way. xn ) for D(X) when X = {x1 . Conversely. 1). . For every x ∈ A. . partially ordered by set-inclusion. . if a ∈ D and a b ∈ D. . xn ∈ X. . xn }.4 Let (A. If a ∈ D and a b ∈ D then a ≤ (a b) → b implies (a b) → b ∈ D and hence b ∈ D.. for x. x →n y = x → (x →n−1 y) for n ≥ 1. one readily sees that (i) X ⊆ M . . is obviously a complete lattice where inﬁma coincide with set-theoretical intersections. Then a (x1 → (· · · → (xm → b) · · · )) = x → (· · · → (xm → (a b)) · · · ) = 1. . n ∈ N. it follows that b ∈ M . The lattice of deductive systems Lemma 2.1. . a → b ∈ D. . x1 → (· · · → (xm → (a b)) · · · ) = 1 and y1 → (· · · → (yn → a) · · · ) = 1 for some x1 . then b ∈ D. y ∈ A and n ∈ N0 we deﬁne x →n y inductively as follows: x →0 y = y. so that M = D(X) as desired.1. →.e. More precisely. y1 . The set DS(A) of all deductive systems of a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. For convenience. Then a → b = 1 ∈ D whence b ∈ D. . . Then D ⊆ A with 1 ∈ D is a deductive system if and only if it satisﬁes the condition (DS2’) for all a. Since all yi ’s and xj ’s belong to X. which yields 1 = y1 → (· · · → (yn → a) · · · ) ≤ y1 → (· · · → (yn → (x1 → (· · · → (xm → b) · · · ))) · · · ). for every x ∈ A. We write D(x1 . b ∈ A. It is clear that 1 ∈ M . The condition (DS2) can be equivalently formulated with in place of →: Lemma 2. 1) be a psedudo-BCK-algebra. 1) is an order-ﬁlter of (A. . . →. xm . Then D(∅) = {1}. .1. . if D satisﬁes (DS2’) then the inequality a ≤ (a → b) b analogously entails b ∈ D whenever a ∈ D. . and for Lemma 2. n ∈ N0 indicating the number of occurrences of x. D(x) = {a ∈ A : x →n a = 1 for some n ∈ N}. i. yn ∈ X.1.2 Every deductive system of (A.3 Let A be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. D(x) is the principal deductive system generated by x. . Let X be a non-empty subset and let M denote the right-hand side above. thus a ≤ x1 → (· · · → (xm → b) · · · ). Hence for every X ⊆ A there exists the smallest deductive system containing X. . 17 Proof: Let a ∈ D and a ≤ b ∈ A. n ∈ N}. . and (ii) M ⊆ D whenever X ⊆ D for D ∈ DS(A). . ≤). we shall abbreviate the terms x → (· · · → (x → y) · · · ) and x (· · · (x y) · · · ) by x →n y and x n y. every ∅ = X ⊆ A we have D(X) = {a ∈ A : x1 → (· · · → (xn → a) · · · ) = 1 for some x1 . .

a. . →.1. and x. in general. n. the intersection of two principal deductive systems need not be compact. q ∈ N. Proceeding inductively. y)). b} ∪ C. i.5 For any pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. Proof: We ﬁrst prove that D(U (x. y ∈ A. zn ∈ U (x. Com(DS(A)) is not a sublattice of DS(A): Example 2.1) . y)). y) = {a ∈ A : a ≥ x and a ≥ y}. Suppose that the statement holds for all positive integers k ≤ n. . b} ∪ C. y ≤ zi for all i = 1. . The intersection of two principal deductive system is given as follows: Proposition 2. thus. i. . x →n a = 1 and y →n a = 1 for some n ∈ N. zq ∈ U (x. not all compact deductive systems are principal and. ≤).2.e. a} ∪ C and D(b) = {1. such that zq → (· · · → (z1 → a) · · · ) = 1. thus a ∈ U (x. n ∈ N} a = 1 for some n ∈ N}. Since x. Deductive systems and congruences 18 It is obvious that in the formulas for D(X) and D(x) we may alternatively use the operation .1. y)) ⊆ D(x) ∩ D(y). xn ∈ X. . where U (x. . Corollary 2. (2.. Hence x →n a = y →n a = 1 and so a ∈ D(x) ∩ D(y). It is easily seen that D(a) = {1. hence y → (x n (y n a)) = x n (y → (y n a)) = x n 1 = 1. for every ∅ = X ⊆ A and x ∈ A we have D(X) = {a ∈ A : x1 and D(x) = {a ∈ A : x n (· · · (xn a) · · · ) = 1 for some x1 . let a ∈ D(x) ∩ D(y). . hence D(a) ∩ D(b) = {1} ∪ C. x→y= y otherwise. y)).e. →.7 Let (A. . C is an inﬁnite set of coatoms. it follows (by an easy induction) that z1 → (· · · → (zn → a) · · · ) ≤ x →n a. . i. . and hence DS(A) is an algebraic lattice.. 1 for x ≤ y. Let x →n+1 a = y →n+1 a = 1. Let a ∈ D(U (x. In contrast to integral residuated lattices. . where 1 is the top element. Then D(x) ∩ D(y) = D(U (x.e. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. for every X ⊆ A. y) and we may take z1 = a. 1) be the BCK-algebra associated to the poset ({1. y).1.6 Let (A. that is.. . DS(A) forms an algebraic lattice whose compact elements are precisely the ﬁnitely generated deductive systems. we prove that there exist z1 . . b < c < 1 for all c ∈ C. y →n a. 1). . For n = 1 we have x → a = y → a = 1. But for every ﬁnite C0 ⊆ C we have D(C0 ) = {1} ∪ C0 .1. Proof: It easily follows from the prevoius lemma that the mapping X → D(X) is an algebraic closure operator on the power set of A. . →. a b and a. For the converse inclusion. thus D(a) ∩ D(b) is not ﬁnitely generated. . that is. From y →n+1 a = 1 we obtain y → (y n a) = 1. which means a ∈ D(U (x. . y). z1 → (· · · → (zn → a) · · · ) = 1 for some z1 . more signiﬁcantly. D(X) = {D(X0 ) : X0 is a ﬁnite subset of X}. .

3) Further.1. z1 → a ≥ a entails y →n+1 (z1 → a) ≥ y →n+1 a = 1.4) By the ﬁrst induction step. . When interchanging x and y. (2. (2.1.1. Repeating this procedure we obtain y n (zn+1 → (· · · → (z1 → a) · · · )) = 1 for some z1 . we have x →n (zn+1 → (· · · → (z1 → a) · · · )) = 1.1.7) and (2.8) (2. we conclude that 1 = z1 → (x n (y n a)) = x n (y n (z1 → a)) for some z1 ∈ U (x. (2. (2.6) By (2.1. and therefore.1. and consequently. y) such that 1 = z3 → (x n−2 (y n (z2 → (z1 → a)))) = =x n−2 (y n (z3 → (z2 → (z1 → a)))). y → (y n (z2 → (z1 → a))) = 1.5) (z2 → (z1 → a)))) = 1. y →n (zn+1 → (· · · → (z1 → a) · · · )) = 1.3) and (2. z2 → (z1 → a) ≥ a implies y →n+1 (z2 → (z1 → a)) ≥ y →n+1 a = 1. there is z3 ∈ U (x. applying the induction hypothesis to (2.1. and equivalently. and by (2. zn+1 ∈ U (x. .1. .7) Now. by the ﬁrst induction step. The lattice of deductive systems From y n a ≥ a it follows x 1.2).8). . x → (x n−1 (y n (z1 → a))) = 1.1. zq ∈ U (x. . .1. Analogously. so x n+1 a) = x → (x (y a)) = 1. (2. The proof is complete. (2.1.4) we get z2 ∈ U (x.1. from (2. y).6).1) and (2.2.2) Now.1.5) and (2.1. y) such that 1 = z2 → (x whence x → (x n−2 n−1 (y n (z1 → a))) = x (y n n−1 (y n (z2 → (z1 → a))). . Hence y → (x n−1 (y n (z1 → a))) = =x n−1 (y → (y n (z1 → a))) = x n−1 1 = 1. y). there exist zn+2 .1. . which yields n+1 19 (y n (y n n a) ≥ x n n+1 a = 1.1. so y →n+1 (z1 → a) = 1 and y → (y n (z1 → a)) = 1. This yields y → (x n−2 (y n (z2 → (z1 → a)))) = n−2 =x (y → (y n (z2 → (z1 → a)))) = x n−2 1 = 1. . y) such that zq → (· · · → (zn+2 → [zn+1 → (· · · → (z1 → a) · · · )]) · · · ) = 1.

∅ = X ⊆ A. . For any ∅ = X ⊆ A. 1 ∈ x r . xn l for X r Lemma 2. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. and x1 . Let X be an order-ﬁlter. Proof: For every x ∈ X we have x r = {a ∈ A : a → x = x}. Deductive systems and congruences 20 In what follows. In addition. . . a → b ∈ x r . respectively. r When X = {x1 . 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. If a. so b → x = x showing b ∈ x r . Clearly. Since X r = { x r : x ∈ X}. Thus x r ∈ DS(A). and the set X l = {a ∈ A : a x = x for all x ∈ X} is called the left annihilator of X. 1 b a 0 Figure 2. It should be noticed that X and X l r = {a ∈ A : (a → x) = {a ∈ A : (a x = 1 for all x ∈ X} x) → x = 1 for all x ∈ X}. then x ≤ b → x ≤ (a → b) → (a → x) = (a → b) → x = x. . the annihilators X r and X l are deductive systems.2. . ≤) then X r = X l . . Similarly. . . we prove that the lattice of deductive systems DS(A) is relatively pseudocomplemented. We start by introducing a concept that is intimately related to pseudocomplementation in DS(A). xn } we shall simply write x1 . It can be analogously proved that also X l is a deductive system. .1. X l ⊆ X r . Let (A. if X is an order-ﬁlter of (A. The set X r = {a ∈ A : a → x = x for all x ∈ X} is called the right annihilator of X (see [35]1 ). . For every a ∈ X r and x ∈ X we have (a x) → x ∈ X for (a x) → x ≥ x ∈ X. Hence 1 = a → ((a x) → x) = (a x) → x.8 Let (A. hence (join-inﬁnitely) distributive. . →. →.1 If X is not an order-ﬁlter it may well happen that X 1 c r = X l: In [35] we have considered the right annihilators only. xn and X l . . . . so that a ∈ X l . .1. we conclude that X r ∈ DS(A).

we now describe the relative pseudocomplements in the deductive system lattice of (A. Indeed. It is easily seen that X ⊆ Y implies Y r ⊆ X r as well as Y l ⊆ X l . we deﬁne the relative annihilator of D with respect to E to be the set D. For every x ∈ D. other expected properties fail to be true. →. The lattice of deductive systems 21 Example 2. 1): Given D. By interchanging the two arrows we obtain the converse implication. speciﬁcally. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra and D ∈ DS(A). Suppose a.9 Let (A. if a ∈ D. for every E ∈ DS(A). Obviously. .11 Let (A. 1 ∈ D. E . 1}. Proposition 2. Conversely. b → x ≤ (a → b) → (a → x) implies (b → x) (a → x) ≥ ((a → b) → (a → x)) (a → x) ∈ E.1. d entails (e → d) d = 1. 1}. →. it follows D r = D l . so E ∩ D = {1}.1.2. If E ⊆ D r then a = a → a = 1 for each a ∈ E ∩ D.10 Let (A. Then the relative annihilator D. X l r and X l l need not exceed X. E then for arbitrary d ∈ D we have (a d) → d ∈ D and hence (a d) → d = 1 ((a d) → d) = [a → ((a d) → d)] ((a d) → d) ∈ E.1.1 (cf. Then D r = D l is the pseudocomplement of D in the lattice DS(A). Proposition 2. E is a deductive system. →. Proof: First we prove that D. since a → x ∈ D. in Example 2. and ﬁnally. E ∈ DS(A). 1} while 0 l = {c. E is the relative pseudocomplement of D with respect to E in the lattice DS(A). As we have promised. E = {a ∈ A : (a d) → d ∈ E for all d ∈ D}.1. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra and D. →. Further. so e ∈ D r yielding E ⊆ D r . X r l . the “double annihilators” X r r . d ∈ E for all d ∈ D}. Since D is an order-ﬁlter. E ∈ DS(A). whence (b → x) (a → x) ∈ E. . and therefore e → d = ((e → d) d) → d = 1 → d = d.1. we have 0 = {b. 1} and 0 l r = 0 l l = {b. We have to show that E ⊆ D r iﬀ E ∩ D = {1}. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra from Fig. However. it follows ((a → b) → (a → x)) (a → x) ∈ E. Indeed.1. given as follows: → 0 a b c 1 0 1 b 0 b 0 r a 1 1 c b a b 1 1 1 b b c 1 1 c 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 a b c 1 0 1 c c 0 0 a 1 1 c b a b 1 1 1 b b c 1 1 c 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 1 For instance. a → b ∈ D. ((b → x) (a → x)) ((b → x) x) ≥ (a → x) x ∈ E yields . E = {a ∈ A : (a → d) We should observe that D. 2. if E ∩ D = {1} then for any e ∈ E and d ∈ D. (e → d) d ≥ e. E . . . [68]) with the operations →.9 we have 0 r r = 0 r l = {c. Proof: Let D ∈ DS(A).

→. . the supremum is given by i∈I Pi . {1} .14 The set A = {0.10 we can simply write D instead of D r or D l and say that D is the annihilator of D provided D ∈ DS(A). DS(A) is an algebraic In accordance with Proposition 2. the annihilators of deductive systems form a complete boolean lattice under inclusion. E and C ⊆ D.13 For any pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. so C ∩ D ⊆ E. b. a. Note that D = D. 1} = D(b) and {1} = D(1). Let C ⊆ D. E . 1} (but {b. The phrase “annihilators of deductive systems” is used in order to underline that the theorem does not hold for right or left annihilators of general subsets (because. since it is relatively pseudocomplemented. {b. Therefore. distributive lattice.1. for every familly {Pi : i ∈ I} of annihilators of deductive systems. where inﬁma agree with set-theoretical intersections and. 1} doesn’t rise as the annihilator of any deductive system). Thus b ∈ D. E ∈ DS(A). 1} equipped with the operations →. Thus a ∈ D. and hence D. i∈I i∈I Corollary 2. →. b. Deductive systems and congruences 22 ((b → x) (a → x)) ((b → x) x) ∈ E whence we get (b → x) x ∈ E. so the right/left annihilators form a lattice which coincides with DS(A) and is not boolean (it is a three-element chain). .1. 1). thus every deductive system is the right/left annihilator of some subset of A.1. E if and only if C ∩ D ⊆ E for each C ∈ DS(A). We have already seen that DS(A) is an algebraic lattice. by the well-known GlivenkoFrink theorem we obtain: Corollary 2. E . some annihilators are not annihilators of deductive systems) as shown in the following simple example: Example 2. Since the lattice DS(A) is join-inﬁnitely distributive and the pseudocomplement of D ∈ DS(A) is precisely the annihilator D . If a ∈ C ∩ D then a = (a → a) a ∈ E.12 For every pseudo BCK-algebra (A. let C ∩D ⊆ E and let a ∈ C. by the following tables is a proper pseudo-BCK-algebra where 0 < a < b < 1: → 0 a b 1 0 1 a a 0 a 1 1 a a b 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 b 0 0 a 1 1 a a b 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 given 0 a b 1 The deductive systems are {0. 1). it follows that DS(A) satisﬁes the join-inﬁnite distributive law C∩ Di = (C ∩ Di ). a.1. roughly speaking. It remains to show that C ⊆ D.2. Then for every x ∈ D we have (a → x) x ∈ C ∩ D ⊆ E. Conversely. E . 1} = D(0) = D(a). . We have a r = a l = {b.

Proposition 2. Then X ⊆ X r r ⊆ a r . (ii) for all x. D ∈ DS(A) \ {P }. 1} whereas D(a) = A = {1}. y ∈ A. Indeed. Suppose P = C ∩ D for C. . Remark 2.7. →. it follows that meet-primeness coincides with meet-irreducibility. and consequently. whence D(x) ⊆ P or D(y) ⊆ P . whenever C ∩ D ⊆ P then C ⊆ P or D ⊆ P . 1). X l . d) ⊆ C ∩ D = P for any c ∈ C \ P and d ∈ D \ P . for every P ∈ DS(A). (ii) ⇒ (i). The lattice of deductive systems 23 As a ﬁnal remark we mention that X ⊆ D(X) entails D(X) ⊆ X r . y) ⊆ P then x ∈ P or y ∈ P . the following state- = D(X) for every ∅ = X ⊆ A. Then U (c.17 There is a close relation between the annihilators of deductive systems and the minimal prime deductive systems: using Lemma 2. whence D(X) ⊆ a r . First. Now. (ii) for every x.1. in the previous example we have a r = a l = {b.1. D ∈ DS(A). Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii). ments are equivalent: (i) X r . if x ∈ X then for every a ∈ X r . Proposition 2. Since DS(A) is an algebraic distributive lattice. which yields X r ⊆ D(X) . The question under which conditions the right annihilator of a subset X equals the annihilator of the deductive system D(X) was resolved in [35]: Proposition 2. From (x → y) y ≥ x it follows (x → y) y ∈ D(x).2. The other inclusion is obvious since X ⊆ D(X). for all C. if U (x. since the lattice DS(A) is algebraic and distributive.1. y ∈ x r = D(x) . However. i. y) ⊆ P then D(x) ∩ D(y) = D(U (x.1.15 In any pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. . Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii).1. we note that the satisfaction of (ii) yields X ⊆ X r r for each ∅ = X ⊆ A. a contradiction. the following statements are equivalent: (i) P is a prime deductive system. if U (x. {a} ⊆ a r r ⊆ D(X) .1.4 in [66]. →.7 allows one to characterize the meet-prime elements of DS(A). 1). . 1). →. y)) ⊆ P . for each D ∈ DS(A) we have D = {P ∈ DS(A) : P is minimal prime and D P }. which yields c ∈ P or d ∈ P . so x ∈ P or y ∈ P . Recalling Proposition 2. a → x = x which is equivalent to x → a = a. which will be referred to as the prime deductive systems of (A.e. Let y → x = x. Thus P ∈ DS(A) is prime iﬀ. let a ∈ X r .16 Given a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. and hence 1 = y → ((x → y) y) = (x → y) y which entails y = 1 → y = ((x → y) y) → y = x → y. x → y = y iﬀ y → x = x. and therefore every D ∈ DS(A) is obtained as an intersection of prime deductive systems (because D equals the intersection of the completely meetirreducible deductive systems exceeding D). (ii) ⇒ (i). so x ∈ X . y ∈ A.

One readily sees that the kernel [1]Θ of any congruence Θ ∈ Con(A) is a deductive system. b → d) ∈ ΘK . . for all a. from a → b ≤ (b → c) (a → c) and b → a ≤ (a → c) (b → c) we obtain (a → c. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. K ∈ DS(A). (c. Proof: Suppose that K is compatible. Then c → b ∈ K and c → b ≤ (b → a) (c → a) together imply (b → a) (c → a) ∈ K whence c → a ∈ K. Indeed. the kernel [1]Θ is a compatible deductive system. a b ∈ [1]Θ yields a → b ∈ [1]Θ . then not all deductive systems are obtained as congruence kernels (for instance. that the above proposition does not furnish a one-to-one correspondence between compatible deductive systems and congruences. We say that K ∈ DS(A) is a compatible deductive system if. The following example of such a pseudo-BCK-algebra is a generalization of that from [69]: 2 For any binary relation Θ on A and c ∈ A. so that (a. [c]Θ denotes {a ∈ A : (a. c) ∈ ΘK proving that ΘK is an equivalence relation. if ΘK ∈ Con(A) then its kernel K is a compatible deductive system. and since a b ≥ ((a → b) b) b. Similarly. it follows a b ∈ [1]Θ .2. ΘK is reﬂexive and symmetric.2. Similarly. →. Deﬁnition 2. b) ∈ ΘK iﬀ a → b ∈ K and b → a ∈ K (2. recalling 1 → x = x and x → 1 = 1 we observe K = [1]ΘK . and also d → c ≤ (b → d) → (b → c) entails (b → d) → (b → c) ∈ K. c) ∈ ΘK . by a congruence kernel in a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A.1 Let (A. Hence our next objective is to characterize the congruence kernels of pseudo BCK-algebras as certain deductive systems.1. albeit it comes as no surprise. so that {b. It is to be emphasized. 1) we mean a subset K of A such that2 K = [1]Θ for some Θ ∈ Con(A). (b.1) is a congruence. b → d) ∈ ΘK . . Conversely. b → c) ∈ ΘK . a→b∈K iﬀ a b ∈ K. →.2. Let (a. Then K is a compatible deductive system iﬀ the relation ΘK deﬁned by the stipulation (a. ∈ A. . b.2 Compatible deductive systems As usual. Due to transitivity of ΘK we have (a → c. To see that ΘK is compatible with → assume that (a. →. . b). hence (b → c. Thus. 1} is not a congruence kernel). In this case. Deductive systems and congruences 24 2.14 is simple. the pseudo-BCK-algebra from Example 2. a → b ≤ (b → c) (a → c) yields a → c ∈ K. because two distinct congruences of a given pseudo-BCK-algebra may have the same kernel. [1]ΘK = K. b). but if A is a proper pseudo-BCK-algebra. Observe that for every Θ ∈ Con(A). c) ∈ Θ}. Obviously. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. if a → b ∈ [1]Θ then also ((a → b) b) b ∈ [1]Θ .2. d) ∈ ΘK . Then from c → d ≤ (b → c) → (b → d) it follows (b → c) → (b → d) ∈ K. Analogously. Proposition 2.2 Let (A.

. It can be easily seen that the equivalence Φ with the partition {G− . h = (g ∨ h)−1 · h = (g −1 · h) ∧ 1. Then for every g ∈ G there exists n ∈ N with v n ≤ g ≤ v −n . →. Given a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. ∨. . A gives an example of a pseudo-BCK-algebra whose homomorphic image is not a pseudo-BCK-algebra. X.12) since X → Y = Y → X = G− while X = Y .2. 1) with the kernel G− = [1]Φ = [1]Ψ . X ∪Y } is a congruence on (A. .1. 1).2. At the same time. →. if i > j.−1 . . [1]Θ ) is a pseudoBCK-algebra. Y } as well as Ψ with the partition {G− .2. A/Φ does not satisfy the quasi-identity (1. 1 v i−j if i ≤ j. Let X = {xi : i ∈ N0 } and Y = {yi : i ∈ N0 } be two inﬁnite sequences. . yi = yi+m(g) . →. →. hence for every g ∈ G− there exists max{n ∈ N0 : g ≤ v n } which we denote by m(g). 1) if the quotient algebra (A/Θ.2. yi → xj = xi+1 → xj and A tedious but straightforward veriﬁcation yields that (A.2.1 Example 2. h ∈ G− ): • g → h = h · (g ∨ h)−1 = (h · g −1 ) ∧ 1 and g • xi → g = xi • g → xi = g • xi → xj = xi g = yi → g = yi g = 1. ·. Compatible deductive systems 25 1 v v2 x2 x1 x0 y2 y1 y0 Figure 2. yj = yi+1 yj . →. 1. Namely. 1) is a pseudo-BCKalgebra (see Figure 2. xi yi xj = xi+1 xj . ∧) be an -group with an order-unit u ∈ G+ and put v = u−1 . . In order to make A into a pseudo-BCK-algebra we deﬁne the two binary operations → and as follows (where g.3 Let (G. we shall say that Θ ∈ Con(A) is a relative congruence of (A. and put A = G− ∪ X ∪ Y .1). xi = xi+m(g) and g → yi = g xj = yi → yj = yi yj = • xi → yj = yi+1 → yj .

a ∈ A. Further.2.2. →.2. →. Proof: By Propositions 2.4 we have (i) ⇔ (ii) ⇔ (iii). . Accordingly. The implication (iii) ⇒ (iv) is trivial. To see that K is a deductive system suppose a.e. The following statements are equivalent: (i) K is a compatible deductive system. →. a for c2 . by substituting 1 for c2 . (a. Φ = Θ[1]Φ . . b ∈ A. . 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. b) ∈ Φ. i. →. Deductive systems and congruences The relative congruences of (A. Its kernel [1]Φ is a compatible deductive system and Θ[1]Φ is a (relative) congruence such that. 1). . for every c ∈ K. →. Now let Φ be a relative congruence of (A. which settles [a]ΘK = [b]ΘK . 1) correspond one-to-one to the compatible Proposition 2. In what follows.4 Let (A. b → a ∈ [1]Φ iﬀ [a → b]Φ = [1]Φ and [b → a]Φ = [1]Φ iﬀ [a]Φ → [b]Φ = [1]Φ and [b]Φ → [a]Φ = [1]Φ iﬀ [a]Φ = [b]Φ iﬀ (a. If K is a compatible deductive system then the relation ΘK deﬁned by (2. (iv) ⇒ (v). 1) by the congruence ΘK associated to a compatible deductive system K will be denoted by (A/K. b → a ∈ K and (a. and K be a subset of A such that 1 ∈ K. b) ∈ Θ[1]Φ iﬀ a → b. every relative congruence Φ can be recovered from its kernel [1]Φ via (2.. (v) ⇒ (i). [1]ΘK ).5 Let (A. →. When switching → and . (c → a) → a ∈ K and (c a) a ∈ K. b) ∈ ΘK . so that recalling K = [1]ΘK we have a → b. →. and (c → a) → a for a2 . . the quotient algebra obtained by factorizing (A. ([(c1 → (c2 → a1 )) → a1 ] (v) K ∈ DS(A) and for all c ∈ K. c2 ∈ K and a1 . . for every a. Thus the quotient algebra A/ΘK is a pseudo-BCK-algebra. K) rather than (A/ΘK . and b for both a1 and a2 .1). a2 ) a2 ∈ K. deductive systems: 26 . Theorem 2. a2 ∈ A. . . Proof: If [a]ΘK → [b]ΘK = [1]ΘK and [b]ΘK → [a]ΘK = [1]ΘK . a ∈ A. →. we get (c → a) → a = ([(c → (1 → a)) → a] ((c → a) → a)) ((c → a) → a) ∈ K.2. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. Finally. (c a) a = ([(c → (c → c)) → c] a) a ∈ K.2. If a → b ∈ K then ((a → b) b) b ∈ K.2.2 and 2. we have b = ((1 → b) b) b= ([((a → b) → (a → b)) → b] b) b ∈ K. Substituting a → b for c1 . (iii) K is the kernel of a unique relative congruence. then [a → b]ΘK = [1]ΘK and [b → a]ΘK = [1]ΘK . 1). (ii) K is a congruence kernel. a → b ∈ K. we shall write a/K in place of [a]ΘK . whence a b ∈ K since ((a → b) b) b≤a b.1) is a relative congruence of (A. (iv) for all c1 . Thus K ∈ DS(A). we can see that a b∈K yields a → b ∈ K.2. Moreover.

2) has the form λb (a1 ) → ((a1 b) b) = 1. Proof: We prove (2. (· · · (· · · (· · · (· · · (a1 (a1 (a1 (a1 b) · · · )) b) · · · )) b) · · · )) b) · · · )) (an b])) · · · ) = b)]) · · · ) (λb (an ) → b)]) · · · ) b]) · · · ) b] = (an (· · · )) . ρa . [1]Θ◦Φ = [1]Φ◦Θ = [1]Θ∨Φ . functions ρa and λa by . ai ∈ A. For n = 1 the result is clear since (2. →. As a reformulation of Theorem 2. .3) [(an → (· · · → (a1 → b) · · · )) → b]) · · · ) = 1. . Lemma 2. the argument for the second equation is similar. for every a ∈ A we deﬁne the polynomial ρa (x) = (x → a) → a and λa (x) = (x respectively. and for every ∅ = X ⊆ A we put a) a.2. We have λb (a1 ) → (· · · → (λb (an−1 ) → (λb (an ) → [(an = λb (a1 ) → (· · · → (λb (an−1 ) → [(an ≥ λb (a1 ) → (· · · → (λb (an−1 ) → [(an ≥ λb (a1 ) → (· · · → (λb (an−1 ) → [(an−1 =1 where we have applied the identity x → (y λb (an ) → [(an (· · · )) z) = y (x → z) to (λb (an ) → b). ρai }.6 Let (A. Φ ∈ Con(A). for every Θ.2. for the later use we give an explicit description of the smallest compatible deductive system that contains ∅ = X ⊆ A. the isomorphisms between the two lattices are the assignments K → ΘK and Θ → [1]Θ . 1).2) is valid for all positive integers k < n.2. ρa (x) ∈ K for all x ∈ K. γai ∈ {λai . →.4. . Such a deductive system is denoted by Dc (X) and called the compatible deductive system generated by X. .2) (2.2. →.2) only. a deductive system K ∈ DS(A) is compatible iﬀ it is closed under λa . . . n ∈ N}. 1). For every n ∈ N and λb (a1 ) → (· · · → (λb (an ) → [(an ρb (a1 ) (· · · (ρb (an ) (· · · (a1 b) · · · )) b]) · · · ) = 1.2. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. in the sense that λa (x).2. →. which is the join of [1]Θ and [1]Φ in the lattice DS c (A). b ∈ A we have .2. Let n > 1 and assume that (2. In the light of Proposition 2.5 (v).2. which is the join of [1]Θ and [1]Φ in DS(A). It is of some interest to know whether DS c (A) is a (complete) sublattice of DS(A). DS c (A) partially ordered by set-inclusion forms an algebraic lattice which is isomorphic to the relative congruence lattice of (A. However. The positive answer can be achieved by observeing that. and then showing that [1]Θ◦Φ = D([1]Θ ∪ [1]Φ ). Given a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. a1 . Compatible deductive systems 27 We use DS c (A) to denote the set of all compatible deductive systems of a pseudoBCK-algebra (A.2. We shall write brieﬂy Γ(x) instead of Γ({x}).2. 1). an . (2. a ∈ A. By induction on n ∈ N. Γ(X) = {(γa1 ◦ · · · ◦ γan )(x) : x ∈ X.

Since λb (gi ) ∈ Γ(X) for every i = 1.2. which yields a By (2.e. because x = (x → x) → x = ρx (x) ∈ Γ(X) for every x ∈ X. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra. Then a → (gn (· · · (g1 b) · · · )) = 1. proving that D(Γ(X)) is a compatible deductive system. Recall that a class K of similar algebras with a constant 1 is said to be weakly regular (at 1) if. if a b ∈ D(Γ(X)) then a → b ∈ D(Γ(X)). it follows Dc ( i∈I Ki ) = D(Γ( i∈I Ki )) = D( i∈I Γ(Ki )) = D( i∈I Ki ). n. gn ∈ Γ(X) so that gn (· · · (g1 (a → b)) · · · ) = 1. Corollary 2.2.2) we have λb (g1 ) → (· · · → (λb (gn ) → [(gn (· · · (g1 b) · · · )) b]) · · · ) = 1. and consequently. (2.e. sublattice of DS(A). respectively. But by Propostion 2. . In conclusion we mention some congruence properties of varieties of pseudo-BCKalgebras. (· · · )) b. . a ≤ gn (· · · (g1 b) · · · ). b ≥ (gn (· · · (g1 b) · · · )) b.7 Let (A. There remains to be proved that the deductive system D(Γ(X)) is compatible.7. b ∈ A and assume that a → b ∈ D(Γ(X)). and X be a non-empty subset of A. .9 DS c (A) is an algebraic distributive lattice. the congruences of A are uniquely determined . Let a.2. by (2.2.2. Dc (X) = D(Γ(X)). .2. Analogously..8 For every pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. . and if K is a compatible deductive system of A containing X then D(Γ(X)) ⊆ K. Proposition 2. 1). (2. We are now ready to settle the question about the lattices DS c (A) and DS(A): Proposition 2.2. i. and since Γ(Ki ) = Ki for all i ∈ I.4) we get a b ∈ D(Γ(S)).2. . the last equality entails that the element (gn (· · · (g1 b) · · · )) b belongs to D(Γ(X)).2. . . for each algebra A in K . →. 28 and ﬁnally. Proof: It is obvious that X ⊆ D(Γ(X)).2) holds for all n. DS c (A) is a complete Proof: Let {Ki : i ∈ I} be a collection of compatible deductive systems of A. i. One readily sees that Dc ( i∈I Ki ) and D( i∈I Ki ) are the joins in DS c (A) and DS(A).4) (· · · (a1 b) · · · )) b]) · · · ). in symbols. the induction hypothesis for λb (a1 ) → (· · · → (λb (an−1 ) → [(an−1 Consequently. Deductive systems and congruences then the inequalities λb (an ) → b = ((an (an (an−1 (· · · ))) b) (an b) → b ≥ an b) ≥ (an−1 b. there exists a positive integer n and g1 . . →. Then D(Γ(X)) is the compatible deductive system generated by X. .

for all Θ.9). y) = y → x for arithmeticity at 1. . however. arithmetical at 1. makes use of all the operations of residuated lattices was given by K. y) = x → y and d2 (x. [1]Θ∩(Φ∨Ψ) = [1](Θ∩Φ)∨(Θ∩Ψ) for all Θ. It is known that representable commutative integral residuated lattices are characterized by the prelinearity identity (x → y) ∨ (y → x) = 1.. Representable pseudo-BCK-algebras 29 by their kernels. (ii) for every (A. We will see later that Theorem 2. [1]Θ◦Φ = [1]Φ◦Θ for all Θ.3. in case of pseudo-BCK-lattices and meetsemilattices). dn (for n ∈ N) such that d1 (x.2. i. = Proof: (i) We can obviously use the terms d1 (x.. Φ. Further.1) A general axiomatization of representable residuated lattices which.3 Representable pseudo-BCK-algebras A residuated lattice (respectively. pseudo-BCK-algebras with additional fundamental operations). x) = 1 and t(x. .e. Blount and C. x) = t(1.10 Let V be an arbitrary variety of pseudo-BCK-algebras. As known. Con(A) ∼ DS c (A). Tsinakis [4].e. then every Θ ∈ Con(A) is a relative congruence since A/Θ is a pseudo-BCK-algebra which again belongs to V .2. but the second part generally fails to be true (for instance. . 1) = x. Then (i) V is weakly regular. .10 is applicable to pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices.3. 2.2. (b) A is distributive at 1. Φ ∈ Con(A). in the sense that [1]Θ = [1]Φ implies Θ = Φ. a class K is said to be arithmetical at 1 if every algebra A in K has the following properties: (a) A is permutable at 1. (ii) If A is a pseudo-BCK-algebra belonging to V . and congruence distributive. y) = · · · = dn (x. . →. (2.e. y) = y → x for weak regularity. Theorem 2.2. y) iﬀ x = y. a pseudo-BCK-algebra) which is a subdirect product of ones with underlying linear order is said to be representable. Φ ∈ Con(A).. Varieties arithmetical at 1 are characterized by a simple Maltsev-type condition (see [12] or [6]): V is artithmetical at 1 if and only if there exists a binary term t satisfying t(x. Ψ ∈ Con(A). It easily follows that V is congruence distributive. thus by Proposition 2. a variety V is weakly regular if and only if there exist binary terms d1 .2. 1) in V . The ﬁrst part actually holds for varieties of “expanded” pseudo-BCK-algebras (i. and the term t(x. .4 we have Con(A) ∼ DS c (A) (which yields congruence distributivity = of V by Corollary 2. i.

b ∈ A. ≤) exists and is equal to 1. .3) are necessarily linearly ordered.1). Using our terminology. 1) need not be a join-semilattice. (2.2. Although C.3.3. Deductive systems and congruences 30 C. 1} ⊆ C .2).4) also satisﬁes the following identities: (((y (((y (y x) x) z) z) u ≤ ((x u ≤ ((x y) u) → u.3.6) (2. →. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra satisfying (2.3. van Alten [67] independently proved that an integral (non-commutative) residuated lattice is representable if and only if it satisﬁes the identity (x y) ∨ (([((y x) z) z] → w) → w) = 1. We should / notice that (2. (2.1 Let (A. the satisfaction of which characterizes representable BCK-algebras. and hence our strategy is to prove that relatively subdirectly irreducible pseudo-BCK-algebras satisfying the identity (2. →.3) can really be used to axiomatize the representable members of the class of all {→.2) This identity also characterizes the representable algebras in the C -subreduct classes of integral residuated lattices as long as {∨.3.7).3.3) is obtained from (2. Palasi´ski’s [59] identity n ((x → y) → z) → (((y → x) → z) → z) = 1. J. The identity (2.3. the following are equivalent: .3. as well as representable integral residuated lattices themselves. then every minimal prime deductive system is compatible. Here.3.3) it has been an open problem to ﬁnd such an axiomatization when ∨ ∈ C .3.3. .5) (2. This is hardly manageable without joins (essentially because the compact deductive systems do not form a sublattice of the deductive system lattice). . u) → u. b} in (A. a relatively subdirectly irreducible pseudo-BCK-algebra is one that has a smallest non-identity relative congruence.3. given a. which is equivalent to (([((y x) z) z] → w) → w) u ≤ ((x y) u) → u. Nevertheless. In this section we prove that (2. (2. ≤) of a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A.3. (2. 1}-subreducts of integral residuated lattices.3) is obtained from M. Lemma 2.3) can be rewritten as (x y) u ≤ ([([((y x) z) z] → w) → w] u) u.7) x) → w) → w) u ≤ ((x We know that the underlying poset (A.3. b ∈ A. van Alten [67] conjectured that a possible candidate could be the identity ((x y) u) (([([((y x) z) z] → w) → w] u) u) = 1. we shall write a ∨ b = 1 meaning that the supremum of {a. in the same way in which (2.4) It is easily seen that every pseudo-BCK-algebra satisfying (2.3. . →. For any a. J. the proof in [67] consists in showing that if an integral residuated lattice satisﬁes (2. y) y) u) → u.3.

.3. . we have The following lemma is crucial: Lemma 2. Let g = λc (a) for some c ∈ A. By deﬁnition. (a b a which yields (a b) (b a) (a b) = a b. m and j = 1. . . respectively. Analogously.3. The induction step is parallel: If g = λc (g ) or g = ρc (g ). (ii) b a = a and a b = b. We need another technical result: Lemma 2. Proof: Clearly. . (· · · (am c) · · · ) = 1 and b1 (· · · (bn c) · · · ) = 1. if g = ρc (a) for some c ∈ A. For every c ∈ A.3.3.5). . h ∈ Γ(b). . As a consequence we get Lemma 2. . n ∈ N. then we have 1 = λc (a) d = (((b a) c) c) d ≤ ((a b) d) → d = (b d) → d = 1 → d = d by (2.3. . . where g ∈ Γ(a) already satisﬁes g ∨ b = 1.6) we conclude ρc (a) ∨ b = 1. am .3. . Representable pseudo-BCK-algebras (i) a ∨ b = 1.2. b. b ∈ A. n ∈ N) and assume that ai ∨ bj = 1 for all i = 1.4 Let (A. Proof: Due to (2. b) (b b) ∨ (b a) = 1 (b a) ≤ ((b a) (b a)) → (b a) = a) = b a. (ii) ⇒ (i). →. which means a1 . so c = 1. then (as argued above) g ∨ b = λc (g ) ∨ b = 1 or g ∨ b = ρc (g ) ∨ b = 1. where every γci is either λci or ρci . Thus λc (a) ∨ b = 1. then using (2. it follows c = 1.6). b1 ≤ c. →. Let c ∈ A be any common upper bound of a. and since a ∨ b = 1 entails that a b = b and b a = a. . We proceed by induction on the number of “conjugations” γci . Since a1 ∨ b1 = 1.5) and (2. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra that fulﬁls (2. . then (a for all a.3. . . . g = (γc1 ◦ · · · ◦ γcn )(a) for some c1 . it suﬃces to show that g ∨ b = 1 for each g ∈ Γ(a). If a ∨ b = 1 then g ∨ h = 1 for all g ∈ Γ(a). Hence a ∨ b = 1.3. . b ∈ A. We have a = 1 a = (a ∨ b) a=b a and b = 1 b= (a ∨ b) b=a b. . Let a1 . 31 Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii). if a1 then c = 1. By replacing a and b.3.7).3 Let (A.3. n. . If d ∈ A is a common upper bound of g = λc (a) and b. b1 . bn ∈ A (m.2 If a pseudo-BCK-algebra A satisﬁes (2. . Let a. . Proof: We may obviously assume that m = n and proceed by induction on n ∈ N. Then 1=b c = (a b) c ≤ ((b a) c) → c = (a c) → c = 1 → c = c. .7). . cn ∈ A. 1) be an arbitrary pseudo-BCK-algebra. For n = 1 we have a1 c = b1 c = 1.

12) and (2. Since an−1 ∨bn = 1.9) By the ﬁrst induction step applied to (2. Deductive systems and congruences 32 Let n > 1 and suppose that the statement holds for all positive integers k < n.13) = an−2 → (· · · → (a1 → 1) · · · ) = 1 again by (2.3.12) We also have bn (an−2 → (· · · → (a1 → [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )]) · · · )) = = an−2 → (· · · → (a1 → (bn [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )])) · · · ) (2. we have a1 (· · · (an−1 c) · · · ) = 1. which together with (2.3. thus b1 (· · · (bn−1 c) · · · ) = 1.2. we obtain an−1 → (an−2 → (· · · → (a1 → [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )]) · · · )) = 1.15) Finally.10) = an−1 → (· · · → (a1 → 1) · · · ) = 1. (2.8) yields an (an−1 → (· · · → (a1 → [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )]) · · · )) = 1. Further.3.10) and (2. an−1 (an−2 → (· · · → (a1 → [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )]) · · · )) = 1. bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · ) ≥ c together with (2.3.3.13) it follows an−2 → (· · · → (a1 → [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )]) · · · ) = 1. so an−2 (· · · → (a1 → [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )]) · · · ) = 1.3. .3. (2.8) (2. and equivalently. using (2.3.3.3.3. Repeating this procedure we get a1 [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )] = 1.9) we have bn (an−1 → (· · · → (a1 → [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )]) · · · )) = = an−1 → (· · · → (a1 → (bn [bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )])) · · · ) (2.15) so as to obtain c = 1. The assumption a1 (· · · (an c) · · · ) = 1 and b1 (· · · (bn c) · · · ) = 1 is equivalent to an bn Now. we can use the induction hypothesis for (2.3. (2.14) and (2.3. (2.3.14) By replacing bi ’s by aj ’s.3.3.11) (an−1 → (· · · → (a1 → c) · · · )) = 1.3. (bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · )) = 1. (2.9). by the ﬁrst induction step for (2.11).9) entails bn−1 → (· · · → (b1 → c) · · · ) = 1.3.

3.3).3.4). so it satisﬁes (2. the desired contradiction. . . Representable pseudo-BCK-algebras 33 Lemma 2. or equivalently. b ∈ A.5) and (2.5) and (2. Recalling known properties of quasivarieties.8 The identity (2. . . .7.3.3.3. j = 1. hn ∈ Γ(b).3. gm ∈ Γ(a) and h1 . Recall that a pseudo-BCK-algebra is called representable if it is (isomorphic to) a subdirect product of linearly ordered pseudo-BCK-algebras.3.3. By Lemma 2.6. (2.3.3. and therefore Dc (a b)∩Dc (b a) = {1} by Lemma 2. say {Ai : i ∈ I}.4). .2. . (ii) A satisﬁes the identity (2. A is isomorphic to a subdirect product of relatively subdirectly irreducible pseudo-BCK-algebras.6).3. →.5) and (2. m. x ∈ Dc (a) ∩ Dc (b) iﬀ g1 (· · · (gm x) · · · ) = 1 and h1 (· · · (hn x) · · · ) = 1 for some g1 .6 Every relatively subdirectly irreducible pseudo-BCK-algebra that satisﬁes the identities (2. n by Lemma 2.6). .4) (since in linearly ordered pseudo-BCK-algebras one has either a b = 1 or b a=1 for all a.3. Proof: Let A be a pseudo-BCK-algebra satisfying (2. (((y x) → w) → w) u ≤ ([((x y) z) z] u) u. Ai is linearly ordered by Proposition 2. it follows that x = 1 by Lemma 2. For every a.3. If A is relatively subdirectly irreducible then the lattice DS c (A) of all compatible deductive systems of A (being isomorphic to the relative congruence lattice) has a monolith. b ∈ A with a b=1 and b a = 1.3. Since gi ∨ hj = 1 for all i = 1. Then there exist a. . By deﬁnition. a pseudo-BCK-algebra A is representable if and only if it veriﬁes the identity (((x or equivalently.2.6).3. Theorem 2. . Conversely. if a ∨ b = 1 then Dc (a) ∩ Dc (b) = {1}..4.3.3.5 Let A be a pseudo-BCK-algebra satisfying (2. (2. the intersection of all compatible deductive systems = {1} is = {1}. (2.3.5.3.3. and consequently. 1). assume that A fulﬁls (2. each Ai is a homomorphic image of A.16) .7 For every pseudo-BCK-algebra (A.5) and (2. Proof: By Proposition 2.3.4) is not the only possible one which determines the representable pseudo-BCK-algebras.3.6). Remark 2. For instance. . Proof: It is obvious that if A is representable then it satisﬁes the identity (2. By way of contradiction.e. b). suppose that A is not linearly ordered. i. .3.2 we have (a b)∨(b a) = 1. .6) is linearly ordered. are equivalent: (i) A is representable.3. .3. the following statements .3. (iii) A satisﬁes the identities (2.3. y) z) z) u ≤ ([((y x) → w) → w] u) → u. Proposition 2.3. which certainly yields Dc (a b) = {1} and Dc (b a) = {1}.4).5) and (2. . .

x → y ∈ P or y → x ∈ P . Proof: By Proposition 2. u (((x → y) → z) → z) → u ≤ ([((y → x) axiomatizes representable pseudo-BCK-algebras.3. y ∈ A.3.3.3. as well as (iii) ⇒ (v). Hence: Corollary 2. if x ∨ y = 1 then x ∈ P or y ∈ P .16). (iv) for all x. is evident since (x → y) ∨ (y → x) = (x y) ∨ (y x) = 1. (vi) the set of all deductive systems exceeding P is totally ordered by set-inclusion. .3 carefully. .6) by the term ((x y) u) u.3.6).4). y ∈ A. we can interchange the arrows → and in (2.4) or (2. from the two above identities we easily infer (2. Consequently. Finally. (vi) ⇒ (i) is obvious. For (iv) ⇒ (vi). y ∈ A. if U (x. 34 respectively.3. it is obvious that all the previous considerations remain valid for integral residuated lattices.3.2. (v) for all x. (ii) for all x.5) and (((y x) → w) → w) u ≤ ((x y) u) u. The argument for (v) ⇒ (vi) is parallel. In the former case. a / contradiction again. so either of the identities (([((y → x) → z) → z] w) w) → u ≤ ((x → y) → u) w) w] → u) u. and suppose that C D and D C. let C.10 Let (A.5 (v)). For every P ∈ DS(A). →. 1) be a representable pseudo-BCK-algebra. and analogously the latter case yields c ∈ D. an integral residuated lattice is representable if and only if it satisﬁes (2. The last identity is diﬀerent from (2. the following are equivalent: (i) P is prime. which contradicts the choice of d ∈ C. y) ⊆ P then x ∈ P or y ∈ P .4) is subdirectly irreductible. Also (iii) ⇒ (iv). Proposition 2. but if we read the proof of Lemma 2.3.1.3.16 we have (i) ⇔ (ii). For every c ∈ C \ D and d ∈ D \ C we either have c → d ∈ P ⊆ C or d → c ∈ P ⊆ D.9 If an integral residuated lattice satisfying (2.3. and the implication (ii) ⇒ (iii) is trivial. Likewise. (iii) for all x. x y ∈ P or y x ∈ P.2. then it is linearly ordered. D be two distinct deductive systems containing P . Since integral residuated lattices form a weakly regular variety where the congruence kernels may be characterized as the compatible deductive systems (by [67] and Theorem 2. it follows d ∈ C. too. y ∈ A. we discover that without any loss we may replace the term ((x y) u) → u on the right-hand side of (2. We now turn our attention to prime deductive systems of representable pseudoBCK-algebras. Deductive systems and congruences Indeed.

Corollary 2.3.3.12 In every representable pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. →. (c) the deductive system {1} is prime.10. and (ii) a deductive system containing a prime deductive system is prime. . Recall that a root-system is a poset (P. →. y ∈ A.3. (d) DS(A) is a chain. . (b) for all x. Proof: This follows at once from (vi) and (iv) (respectively.3.11 A representable pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. (i) the set of prime deductive systems forms a root-system. Representable pseudo-BCK-algebras 35 Corollary 2. ≤) provided the principal order-ﬁlter [p) = {x ∈ P : x ≥ p} is a chain for all p ∈ P . 1). . 1) is linearly ordered if and only if the deductive system lattice DS(A) is linearly ordered by inclusion.2. ≤) is a chain. (v)) of Proposition 2. Proof: It suﬃces to observe that the following statements are equivalent to one another: (a) (A. x → y = 1 or y → x = 1.

Recall that a pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice is an algebra (A.2.1 pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices are the {∨. respectively.1. . the class of all pseudo-BCK-algebras is equationally deﬁnable. In the second part. . but in general—in contrast to pseudo-BL-algebras—a Rieˇan state need c not be a Bosbach one. 1) where (A. the conclusions of Theorem 2. →.1 Congruence kernels Pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices. The basic concept we deal with is that of a (Bosbach) state. 1) satisﬁes prelinearity then its deductive system lattice DS(A) has essentially the same properties as the lattices of convex -subgroups of lattice-ordered groups. 3.2. It is deﬁned as a common generalization of states on all algebras that can be viewed as special cases of bounded pseudoBCK-semilattices (such as pseudo-MV-algebras and pseudo-BL-algebras). whenever we refer to pseudo-BCK-semilattices we will mean pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices. . →. albeit ∨ is not a term operation in {→. thus. DS(A) belongs to the class I RN of algebraic distributive lattices whose compact elements form a sublattice and whose meet-irreducible elements form a root-system.. i. →.e.Chapter 3 Pseudo-BCK-semilattices This chapter is devoted to pseudo-BCK-algebras whose underlying posets are semilattices or lattices. we focus on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices. }. We are mostly concerned with join-semilattices. We prove that if a pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. the set of all proper prime deductive systems endowed with the spectral topology. The ﬁrst part of the chapter is a continuation of the study of deductive systems. ∨. For good pseudo-BCK-semilattices we introduce Rieˇan states as an analogue of Rieˇan states of c c good pseudo-BL-algebras. →. .10 equally hold for the variety of pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices: 36 . The two kinds of states coincide in involutive pseudo-BCKsemilattices. We further observe that. with the exception of the ﬁrst section. ≤) is a join-semilattice with the associated join operation ∨. ∨. By Theorem 1. 1}-subreducts of integral residuated lattices. speciﬁcally. and as pointed out in Section 1. 1) is a pseudo-BCK-algebra whose induced poset (A. We also study the prime spectrum.

3.1. and hence (a ∨ c.3.1). Also. we have m(x. Let K ∈ DS c (A). it follows that Θ = Θ[1]Θ . ∨. i. On the other hand.3.1. Since the variety of pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices is weakly regular. z) = ((x → y) z) ∧ ((z → y) x) ∧ ((x → z) z) is a Pixley term for M as well as for L .2 If a pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice satisfying (2. in order to show that ΘK is a congruence of (A.1 The variety of pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices is weakly regular and congruence distributive.3. ∨. 1). →. Indeed. y. so that (a ∨ c) → (b ∨ c) ∈ K.4) is subdirectly irreductible.2. According to Proposition 2. Congruence kernels 37 Theorem 3. d2 and t therein employ the operation → only. We analogously get (b ∨ c) → (a ∨ c) ∈ K. by (2.e. [1]ΘK = K.2). 1) form equational classes. y.2.1. .1. . because the terms d1 . where ΘK is the congruence deﬁned by (2. 1) or (A. the representable members of the variety of all pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices are axiomatized by the identity (2. b ∨ c) ∈ ΘK proving that ΘK is a congruence. x) = ((x → y) = ((x → y) y) ∧ ((y → y) y) ∧ x = x. Corollary 3. Suppose that (a. ∧. ∧.4) or.3 The variety L of pseudo-BCK-lattices as well as the variety M of pseudo-BCK-meet-semilattices are both weakly regular and arithmetical. The presence of the meet among fundamental operations brings new congruence properties of these two varieties: Theorem 3. Pseudo-BCK-lattices and meet-semilattices.2. →. equivalently. →. then it is linearly ordered. we have seen in Section 2. Proof: The two varieties are arithmetical (= distributive and permutable) since the term m(x. y) = ((x → y) = ((x → y) m(x.. ∨. For any c ∈ A we have (a ∨ c) → (b ∨ c) = (a → (b ∨ c)) ∧ (c → (b ∨ c)) = (a → (b ∨ c)) ∧ 1 = a → (b ∨ c) ≥ a → b. b) ∈ ΘK .2 that the kernel [1]Θ of any congruence Θ is a compatible deductive system. →. 1) it suﬃces to verify the compatibility with ∨. 1) and the lattice DS c (A) of all compatible deductive systems are isomorphic under the mappings Θ → [1]Θ and K → ΘK . Pseudo-BCK-lattices and pseudoBCK-meet-semilattices considered as algebras (A. . . x) ∧ ((x → y) x) ∧ x = x x) ∧ ((x → x) x) x) ∧ ((x → y) y) . Consequently. →.2. For every pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice (A. y. ∨. a → b ∈ K and b → a ∈ K.10. Proof: The variety is weakly regular and distributive by the remarks following Theorem 2. the lattice Con(A) of all congruences of (A. and hence Θ → [1]Θ and K → ΘK are mutually inverse isomorphisms between Con(A) and DS c (A). .

3. Pseudo-BCK-semilattices and m(y, y, x) = ((y → y) x) ∧ ((x → y) y) ∧ ((y → x) x) = x. x)

38

= x ∧ ((x → y)

y) ∧ ((y → x)

For weak regularity we can use the terms d1 , d2 of Theorem 2.2.10. The description of congruence kernels in the varieties M and L is slightly more complicated than in case of pseudo-BCK-join-semilattices. Namely, a compatible deductive system is not necessarily a ﬁlter in the underlying meet-semilattice and hence not all compatible deductive systems are congruence kernels, and on the other hand, a compatible deductive system which is a ﬁlter need not be a congruence kernel: 1 c b d a 0 Figure 3.1.1 Example 3.1.4 (1) Let (A, ∨, ∧, →, , 1) be the pseudo-BCK-lattice whose underlying lattice is shown in Fig. 3.1.1 and where the operations →, are given by the following tables: → 0 a b c d 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 1 b b b a b 1 1 1 b b b c 1 1 1 1 1 c d 1 c c c 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 a 1 1 c a a a b 1 1 1 b b b c 1 1 1 1 1 c d c c c c 1 d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 a b c d 1

One readily sees that D(a) = {a, b, c, d, 1} is a compatible deductive system (hence the kernel of some congruence of (A, ∨, →, , 1)), but it is not a lattice ﬁlter. (2) Now, let (A, ∨, ∧, ⇒, 1) the BCK-lattice associated to the lattice from Fig. 3.1.1, i.e., x ⇒ y = 1 if x ≤ y, and x ⇒ y = y otherwise. Then D(b) = {b, c, 1} is a compatible deductive system and simultaneously a lattice ﬁlter, but it is not a congruence kernel. Indeed, if D(b) = [1]Θ , Θ being a congruence on (A, ∨, ∧, ⇒, 1), then (b, 1) ∈ Θ implies (0, d) = (b ∧ d, 1 ∧ d) ∈ Θ which yields (0, 1) = (d ⇒ 0, d ⇒ d) ∈ Θ, a contradiction.

3.2. More on the lattice DS(A)

39

Theorem 3.1.5 Let (A, ∧, →, , 1) be a pseudo-BCK-meet-semilattice. Let K be a compatible deductive system of (A, →, , 1) satisfying the following additional condition, for all a, b, c ∈ A: c→a∈K & c→b∈K ⇒ c → (a ∧ b) ∈ K. (3.1.1)

Then the relation ΦK deﬁned by (a, b) ∈ ΦK ⇔ (a → b) ∧ (b → a) ∈ K (3.1.2)

is a congruence on (A, ∧, →, , 1) with [1]ΦK = K. Conversely, for every congruence Θ on (A, ∧, →, , 1), the kernel [1]Θ is a compatible deductive system satisfying (3.1.1) and we have Φ[1]Θ = Θ. Proof: Let K be a compatible deductive system that fulﬁls (3.1.1). First of all, when putting c = 1 in (3.1.1), we get that K is a ﬁlter. Therefore, (a, b) ∈ ΦK iﬀ (a → b) ∧ (b → a) ∈ K iﬀ a → b ∈ K and b → a ∈ K iﬀ (a, b) ∈ ΘK (where ΘK is deﬁned by (2.2.1)), so that ΦK = ΘK and hence, by Proposition 2.2.2, ΦK is a congruence relation on (A, →, , 1), the kernel of which is K. It remains to show that ΦK is compatible with ∧. For that purpose, let (a, b) ∈ ΦK , c ∈ A. We have (a ∧ c) → c = 1 ∈ K and (a ∧ c) → b ∈ K since (a ∧ c) → b ≥ a → b ∈ K. By (3.1.1) this implies (a ∧ c) → (b ∧ c) ∈ K. Analogously, (b ∧ c) → (a ∧ c) ∈ K, and so (a ∧ c, b ∧ c) ∈ ΦK . Conversely, let Θ be a congruence of (A, ∧, →, , 1). It is clear that [1]Θ is a compatible deductive system. We prove that it enjoys the property (3.1.1). Assume that (c → a, 1) ∈ Θ and (c → b, 1) ∈ Θ. Then ((c → a) a, a) ∈ Θ whence (c, c ∧ a) = (c ∧ ((c → a) a), c ∧ a) ∈ Θ, and similarly, (c, c ∧ b) ∈ Θ. Thus (c, a ∧ b ∧ c) ∈ Θ which entails (c → (a ∧ b), 1) = (c → (a ∧ b), (a ∧ b ∧ c) → (a ∧ b)) ∈ Θ. Consequently, since [1]Θ is the kernel of Θ as well as of Φ[1]Θ , it follows that Θ = Φ[1]Θ . The same result holds for pseudo-BCK-lattices: Theorem 3.1.6 Let (A, ∨, ∧, →, , 1) be a pseudo-BCK-lattice. If K is a compatible deductive system satisfying the condition (3.1.1) then the relation ΦK deﬁned by (3.1.2) is a congruence on (A, ∨, ∧, →, , 1) such that [1]ΦK = K. Conversely, for every congruence Θ on (A, ∨, ∧, →, , 1), the kernel [1]Θ is a compatible deductive system satisfying (3.1.1) and we have Φ[1]Θ = Θ.

3.2

More on the lattice DS(A)

It follows from Proposition 2.1.7 (and also from Lemma 2.3.4) that, in any pseudoBCK-algebra, D(x) ∩ D(y) = {1} if x ∨ y = 1. An even stronger result holds in case of pseudo-BCK-semilattices: Proposition 3.2.1 Let (A, ∨, →, , 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. Then

D(x) ∩ D(y) = D(x ∨ y) for all x, y ∈ A. Consequently, the join-subsemilattice Com(DS(A)) of all compact deductive systems is a sublattice of DS(A).

3. Pseudo-BCK-semilattices

40

Proof: In view of Proposition 2.1.7 we have D(x ∨ y) ⊆ D(U (x, y)) = D(x) ∩ D(y). For the converse, assume a ∈ D(U (x, y)), i.e., z1 → (· · · → (zn → a) · · · ) = 1 for some z1 , . . . , zn ∈ U (x, y). Since x ∨ y ≤ zi for all i = 1, . . . , n, it easily follows z1 → (· · · → (zn → a) · · · ) ≤ (x ∨ y) →n a. Hence (x ∨ y) →n a = 1, which entails a ∈ D(x ∨ y). For the latter claim, let D(X), D(Y ) ∈ Com(DS(A)), i.e., X, Y are ﬁnite subsets of A. Because DS(A) is a distributive lattice, we have D(X) ∩ D(Y ) = = = {D(x) : x ∈ X} ∩ {D(y) : y ∈ Y }

{D(x) ∩ D(y) : x ∈ X, y ∈ Y } {D(x ∨ y) : x ∈ X, y ∈ Y }

= D({x ∨ y : x ∈ X, y ∈ Y }), so D(X) ∩ D(Y ) is ﬁnitely generated. Our next objective is to show that in the presence of joins the pseudocomplements in the deductive system lattice DS(A) can alternatively be characterized as the so-called polars which generally are better behaved than annihilators (cf. Proposition 2.1.10): Given a pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A, ∨, →, , 1), by the polar of ∅ = X ⊆ A we mean the set X δ = {a ∈ A : a ∨ x = 1 for all x ∈ X}. We write xδ instead of {x}δ . It is easily seen that X δ = properties are: (a) X ⊆ X δδ , (b) X ⊆ Y ⇒ Xδ ⊇ Y δ, {xδ : x ∈ X}; other obvious

(c) X δδδ = X δ . Proposition 3.2.2 Let (A, ∨, →, , 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. For every nonempty X ⊆ A, X δ ∈ DS(A) and X δ = D(X)δ . In addition, if D ∈ DS(A) then Dδ = D . Proof: Take an arbitrary x ∈ X and assume that a ∈ xδ and a → b ∈ xδ . Then a → b ≤ a → (b∨x) implies 1 = (a → b)∨x ≤ (a → (b∨x))∨x, so (a → (b∨x))∨x = 1. But a → (b ∨ x) ≥ b ∨ x ≥ x, and hence a → (b ∨ x) = 1, i.e., a ≤ b ∨ x. This yields 1 = a ∨ x ≤ b ∨ x and b ∨ x = 1 proving b ∈ xδ . Thus xδ ∈ DS(A), and consequently, X = {xδ : x ∈ X} ∈ DS(A). Now, let a ∈ X δ . Then aδ ⊇ X δδ ⊇ X whence aδ ⊇ D(X) for aδ is a deductive system. It follows a ∈ aδδ ⊆ D(X)δ showing X δ ⊆ D(X)δ . The other inclusion is a consequence of X ⊆ D(X). Finally, assume D is a deductive system, and let a ∈ Dδ . Then x = 1 → x = (a ∨ x) → x = a → x for every x ∈ D, so a ∈ D . Conversely, if a ∈ D then for each x ∈ D we have a ∨ x ∈ D, hence 1 = a → (a ∨ x) = a ∨ x, so a ∈ Dδ .

1). ∨. so there exist x ∈ I∩X and y ∈ I∩Y whence it follows x∨y ∈ I∩X∩Y = I∩P = ∅. Let D ∈ DS(A). and 0 l = {c. E and d ∈ D. Y ∈ DS(A)\{P }. We have X δ ⊆ X r ∩ X l .6 Let (A.e. Proposition 3. Proof: Let a ∈ D. (3. in the sense that D ⊆ P but a ∈ P . if a ∨ d ∈ E for all d ∈ D. for all x. Conversely. 0 r = {b. y) ⊆ P . and if X is an order-ﬁlter then X δ = X r = X l .16 to the eﬀect that x ∨ y ∈ P if and only if U (x. the relative annihilators (see Proposition 2. 1}. Likewise the relative pseudocomplements in DS(A). 1).1. . More on the lattice DS(A) 41 Lemma 3. the three sets X δ ..11). Then there exists a prime deductive system P ∈ DS(A) such that D ⊆ P and I ∩ P = ∅. .3. D. . Proof: A routine application of Zorn’s lemma yields that the set of all deductive systems having the required properties has a maximal element. i. In what follows we pay special attention to the class of pseudo-BCK-semilattices satisfying the prelinearity identities (x → y) ∨ (y → x) = 1.5 Let (A.2. →. For pseudo-BCK-semilattices we have the following strengthening: / Proposition 3.9 we have 0δ = {1}. Assume that X is an order-ﬁlter. and I be an ideal of the semilattice (A. ∅ = X ⊆ A. Then P is prime if and only if. y ∈ A. (a → d) d ∈ E since (a → d) d ≥ a ∨ d ∈ E. E . Then a ∨ d ∈ D and hence a ∨ d = 1 (a ∨ d) = (a → (a ∨ d)) (a ∨ d) ∈ E. Thus a ∈ D.1.4 In every pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. thus a ∈ X r . (x y) ∨ (y x) = 1. →. ∨. In general. a contradiction. →. . a ∈ X l .1) . →. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice and P ∈ DS(A).2. Hence a ∈ X δ .3 Let (A. Given any pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. ∨. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. it follows that for every D ∈ DS(A) and a ∈ A \ D (note that a ∈ D is equivalent to D(a) D) there exists / a prime deductive system P which separates a from D. E = {a ∈ A : a ∨ d ∈ E for all d ∈ D} for all D. can be more concisely described by means of joins: Proposition 3. If a ∈ X r and x ∈ X.2. Thus P is a prime deductive system. Then I ∩X = ∅ and I ∩Y = ∅ in view of the maximality of P .2. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. x∨y ∈P ⇒ x∈P or y ∈ P. Similarly.2.2. ∨. ∨) with D ∩ I = ∅. Proof: If a ∈ X δ then x = 1 → x = (a ∨ x) → x = a → x for every x ∈ X. 1}. →. say P . then for each d ∈ D. E ∈ DS(A). X r and X l can diﬀer from one another: In Example 2. then a ∨ x ∈ X and so a ∨ x = a → (a ∨ x) = 1.1. Assume P = X ∩Y for X. we have Proof: This follows from Proposition 2. . since DS(A) is an algebraic distributive lattice where each principal deductive system is compact.

3.2. The next result is an analogue of Proposition 2. y ∈ A. y ∈ A. . the rest is parallel to the proof of Proposition 2. ∨. and (ii) the meet-prime elements of L form a root-system.8. (v) for all x. →. if x ∨ y ∈ P then x ∈ P or y ∈ P .6 we have (i) ⇔ (ii).3. For every x.3. y ∈ A. x → y ∈ P or y → x ∈ P . (vi) the set of all deductive systems containing P is a chain (under inclusion). 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice that satisﬁes (3. Likewise.1).2.8 The prime deductive systems of a pseudo-BCK-semilattice that fulﬁls (3. Dc (x) ∩ Dc (y) = Dc (x ∨ y). by [4].12 hold for pseudo-BCK-semilattices satisfying (3. →. Furthermore. (ii) for all x. The class consisting of the ideal lattices of relatively normal lattices is denoted by I RN (see [65].2. .1. and (ii) the set of prime deductive systems is a root-system by Corollary 3.2. Proof: DS(A) is an algebraic distributive lattice such that (i) the compact (ﬁnitely generated) deductive systems form a sublattice Com(DS(A)) by Proposition 3. in particular: Corollary 3. ∨. the congruence lattice of every representable residuated lattice belongs to I RN . Proposition 3. y ∈ A we have .7 Let (A.9 If a pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A.1). Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 42 including the negative cones of -groups. (iii) for all x. thus. ∨.1) form a root-system. x y ∈ P or y x ∈ P. →.2.3. the following statements are equivalent: (i) P is prime. . pseudo-BL-algebras and representable pseudo-BCK-semilattices. 1) be a representable pseudo-BCK-semilattice. the lattice of all convex -subgroups of an arbitrary -group as well as the lattice of all -ideals (and hence the congruence lattice) of a representable -group are members of I RN .1).2. 1) satisﬁes the identities (3.2. An algebraic distributive lattice L belongs to I RN iﬀ (i) the join-subsemilattice Com(L) of compact elements is a sublattice of L.3. it can be easily seen that the same conclusions of Corollary 2.2.2.10: Proposition 3.10. A lower-bounded distributive lattice is relatively normal provided its set of prime ideals is a root-system under inclusion.2. then the deductive system lattice DS(A) is a member of I RN . pseudo-MV-algebras.10 Let (A. Theorem 3. Then for every P ∈ DS(A). Proof: By Proposition 3. (iv) for all x. For instance. The name comes from topological considerations: a topological space is hereditarily normal (not necessarily T2 ) iﬀ the lattice of its open sets is relatively normal. y ∈ A.2. [66]).11 and 2. Hence DS(A) ∈ I RN . if x ∨ y = 1 then x ∈ P or y ∈ P .

→ (hn → a) . .2. . It follows πt (1) = πt (g1 → (. Proof: Let (A. i. → (hn → [˜1 → (. gm ∈ Γ(x) and h1 . . )]) . thus Dc (X) ∩ Dc (Y ) is ﬁnitely generated. ˜ all t ∈ T . . → (hn → [˜1 → (. We have πt (1) = πt (h1 → (. . . . . . Let a ∈ Dc (x)∩Dc (y). Now. Because DS c (A) is a distributive lattice. . we have Dc (X) ∩ Dc (Y ) = = = {Dc (x) : x ∈ X} ∩ {Dc (y) : y ∈ Y } {Dc (x) ∩ Dc (y) : x ∈ X. . →. . . . . . . )). . . . . . )]) . g1 → (. . → (πt (hn ) → [πt (˜1 ) → (. → (gm → a) . . . → (˜m → a) . . → (πt (˜m ) → πt (a)) . . . . i. Consequently. . . . .. . → (πt (˜m ) → πt (a)) . . . .. letting πt denote the usual projection map onto At . )). . hn ∈ Γ(y). . )) = πt (h1 ) → (. Thus Dc (x) ∩ Dc (y) ⊆ Dc (x ∨ y). →. . → (πt (˜m ) → πt (a)) . 1) be a subdirect product of the family {(At . → (πt (hn ) → πt (a)) . . . . . y ∈ Y } = Dc ({x ∨ y : x ∈ X. . ) = πt (˜1 ) → (. . . . . . . )) = πt (g1 ) → (. Dc (Y ) ∈ Com(DS c (A)). . 1 = (h g g which proves a ∈ Dc (x ∨ y) since gi . . . respectively. 1) : t ∈ T } of pseudo-BCK-semilattices with underlying linear order. . . . . hj ∈ Γ (x ∨ y). . n. → (πt (hn ) → πt (a)) . . → (gm → a) . ) ≥ πt (a) implies g g ˜ ˜ πt (1) = πt (h1 ) → (. → (hn → [˜1 → (. ˜ ˜ The reverse inclusion is obvious. .2. m. y ∈ Y } {Dc (x ∨ y) : x ∈ X. . More on the lattice DS(A) 43 Consequently. → (πt (˜m ) → πt (a)) . πt (1) = πt (h1 → (. . . . . .3. . .e. ∨. . → (˜m → a) . )]) . We shall write gi and hj for the elements of ˜ Γ(x∨y) which are the same “conjugates” of x∨y as gi and hj are of x and y. . . . )) for g g ˜ 1 → (. ) = 1 and h1 → (. . . . for example. ˜ = πt (h g g ˜ Case 2: If πt (x) ≤ πt (y) then πt (y) = πt (x ∨ y) and πt (hj ) = πt (hj ) for all j = 1. . . )]) . ∨.1. we either have πt (x) ≤ πt (y) or πt (x) ≥ πt (y): Case 1: If πt (x) ≥ πt (y) then πt (x) = πt (x ∨ y) and it is easily seen that πt (gi ) = πt (˜i ) g for every i = 1. . → (˜m → a) . ) which along with πt (˜1 ) → (. ) g g ˜ ˜ = πt (h1 → (. ) = 1 for some ˜ g1 . ˜ For ﬁxed t ∈ T . . Y are ﬁnite subsets of A. . X. ). . ) ˜ ˜ = πt (h1 ) → (. . )]) . . let Dc (X). → (πt (gm ) → πt (a)) . . . . . g g ˜ ˜ In either case. → (˜m → a) . . . . . gi = (γa1 ◦ · · · ◦ γaq )(x) then gi = (γa1 ◦ · · · ◦ γaq )(x ∨ y). )]) . . . . . . → (hn → a) . the set Com(DS c (A)) of all compact (= ﬁnitely generated) compatible deductive systems is a sublattice of DS c (A). ) g g whence ˜ ˜ πt (1) = πt (h1 ) → (. .e. . → (hn → [˜1 → (. . y ∈ Y }). . thus if. . like in the proof of the second part of Proposition 3. . ) g g ˜ 1 → (. → (πt (hn ) → [πt (˜1 ) → (.

∨. O(a ∨ b) = O(D(a ∨ b)) = O(D(a) ∩ D(b)) = O(D(a)) ∩ O(D(b)) = O(a) ∩ O(b). 1) is representable. and take arbitrary a ∈ H \ K and b ∈ K \ H.2.1 Let (A.3. 1). We shall write O(a) = O({a}) and C(a) = C({a}) for a ∈ A. It is easily seen that for every X ⊆ A we have (A) O(X) = O(D(X)) and C(X) = C(D(X)). so there remains to be proved that the meet-prime elements of DS c (A) form a root-system. O(X). respectively.11 For every representable pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. Thus a → b ∈ P ⊆ H or b → a ∈ P ⊆ K. . M(A) ⊆ P(A). Lemma 3. . 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. For any X ⊆ A.3. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. . Then X = C(X) and X δ = . O(X1 ∩ X2 ) = O(X1 ) ∩ O(X2 ). 3. O i∈I Xi = i∈I O(Xi ). X2 ∈ DS(A). ∨. . so that we may restrict ourselves to the case when X ∈ DS(A). Indeed. b ∈ A. a contradiction. →. →. let O(X) = {P ∈ P(A) : X P }. →. We let P(A) and M(A) denote the set of all proper prime deductive systems and the set of all maximal deductive systems of (A. ∨. ∨. K be compatible deductive systems containing P . Let P be a meet-prime element of DS c (A). suppose that H K and K H. . Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 44 Theorem 3. →. →. Further. and X ∈ DS(A). we have (a → b) ∨ (b → a) = 1 and hence Dc (a → b) ∩ Dc (b → a) = Dc ((a → b) ∨ (b → a)) = Dc (1) = {1} ⊆ P . In particular. It is readily seen that b → a ∈ H \ K and a → b ∈ K \ H. the lattice DS c (A) of compatible deductive systems is a member of the class I RN . which entails Dc (a → b) ⊆ P or Dc (b → a) ⊆ P . C(X) = {P ∈ P(A) : X ⊆ P }. Let H. Proof: We already know that DS c (A) is an algebraic distributive lattice such that Com(DS c (A)) is a sublattice. (D) for every family {Xi : i ∈ I} of deductive systems. (C) given any X1 . Since (A. Clearly. ∨. (B) O(A) = P(A) and O(1) = ∅. (C) entails (E) O(a ∨ b) = O(a) ∩ O(b) for every a.3 Spectral topology Let (A. 1).

Let P.. / Let M(A) = ∅.2 For every pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. Q ∈ M(A) we have P Q and Q P . . since P is prime and X ∩ X δ = {1} ⊆ P . P Q then Q ∈ O(P ) and P ∈ O(P ). By the properties (B) and (E) we have O(a → b) ∩ O(b → a) = O((a → b) ∨ (b → a)) = O(1) = ∅. 1). the prime spectrum of (A. . ∨.4 For every pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. . . Q ∈ M(A). . 1) satisﬁes the identities (3. Moreover.3.. Y ⊆ P and x ∈ P for some P ∈ P(A).g. →. (Observe that the closed subsets are precisely the sets C(X). it follows that M(A) is a T1 -space. so there is x ∈ X \ Y . . say X Y . P = Q. {P ∈ P(A) : P is minimal and X P } = X = Xδ. ϕ is a surjective homomorphism. which along with Remark 2.2. →.3. the prime spectrum P(A) is a T0 -space. If. Theorem 3. Then P(A) is a compact space if and only if there exist a1 . Thus P ∈ O(X) while P ∈ O(Y ).2. →. for every P ∈ O(X). ∨. If X. hence X = C(X). . ∨. Since for any two distinct P. ϕ : X → O(X) is an isomorphism of the lattice DS(A) onto the lattice of all open subsets of P(A). every X ∈ DS(A) is the intersection of a set of completely meet-irreducible deductive systems every one of which is a prime deductive system exceeding X. Spectral topology 45 Proof: Recalling that DS(A) is algebraic.1) and M(A) = ∅.e. then M(A) is a T2 -space. Proposition 3. an ). and consequently. Proof: Clearly.3. ∨. . 1). if A is generated (as a deductive system) by a ﬁnite number of elements of A. Y are distinct deductive systems then X Y or Y X.3.) In what follows we will assume that P(A). Q ∈ P(A) with P = Q. →. Proof: Let P. so that O(a → b) and O(b → a) are disjoint neighbourhoods of P and Q. Proof: It is obvious that P(A) = O(A) is compact iﬀ A is a compact element of the lattice DS(A). i. Then there exist a ∈ P \ Q and b ∈ Q \ P . If M(A) = ∅. / / Corollary 3.17 yields Xδ ⊆ thus X δ = O(X) ⊆ O(X). . the mapping . The properties (B). an ∈ A (n ∈ N) such that A = D(a1 . Thus M(A) is a T2 -space. 1). . one readily sees that also b → a ∈ P \ Q and a → b ∈ Q \ P . Further. e. respectively. . if M(A) = ∅ and (A.3. For the last claim.1.1). (C) and (D) together mean that TP(A) = {O(X) : X ∈ DS(A)} is a topology on P(A) whose basis is {O(a) : a ∈ A}. we have X δ ⊆ P . . X ∈ DS(A). is equipped with this spectral topology. assume that A fulﬁls (3.3 Let A be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. then the maximal spectrum M(A)—endowed with the relative topology inherited from P(A)—is a T1 -space.

and hence y ∈ P as P ∈ O(x). In this case there exist x.1.e. Theorem 2. Again. (ii) P(A) = M(A).. Further. and (b) the set of all prime elements of L is trivially ordered. ∨. By [54]. But this is also impossible since P ⊆ Q. Trivial. tities (3. (ii) ⇔ (v). the property c ∨ c∗ = 1 for every compact c is suﬃcient for an algebraic distributive lattice L to be isomorphic to the lattice I(G) for some hyper-archimedean -group G. an algebraic distributive lattice L has the property that c ∨ c∗ = 1 for every compact element c ∈ L (where c∗ stands for the pseudocomplement of c in L) if and only if (a) the set of all compact elements of L is closed under ﬁnite meets. so P(A) = M(A). With any of these conditions. Then / clearly P ⊆ X ⊆ Q. Let P ∈ P(A) and X ∈ DS(A) with P ⊆ X. if L is modular and its meet-irreducible elements are trivially ordered then L is hyper-archimedean. (v) For every compact (= ﬁnitely generated) deductive system X ∈ DS(A). For every a ∈ A \ X there is Q ∈ P(A) such that X ⊆ Q and a ∈ Q.3. (ii) ⇒ (i). →. b ∈ G. we have P = X = Q proving that P is a maximal deductive system. 1] is an archimedean lattice. Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii). by [54]. Altogether.2.2. Thus if A satisﬁes any of the conditions (i)—(v) then there is a hyper-archimedean -group G such that DS(A) ∼ I(G).1) the following statements are equivalent: (i) P(A) is a T2 -space. if and only if P(A) = M(A). (ii) ⇔ (iii). 1) satisfying the iden- . the polar X δ is the complement of X in DS(A). na b for some n ∈ N) if and only if the lattice I(G) of its -ideals is archimedean.4. it follows that DS(A) is hyper-archimedean if and only if P(A) is trivially ordered. the equivalence of (ii) and (v) is clear. the homomorphic images of G are archimedean -groups) if and only if I(A) is hyper-archimedean. Q ∈ O(y) and O(x ∨ y) = O(x) ∩ O(y) = ∅. the lattice DS(A) is isomorphic to the lattice I(G) of all -ideals of some hyper-archimedean -group G. and conversely. This notion was introduced by J.3. Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 46 An algebraic lattice L is said to be archimedean if for each compact element c ∈ L the intersection of the elements which are maximal below c is 0.e. Since DS(A) is an algebraic distributive lattice. Theorem 3.5 In every pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. (iv) DS(A) is a hyper-archimedean lattice. for all 0 < a. in the light of Proposition 3. (iii) Every prime deductive system is minimal prime. L is called hyper-archimedean if for every x ∈ L the interval [x. (ii) ⇔ (iv). Let P(A) be a T2 -space. Therefore. Suppose that P = Q. The last equality entails x ∨ y = 1.2.3. By Theorem 3. According to [54]. Theorem 3. an abelian -group G is hyper-archimedean (i. the set of all meet-irreducible elements of a hyper-archimedean lattice L is trivially ordered. y ∈ A such that P ∈ O(x). = ..4. Theorem 1.6. Finally. and since X δ is the pseudocomplement of X ∈ DS(A). Martinez [54] and is motivated by the fact that an abelian -group G is archimedean (i.

The three forthcoming sections are devoted to states on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices. Conversely. In particular. Then any of the conditions (i)—(v) of Theorem 3. →. States on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices 47 Proposition 3. a∼−∼ = a∼ . respectively.3.6 Let (A. then cl(O(X)) = C( O(X)) = C(X δ ). ∨.8 Let (A. →. . . Corollary 3. and normality: s(1) = 1. ∨.3. a . ∨. 1).4. introduced by D. (6) a → b∼ = a−∼ → b∼ . such as pseudo-MV-algebras. a ≤ a∼− . and hence O(X ∨ X δ ) = O(X) ∪ O(X δ ) = C(X δ ) ∪ O(X δ ) = P(A) = O(A) which implies X ∨ X δ = A. Proof: It is plain that X ⊆ C( X ). Assume that X ⊆ C(X) for some X ∈ DS(A).4. Mundici [56] as [0. 3. . are analogous to ﬁnitely additive probability measures on Boolean algebras and play a central role in MV-algebraic probability theory [64].4 States on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices States on MV-algebras. (2) a−∼− = a− . assume that X ∨ X δ = A. b ≤ b∼ → a∼ . whence it follows that O(X) = P(A) \ O(X δ ) = C(X δ ) because O(X) ∩ O(X δ ) = ∅. 0.3. Recently.2. Then X ⊆ X and C( X ) ⊆ C(X) proving that C( X ) is the smallest closed subset of P(A) that contains X . BL-algebras and pseudo-BL-algebras. (3) a → b ≤ b− (4) a → b∼ = b (5) a → b−∼ = b− a− . cl(O(X)) = C(X δ ) for every X ∈ DS(A).7 Let (A. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. Corollary 3. cl(X ) = C ( X ) is the closure of X in TP(A) . given any X ∈ DS(A). →. we deﬁne the two nega0. b∼− . →. a a− .1 In every bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice: (1) a ≤ a−∼ . 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice that satisﬁes (3. Given a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. For the latter claim. Then for every X ⊆ P(A). First. a− = a−∼ → b−∼ . states have become a subject of an increasing interest also in case of generalizations of MV-algebras.1). Proof: If O(X) is a clopen subset then O(X) = cl(O(X)) = C(X δ ).3.3. we list some basic properties that will be used later: Lemma 3. ∨. tions − and ∼ by a− = a → 0 and a∼ = a . Then P(A) = O(X) ∪ O(X δ ). 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice and X ∈ DS(A). 1]-valued functions satisfying the conditions of additivity: s(a⊕b) = s(a)+s(b) if a·b = 0.5 is equivalent to the condition that O(X) is a clopen subset in P(A) for every compact X ∈ DS(A). Then O(X) is clopen if and only if X δ is the complement of X in DS(A). a b− = a∼− b∼− = b∼ → a∼ = a∼− b− .

1) if (i) s(0) = 0 and s(1) = 1. 0.4. Lemma 3. 1) a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. ∨. (5) s(a → b) = s(b− (6) s(a a− ) = s(a−∼ → b−∼ ) = s(a → b−∼ ) = s(a−∼ → b).4. (a b−∼ )−∼ = a b−∼ .3 Let s : A → [0. R -monoids). As a matter of fact. The concept of a state on a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice is introduced so as to be applicable to all aforementioned classes of algebras (pseudo-MV-algebras. b) = 1 − s(a) + s(b). →. (9) By (8). 48 (8) (a ∨ b)− = a− ∧ b− . we shall brieﬂy say that s : A → [0. →. b∼− ) = s(a b∼− ) = s(a∼− a). s(a) + s(a → b) = s(b) + s(b → a) and s(a) + s(a b) = s(b) + s(b a).2 Let (A. A mapping s : A → [0. (4) s(a−∼ ) = s(a∼− ) = s(a). the converse inequality is clear by (1). (5) and (6) easily follow from (4). Then (1) b ≤ a implies s(b) ≤ s(a) and s(a → b) = s(a (2) s(a → b) = s(a b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b). (ii) for all a.3. 1] is said to be a Bosbach state 1 on (A. (9) (a ∨ b)−∼ = (a−∼ ∨ b−∼ )−∼ . 0. Georgescu’s original deﬁnition of Bosbach states on pseudo-BL-algebras [25]: Deﬁnition 3. ∨. (3) s(a− ) = s(a∼ ) = 1 − s(a). The argument for the equation (a b−∼ )−∼ = a b−∼ is similar. . b ∈ A. ∨. (a ∨ b)∼− = (a∼− ∨ b∼− )∼− . 0. . . the deﬁnition we use here is G. 1). b). b) = s(b∼ → a∼ ) = s(a∼− (7) s(a∼ → b) = s(b− 1 a∼− ) = s(a∼ → b−∼ ) = s(b− If there is no danger of confusion. b∼− ) = (a → b∼− )∼− so (a → b∼− )∼− ≤ a → b∼− . (a−∼ ∨ b−∼ )−∼ = (a−∼− ∧ b−∼− )∼ = (a− ∧ b− )∼ = (a ∨ b)−∼ and analogously (a ∨ b)∼− = (a∼− ∨ b∼− )∼− . Pseudo-BCK-semilattices (7) (a → b∼− )∼− = a → b∼− . 1] be a state on a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. pseudo-BL-algebras. Proof: (1)—(4) as well as (8) are just reformulations of ﬁrst properties of pseudoBCK-algebras. . (a ∨ b)∼ = a∼ ∧ b∼ . →. (7) Using (6) we have 1 = (a → b∼− ) (a → b∼− ) = a → ((a → b∼− ) = a → ((a → b∼− )∼− b∼− ) = (a → b∼− ). 1] is a state.

0. Since s(a → b) = s(a b). 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice and Ker(s) = {a ∈ A : s(a) = 1} is a proper compatible deductive system. (6) Analogously. Proof: Certainly. At the same time. which yields (3).6 Let s : A → [0.4. Moreover. b) ∈ ΘK iﬀ a → b. thus by (1) we obtain s(a → b) = s(a b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b).4. The set Ker(s) is called the kernel of a state s : A → [0. 1]. . ∨. For every mapping s : A → [0. a ∈ Ker(s). Proposition 3. Recall that A/K is obtained by factorizing A by the congruence ΘK which is given by the stipulation (a. if a ≥ b then s(a → b) = s(a (3) for all a. b → a ∈ K. 1] be a state. Proof: We have already seen that (1) implies (2). Lemma 3. s(a− ) = s(a → 0) = 1 + s(0) − s(a ∨ 0) = 1 − s(a). Then . the following conditions are equivalent: (1) s is a state. In the quotient algebra2 (A/K. ∨. ∨. (4) This follows immediately from (3). Thus b ∈ Ker(s) proving that Ker(s) is a proper deductive system. so s(a∨b) = 1 and 1 = s(a → b) = 1−s(a∨b)+s(b) = 1 − 1 + s(b) = s(b). 1] be a state on (A. b ∈ A.3. Ker(s) is compatible. . (7) The equalities follow from (5) and (6) since b− a∼− = a∼ → b−∼ . s : A → [0. it follows that s is a state. 1/K) we have: (1) a/K ≤ b/K iﬀ s(a → b) = 1 iﬀ s(a ∨ b) = s(b). Since we also have s(1) = s(a → a) = 1 − s(a) + s(a) = 1. this settles s(b) ≤ s(a) since s(b) − s(a) = s(a → b) − 1 ≤ 0.4. / Then we have 1 = s(a) ≤ s(a∨b). . 1) be a pseudo-BCK-semilattice. For every a ∈ A we write a/K = [a]ΘK . (5) Obviously. →. 0. Proposition 3. it follows s(a−∼ → b) = 1−s(a−∼ ∨b)+s(b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b) = s(a → b) and s(a−∼ → b−∼ ) = 1 − s(a−∼ ∨ b−∼ ) + s(b−∼ ) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b) = s(a → b). (2) a/K = b/K iﬀ s(a → b) = s(b → a) = 1 iﬀ s(a) = s(b) = s(a ∨ b). (2) for all a. →. 0. (3) By (2).4 Let (A. b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b). s(a → b) = s(a b) = 1 − s(a) + s(b). s(b− a− ) = s(a−∼ → b−∼ ) = s(a → b−∼ ). States on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices 49 Proof: (1) If b ≤ a then b → a = 1 and s(b) + 1 = s(b) + s(b → a) = s(a) + s(a → b). 1] such that s(0) = 0. ∨. 2 . (2) We have a → b = (a ∨ b) → b and a b = (a ∨ b) b. b ∈ A. so s(a → b) = 1 + s(b) − s(a). and similarly s(a b) = 1 + s(b) − s(a). 1) and put K = Ker(s). since (a−∼ ∨b)−∼ = (a−∼ ∨b−∼ )−∼ = (a∨b)−∼ . →. 1 ∈ Ker(s) and 0 ∈ Ker(s). If s satisﬁes (3) then s(a) + s(a → b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b) + s(a) = s(b → a) + s(b) and similarly s(a) + s(a b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b) + s(a) = s(b a) + s(b). Assume that a → b.5 Let (A.4. 0/K. →.

let K = Ker(s).∼ . 0. u) is archimedean if and only if G is an archimedean -group. ∨. ⊕. →.4. Before stating our next result. Hence archimedean pseudo-MV-algebras are MV-algebras (since an archimedean group is automatically commutative). 0. One readily sees that a + b exists iﬀ a ≤ b− iﬀ a · b = (a− ⊕ b− )∼ = 0. 0/K). we must recall some facts about pseudo-MV-algebras.3. .6. Thus a + b is deﬁned iﬀ a ≤ b− (iﬀ b ≤ a∼ ). If we regard pseudo-MV-algebras as a particular case of good pseudo-BL-algebras. A pseudo-MV-algebra (M. Proposition 3.− . also cf. As is known. ⊕. The latter statement is an immediate consequence. This partial operation can also be used in deﬁning states [13]: a state on a pseudoMV-algebra (M. there exist pseudo-MV-algebras that have no states (see [13]). When constructing the representing -group G from a pseudo-MV-algebra (M. archimedean MV-algebras are exactly semisimple MV-algebras. in which case we put a + b = a ⊕ b.7 Let s : A → [0. 0.∼ .6). But s(a → b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b). ⊕. where a/K ⊕ b/K = (a∼ → b)/K is an archimedean MV-algebra and the map s : a/K → s(a) is a state on this MV-algebra. This together with a∨b ≤ (a → b) b and a ∨ b ≤ (a b) → b entails (a/K → b/K) b/K = a/K ∨ b/K = (a/K b/K) → b/K (3. hence a/K ≤ b/K is equivalent to s(a ∨ b) = s(b). Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 50 Proof: It is plain that a/K ≤ b/K iﬀ (a → b)/K = a/K → b/K = 1/K = K iﬀ a → b ∈ K iﬀ s(a → b) = 1. a pseudoMV-algebra M = Γ(G. 1] that satisﬁes the following conditions: (i) s(1) = 1.4. (ii) s(a + b) = s(a) + s(b) whenever a + b exists in M . .1) and (a/K)− = a− /K. ⊕. Dvureˇenskij [14] deﬁned the partial addition + as the restricc tion of ⊕ to those pairs (a. Proposition 3.∼ . ⊕. 0. 1] be a state on a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. 1]. and similarly. While every MV-algebra possesses at least one state. s((a b) → b) = s(a∨b). Then (A/K. 1) is said to be archimedean if the existence of n · a = a + · · · + a (n-times) for every n ∈ N entails a = 0.− . By [14].− . 0). 1) is a function s : M → [0. b) ∈ M × M such that a ≤ b− . 1). which are (up to isomorphism) subdirect products of subalgebras of the standard MV-algebra ([0. 1). so the above condition (ii) is essentially the condition of additivity from Mundici’s deﬁnition. A. Proof: We have s((a → b) b) = 1−s(a → b)+s(b) = 1−(1−s(a∨b)+s(b))+s(b) = s(a∨b).− .− . then states are precisely Bosbach states (see [25].

[20]. a/K ≤ 0/K. 1/K) is archimedean. we show that the pseudo-MV-algebra (A/K. Finally. For that purpose. so it is in fact a pseudo-MV-algebra with a/K ⊕ b/K = (b− a)/K = ∼ → b)/K. Indeed. Thus.4.2) . 1} = min{1 + m(b). b ∈ A. and we have s(a/K)+s(a/K → b/K) = s(a)+s(a → b) = s(b)+s(b → a) = s(b/K)+s(b/K → a/K) and the same for . m(b)} for all a. suppose that n · a/K = a/K + · · · + a/K (n-times) is deﬁned for every n ∈ N. m(1) = m(a → a) = m(a) → m(a) = 1 and m(a) + m(a → b) = m(a) + (m(a) → m(b)) = m(a) + min{1 − m(a) + m(b). →. ⊕. 0) into a bounded commutative BCKalgebra ([0. 0.4.3. so a/K = 0/K proving that A/K is an archimedean MV-algebra. Therefore (A/K. 1/K) is a bounded commutative pseudoBCK-algebra. and (ii) m(a → b) = m(a b) = m(a) → m(b) for every a. ∨. b ∈ A. 1} = m(b) + (m(b) → m(a)) = m(b) + m(b → a) and the same is true for . . Consequently. 1] is eqquiped with the Lukasiewicz implication → deﬁned by a → b = a− ⊕ b = min{1 − a + b. Lemma 3. . 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. yielding that it is actually an MV-algebra. 0/K. 1) if (i) m(0) = 0. making the standard MV-algebra ([0. 1). roughly speaking.∼ . We ﬁrst observe that every state-morphism is a state. ⊕. where the interval [0.− . Following [19].8 Let (A. The deﬁnition is correct as K is the kernel of s. (a Now.6. n · s(a) = n · s(a/K) = s(n · a/K) ≤ s(1/K) = 1 for every n ∈ N. (3.4. 0. (a/K)− = a− /K and (a/K)∼ = a∼ /K. 1]. 1] on A is a state-morphism if and only if m(a ∨ b) = max{m(a). . we prove that the map s deﬁned by (3. States on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices 51 by Lemma 3. s(0/K) = 0 and s(1/K) = 1. 1]. 0. Since s is a state on A/K. whence it follows that s(a) = 0 = s(0).1) is a state on A/K. A state m : A → [0. →. Thus s is a state as claimed.4. 0/K. a state-morphism is a homomorphism into the standard MV-algebra. 1] is a state-morphism of a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. 1}. ∨. 1 + m(a)} = m(b) + min{1 − m(b) + m(a). →. Clearly. →.− . a function m : A → [0.4.

2). 52 State-morphisms can alternatively be characterized by means of the operation ⊕ which is deﬁned by a ⊕ b = a∼ → b−∼ or. . m(b)}. and m : A → [0. 0. Similarly. . so m is a state-morphism. 1] is a state-morphism if and only if m is a state such that m(a ⊕ b) = m(a) ⊕ m(b) for all a. Pseudo-BCK-semilattices Proof: Let m be a state-morphism.3 (2) we get m(a ∨ b) = 1 + m(b) − m(a → b) = 1 + m(b) − (m(a) → m(b)) = 1 + m(b) − min{1 − m(a) + m(b).3 (5).4.4. Conversely. 1} = 1 + m(b) + max{−1 + m(a) − m(b). but it makes explicit the analogy with state-morphisms of pseudo-MValgebras (which are initially deﬁned as homomorphisms into the standard MV-algebra [13]): Lemma 3. 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. 0.3) .3. Then a− ⊕ b = a−∼ → b−∼ and. assuming that a state m obeys (3.4. we have m(a → b) = 1 − m(a ∨ b) + m(b) = 1 − max{m(a). by a ⊕ b = b− a∼− . this addition is not interesting in its own right. Hence m is a state-morphism. m : A → [0. by Lemma 3. m(a b) = m(b ⊕ a∼ ) = m(a) → m(b). Proposition 3. m(b)} + m(b) = 1 + min{−m(a). −m(b)} + m(b) = min{1 − m(a) + m(b). Then m is a state-morphism if and only if its kernel Ker(m) is a maximal deductive system.3). 1) a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. ∨.4. (3. b ∈ A. Conversely. By Lemma 3.4. By Lemma 3. assume that m is a state-morphism on A. →. 1} = m(a) → m(b). →. In general. m(a → b) = m(a−∼ → b−∼ ) = m(a− ⊕ b) = m(a− ) ⊕ m(b) = m(a)− ⊕ m(b) = m(a) → m(b).4. ∨.10 Let (A.4. −1} = max{m(a).3 (7) we have m(a ⊕ b) = m(a∼ → b−∼ ) = m(a∼ → b) = m(a∼ ) → m(b) = m(a)− → m(b) = m(a) ⊕ m(b). equivalently.9 For (A. Proof: Let m be a state that fulﬁls (3. 1] be a state.4.

4. hence A/Ker(m) ∼ m(A). 1). in general. Proof: Since m is a state-morphism. 1]. Since [0. →. b. as an MV-algebra. Then a/K ≤ b/K and a/K = b/K iﬀ m(a) = m(b). A}. 0) and the mapping a/Ker(m) → m(a) is an isomorphism of A/Ker(m) onto m(A). In case of pseudo-MV-algebras and pseudo-BL-algebras (or.3. a →k x ∈ Ker(m) ∪ {a}.6. Consequently.12.14 Consider the set A = {0. States on bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattices 53 Proof: Let m be a state-morphism. a. →.11 Let m be a state-morphism and put K = Ker(m). 0. 0. Therefore.4. . . where a. we obtain m1 (a) = m2 (a). 0. every compatible deductive system which is simultaneously a maximal deductive system is the kernel of a (unique) state-morphism (see [20]). 0) is a subalgebra of the standard MV-algebra ([0. m2 . it is a homomorphism of (A. The kernel of m is Ker(m).4. m(b)}. m(b)} and hence m(a) ≤ m(b) entails a/K ≤ b/K. Thus D(Ker(m) ∪ {a}) = A proving that Ker(m) is a maximal deductive system. moreover. Conversely. isomorphic under the mapping m1 (a) → m2 (a). But we have m(a) →k m(x) = m(a →k x). 0. →. = Proposition 3.6. 1} with the operations → and as follows: given . If we are given two state-morphisms m1 . Then (m(A). However. we either have a/Ker(m) ≤ b/Ker(m) or b/Ker(m) ≤ a/Ker(m). 1]. ∨. Therefore A/Ker(m) is simple and so linearly ordered. We know that A/Ker(m) is an MV-algebra whose lattice of deductive systems is easily seen to be an isomorphic copy of the interval [Ker(m). / / is simple and m(a) = 1. m(a) ≤ m(a ∨ b) = m(b). In the former case.− . Proof: By Proposition 3.4. this is not true for pseudo-BCK-semilattices: Example 3.4.4. b ∈ A. max. then ϕ is the identity map. bounded R -monoids). Proposition 3. in the latter one.− . it is known that if ϕ is an isomorphism between two subalgebras of the standard MV-algebra. for any a. assume that Ker(m) is a maximal deductive system. Take a ∈ Ker(m) and an arbitrary x ∈ A. then Ker(m1 ) = Ker(m2 ) implies m1 = m2 . m(b) ≤ m(a ∨ b) = m(a) by Lemma 3. A] = {C ∈ DS(A) : Ker(m) ⊆ C} = {Ker(m). 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. ∨. m(a ∨ b) = max{m(a). for every a ∈ A. max{m(a). We show that D(Ker(m) ∪ {a}) = A for any a ∈ Ker(m). However. 1) onto (m(A). m1 (A) and m2 (A) (regarded as MV-algebras) are subalgebras of the standard MV-algebra [0.4. ⊕. it follows that D(m(a)) = [0. 1]. 1] which are. which means that x ∈ D(Ker(m) ∪ {a}). Lemma 3. . But m(a ∨ b) = Proof: By Lemma 3. 1 = (a →k x) (a →k x) = a →k ((a →k x) x). iﬀ m(a) ≤ m(b).12 Let m : A → [0. ⊕. a/K ≤ b/K iﬀ m(b) = m(a ∨ b).13 Let (A. ∨. →. Now. and hence a →k x ∈ Ker(m). 1).4. Altogether. so m(a) →k m(x) = 1 for some k ∈ N. 1] be a state-morphism on (A. →.

. The convex combination α1 s1 + · · · + αk sk is positive provided 0 < αi < 1 for all i = 1. b ∈ A. Hence {1} is the only compatible deductive system being simultaneously a maximal deductive system. which proves that m is an extremal state on the MV-algebra A/K. k. {b. Note that mi = ν ◦ si . Put K = Ker(m). . where ν is a natural homomorphism of A onto A/K. (ii) m(a ∨ b) = max{m(a). 1] with α1 + · · · + αk = 1. . ∨. →. But {1} is not the kernel of any state since A/{1} ∼ A is not an MV-algebra (cf. given any positive convex combination s = α1 s1 + α2 s2 . Consequently. Proposition 3. In addition. But it is known that . 1] be a state on a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. We ﬁrst prove that m : a/K → m(a) is an extremal state on A/K (cf. Observe that A is not a pseudo-MV-algebra (bounded commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra) since (a → b) b = b = 1 = (b → a) a. We say that a state s is a convex combination of states s1 . (iv) m is a state-morphism. . A state s is called extremal if. 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. Suppose that m = α1 s1 + α2 s2 for some states s1 . Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii). ∨. . . The following statements are equivalent: (i) m is an extremal state. and hence m = m1 = m2 . . . . .4. 1) is a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. →. s2 on A/K.15 The previous example shows another signiﬁcant diﬀerence between pseudo-BCK-semilattices and pseudo-BL-algebras (see [16]): There exist linearly ordered pseudo-BCK-algebras having no states. . . A has no = state. sk if s = α1 s1 + · · · + αk sk for some reals α1 . (iii) m(a ⊕ b) = m(a) ⊕ m(b) for all a. it is even a chain with 0 < a < b < 1. . ∨. We can put the previous results together and obtain: Theorem 3. A straightforward veriﬁcation shows that letting mi (a) = si (a/K) we deﬁne two new states on A. (v) Ker(m) is a maximal deductive system. 0. .4. 1} and A. then s1 = s2 = s. 0.7). →. {b. 0.4. Let (A. for every a/K ∈ A/K we get s1 (a/K) = m1 (a) = m2 (a) = s2 (a/K). Remark 3. Pseudo-BCK-semilattices → 0 a b 1 0 1 a a 0 a 1 1 a a b 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 b 0 0 a 1 1 a a b 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 54 0 a b 1 Then (A. we have m = α1 m1 + α2 m2 .3. 1} is not compatible because a 0 = b while a → 0 = a. m(b)} for all a. Proposition 3. Deductive systems of A are {1}. αk ∈ [0. . Consequently. b ∈ A. 1).4.16 Let m : A → [0.7).

RA ) is a locally convex Hausdorﬀ space (i. 0. limt∈T mt (a) = m(a) for every a ∈ A.4) entails Ker(m) = Ker(m1 ) = Ker(m2 ). .. One readily sees that Ker(m) = Ker(m1 ) ∩ Ker(m2 ). If ∂e S(A) = ∅ then ∂e S(A) is a compact subset of S(A). every state on (A. →.4. 0. i. then m is a state-morphism again (cf. mk ∈ S(A).9.13 it follows that m1 = m2 = m.e. Moreover. The conditions (ii)—(v) are equivalent by Lemmata 3. 1). so S(A) is a convex set.10.1 If S(A) = ∅ then S(A) is a convex compact subset of the product space [0. (3.4. Hence both S(A) and ∂e S(A) are compact Hausdorﬀ spaces.4. say m = α1 m1 + · · · + αk mk . 1]A of all [0.4) Indeed. Seeing that Ker(m) is a maximal deductive system. and therefore ∂e S(A) is a closed subset. In addition.e. 1]A is a compact Hausdorﬀ space. Proof: Let S(A) = ∅ and take a net {mt : t ∈ T } in S(A) which converges to m in [0. Let now ∂e S(A) = ∅. 1) is obtained as the limit of a net of convex combimations of extremal states (= state-morphisms). say m = α1 m1 + α2 m2 . (3.g.4. If {mt : t ∈ T } is a net of state-morphisms converging to m in S(A).4.4.. . and Proposition 3. (v) ⇒ (i). Hence by Proposition 3.3.4. Theorem 3. ∨. ∨. then certainly m ∈ S(A).2 S(A) is equal to cl conv(∂e S(A)).5. 1).5 State space Given a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. Proposition 3. 3.5.4. by the Krein-Mil’man Theorem (e. It can be easily seen that m is a state.14. in other words. .5. whence we obtain 1 − m1 (a) = 1 − m2 (a) = 0 and m1 (a) = m2 (a) = 1.4. let S(A) be the set of all (Bosbach) states and let ∂e S(A) denote the set of all extremal states3 (= statemorphisms) on (A. →. 0. S(A) may happen to be empty even when A is linearly ordered. 1]A . →. both m1 and m2 are statemorphisms. The other inclusion is obvious. so Ker(m) ⊆ Ker(m1 ) ∩ Ker(m2 ). Thus m is an extremal state. the closure of the convex hull of ∂e S(A). and hence S(A) is closed. . if m is a convex combination of states m1 . m(b/K)} = max{m(a).8. Since [0. S(A) = ∅ iﬀ ∂e S(A) = ∅. and from Proposition 3. Hence ∂e S(A) is compact.8). if α1 m1 (a) + α2 m2 (a) = m(a) = 1 then 0 = α1 + α2 − α1 m1 (a) − α2 m2 (a) = α1 (1 − m1 (a)) + α2 (1 − m2 (a)). . . too. As we have seen in Example 3. [30]) we have Corollary 3. it follows that S(A) is a compact Hausdorﬀ space. 3.4. m(b)}.10. 1]A . State space 55 the statements (i)—(v) are equivalent in case of (pseudo-)MV-algebras. 3 ∂e S(A) is the extreme boundary of S(A). and therefore m(a ∨ b) = m(a/K ∨ b/K) = max{m(a/K). Since the Tychonoﬀ cube [0. . Suppose m is a positive convex combination of m1 and m2 . 1]A (respectively. 1]-valued functions over A. the collection of all open convex subsets forms a basis) and S(A) is a compact convex subset of [0. ∨. .16 (ii) or Lemma 3.

→. ⊕. . .13 we know that ϕ is injective.1) i=1 says that there are no stakes σ1 . 0) such that n σi (β(ai ) − V (ai )) ≥ 0. . In the most general setting. . as follows (see [55]): Let a1 . .− . Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 56 Remark 3. . (ii) β ∈ cl conv(V). Recalling Proposition 3. .5 Let (A.. .− . σn ∈ R there is V ∈ V satisfying the condition (3. . 0. coherence can be formulated for non-empty sets [57]: Given a non-empty set A and a non-empty closed subset V of [0. .3. 0) are precisely those mappings β : A → [0. D. σn as bettor’s “stakes” (the bettor pays the bookmaker n σi β(ai ) i=1 and will receive n σi V (ai ) when V (ai )’s are revealed). . Proof: By Proposition 3. . Proposition 3.5.2 we have: Corollary 3. ⊕. 1] then are valuations assigning to each ai its “truth-value” V (ai ) ∈ [0.e. and so M(A) ∩ DS c (A) = ∅.5. Then M(A) ∩ DS c (A) = ∅ and the map ϕ : m → Ker(m) is a continuous injection of ∂e S(A) into M(A) ∩ DS c (A) equipped with the topology inherited from the prime spectrum P(A). . ∨. . 1]A .1 and Corollary 3. 1] which satisfy the following coherence criterion: for every a1 . Then a mapping s : A → [0.4. .− . 1]A and S(A) = cl conv(∂e S(A)). 1]. For every . the following are equivalent: (i) β is coherent with respect to V. σn ∈ R there exists a homomorphism V of (A. i=1 (3. . . X = C(X) ∩ M(A) ∩ DS c (A) = {P ∈ M(A) ∩ DS c (A) : X ⊆ P } for some deductive system X ∈ DS(A).5. in the sense that for all a1 . then the condition (3. . states of an MV-algebra (A. 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice such that ∂e S(A) = ∅. . ⊕. Thus. . 1]. . . in particular.4. σn ensuring the player to win in every “possible word”. If we think of β(a1 ). 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice such that ∂e S(A) = ∅. ∨.5.1) This property of β can be interpreted in a quite natural way.5. . 0. Mundici [55] proved that the states of any MV-algebra (A. .− . 0) into the standard MV-algebra ([0. i. . an ∈ A and σ1 . →.3 Using the structure of free MV-algebras. 0) are coherent with respect to the set V = ∂e S(A) of all state-morphisms.5. . an ∈ A and σ1 . 1] to which ai takes place.5. By Proposition 3. . since ∂e S(A) is a closed subset of [0. 1] as bookmaker’s “beliefs” that a1 . Let X be a closed subset of M(A) ∩ DS c (A). and σ1 . . ⊕. an ∈ A be certain “events”.10 we have Ker(m) ∈ M(A) ∩ DS c (A) for each statemorphism m ∈ ∂e S(A). . . for every mapping β : A → [0. . .5. . 1] is a state if and only if s is coherent with respect to ∂e S(A). . an will take place. . . .1). the homomorphisms V : A → [0. β(an ) ∈ [0. .4 Let (A.

→. Corollary 3. which is a closed set in ∂e S(A).3. Clearly. given any positive convex combination s = α1 s1 + α2 s2 .5. respectively. if s ∈ F then also s1 . Let MM V (A) denote the set consisting of those K ∈ M(A) ∩ DS c (A) for which the quotient algebra A/K is an MV-algebra. by a face in the state space S(A) we mean a convex subset F of S(A) such that.5. We have seen that K ∈ M(A) ∩ DS c (A) need not be the kernel of any state (Example 3. Ker(s) = {1/K}. a ∈ Ker(m) iﬀ s(a/K) = m(a) = 1 iﬀ a/K = 1/K iﬀ a ∈ K.5. being a continuous bijection of a compact Hausdorﬀ space ∂e S(A) onto a Hausdorﬀ space MM V (A). ∨.14). say s. P = Q. →. Proof: We ﬁrst prove that MM V (A) is a Hausdorﬀ space. if and only if MM V (A) = ∅. . Suppose MM V (A) = ∅. The rule m(a) = s(a/K) (a ∈ A) deﬁnes a state on A. s2 ∈ F. . Then for every a ∈ P \ Q and b ∈ Q \ P we have b → a ∈ P \ Q and a → b ∈ Q \ P . is a homeomorphism. 1) a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. Q ∈ MM V (A).7 A bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. let K ∈ MM V (A).4. Note that though M(A) = ∅ (since A is bounded). then the set FX = {s ∈ S(A) : X ⊆ Ker(s)} is a closed face in S(A). . which is true in an MV-algebra A/K. →. Consequently. . thus Ker(m) = K showing m ∈ ∂e S(A). and let P. is not a bijection. 0.8 If (A. the map ϕ : m → Ker(m) of Proposition 3.5 is a bijection of ∂e S(A) onto MM V (A). Indeed. ∨. Now. Finally. and hence O(a → b) ∩ O(b → a) ∩ MM V (A) = O((a → b) ∨ (b → a)) ∩ MM V (A) = ∅ since (a → b) ∨ (b → a) ∈ K for every K ∈ MM V (A). Thus O(a → b) ∩ MM V (A) and O(b → a) ∩ MM V (A) are disjoint neighbourhoods of P and Q.5. 1) admits a state According to [30]. MM V (A) forms a compact Hausdorﬀ space which is homeomorphic to ∂e S(A). as Ker(m) ∈ MM V (A). hence ϕ−1 (X ) = {m ∈ ∂e S(A) : m(x) = 1 for all x ∈ X}. Proposition 3. and therefore the above assignment ϕ : m → Ker(m). 1]) which admits a unique state(-morphism). ∨.5. ϕ. in general. State space 57 m ∈ ∂e S(A) we have ϕ(m) = Ker(m) ∈ X iﬀ X ⊆ Ker(m) iﬀ m(x) = 1 for all x ∈ X.6 For (A. 0. because if a net {mt } in ϕ−1 (X ) converges to m in ∂e S(A) then also m ∈ ϕ−1 (X ). But ϕ deﬁned a homeomorphism between ∂e S(A) and a certain subspace of M(A) ∩ DS c (A). 1) is a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice and X ⊆ A. Since K is maximal. 0. A/K is a simple MV-algebra (it is isomorphic to a subalgebra of [0. (a → b) ∨ (b → a) ∈ K iﬀ (a/K → b/K) ∨ (b/K → a/K) = 1/K. Lemma 3. Moreover. MM V (A) is possibly empty.

there exist elements b1 . 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. 1 k Finally.e. m(bk )} > ξ. since X is compact. m(x) = 1 while s(x) < 1. and so s1 . so we can ﬁnd x ∈ Ker(m) \ Ker(s). α1 + α2 = 1. →. and since FK is a face in S(A). Ub = {s ∈ S(A) : s(b) < 1 − ξ} is an open subset of S(A) since its complement {s ∈ S(A) : s(b) ≥ 1 − ξ} is obviously closed. hence η is continuous. is a homeomorphism of S(A/K) onto FK . In the next theorem we characterize the state space S(A/K) of the quotient pseudoBCK-semilattice A/K. they are incomparable. . Lemma 3. Let s ∈ X. if a/K = b/K then a → b. Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 58 Proof: FX is obviously convex and closed since the limit of any net {st } ⊆ FX belongs to FX . Proof: It can be easily seen that for every state s ∈ S(A/K). . bk ∈ B so that X ⊆ Ub1 ∪ · · · ∪ Ubk . . let K ∈ DS c (A). Let ξ be a real number with 0 < ξ < 1. Take any m ∈ FK and deﬁne m : A/K → [0. .11 Let (A. Hence b ∈ B and s ∈ Ub . Let s ∈ FX be a positive convex combination of s1 . 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice.. s2 ∈ FX . The map .10 Let (A. η is a homeomorphism. If X is a non-empty compact subset of ∂e S(A) and if we put K(X) = {Ker(s) : s ∈ X}. For each b ∈ B. we have s(x− ) > 0 and there exists n ∈ N such that s(x →n x− ) = s(x) →n s(x− ) > ξ. . if a net {st } converges to s in S(A/K) then {η(st )} converges to η(s) in FK . s(bk )} < 1 − ξ. Therefore. 1] by m(a/K) = m(a). b → a ∈ K. For a = (b− ∨ · · · ∨ b− )− we have m(a) = min{m(b1 ). i.5.9 Let (A. The deﬁnition of m is correct since K ⊆ Ker(m). for each s ∈ X ⊆ Ub1 ∪ · · · ∪ Ubk . Since Ker(m) and Ker(s) are distinct elements of MM V (A). When putting b = (x →n x− )− . so m(a → b) = m(b → a) = 1. Since s(x) < 1. 0. α1 s1 (x) + α2 s2 (x) = s(x) = 0. . Furthermore. It is plain that m ∈ S(A/K) and η(m) = m. 0. ν denoting the natural homomorphism of A onto A/K. Then for every x ∈ X. We are going to show that {Ub : b ∈ B} is an open covering of X. . which yields m(a) = m(b) and m(a/K) = m(b/K). Proposition 3.. α2 < 1. ∨. Since both S(A/K) and FK are compact Hausdorﬀ spaces. s = α1 s1 + α2 s2 for some 0 < α1 . η is a bijection between S(A/K) and FK . Proof: Let B = {b ∈ A : m(b) > ξ}. Also η(s) ∈ FK . we get s(b) < 1 − ξ and m(b) = 1.3. η(∂e S(A/K)) = ∂e FK = FK ∩ ∂e S(A). i. K ∈ DS c (A): Proposition 3. . s(a) = min{s(b1 ). . 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice. . then there exists a ∈ A so that m(a) > ξ and s(a) < 1 − ξ for all s ∈ X. η(s) = ν ◦ s is a state on A given by η(s)(a) = s(a/K). . If X is a non-empty compact subset of ∂e S(A) and m ∈ ∂e S(A) \ X. and η : s → ν ◦ s. Indeed. . →. The ﬁnal statement follows from the fact that η preserves convex combinations. ∨. Moreover. The mapping η is certainly injective.e. Consequently. . . which entails s1 (x) = s2 (x) = 0.5. . s2 ∈ S(A). →. ∨.5. 0.

S(A/K) is homeomorphic to FK = {s ∈ S(A) : K ⊆ Ker(s)}.5. and so a → (a ∨ a− )− ∈ K(X). The following theorem brings us back into the commutative world of the Lukasiewicz logic. The equality (3.5.5. η(∂e S(A/K(X))) = ∂e FK(X) = FK(X) ∩ ∂e S(A).2) is settled. Let .10 (with ξ = 1 ) yields a ∈ A satisfying m(a) > 1 and 2 2 s(a) < 1 for all s ∈ X. which entails a → (a∨a− )− ∈ / Ker(m). Conversely. and therefore K= {Ker(m) : m ∈ ∂e S(A)} = {Ker(s) : s ∈ S(A)}. Consequently. →.5. is a homeomorphism of ∂e S(A/K(X)) onto X. we obtain η(∂e S(A/K(X))) = X. whence s(a → (a ∨ a− )− ) = 2 s(a) → max{s(a).5.5.5. Speciﬁcally. ∂e S(A/K) and ∂e S(A) are homeomorphic.12 Let (A. Lemma 3. m(a)− } = m(a) and m(a → (a ∨ a− )− ) = m(a) → max{m(a). hence an MV-algebra. s(a)− }− = s(a) → s(a)−− = 1. where ν is the natural homomorphism of A onto A/K(X).11. Due to Proposition 3. We have max{s(a).2) and the mapping η : m → ν ◦ m. m(a)− }− = m(a) → m(a)− = min{2(1−m(a)). Finally. But S(A) is the closure of the convex hull of its extreme boundary ∂e S(A) by Corollary 3. Thus K(X) Ker(m). it follows that A/K is a bounded commutative BCK-algebra. s(a)− } = s(a)− .5. when regarding two elements which cannot be separated by a statemorphism as equivalent objects. by Proposition 3. moreover. respectively. 1} = 2(1−m(a)) < 1. S(A) = ∅.9. since for every state-morphism m we have m(a → b) = m(a b) and m((a → b) → b) = m((b → a) → a). b → a ∈ K iﬀ m(a) → m(b) = m(a → b) = 1 and m(b) → m(a) = m(b → a) = 1 for all m ∈ ∂e S(A) iﬀ m(a) = m(b) for all m ∈ ∂e S(A).9. By Proposition 3. Recalling (3. Proof: It is obvious that X ⊆ {m ∈ ∂e S(A) : K(X) ⊆ Ker(m)}. S(A/K(X)) is homeomorphic to FK(X) = {s ∈ S(A) : K(X) ⊆ Ker(s)} under the mapping η. State space then X = {m ∈ ∂e S(A) : K(X) ⊆ Ker(m)} 59 (3.2). which entails FK = S(A).3. But max{m(a). we construct an MV-algebra whose state space is homeomorphic to that of the initial pseudo-BCK-semilattice: Theorem 3.5. 0.5. ∨. 1) be a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice such that {Ker(m) : m ∈ ∂e S(A)}.2. K = K(∂e S(A)) = Then the quotient algebra A/K is an MV-algebra such that the spaces S(A/K) and ∂e S(A/K) are homeomorphic to S(A) and ∂e S(A). since K(X) ∈ DS c (A). Proof: We have a/K = b/K iﬀ a → b. let m ∈ ∂e S(A) \ X. .

∨. ∨. where x y = (x y)− and x bounded dually integral dually residuated lattice. (3) (a ⊕ b) ⊕ c = a ⊕ (b ⊕ c). By a bounded dually integral dually residuated lattice we mean an algebra (A.3 For (A. (4) if a ≤ b then a ⊕ c ≤ b ⊕ c and c ⊕ a ≤ c ⊕ b. 0. . c ∈ A (see Example 1. . Then: (1) a ⊕ 0 = 0 ⊕ a = a−∼ = a∼− . .1 We say that a bounded pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. 1) is a bounded lattice.1. ∧. 1). 1) is Deﬁnition 3. →.4 we have deﬁned the addition ⊕ the properties of which turn out to be quite nice in case of good pseudo-BCK-semilattices. ∨. ∧. . ∨. b. and every bounded BCK-semilattice is a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice.6. →. 0. y = (x → y)∼ . Recall that a ⊕ b = a∼ → b−∼ = b− Lemma 3. 0.2 Let (A. (6) a ⊕ b = (a ⊕ b)−∼ = a−∼ ⊕ b−∼ . 1) where (A. 0. is a bounded integral residuated . (i) involutive if it satisﬁes the identities x = x−∼ = x∼− . (2) a ⊕ 1 = 1 ⊕ a = 1. .6.6). ∨. where x · y = (x− ⊕ y − )∼ . ∨. →. . ∨. (5) a ∨ b ≤ a ⊕ b. →. lattice.3. (ii) good if it satisﬁes the identity x−∼ = x∼− . Proposition 3. c− Proof: As a sample we show the property (3): (a ⊕ b) ⊕ c = c− (a∼ → b−∼ )∼− = (a∼ → b−∼ ) = a∼ → (c− b−∼ ) = a∼ → (c− b−∼ )−∼ = a ⊕ (b ⊕ c). 1) is involutive then the maps a → a− and a → a∼ are mutually inverse antiautomorphisms of the poset (A. . 0. every pseudo-MV-algebra is an involutive pseudo-BCK-semilattice. ∨. ∧. (2) (A. ⊕. 1). ⊕. which is therefore a lattice where the meet a ∧ b is given by a ∧ b = (a− ∨ b− )∼ = (a∼ ∨ b∼ )− . a∼− . 1) be a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice. ∧.6. 0. In Section 3. →. and a ⊕ b ≥ c iﬀ a ≥ c b iﬀ b ≥ c a for all a. 0) is a monoid. 0. ·. (A. ≤). If (A. . ⊕. is a (1) (A. For instance. 0. 1) an involutive pseudo-BCK-semilattice.6 Good pseudo-BCK-semilattices . Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 60 3.

z ≤ x ⊕ y = y x iﬀ y ≥ (z → x) x. extending the analogy with pseudo-MV-algebras. (A. ∨. [25]). 0. Good pseudo-BCK-semilattices 61 Proof: (1) We know that (A. a + a∼ = 1 and s(a∼ ) = 1 − s(a). ∨. 1] a Rieˇan state (or an additive c measure) on a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A.6. →. whence it follows x · y = (x− ⊕ y − )∼ = (x → y − )∼ = (y x∼ )− = (x∼ ⊕ y ∼ )− . (4) Both a− + b and b + a∼ exist and we have a− ⊕ b = b− a−∼− = b− a− = −∼ and similarly b ⊕ a∼ = a ∼− . This entails that (A. (2) This follows immediately from (1). 0) is a monoid and we also have z ≤ x ⊕ y = x∼ → y iﬀ x∼ ≤ z y iﬀ − =z − ∼ =z x ≥ (z y) y. we introduce the partial addition + as a restriction of ⊕: a+b is deﬁned iﬀ a−∼ ≤ b− (iﬀ a∼ ≥ b−∼ ). Therefore s(a → b−∼ ) = s(a− ) + s(b) = a→b b ∼− ) = s(b) + s(a∼ ) = s(b) + 1 − s(a). due to the previous lemma. b∼− ) = 1 − s(a) + s(b). so s(a− ) = 1 − s(a).6. z. Lemma 3. ∧) is a bounded lattice. ·.5 Let s be a Rieˇan state on a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice. (3) s(0) = 0. (3) For every a ∈ A. Proof: (1) For any a ∈ A. Analogously. . which also proves 1 − s(a) + s(b) and s(a b s(b) ≤ s(a). . (ii) s(a + b) = s(a) + s(b) provided a + b is deﬁned in A. a + 0 exists and is equal to a−∼ . Deﬁnition 3. 1) is a monoid. and similarly.3. hence s(a) = s(a−∼ ) = s(a + 0) = s(a) + s(0) and so s(0) = 0. 1) if (i) s(1) = 1. (5) We have (a ∨ b) → b−∼ = a → b−∼ and (a ∨ b) b∼− = a b∼− which due to (4) yields s(a → b−∼ ) = s((a ∨ b) → b−∼ ) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b) and likewise s(a b∼− ) = s((a ∨ b) b∼− ) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b).6. (2) Note that z ≥ (x → y − )∼ iﬀ z − ≤ x → y − iﬀ x ≤ z − y − = y → z iﬀ y≤x z = z ∼ → x∼ iﬀ z ∼ ≤ y x∼ iﬀ z ≥ (y x∼ )− . ∨. 0. and x · y ≤ z iﬀ x ≤ y → z iﬀ y ≤ x Given a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A. . Hence we have 1 = s(1) = s(a− ) + s(a). (2) s(a−∼ ) = s(a∼− ) = s(a). in which case we put a+b = a⊕b. (4) b ≤ a implies s(b) ≤ s(a) and s(a → b−∼ ) = s(a (5) s(a → b−∼ ) = s(a b∼− ) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b).4 We call a mapping s : A → [0. The following deﬁnition is motivated by Georgescu’s deﬁnition of Rieˇan states on c good pseudo-BL-algebras (cf. 1). a− + a is deﬁned (since a−∼ ≥ a−∼ ) and equals a− ⊕ a = a−∼ → a−∼ = 1. Then c (1) s(a− ) = s(a∼ ) = 1 − s(a). ⊕. →.

7 Consider the following BCK-semilattice (A..6 Every Bosbach state on a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice A is a Rieˇan state. . 1) and H(A) is a proper deductive system.8 Let (A. Assume that a + b is deﬁned.6. →. Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 62 Proposition 3. →. ∨. Since s(1) = 1. We have ⊕ 0 a b 1 0 0 b b 1 a b 1 1 1 b b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + 0 a b 1 0 0 b b 1 a b 1 1 · b b 1 1 · 1 1 · · · Hence the mapping s : A → [0. →. moreover. →. ∨. but the converse fails to be true. 0.3. every Rieˇan state s satisﬁes s(0) = 0 and s(a → b) = 1 − s(a ∨ b) + s(b). A is involutive then every Rieˇan state is a Bosbach state.e. 0. . 0. An easy inspection shows that there is no Bosbach state on A (since {1} is the only proper deductive system). we can merely say that Bosbach states are a subclass of Rieˇan states. 1) be a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice. One readily sees that Reg(A) = {a− : a ∈ A} = {a∼ : a ∈ A} and H(A) = {a ∈ A : a− = 0} = {a ∈ A : a∼ = 0}. Lemma 3. a Rieˇan state need not be a Bosbach one: c Example 3.6. Then Reg(A) a non-empty subalgebra of (A. Then a + b = a ⊕ b = a∼ → b−∼ and s(a + b) = s(a∼ → b−∼ ) = 1 − s(a∼ ) + s(b−∼ ) = 1 − (1 − s(a)) + s(b) = s(a) + s(b). a∼ ≥ b−∼ . (5). c c Proof: Let s be a Bosbach state on A. 0. In contrast to good pseudo-BL-algebras or good R -monoids. If. Let us call the elements of Reg(A) regular and those of H(A) dense. c that is. 1] deﬁned by s(0) = 0. . by Lemma 3. c Assume now that A is an involutive pseudo-BCK-semilattice. Then. . For a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice (A.6.5 (3). 1): → 0 a b 1 0 1 b b 0 a 1 1 b a b 1 1 1 b 1 1 1 1 1 This is a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice with 0 < a < b < 1. ∨.6. 1) we deﬁne Reg(A) = {a ∈ A : a−∼ = a} and H(A) = {a ∈ A : a−∼ = 1}. i. s(a) = s(b) = 1 and s(1) = 1 2 is a Rieˇan state. s is a Rieˇan state. c so s is a Bosbach state. but it is not a Bosbach state as s(a) + s(a → b) = s(a) + s(1) = c 1 1 1 2 + 1 = 2 + 2 = s(b) + s(b) = s(b) + s(b → a).

Thus s is a Bosbach state. . ∨. In general. c Proof: Assume that s is a Rieˇan state on A. 1) be a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice satisfying the identities (3.11 Let (A. Then Bosbach and Rieˇan states coincide. so that a → b−∼ = 1.10 (Reg(A). Proposition 3. b ∈ A.6. If a ∈ H(A) and a → b ∈ H(A). →. Then f : a → a−∼ . .6. b ∈ Reg(A). c −∼ ) = s(a → b−∼ ) = 1 − s(a) + s(b) by Lemma 3. If this is the case. because f (a → b) = (a → b)−∼ and f (a) → f (b) = a−∼ → b−∼ = a → b−∼ . equipped with the restriction to Reg(A) of the underlying order ≤ of A. for all a. s(0) = 0. .6. Corollary 3.6. Moreover. and likewise f (a b) = (a b)−∼ and f (a) f (b) = a b−∼ . Clearly. . Then Reg(A). 1) be a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice. →. f (a ∨ b) = (a ∨ b)−∼ = (a− ∧ b− )∼ = (a−∼− ∧ b−∼− )∼ = b−∼ = f (a) f (b). Proposition 3. . 1) onto (Reg(A). satisﬁes the identities . →.6. It is plain that the equations (3. For the ﬁnal claim. But a → b−∼ = a−∼ → b−∼ = 1 → b−∼ = b−∼ . 1) be a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice. b ∈ A. b ∈ Reg(A). . b ∈ Reg(A) the inﬁmum a ∧ b of {a.6. then / 1 = (a → b)−∼ ≤ (a → b−∼ )−∼ = a → b−∼ . Reg(A) is not closed under ∨.6. →.3. then H(A) ∈ DS c (A) and Reg(A) ∼ A/H(A). (a− b− )∼ = (a∼ b∼ )− = a ∧ b and (a− ∧ b− )∼ = (a∼ ∧ b∼ )− = a b. We have 1 ∈ H(A) and 0 ∈ H(A). the mapping is a homomorphism of (A. 0. →.12 Let (A. thus f preserves ﬁnite joins. On the other hand. 0. Ker(f ) = {a ∈ A : f (a) = 1} = H(A) and therefore Reg(A) ∼ A/Ker(f ) = A/H(A). s(a b) = 1 − s(a) + s(b). Then s(a → b) = s((a → b) Similarly. forms a lattice (Reg(A). 0. 1 ∈ Reg(A). It is also obvious that a ∧ b ∈ Reg(A). (x y)−∼ = x y −∼ . 1) if and only if A (x → y)−∼ = x → y −∼ . 0. Let a.1) give a necessary and suﬃcient condition for f to be a homomorphism. ∨. = (3.5. 0. . = a−∼ Proposition 3. b} in A exists and is given by a ∧ b = (a− ∨ b− )∼ = (a∼ ∨ b∼ )− . 0.9 Let (A. ∨. so a → b. The proof of the next result is straightforward.6. ∨.6. Then a → b = a → b∼− = (a → b∼− )∼− = (a → b)∼− and a b=a b−∼ = (a b−∼ )−∼ = (a b)−∼ . for every a.1) Proof: For every a. a b ∈ Reg(A). a ≥ b. 0.1). Good pseudo-BCK-semilattices 63 Proof: Obviously. Assume a. ∧) in which a b = (a ∨ b)−∼ and a ∧ b = (a− ∨ b− )∼ = (a∼ ∨ b∼ )− . →. . and hence b ∈ H(A). 1) is an involutive pseudo-BCK-semilattice.

(x y)−∼ = x−∼ y −∼ . Pseudo-BCK-semilattices 64 Remark 3. so the question arises which kind of states on A c corresponds to states on Reg(A).2). Since Reg(A) is an involutive pseudo-BCK-semilattice.1).7.14 is just the Rieˇan c state s from Example 3. 1 m(b) = 2 and m(1) = 1 whose extension m from Proposition 3. One readily sees that Reg(A) = {0. L satisﬁes the identities (x → y)−∼ = x−∼ → y −∼ . →.13 In [19]. 0. and hence every Rieˇan state on L is a Bosbach state. 0. ·.15 In any good pseudo-BCK-semilattice A. Consequently. .6. Proof: It is obvious that s(1) = 1. It comes therefore c as no surprise that s Reg(A) . .6. s(a + b) = s(a−∼ + b−∼ ) = s(a−∼ ) + s(b−∼ ) = s(a) + s(b). c For both Bosbach and Rieˇan states we have s(a−∼ ) = s(a). the restriction to Reg(A) of a state s (of either kind). and then applying the Kreinc Mil’man Theorem (see our Corollary 3. a ∈ A.5. there is a one-to-one correspondence between the Rieˇan states on A and those on Reg(A). . 1) such that s ˆ Reg(A) = s. c . c Let us return to Example 3.6. this is an MV-algebra with a unique state(-morphism). 1) be a good pseudo-BCK-semilattice and let s : Reg(A) → [0. . Actually. →. By c [62] (also [20. Proposition 3. 1] ˆ deﬁned by s(a) = s(a−∼ ) ˆ is a Rieˇan state on (A. m deﬁned by m(0) = 0. 0. b ∈ A such that a + b exists.7. 19]). Since a∼ → b−∼ = (a∼ → b−∼ )−∼ .6. Since x−∼ → y −∼ = x → y −∼ and x−∼ y −∼ = x y −∼ . Dvureˇenskij and Rach˚nek proved that Rieˇan states on c u c good R -monoids coincide with Bosbach states. ˆ ˆ ˆ Corollary 3.6. namely. from which s can be recovered by s(a) = s Reg(A) (a−∼ ). ∨. 1). 1] be a state on (Reg(A). The proof consists in showing that every extremal Rieˇan state is an extremal Bosbach state.3. ∨. c . i.6. L satisﬁes the equations (3. Then a−∼ + b−∼ exists as well and we have a + b = a∼ → b−∼ = a−∼ + b−∼ . Take a. Consequently. 0. Then the map s : A → [0. →. is a state on Reg(A). b. The result can be achieved as a consequence of the previous proposition: Let (L. ∧.6. it follows that Bosbach and Rieˇan states on Reg(A) are identical. 1}. ˆ a−∼ ≤ b− . 1) be a good R -monoid and s be a Rieˇan state on L. the (pseudo-)BCK-semilattice A from our example admits a unique Rieˇan state. ∨.14 Let (A.e. →.. it follows that a + b ∈ Reg(A).

4.1.2) y) → y = (y x) → x. is confusing as well since a pseudo-BCK-algebra that is 65 . →.1 We say that a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. We begin with basic properties of commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras and then concentrate mainly on commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra with the relative cancellation property (pseudo-LBCK-algebras for short). The analogue for pseudo-BCK-algebras oﬀers immediately: Deﬁnition 4. where x ∨ y = (x → y) y = (x y) → y. Further. however. y ∈ A. pseudo-BCK-algebras satisfying (4. we keep the term “commutative” as a natural generalization of commutative BCK-algebras. ≤) is a join-semilattice.3) Although it may seem to be a bit misleading (a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra is not necessarily a BCK-algebra). In the ﬁnal section we prove a Cantor-Bernstein type theorem for orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras. It can be easily shown that in this case (A. 1) is called commutative provided (x → y) → y = (y → x) → x for all x.2) were considered under the name “semilattice-ordered” pseudoBCK-algebras which. it satisﬁes the equations (x → y) (x y = (y → x) x.1) and (4.1) (4. →. we investigate some properties of pseudo-LBCK-algebras in comparison with the corresponding properties of the representing -groups. .1.1.1.1. (4. In [26] and [37].1. We show that they form a variety and that every pseudo-LBCK-algebra can be embedded into a pseudo-MV-algebra. 1) is commutative if (4.1 Basic properties A BCK-algebra (A.Chapter 4 Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras are the “pseudo” version of well-known commutative BCK-algebras and (especially pseudo-LBCK-algebras) can be understood as a closer generalization of pseudo-MV-algebras in the setting of pseudo-BCK-algebras.

1): Example 4. →.2) and (4.∼ . →. 1) is a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. 1) is a commutative BCK-algebra. 1]. . There are no proper ﬁnite commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras: Corollary 4. . For any a ∈ A \ {1} deﬁne x ⊕a y = (x a) → y = (y → a) x. 1]. and hence (y → x) x ≤ (x → y) y.1). →. x then (G− . ⊕a . 1]. If we equip G− with the operations → and deﬁned by x → y = y · (x ∨ y)−1 . Example 4.−1 . ([a. .3 Let (M.9 or 2. 1) is a pseudo-MV-algebra in x a for x. 0.1. 1) is a bounded (commutative) pseudo-BCK-algebra. 1) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra such that all sections [a.1.6 Let (A. (4. (4.1. . 1) be a pseudo-MV-algebra and deﬁne x → y = x− ⊕ y Then (M. By replacing x and y we obtain the other inequality.1.14). x−a = x → a and ∼a = x −a .2) (see Example 2.4) . Conversely. →. →.1. a.4 The identities (4. thus (A. ∧. . The proof of the equivanlece of (4. y ≤ (x → y) y yields (y → x) x ≤ (((x → y) y) → x) x. 1) is a (commutative) pseudo-BCK-algebra. →. 1.− . 1) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra.1.2 Let (G. 1) or (M.5 Let (A.4. the examples are not prototypical.1.6) is parallel. →.1. Then ([a. Proof: Let (A. then for every a ∈ A. .1. y ∈ A.1. 1) satisﬁes (4. →. . →. →.5) (4. 1) is a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. ·. Let us recall two basic examples from Section 1. If x ≤ y then x → y = 1 and so y = 1 y = (x → y) y = (y → x) x. ⇒ ⇒ y = (y → x) y = (y x.1.5).1) and (4. →.8). y ∈ [a.∼a . assume that (A. are ﬁnite. 1) be a pseudo-BCK-algebra satisfying (4. which x ·a y = (x → (y → a)) a = (y (x a)) → a. .1). Lemma 4.2) are equivalent to the quasi-identities x≤y x≤y respectively. 1]. It is evident that if (A. a ∈ A.1. Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 66 a join-semilattice under its natural order need not fulﬁl the identities (4.1.1.4 and 1.1. Since bounded commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras are termwise equivalent to pseudoMV-algebras (see Example 1. .1.6) x) → x.1. y = (x ∨ y)−1 · y. a. ⊕. and x y = y ⊕ x∼ . because there exist commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras that do not arise as subalgebras of (G− .1.1. Then x ≤ (x → y) y entails (x → y) y = (((x → y) y) → x) x. we obtain Proposition 4.1. Further. ∨) be an -group and let G− = {x ∈ G : x ≤ 1} be its negative cone. .1. (4. Then x → y = x y for all x.

if (A. 1) is a ﬁnite pseudo-MV-algebra. y. By the previous lemma we can calculate x ∧ (y ∨ z) e. If z is another common lower bound of x and y then a ∨ z ≤ x and a ∨ z ≤ y. ⊕y is commutative and the unary operations −y and ∼y coincide.1. We know that x ∧a y is a lower bound of {x. 1) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. ([a. 1) a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. then for every a ∈ A \ {1}. y ∈ A we have (x ∨ y) → y = x → y and (x ∨ y) y=x y. y. In what follows we observe some properties of the class of all commutative pseudoBCK-algebras.1.10 An algebra (A. x = (x y) → y = (y x) → x. 1]. Basic properties 67 Proof: For any x. . commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras form a variety since the quasi-identity (1.e.10) (x → z). y} exists if and only if there is a ∈ A such that a ≤ x and a ≤ y.1.2).7 If (A.1. →. This means that (A. and in this case. 2.12) can be replaced by the identities (4. From Proposition 4.9) (4. x ∧a y = ((x → y) → (x → a)) a = ((x y) (x a)) → a. Indeed. Conversely.8) (4. i. z ∈ A. 1].g.1) and (4. 1) is a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra.7) (4. in the interval [a. Proof: Let a ≤ x and a ≤ y for some a ∈ A.1. if x ∧ y exists then we may obviously take a = x ∧ y. i. and consequently. . ≤) is a (necessarily distributive) lattice if and only if every pair of elements of A has a common lower bound. Corollary 4. For every x. 1) of type 2. This entails x → y = (x ∨ y) → y = (x ∨ y) y=x y for all x. and so z ≤ a ∨ z ≤ x ∧a y. .5. (4. which is a distributive lattice.1. showing x ∧a y = x ∧ y. ([y.9 For (A. Hence we have x ∧ (y ∨ z) = x ∧a (y ∨ z) = (x ∧a y) ∨ (x ∧a z) = (x ∧ y) ∨ (x ∧ z). We can give an alternative axiomatization which is similar to the axiomatization of commutative BCK-algebras (see [70] or [18]): Proposition 4.4. ≤) is a lattice then it is a distributive lattice.. 1] for a = x ∧ y ∧ z. y ∈ A. y ∈ A.1. But a ∨ z ∈ [a. ≤) is a distributive lattice with x ∨a y = x ∨ y.1.1.. 1]. But ﬁnite pseudo-MV-algebras are MV-algebras (see [18]).−y .5 several corollaries concerning the natural order ≤ follow: Corollary 4.1. if (A. . likewise the restrictions of → and to [y. ⊕y .e.1.1. 1] coincide. x ∧ y = inf A {x. Proof: Let x. x ∧ y = x ∧a y. →. Lemma 4. →. x.1. y}. 0 is a commutative pseudoBCK-algebra if and only if it satisﬁes the identities (x → y) x → (y y = (y → x) z) = y 1. x→1=1=x 1→x=x=1 .8 Let (A.1.∼y . First of all. if x → y = 1 and y → x = 1 then x = 1 x = (y → x) x = (x → y) y=1 y= y. ≤) is a directed poset. In view of Proposition 4. →.

Proof: By Theorem 2. For the ﬁnal claim.1.1.1.11) y) → y by (4. It remains to verify the identities (1.1.11 The variety C of commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras is weakly regular. Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras Proof: Let (A.10). Thus x → y = 1 implies x y = 1. p2 (x.9).1. iﬀ x = y. . the identity (1.11). y. y.1. z) = · · · = pn (x. x = (x → y) y= Indeed. [6]). we must ﬁnd terms p1 .8) is obtained Theorem 4. . the variety Lc of all commutative pseudo-BCK-lattices is arithmetical and regular.10).3.8).7)—(4. .7) and (4. z)] (x → y)] = (x → y) → [x → ((z → y) [(x → y) → (x → y)] = (z → y) (x → z)] = 1 by (4. z) = (x → y) ∧ (y → x) ∧ z. z) = ((x → y) → z) ∨ ((y → x) → z). The variety Lc is a subvariety of the variety L of all pseudo-BCK-lattices which is arithmetical by Theorem 3. 1) be an algebra satisfying (4.1. congruence distributive and 3-permutable. (4.1. and analogously. that 68 . The identities (4. if x → y = 1 and y → x = 1 then x = 1 1 y = y.1. y. In addition.1. pn (n ∈ N) such that p1 (x. y) = x. In order to show 3-permutability we have to ﬁnd ternary terms t1 and t2 with t1 (x.7). and hence (x y) = (x y) = x y y=1 y) → y) (x y = (y → (x y) = (x 1) y)) (x (y → y)) y) = 1 by (4. y.1. x.2. by (4. the variety C is weakly regular and distributive.10.g. y. y.4. →.1.7). .1. It is easily seen x→x=1=x x Indeed.1. It suﬃces to take t1 (x.7) and (4. y) = y (see e.10) also capture the quasi-identity x→y=1 & y→x=1 ⇒ x = y. t1 (x. We have: (x → y) → [(y → z) = (z → y) so (x → y) analogously. y) and t2 (x. x. z) = (x → y) z.7) and (4. (4. y.1. x entails x → y = 1. We now prove that x→y=1 ⇔ x If x → y = 1 then y = 1 1=y y = ((x = (x y = (x → y) y = (x x = (y → x) y = 1. y.1. . and similarly. z) = z Let n = 2 and p1 (x. z) = (z → y) x and t2 (x. x x = 1. [(y → z) (x → z)] = (x → y) → [x → ((y → z) y)] = (x → y) → [(z → y) 1 = 1. x → x = (1 x) → x = (x 1) → 1 = 1. y) = t2 (x.

x. y. i. consequently. 4. a → b ∈ K yields a ∧ b ∈ K. . x ∧ y exists iﬀ x. b. we have z → (x ∧ y) = (z → (x ∧ y)) ∧ (a → (x ∧ y)) = = (z ∨ a) → (x ∧ y) = ((z ∨ a) → x) ∧ ((z ∨ a) → y) = (z → x) ∧ (a → x) ∧ (z → y) ∧ (a → y) = (z → x) ∧ (z → y). if c → a ∈ K and c → b ∈ K. If a. →.e.1. then c → (a ∧ b) = (c → a) ∧ (c → b) ∈ K. y. y have a common lower bound. Then z ≤ x → y. . z) = p2 (x.1. (RCP) for short. (x → y) ∧ (y → x) ∧ z = z and ((x → y) → z) ∨ ((y → x) → z) = z. It follows immediately from Theorem 2. For every x. and since x. Then its congruence lattice Con(A) is isomorphic to the lattice DS c (A) of all compatible deductive systems. the relation ΦK = {(x. 1]. 1) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-lattice. . x. y) : (x → y) ∧ (y → x) ∈ K} is a unique congruence of (A. ∨. Proof: Let K ∈ DS c (A). 1) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. if x ∧ y exists then z → (x ∧ y) = (z → x) ∧ (z → y).1) and. z) = z. z (x ∧ y) = (z x) ∧ (z y). and z = (x → y) → z = (z → y) → x. Now.2 Relative cancellation property We say that a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra (A.8.4. every member of the variety Lc automatically satisﬁes the condition (3. 1) whose kernel is K.2.6. z) = z and p2 (x. z ∈ A. z = ((x → y) → z) z = ((y → x) → z) z = (x → y) ∨ z = x → y. z = (y → x) ∨ z = y → x. Proof: By Lemma 4.e.1.. whence 1=z 1=z which yields x = y. Seeing that the equations hold in the pseudo-MV-algebra [a.1. y. We are now going to show that this is also the case for commutative pseudo-BCK-lattices.1. . Relative cancellation property 69 It is evident that p1 (x.10 (ii) that the congruence kernels of commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras are exactly compatible deductive systems.1) of Theorem 3. Lemma 4.13 Let (A.2. →.1) . i.12 Let (A. By the previous lemma we have a → (a ∧ b) = (a → a) ∧ (a → b) = a → b.1. z ≤ y → x. so that a. if for every a. b ∈ K then also a → b ∈ K. by Theorem 3. →. (4. z) = z. →. a∨b≤c & c→a=c→b ⇒ a = b.6.1. ∨.. assume p1 (x. We have proved that K is a lattice ﬁlter. Proposition 4. y and z ∨ a belong to [a. c ∈ A.2. ∧. 1]. Conversely. Thus K satisﬁes the condition (3. 1) satisﬁes the relative cancellation property. ∧. a say.

.2. →. given by (4.2. 1). 1) from Example 4.2.4).2) implies (4. →. c ∈ A with a ∨ b ≤ c.2 Let (A. . . b. 1) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. where it was used for structures (A. there exists an -group G such that (A.2. 1) satisﬁes (RCP) whenever (A. b}.1). every pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A.1. then c a=c b ≥ a ∨ b and (c a) → a = c ∨ a = c = c ∨ b = (c b) → b = (c a) → b which entails a = b by (4.2. (4.e. 1) embeds into (G− . .2.2. 1) is obtained as a subalgebra of the pseudo-LBCK-algebra (G− . 4. Thus (4. 1 c a b Figure 4.2. Example 4.2) Indeed.4. →.2.2).1 (cf. 0) which are equivalent to our commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras with the (RCP).1. If there exists a common lower bound of {a. a. . . Similarly (4. We borrow the name “pseudo-LBCK-algebra” from [22]. b ≤ c and c → a = c → b = c while a = b (see Fig. Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 70 The relative cancellation property can be equivalently captured by means of the operation as follows: a∨b≤c & c a=c b ⇒ a = b. →. . .2. then c → a = c → b implies a = b. [18]) Consider the following BCK-algebra: → a b c 1 a 1 c c a b c 1 c b c 1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 1 This is a commutative BCK-algebra which does not satisfy the (RCP) since a. Lemma 4. ≤. As proved in [22].1) implies (4.1). where the negative cone G− is equipped with the operations →. .1). i.2. if c ≥ a ∨ b and c a=c b. ≤) is a lattice. →.. →. Hence (A.1 We shall refer to commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras with the (RCP) brieﬂy as pseudo-LBCK-algebras.

there exist non-representable pseudo-MValgebras).2.2. thus it satisﬁes (4. b}. 1) for some -group. . →. so a = b. 1) is a pseudo-LBCK- (4. (x y) ∨ (y x) = 1.4. In case of commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras we have the following generalization: Theorem 4. by the identities (4. Let a ∨ b ≤ c and c → a = c → b.5 The class of all pseudo-LBCK-algebras is a proper subvariety of the variety C of all commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras axiomatized.3 Every representable commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra is a pseudoLBCK-algebra. commutative BCK-algebras satisfying the relative cancellation property are determined by the identity (x → y) ∨ (y → x) = 1.2. . assume that (A. Moreover. owing to Lemma 4. Relative cancellation property 71 Proof: Assume that c → a = c → b for a. Let x be a common lower bound of {a. We then have c→a=1 (c → a) (c → a) (c → a)) (c → a)) a)) (c → a)) ∧ ((b → a) (c → b)) ∧ ((b → a) = ((a → b) ∨ (b → a)) = ((a → b) = ((a → b) = (c → ((a → b) = c → (a ∨ b). From a ≤ c it follows c → x ≤ a → x and hence a → x = (a → x) ∨ (c → x) = ((a → x) (c → x)) → (c → x) x)) → (c → x) = (c → ((a → x) = (c → (a ∨ x)) → (c → x) = (c → a) → (c → x) and similarly b → x = (c → b) → (c → x). 1) is a pseudo-LBCK-algebra then it is isomorphic to a subalgebra of (G− .2.2. 1) satisﬁes the (RCP). . Corollary 4.3). . →. so that a → x = b → x since c → a = c → b. .2.3) Proof: If (A. . Corollary 4.3). The reverse implication is true for commutative BCK-algebras. Conversely.4 A commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. 1) satisﬁes the equations (4. →. algebra if and only if it satisﬁes the identities (x → y) ∨ (y → x) = 1.3). but not for commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra (for instance. b ≤ c. b)) ∧ (c → ((b → a) = (c → (a ∨ b)) ∧ (c → (a ∨ b)) Thus c → a = c → (a ∨ b).2. This shows that (A.2. Therefore a = a ∨ x = (a → x) x = (b → x) x = b ∨ x = b.2. we obtain a = a ∨ b. relatively to C .2. →. →. Since a and a ∨ b are comparable. Analogously c → b = c → (a ∨ b) and b = a ∨ b.

Let A = {a1 ∧ · · · ∧ an ∈ G− : a1 . It is clear that f ∧g ∈ A for all f = a1 ∧· · ·∧am . 1]. we shall prove that an arbitrary pseudo-LBCK-algebra embeds into the pseudo-BCK-algebra associated to a pseudo-MV-algebra. Proof: It is easily seen that (a] ∩ (b] = (a ∧ b] = ∅ for all a.4.6 Every pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A. 1). hence the set {(a] : a ∈ A} has the ﬁnite intersection property and there exists an ultraﬁlter U in the Boolean algebra ℘(A) of all subsets of A such that {(a] : a ∈ A} ⊆ U . . Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 72 In the sequel. hence a pseudo-MV-algebra. ∨. m. (M. ∧. 1) there exists a pseudo-MV-algebra (M. . g = b1 ∧· · ·∧bn ∈ A . pseudo-LBCK-algebras are the {→. we have f → g = n (f → bj ) = m j=1 i=1 (ai → bj ) ∈ A and j=1 m n bj ) ∈ A . Proof: By [22]. ∨. ∨. Since ai ∨bj ∈ A n and (G− . because for every j = 1. 1}-subreducts of pseudo-MV-algebras.− .− . →. 1) is a bounded commutative pseudo-BCK-lattice. . →. ∧) is a distributive lattice. . b ∈ A. ⊕. . For every x ∈ A. . we prove that. so that {a ∈ A : x ∨ a = y ∨ a} ∈ U . . the elements of M are denoted α/U or. Let (M. ∧. . 1) is a subalgebra of (G− . 1) such that (A . ∨. . ∧a . →. →.2. an ∈ A. . Theorem 4. Since (x ∧ y] ∈ U . a. →. →. ∨. →. →. which means that pseudo-LBCK-algebras can be considered as the algebraic models of the implication fragment of the non-commutative Lukasiewicz propositional logic (see [52]). the argument for ϕ(x y) = ϕ(x) ϕ(y) is similar. where ΘU is a congruence on the direct product a∈A A[a] given by (α. . .∼ . The map ϕ : A → M thus deﬁned has the following properties: (a) ϕ is injective: Clearly. ϕ(x) = ϕ(y) iﬀ {a ∈ A : x ∨ a = y ∨ a} ∈ U . ∨. h ∈ G− . 1) be the ultraproduct1 a∈A A[a]/U of {A[a] : a ∈ A} over the ultraﬁlter U . . ∧. hence (x ∧ y] ⊆ {a ∈ A : x ∨ a = y ∨ a}. roughly speaking. →.2. 0. 0. we may assume that (A. . . i=1 i=1 Theorem 4. →. 1) associated to (M. . (b) ϕ preserves → and : We show ϕ(x → y) = ϕ(x) → ϕ(y). also {a ∈ A : x ∨ a = y ∨ a} ∈ U . 1) can be embedded into the pseudo-BCK-lattice (M. n Furthermore. . g. ∧. where for each a ∈ A. A[a] denotes the bounded commutative pseudoBCK-lattice ([a. ⊕. the joins also f g = j=1 i=1 (ai n (ai → bj ) and n (ai bj ) belong to A. Of course.8. ∨. more detailed. ≤) is a lattice whose elements are obtained as ﬁnite meets of elements of A. . 1) can be isomorphically embedded into a pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A . To be more precise. . . β) ∈ ΘU iﬀ {a ∈ A : α(a) = β(a)} ∈ U . n ∈ N}. 1). 0.7 For every commutative pseudo-BCK-lattice (A.∼ . Theorem 4. But {a ∈ A : x ∨ a = y ∨ a} is the complement of {a ∈ A : x ∨a = y ∨ a} in the Boolean algebra ℘(A). put ϕ(x) = (x ∨ a : a ∈ A)/U. / proving ϕ(x) = ϕ(y). 0. If x = y then x ∨ a = y ∨ a for all a ≤ x ∧ y. (α(a) : a ∈ A)/U . Observe that (f ∧ g) → h = (f → h) ∨ (g → h) and (f ∧ g) h = (f h) ∨ (g h) for all f. it follows f ∨ g = m i=1 j=1 (ai ∨ bj ) ∈ A . 1) such that (A. We have ϕ(x → y) = ((x → y) ∨ a : a ∈ A)/U 1 Recall that the ultraproduct M is the quotient algebra a∈A A[a]/ΘU . 1) for a suitable -group G. ∧.

0) is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the pseudo-LBCK-algebra (G+ . c ∈ E: . . is a structure (E. +. .− . Thus (y] ⊆ {a ∈ A : (x ∨ a) → (y ∨ a) = (x → y) ∨ a} which yields ((x ∨ a) → (y ∨ a) : a ∈ A)/U = ((x → y) ∨ a : a ∈ A)/U . . . for all a. . . namely: Theorem 4. →. in the sense that A A every element of G+ is a ﬁnite sum of elements of A. ≤) which generates G+ as a semigroup. 0) there exists an -group (G. 0.3. +. we shall require somewhat more.8 in [22] which essentially relies on so-called generalized pseudo-eﬀect algebras. . . That ϕ preserves ∧ easily follows from distributivity of the underlying lattices of commutative pseudoBCK-lattices.3 Some properties of pseudo-LBCK-algebras Throughout the rest of the present chapter we shall use the original formulation of pseudo-BCK-algebras as algebras (A. the proof is hidden in the proof of Theorem 4. for every pseudo-LBCKalgebra (A. A A is an order-ideal of (G+ . . 0) there exists an -group (GA . Generalized pseudo-eﬀect algebras were invented by A. −. 0) in such a A way that ﬁnite inﬁma and existing ﬁnite suprema are preserved. The reason is that the properties we are interested in are more natural and easier to handle within the positive cones. 1) is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the pseudo-BCK-algebra (M. every homomorphism A f of (A. (c) ϕ preserves ∨ and ∧: The statement concerning ∨ is trivial.1 For every pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A. −. . . . 0. 0) into the positive cone (H + . Combining Theorems 4. . ∧) ˜ uniquely extends to an -group homomorphism f : GA → H. . 0). where G+ = {g ∈ G : g ≥ 0} is the positive cone of G and the operations . 0. Some properties of pseudo-LBCK-algebras 73 and ϕ(x) → ϕ(y) = ((x ∨ a) → (y ∨ a) : a ∈ A)/U . . 0. 1) there exists a pseudoMV-algebra (M. or simply a GPE-algebra. . are deﬁned by g h = g − (g ∧ h) = (g − h) ∨ 0 and g h = −(g ∧ h) + g = (−h + g) ∨ 0. ∨. where 0 is an element of E and + is a partial binary operation on E satifying the following axioms. For completeness we include its sketch here.8 For every pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A. Dvureˇenskij and T. we obtain: Corollary 4. 0) of any -group (H. and assuming A ⊆ G+ .2. Actually. ⊕. 4. ∧) such that (A. 0). . 0) which can be realized in the positive cones of -groups (see Example 1.8. .3). Vetterc lein [21] as a generalization of eﬀect algebras—partial additive structures related to the logic of quantum mechanics (see [18])—omitting both commutativity and boundedness: A generalized pseudo-eﬀect algebra.6 and 4. by [22]. →. +.4. If a ≤ y then (x ∨ a) → (y ∨ a) = (x ∨ a) → y = (x → y) ∧ (a → y) = x → y and likewise (x → y) ∨ a = x → y since x → y ≥ y ≥ a.7. .3. Theorem 4.2. −. As we have already mentioned. Moreover. ∨.2. 1) such that (A. →. . +. . b. ∧) such that (A. ∨. 1). In what follows.1. 0) can be embedded into (G+ . so ϕ(x) → ϕ(y) = ϕ(x → y).∼ .

Example 4. if a ≤ b + c then there exist b1 . b ∈ X and a ≤ b then b − a. Moreover. . 0) is called a GPE-homomorphism if (i) f (0) = 0 and (ii) whenever a + b is deﬁned in E then f (a) + f (b) is deﬁned in F and f (a) + f (b) = f (a + b). +. +. 0) of any -group H uniquely extends to an -group homomorphism ˜ f : GE → H.4. a + b is deﬁned iﬀ b = a y for some y ≥ a. −. c ∈ E. 0. Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 74 (E1) a + b and (a + b) + c exist iﬀ b + c and a + (b + c) exist. for all a. E is an order-ideal of (G+ . A GPE-algebra (E. b.1 can be achieved as follows: First. and in this case a + b = y. 0) is a GPE-algebra. 0) into the positive cone (H + . we deﬁne the partial addition + by the stipulation that a + b is deﬁned iﬀ a = x or equivalently. c1 ∈ E such that b1 ≤ b. where + is the restriction of the group addition to those pais of elements of X whose sum belongs to X. . (E2) if a + b exists then a + b = x + a = b + y for some x. assuming E ⊆ GE . and in this case (a + b) + c = a + (b + c). +. +. ≤) that generates G+ as a semiE E group. 0) into another GPE-algebra (F. given a pseudo-LBCKalgebra (A. +. One deﬁnes the partial order on E by a ≤ b iﬀ b = x + a for some x ∈ E. i. c1 ≤ c and a = b1 + c1 . (I) every GPE-algebra (E.2 [21]. and moreover. (E5) a + 0 and 0 + a exist and a + 0 = a = 0 + a. and E fulﬁls the Weak Riesz Decomposition Property. if c + a and c + b exist and are equal then a = b. which is equivalent to saying that b = a + y for some y ∈ E. +. . +. ∨. b for some x ≥ b. The proof of Theorem 4. −. 0) is a GPE-algebra. 0. [22] Let (G. 0) of some -group (GE . ∧) E such that ﬁnite inﬁma and existing ﬁnite suprema are preserved. (E3) if a + c and b + c exist and are equal then a = b. by [21]. +. in particular.. +. It was proved in [22] that GPE-algebras with the condition (A) are equivalent to pseudo-LBCK-algebras. (G+ . 0) is said to satisfy the condition (A) if (E. y ∈ E. ≤) be a partially ordered group and let X be a non-empty subset of its positive cone G+ such that whenever a. 0).3. (II) every meet preserving GPE-homomorphism f of (E. −a + b ∈ X. +. ≤) is a meetsemilattice. A mapping f of a GPE-algebra (E. Thus.e. Then (X. 0) satisfying the condition (A) can be isomorphically embedded into the positive cone (G+ .3. +. in which case a + b = x. (E4) if a + b exists and equals 0 then a = b = 0.

an ∈ D. 0 ≤ g. −. 0). 0) we mean a subset D ⊆ A such that (DS1∗ ) 0 ∈ D. Hence g = a1 +· · ·+an ∈ D proving G(D) ∩ A ⊆ D.e. In addition.3. so b ∈ K ∩ A which settles K ∩ A ∈ DS(A). the GPE-algebra (A. +. then g = a1 + · · · + an . 0) into the GPE-algebra (B.1 into the language { .. b ∈ A. ∧). if a. Then 0 ≤ b ≤ a ∨ b = ((b − a) ∨ 0) + a = (b a) + a ∈ K. b ∈ D and a + b is deﬁned in A. then (a+b) b = a ∈ D which along with b ∈ D entails a+b ∈ D. i. . +. . then b ∈ D. A Now. f (0) = 0. Clearly. 0) into (H + . In addition. and assume A ⊆ G+ . for all a. . ∧) be its representing -group as in Theorem 4. and consequently. x b = a and x ≥ b. A deductive system D ∈ DS(A) is compatible if. G(D) denoting the convex -subgroup of GA generated by D. Some properties of pseudo-LBCK-algebras 75 For every pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A. b ∈ A. .1. 0).2. the restrictions ϕ DS c (A) and ψ I(GA ) are mutually inverse isomorphisms between the lattice DS c (A) and the lattice I(GA ) of all -ideals of GA . we turn our attention to (compatible) deductive systems of pseudo-LBCKalgebras. . Trivially. b ∈ A. . we prove that the convex -subgroup of GA generated by K ∩ A is K. a b is a unique x ∈ A with x + (a ∧ b) = a. so that D = G(D) ∩ A = ψ(ϕ(D)).1. ∨. by (I). (A. +. Further. It is easily seen that D is closed under existing sums. +. let f be a homomorphism of a pseudoLBCK-algebra (A. for every A a. i. 0.3.e. Now. 0) can be represented in G+ in the sense of Theorem 4. and a b is a unique y ∈ A such that (a ∧ b) + y = a. . and therefore. Conversely. . . K = G(K ∩ X) = ϕ(ψ(K)). then f (x b) = f (x) f (b) = f (a) and f (x) ≥ f (b). .3 Let (A. Thus f is a GPE-homomorphism of the GPE-algebra (A. 0) so obtained satisﬁes the condition (A). ∨. If g ∈ K. We ﬁrst show that K ∩ A is a deductive system. If a+b = x is deﬁned in A. 0}. if g ∈ G(D) ∩ A then g ≥ 0 and g = a1 + · · · + an for some a1 . (DS2∗ ) if a ∈ D and b a ∈ D (or b a ∈ D). Proof: Let D ∈ DS(A). given an -group (H.3.1. . −. (A. .4. whence f (a) + f (b) = (f (x) f (b)) + f (b) = [(f (x) − f (b)) ∨ 0] + f (b) = f (x) ∨ f (b) = f (x) = f (a+b). by a deductive system of a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. f extends to an -homomorphism f : GA → H. When translating Deﬁnitions 2. D ⊆ G(D) ∩ A. 0). +. We then have a b = a − (a ∧ b) and a b = −(a ∧ b) + a. ˜ Applying (II). .. . +. whence b ∈ K. 0) embeds into (G+ . 0. Indeed.3. . Then the map A ϕ : D → G(D).1 and 2. a Theorem 4. the inverse of which is given by ψ : K → K ∩ A. f evidently preserves inﬁma since x∧y = x (x y) = x (x y). . . 0) for some A -group GA as an order-ideal which generates G+ as a semigroup. +. Suppose a ∈ K ∩ A and b a ∈ K ∩ A for a. b ∈ D iﬀ a b ∈ D. 0) be a pseudo-LBCK-algebra. let (GA . Let K be a convex -subgroup of GA . is an isomorphism of the deductive system lattice DS(A) onto the lattice C(GA ) of all convex -subgroups of GA .

and thus ν g ∈ G(D). the canonical homomorphism ν : a → a/D extends to an -group homomorphism ν : GA → GA/D . which means g = a1 +· · ·+an ∈ G(D). Proof: (i) is obvious. Dedekind complete and σ-complete -groups are deﬁned analogously. But 0 ≤ ai ≤ g implies ai ∈ K for all A i = 1. . so that g ∈ G(K ∩ A). For (ii). . . then supA X exists and is equal to supGA X. This means g = (g ∧ h) + k for some k ∈ K. If g ≥ 0 then g = a1 + · · · + an ν ν for some a1 . ˜ We are going to show that G(D) = Ker(˜) which certainly is an -ideal of GA . for all a.3. and we assume that (A. We say that a pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. ν From now on. G(D) = Ker(˜) and the proof is complete. we focus on compatible deductive systems and -ideals. . . ∨. which yields g ≥ x0 . ∨. Finally. . Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 76 for some a1 . ∧) as in Theorem 4. . ν ν ν Hence G(D) ⊆ Ker(˜). Thus K ∩ A ∈ DS c (A) provided K ∈ I(GA ). then x0 ∧ g ∈ A is an upper bound of X in A. and hence g ∈ G(K ∩ A). 0) is (1) Dedekind complete if every non-empty subset of A which has an upper bound has a supremum. Thus ˜ ˜ ˜ g ∈ Ker(˜). . D. .3. Conversely. . n. an ∈ D. If g ≥ 0 then g = a1 + · · · + an for some a1 . . The other inclusion is obvious. so x0 ∧ g ≥ supA X = x0 . then similarly |g| ∈ Ker(˜) and g ∈ Ker(˜). Conversely. 0).4 For every ∅ = X ⊆ A we have: (i) inf A X exists iﬀ so does inf GA X.1. From 0 ≤ ai ≤ g it follows D = ν (0) ≤ ν (ai ) ≤ ν (g) = D. assume g ∈ Ker(˜). . +. a b ∈ K ∩ A iﬀ a b ∈ K ∩ A. an ∈ A. if g − (g ∧ h) ∈ K then g = (g − (g ∧ h)) + (g ∧ h) ∈ K + (g ∧ h) = (g ∧ h) + K since K is a normal subgroup of GA . A Lemma 4. and (2) Dedekind σcomplete if every countable non-empty subset having an upper bound has a supremum.3. Consequently. . so −(g ∧ h) + g ∈ K. .3.1. . . If g ∈ GA is an arbitrary upper bound of X in GA . . We have proved that ϕ and ψ are mutually inverse isomorphisms between DS(A) and C(GA ). and in this case. b ∈ K ∩ A. Theorem 4. If g ∈ G(D) is arbitrary. then 0 ≤ |g| = g ∨ −g ∈ K and the same argument yields |g| ∈ G(K ∩ A). x0 is an upper bound of X in GA . In the sequel. .5 The following statements are equivalent: (i) A is a Dedekind complete (Dedekind σ-complete) pseudo-LBCK-algebra. Observe that g − (g ∧ h) ∈ K iﬀ −(g ∧ h) + g ∈ K for all g. This shows K ⊆ G(K ∩ A). −. . If g ∈ K is arbitrary. By Theorem 4. . . Altogether. assume that x0 = supA X exists. an ∈ A since A generates G+ . so ˜ ˜ ˜ ν(ai ) = ν (ai ) = D and ai ∈ D for all i = 1. Indeed. . . ˜ The parallel argument shows that |g| ∈ G(D) for an arbitrary g ∈ Ker(˜). (ii) If supA X exists then also supGA X exists and is equal to supA X. it is plain that whenever supGA X ∈ A then supA X = supGA X. Let K be an -ideal of GA . . ∧) be the representing -group of the quotient pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A/D. D). Clearly. 0) is a subalgebra of (G+ .4. 0) is a pseudo-LBCK-algebra with the representing -group (GA . −. . Let (GA/D . (A. . ν Let g ∈ G(D). h ∈ GA . . If supGA X exists and lies in A. whence we obtain ν (g) = ν (a1 ) + · · · + ν (an ) = ν(a1 ) + · · · + ν(an ) = a1 /D + · · · + an /D = D. . . 0. let D ∈ DS c (A). . . n. Thus x0 = supGA X. inf A X = inf GA X. +.

then (A. by the induction hypothesis. A pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. Let n ≥ 2 and suppose that the statement holds for every k ∈ N with k < n. Recalling that Dedekind σ-complete -groups are necessarily archimedean (and so abelian). and therefore. x1 = x2 . We say that ∅ = X ⊆ A is pairwise orthogonal if x1 ∧ x2 = 0 for all x1 . Let {gi : i ∈ I} be a non-empty subset of G+ with an upper A bound g ∈ G+ . an ∈ A. 77 Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii). . Theorem 4. Dedekind orthogonally σ-complete) pseudo-LBCK-algebra.7 The following statements are equivalent: (i) A is a Dedekind orthogonally complete (resp. where a1 . supGA {ai : i ∈ I} exists and equals supA {ai : i ∈ I}. The element g can be written in the form A g = a1 + · · · + an . where gi − (gi ∧ an ) = (gi − an ) ∨ 0 ≤ a1 + · · · + an−1 and gi ∧ an ≤ an .6 Every Dedekind σ-complete pseudo-LBCK-algebra is a BCK-algebra. for each i ∈ I. hence all gi ’s belong to A. i. Let {ai : i ∈ I} be a non-empty subset of A with an upper bound a ∈ A. . . If supA X exists for every orthogonal countable ∅ = X ⊆ A which has an upper bound in A. gi ≤ g for all i ∈ I. (ii) ⇒ (i). Again. Then h − (h ∧ an ) = (h − an ) ∨ 0 ≥ A i∈I (gi ∧ an ).e. Dedekind orthogonally σ-complete) -group. (ii) GA is a Dedekind orthogonally complete (resp. g0 ≥ gi for all i ∈ I.e. .4 is equal to supGA {gi : i ∈ I}. . both supGA {gi − (gi ∧ an ) : i ∈ I} and supGA {gi ∧ an : i ∈ I} exist in GA . i. Dedekind orthogonally (also laterally) complete and σ-complete -groups are deﬁned in the same way.. 0) is called Dedekind ortogonally complete if there exists the supremum in A of every non-empty pairwise orthogonal subset X of A having an upper bound in A. gi = gi − (gi ∧ an ) + (gi ∧ an ). Then.. We shall prove that g0 = i∈I (gi − (gi ∧ an )) + i∈I (gi ∧ an ) is the supremum of {gi : i ∈ I} in GA . . x2 ∈ X. By Lemma 4. .3. We shall show by induction on n that supGA {gi : i ∈ I} exists. For n = 1 we have g = a1 ∈ A. supA {gi : i ∈ I} exists and by Lemma 4.3. Some properties of pseudo-LBCK-algebras (ii) GA is a Dedekind complete (Dedekind σ-complete) -group. .4.3. we obtain Corollary 4. n ∈ N. whence it follows i∈I (gi − (gi ∧ an )) and h ∧ an ≥ i∈I ((gi − an ) ∨ 0) = h = h − (h ∧ an ) + (h ∧ an ) ≥ g0 proving that g0 = supGA {gi : i ∈ I}. we have = .4.3. . Let h ∈ G+ be another common upper bound of gi ’s.3. Clearly. 0) is called Dedekind orthogonally σ-complete.

we write a b if. then A is called an archimedean pseudo-LBCK-algebra. if A is both Dedekind σ-complete and Dedekind orthogonally complete.3. Let n · x ≤ a1 + · · · + am + am+1 for all n ∈ N. . n · x is deﬁned in A and is less than or equal to a1 . i. which entails a = 0.4. hence A is Dedekind complete. Then obviously x ≤ a1 . It can be easily seen that in any -group G. then n · x − am+1 ≤ a1 + · · · + am . This follows from Lemma 4. hence supGA {gi : i ∈ I} exists and is equal to supA {gi : i ∈ I}. Thus A is archimedean. As proved by J. y ∈ G+ and A assume that n · x ≤ y for all n ∈ N. supGA {gi − (gi ∧ an ) : i ∈ I} exists. (a) Let m = 1. where a1 . We proceed by induction on m. . thus supA {gi ∧ an : i ∈ I} = supGA {gi ∧ an : i ∈ I} exists. Further.5 and 4.5. then so is the -group GA . whence it follows x = 0. by induction hypothesis. . i. If a b for all a.3. b ∈ G+ . b ∈ A \ {0}. y ∈ G+ then n · (x − y) ≤ n · x − y. these ık two properties are suﬃcient in order for an -group to be Dedekind complete. . b ∈ A and a b. . . . 0). {gi ∧ an : i ∈ I} is a pairwise orthogonal subset of A.3. let x. if x. Corollary 4. for any a. Now. If a.e. and so x ∈ A. 0) is Dedekind complete if and only if it is Dedekind σ-complete and Dedekind orthogonally complete.3. for every n ∈ N. n · a = a + · · · + a (n-times) exists in the corresponding GPE-algebra (A. an ∈ A.3.e. {gi − (gi ∧ an ) : i ∈ I} is a parwise orthogonal subset of G+ and we have A gi − (gi ∧ an ) = (gi − an ) ∨ 0 ≤ g − an = a1 + · · · + an−1 for all i ∈ I. let A be an archimedean pseudo-LBCK-algebra. Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 78 Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii).. Theorem 4. 0) and is less than or equal to b. there exist a1 . . Let {gi : i ∈ I} be a non-empty pairwise orthogonal subset of G+ with an upper bound g = a1 + · · · + an .8 A pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A. am ∈ A A such that y = a1 + · · · + am . Obviously.9 A pseudo-LBCK-algebra A is archimedean if and only if GA is an archimedean -group. .7. Let n ≥ 2 and suppose that every orthogonal subset of G+ whose upper bound is the sum of at most n − 1 A elements of A has a supremum in GA . then n · a ≤ b for each positive integer n. too. then a = 0. (ii) ⇒ (i). (b) Let m > 1 and suppose the statement holds for every positive integer k ≤ m. we must show that g0 = i∈I (gi − (gi ∧ an )) + i∈I (gi ∧ an ) is the supremum of {gi : i ∈ I} in GA .4. . Given a pseudo-LBCK-algebra (A. Since A generates G+ . We proceed by A induction on n ∈ N. .e. n · x ≤ a1 for all n ∈ N. for every n ∈ N. Conversely... Proof: By Theorems 4. Jakub´ [40]. Furthermore. . The basis is clear: if g = a1 then every gi lies in A. Hence. Proof: Let GA be an archimedean -group. n · (x ∨ 0) = n · x ∨ (n − 1) · x ∨ · · · ∨ x ∨ 0 for every x ∈ G and n ∈ N. +.3. if n · a ≤ b for all A n ∈ N. Therefore for . i. The rest is parallel to the proof of Theorem 4.

It is obvious that A is a Dedekind complete pseudo-LBCK-algebra and that it is the smallest one among Dedekind complete pseudo-LBCK-algebras containing A as a subalgebra. respectively. h ∈ A. Proof: Clearly.10 Every Dedekind σ-complete pseudo-LBCK-algebra is archimedean.e. where ai ∈ A and xj ∈ GA . assume that A is archimedean. yj ∈ GA . so n · x ≤ am+1 for all n ∈ N. Moreover. we have g ∨ h = i∈I j∈J (ai ∨ bj ) ∈ A since ai ∨ bj ∈ A. By the Dedekind completion of a pseudo-LBCK-algebra A we understand the smallest Dedekind complete pseudo-LBCK-algebra ADed containing A as a subalgebra.4. Since j∈J xj = i∈I ai ∧ 0 ≤ ai ∧ xj . Let g ∈ A and h ∈ GA .4. q · ((n · x − am+1 ) ∨ 0) = = q · (n · x − am+1 ) ∨ (q − 1) · (n · x − am+1 ) ∨ · · · ∨ (n · x − am+1 ) ∨ 0 ≤ (qn · x − am+1 ) ∨ ((q − 1)n · x − am+1 ) ∨ · · · ∨ (n · x − am+1 ) ∨ 0 ≤ a1 + · · · + am . Every g ∈ GA is of the form g = i∈I xi = j∈J yj for some xi . i. without ∅ and GA ) to be an -group.11 A pseudo-LBCK-algebra A has the Dedekind completion ADed if and only if A is archimedean. Conversely. If 0 ≤ h ≤ g then we may assume that xj ≥ 0 for all j ∈ J. Then also the -group GA is archimedean. Thus ADed = A is a lattice.4 Cantor-Bernstein theorem A pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. xj ∈ GA and ai ∈ A. Let A be the set of all g ∈ GA that can be written in the form g= ai i∈I for ai ∈ A. The existence of the completion ADed depends on whether A is archimedean: Theorem 4. if A is a lattice then for every g. it follows ai ∧ xj ∈ A for all i ∈ I. if A is a lattice then so is ADed . Consequently A. being an order-ideal of the positive cone of GA that contains 0. 0) is called orthogonally σ-complete if every countable pairwise orthogonal subset X ⊆ A has a supremum in A. Every archimedean pseudo-LBCK-algebra is a BCK-algebra. which yields x = 0.3. For the ﬁnal claim. The main goal of the present section is to prove the following Cantor-Bernstein type theorem: . if ADed exists then A is archimedean. so h ∈ A. j ∈ J. and we have h = g ∧ h = i∈I j∈J (ai ∧ xj ). where g = i∈I ai and h = j∈J bj for ai . 4. . Cantor-Bernstein theorem every q ∈ N. bj ∈ A. 79 By the induction hypothesis we obtain (n · x − am+1 ) ∨ 0 = 0. . is a pseudo-LBCK-algebra. Hence A = ADed . we have: Corollary 4.. Since archimedean -groups are abelian. which is known to be a necessary and suﬃcient condition for its Dedekind-MacNeille completetion by cuts GA (of course.3. g = i∈I ai and h = j∈J xj .

. Since x ∧ a ∈ [0. y ∈ [0. a]. a]. 0) and (A2 . a] and yi ∈ [0.2 Let (A. 0. . where x ·a y = x (a y) = y (a x). . a] for all i ∈ I. 0) and 0 < a ∈ A. Consequently. 0). . we have i∈I xi xi (a ∧ y) = i∈I (xi (a ∧ y)) = i∈I ((xi a) ∨ (xi y)) = i∈I (xi y). then ([0. the supremum x ∨a y is expressed by the formulas x ∨a y = (x∼a ∧ y ∼a )−a = a = (x −a [(a [(a x) x) (y (y x)] = x ⊕a (y x)] = (y x) ∧y −a ∼a ) =a x) ⊕a x. We shall say that a deductive system X ∈ DS(A) is a direct factor in (A. . y = (b) With a = i∈I xi . a]. If the suprema indicated on the left-hand side exist. (b) and (c) are valid in pseudo-MV-algebras.1. for all x. = In the language of algebras (A. Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 80 Theorem 4. 0) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. Then A ∼ B. . we get x ∧ i∈I yi = (x ∧ a) ∧ i∈I yi = i∈I (x ∧ a) ∧ yi = i∈I x ∧ yi . . 0) be a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra. a]. . . then both ϕ−1 (A1 × {0}) and ϕ−1 ({0} × A2 ) are compatible deductive systems of (A. y). and the same for . 0). since xi a = 0 for all i ∈ I. . . ⊕a .4. i∈I (c) We can use the interval [0. and deﬁne x ⊕a y = a [(a x) y] = a [(a y) x]. and vice versa.−a . Lemma 4. 0) Proposition 4. Moreover. It can be easily seen that if ϕ : A → A1 × A2 is an isomorphism of (A.4. X δ = {a ∈ A : a ∧ x = 0 for all x ∈ X}. and the same for yi ). . 2 For X a deductive system of (A. a ∈ A. . the polar2 of ϕ−1 (A1 × {0}) is precisely ϕ−1 ({0} × A2 ). although (A. . Applying the property (a) we get x i∈I yi = (x ∧ yi )) = i∈I (x yi ). . 0) if X = ϕ−1 (A1 × {0}) or X = ϕ−1 ({0} × A2 ) for some direct product decomposition ϕ : A → A1 × A2 . 0).5 says that if we are given a commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra (A. . ≤) is a meet-semilattice that need not be a lattice. then also the suprema and inﬁma on the right-hand side exist and the following equalities hold: (a) x ∧ (b) (c) x i∈I yi = i∈I (x ∧ yi ). .∼a . C2 . . i∈I xi i∈I y= yi = i∈I (xi i∈I (x Proof: First of all we note that (a). x]. . a) becomes a pseudo-MV-algebra. x x ∧ i∈I yi = x i∈I (x ∧ yi ) = i∈I (x Let (A. x−a = a x & x∼a = a x.1 Let A and B be orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudo-BCKalgebras and assume that A ∼ B × C1 = and B ∼ A × C2 = for some pseudo-BCK-algebras C1 . 0) onto the direct product of commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras (A1 . hence the idea of the proof is to calculate the respective joins and meets in a suitable pseudo-MV-algebra [0. . the segment ([0. .4. (a) Put a = i∈I yi . . ≤) is a distributive lattice in which.

. the supremum a1 ∨ a2 exists and we can compute it in the pseudo-MV-algebra [0. 0) be an orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudoBCK-algebra. Cantor-Bernstein theorem 81 In this case also X δ is a direct factor and (A. and if b ∈ Xa then (b1 . Let ϕ : A → A1 × A2 be a direct product decomposition such that X = ϕ−1 (A1 × {0}) and X δ = ϕ−1 ({0} × A2 ). ϕ = ψ −1 : A → X × X δ is a direct product decomposition such that ϕ−1 (X × {0}) = X and ϕ−1 ({0} × X δ ) = X δ . thus x ≥ x .4.e. Suppose that a = x ∨ y for some x ∈ X. a2 ≤ a. (iii) ⇒ (i). it follows that a (a2 a1 ) ∈ X. the map ψ : X × X δ → A deﬁned by ψ(x. We shall write ϕ(z) = (z1 . 0) is isomorphic to the direct product X × X δ . (ii) for every a ∈ A. we have ψ(x. . Consequently. because a (a2 a1 ) is less than or equal to a and belongs to X. It remains to be shown that a = a1 ∨ a2 . thus ψ is an isomorphism. x ∈ X and y. where x ∈ X and y ∈ X δ . y) ψ(x . y) = x ∨ y is a bijection (x ∨ y exists in A since x ∧ y = 0). y) (x . let a1 be the greatest element of Xa and put a2 = a a1 . y ∈ X δ . 0) ≤ ϕ−1 (a1 . Since a1 ∧ a2 = 0 and a1 . x x = 0) entails y = y and x = x . 0) ∈ Xa . for any x ∈ X. Hence a (a2 a1 ) ≤ a1 . Then x = x (x ∧ y) = x y = (x∨y) y = (x ∨y ) y = (x y)∨(y y) = (x (x ∧y))∨(y y) = x ∨(y y). a]: a1 ∨a2 = a1 ∨a a2 = a [(a a1 )∧(a a2 )] = a [(a a1 ) (a2 a1 )] = a (a2 a2 ) = a. so a (a2 a1 ) = a1 . which yields b = ϕ−1 (b1 . which along with x ≥ x (i. This proves a2 ∈ X δ .3 Let (A. a (a2 a1 ) ≥ a a2 = a (a a1 ) = a ∧ a1 = a1 . . (iii) every a ∈ A can be written in the form a = x ∨ y.4. thus x ∧ a2 ≤ a1 . 0) is the greatest element of Xa = {x ∈ X : x ≤ a}. and X ∈ DS(A).4.. . Therefore. For every x. Similarly ψ(x. Proof: (i) ⇒ (ii). Consequently. x ∧ a2 ∈ X and x ∧ a2 ≤ a. a2 a1 = (a2 a1 ) ∧ a = a (a (a2 a1 )) = a a1 = a2 . 0) = ϕ(b) ≤ ϕ(a) = (a1 . y ) = (x ∨ y) = ((x (x ∨ y ) = ((x y )) = (x x ) ∧ (x x ) ∨ (y y )) ∨ ((y x ) ∧ (y y )) x ) ∧ x) ∨ (y ∧ (y y ) = ψ((x. (ii) ⇒ (iii). y )) since x y = x and y x = y. y) (x . the set Xa = {x ∈ X : x ≤ a} has a greatest element. For every a ∈ A we obviously have ϕ−1 (a1 . a2 ). Given a ∈ A. and since a1 ∈ X. We now describe the direct factors in orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudoBCK-algebras: Proposition 4. y ∈ X δ . On the other hand. whence a1 ∧ a2 = a2 (a2 a1 ) = 0. y ) = ψ((x. The following are equivalent: (i) X is a direct factor. y )). Therefore ϕ−1 (a1 . Now. We have [(a (a2 a1 )) a1 ] a1 = [(a a1 ) (a2 a1 )] a1 = (a2 (a2 a1 )) a1 = (a1 ∧ a2 ) a1 = 0. First we show the uniqueness of the expression a = x ∨ y. z2 ) for z ∈ A. we write A = X ⊕ X δ and say that A is the direct sum of X and X δ . where x ∈ X and y ∈ X δ . 0). whence we obtain x ∧ a2 ≤ a1 ∧ a2 = 0. Analogously y = y ∨ (x x). . y) ψ(x . We should observe that a2 is the greatest δ element of Xa = {y ∈ X δ : y ≤ a} (if y ∈ X δ and y ≤ a then y = y a1 ≤ a a1 = a2 ).

Hence in the pseudo-MV-algebra [0. If X1 is a direct factor in A. Then X0 = n∈N δ Xn is a direct factor in A. where x1 ∈ X1 and y1 ∈ X1 . and from c ∧ b = 0 it follows that a = c ⊕a b = c ∨ b.3.4 Let (A. y ∈ X2 . Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras 82 One readily sees that direct factors are closed under existing suprema. whence c ∈ n∈N Xn = X0 . since a ≥ an for all n. 0) be an orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudoBCK-algebra. c ≤ a. Corollary 4.5 Let (A. if X1 . δ For the latter claim. a] we have c ⊕a b = (a b) ⊕a b = a ∨ b = a. where b ∈ X0 and c ∈ X0 . Since δ1 δ y ≤ a ∈ X1 . Moreover. δ every a ∈ A can be written in the form a = b ∨ c. also y ∈ X1 and hence y ∈ X1 ∩ X2 = X2 .. X2 are direct factors in A such that X2 ⊆ X1 . and hence b ∈ X0 .4. we have z ∧ (y2 ∨ y1 ) = (z ∧ y2 ) ∨ (z ∧ y1 ) = 0 for each z ∈ X2 . and X2 is a direct factor in X1 . For every n ∈ N. thus ai ∧ aj = 0. We know that b. By what we have established before. δ where X2 1 = {u ∈ X1 : u ∧ v = 0 for all v ∈ X2 } is the polar of X2 in X1 . For every i = j ∈ N we have ai ∧ aj ∈ Xi ∩ Xj = {0}. if a ∈ X1 then a = x ∨ y for some x ∈ X2 . Proof: For an arbitrary element z ∈ A and n ∈ N. then X2 is a direct factor in X1 . cn = an bn = an an = 0. Proposition 4. and hence a direct factor of an orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra is an orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudo-BCK-algebra again. then X2 is a direct factor in A. because b ∈ X0 and c ∈ X0 . Furthermore. if x ∈ X0 then x ∧ b = x ∧ n∈N an = n∈N (x ∧ an ) = 0 as x ∧ an = 0 δ δ for all n. δ1 Moreover. let zn denote the “Xn -coordinate” δ of z in the direct sum Xn ⊕ Xn = A.4. Indeed. so by Proposition 4. A ∼ X0 × = n∈N Xn . . i = j. 0) be an orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudoBCK-algebra and {Xn : n ∈ N} a countable family of direct factors in A so that Xi ∩ Xj = {0} for all i. . every a ∈ A is of the form a=c∨ n∈N an . δ Put c = a b. i. Hence δ δ δ a = x2 ∨ y2 ∨ y1 .e. . Altogether. δ Proof: Every a ∈ A is of the form a = x1 ∨ y1 .4. Let a ∈ A. j ∈ N. since y2 ∈ X2 1 ⊆ X2 and δ δ y1 ∈ X1 ⊆ X2 . n∈N Moreover.4. where x2 ∈ X2 and y2 ∨ y1 ∈ X2 . . bn = an for each n ∈ N. which ensures the existence of b= an . Note that b ∧ c = 0. Indeed. Likewise. zn is the greatest element of Xn below z. x1 ∈ X1 can be written as x1 = x2 ∨ y2 for some x2 ∈ X2 and y2 ∈ X2 . . the inequality bn ≥ an follows from b ≥ an . X0 is a direct factor in A. it holds a ≥ b and so an ≥ bn for all n ∈ N.

Analogously. δn δ Xn+1 = {x ∈ Xn : x ∧ y = 0 for all y ∈ Xn+1 } = Xn ∩ Xn+1 .e. We are going to show that δn n+2 ϕ(Xn+1 ) = Xn+3 . If y ∈ Xn+3 then y = ϕ(y0 ) for some y0 ∈ Xn+1 . let Xn+1 denote the polar of Xn+1 in Xn . We now deﬁne ϕ : X0 × n∈N Xn → A by letting ϕ(xn : n ∈ N0 ) = n∈N0 xn . etc. and so ak = ak for all k ∈ N. This means δn+2 δ x ∈ Xn+2 ∩ Xn+3 = Xn+3 which settles (4. The restriction ϕ Xn is an isomorphism of Xn onto Xn+2 . = δn Further. X2 be direct factors with X2 ⊆ X1 . δn δn δn x0 ∧ y0 = 0. Therefore ϕ is an isomorphism.4. xn ∧ yk = 0 entails xn Proposition 4. .. . suppose that a = c ∨ n∈N an for some c ∈ X0 and an ∈ Xn . Cantor-Bernstein theorem 83 where c ∈ X0 and an ∈ Xn for each n ∈ N. X4 = ϕ(X2 ). δn δ i. thus x ∧ y = ϕ(x0 ∧ y0 ) = 0 since x0 ∧ y0 = 0. Xn+2 = ϕ(Xn ) for every n ∈ N0 . which yields (for every k ∈ N) ak = ak ∧ n∈N an = n∈N (ak ∧ an ) = ak ∧ ak since ak ∧ an = 0 for k = n. so A ∼ X2 ∼ X4 ∼ · · · and X1 ∼ X3 ∼ X5 ∼ · · · = = = = = = Hence we may assume X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ X2 ⊃ · · · since Xn = Xn+1 for some n ∈ N0 would yield X1 ∼ A. n∈N an ∈ X0 .. x = ϕ(x0 ) for some x0 ∈ Xn+1 = Xn ∩ Xn+1 . i. 0) be an orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudoBCK-algebra. . it follows c = c and n∈N an = n∈N an . Since c. i. X1 .4. Conversely.6 Let (A.. and deﬁne the sequence of deductive systems X0 = A.4. n∈N Xn Obviously. = Proof: Let ϕ be an isomorphism of A onto X2 . Consequently. which yields x0 ∈ Xn+1 and so x ∈ ϕ(Xn+1 ). For every (xn : n ∈ N0 ). X2 . X3 = ϕ(X1 ). for any n ∈ N0 .. To see that this expression is unique. Hence ak ≤ ak .1) n+2 δ Let x ∈ Xn+3 = Xn+2 ∩ Xn+3 .e. and let X1 . ϕ is a bijection. let x ∈ ϕ(Xn+1 ).e.4. Then x = ϕ(x0 ) for some x0 ∈ Xn . If A ∼ X2 then also = A ∼ X1 . since for n = k.1).4. δ δ (4. c ∈ X0 and δ n∈N an . ak ≤ ak . and for each y0 ∈ Xn+1 we have ϕ(x0 ∧ y0 ) = ϕ(x0 ) ∧ ϕ(y0 ) = 0 since ϕ(y0 ) ∈ Xn+3 . (yn : n ∈ N0 ) ∈ X0 × have (analogously for ) ϕ(xn : n ∈ N0 ) = n∈N0 k∈N0 we ϕ(yn : n ∈ N0 ) = n∈N0 xn n∈N0 yn yn : n ∈ N0 ) (xn yk ) = n∈N0 (xn yn ) = ϕ(xn = ϕ((xn : n ∈ N0 ) (yn : n ∈ N0 )) yk = xn .

4. Commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras Next, we prove that

84

δn Xn = Xn+1 ⊕ Xn+1 ,

δn in other words, Xn+1 and Xn+1 are direct factors in Xn . By induction on n ∈ N0 . For n = 0 this is just the hypothesis that X1 is a direct factor in A, and for n = 1 it follows from this hypothesis by Corollary 4.4.4. Let n ≥ 2 and suppose that the statement holds δn−2 δn−2 for all k < n. Then Xn−1 ⊕ Xn−1 = Xn−2 and Xn = ϕ(Xn−1 ⊕ Xn−1 ). Every x ∈ Xn δn−2 is therefore in the form x = ϕ(y ∨ z) = ϕ(y) ∨ ϕ(z), where y ∈ Xn−1 and z ∈ Xn−1 . δn δn Since ϕ(y) ∈ Xn+1 and ϕ(z) ∈ Xn+1 by (4.4.1), it follows that Xn = Xn+1 ⊕ Xn+1 . Now, put δn Yn = Xn+1 . δn Since Xn+1 is a direct factor in Xn , it is evident that all Yn ’s are direct factors in A. Moreover, for i = j we have Yi ∩ Yj = {0}. Indeed, if e.g. i < j then Xi ⊃ Xj , δ δ δ δ Xi+1 ⊆ Xj+1 and Xi+1 ⊇ Xj , whence we obtain Yi ∩ Yj = Xi ∩ Xi+1 ∩ Xj ∩ Xj+1 = δ δ Xj ∩ Xi+1 ⊆ Xi+1 ∩ Xi+1 = {0}. Hence, using Proposition 4.4.5,

A∼Z× =

n∈N0

Yn ,

δ δ where Z = n∈N0 Yn . Obviously, for n ≥ 1, Yn ⊆ X1 and Z = Y0δ ∩ n∈N Yn = δδ ∩ δ =X ∩ δ = δ) = δ1 , and therefore, X1 1 n∈N Yn n∈N Yn n∈N (X1 ∩ Yn n∈N Yn

X1 ∼ Z × =

n∈N

Yn ,

**and since Yn ∼ Yn+2 by (4.4.1), it follows = A∼Z× =
**

n∈N0

Yn ∼ Z × =

n∈N

Yn ∼ X1 . =

We are ready to prove Theorem 4.4.1, which can be reformulated as follows: Theorem 4.4.7 Let A and B be orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudo-BCKalgebras. If A is isomorphic to a direct factor in B, and B is isomorphic to a direct factor in A, then A ∼ B. = Proof: Let ϕ : A → B and ψ : B → A be embeddings such that ϕ(A) and ψ(B) are direct factors in B and A, respectively. It suﬃces to observe that A2 = (ϕ ◦ ψ)(A) is a direct factor (in ψ(B) and hence) in A satisfying A2 ⊆ A1 = ψ(B) and A2 ∼ A, which = yields A ∼ A1 ∼ B by Proposition 4.4.6. = = Since pseudo-MV-algebras and positive cones of -groups can be regarded as special cases commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras, the theorem is applicable to pseudo-MValgebras as well as to -groups. Let (A, ⊕,− ,∼ , 0, 1) be a pseudo-MV-algebra (= bounded commutative pseudoBCK-algebra). An element e ∈ A is said to be boolean [27] if it has a complement in

4.4. Cantor-Bernstein theorem

85

the underlying lattice (A, ∨, ∧); equivalently, e is boolean iﬀ e ⊕ e = e. In this case, e− = e∼ is the complement of e. The boolean elements of A form a subalgebra that is a boolean algebra in its own right. Following [42], we can say that X ⊆ A is a direct factor if and only if there exists a boolean element e ∈ A such that X = [0, e]. (This is also a corollary of our Proposition 4.4.3.) Therefore, by Theorem 4.4.7 we gain: Corollary 4.4.8 [43] Let A, B be orthogonally σ-complete pseudo-MV-algebras such that A ∼ [0, e] for some boolean element e ∈ B, and B ∼ [0, f ] for some boolean = = element f ∈ A. Then A ∼ B. = This result due to J. Jakub´ [43] extends the following MV-algebraic Cantorık Bernstein theorem which was proved by A. De Simone, D. Mundici and M. Navara [9] (it suﬃces to observe that every σ-complete MV-algebra is automatically an orthogonally σ-complete pseudo-MV-algebra): Corollary 4.4.9 [9] If A and B are two σ-complete MV-algebras such that A is isomorphic to [0, b] ⊆ B where b is a boolean element in B, and B is isomorphic to [0, a] ⊆ A for some boolean element a in A, then A ∼ B. = It should be mentioned that there is another Cantor-Bernstein-like theorem for MV-algebras by Jakub´ [41], but as observed in [9] it is incomparable with the above ık one. J. Jakub´ [44] also proved the next theorem which can be easily achieved from ık Theorem 4.4.1: Corollary 4.4.10 [44] Let G, H be orthogonally σ-complete -groups. If G is isomorphic to a direct factor in H, and H is isomorphic to a direct factor in G, then G ∼ H. = Proof: It is worth recalling that a convex -subgroup X is a direct factor iﬀ, for every g ≥ 0, Xg = {x ∈ X : 0 ≤ x ≤ g} has a greatest element. Let G ∼ G1 and H ∼ H1 , where G1 and H1 are direct factors in H and G, = = respectively. We may regard the positive cones G+ and H + as orthogonally σ-complete commutative pseudo-BCK-algebras (G+ , , , 0) and (H + , , , 0). The sets G+ = 1 + G1 ∩ H + and H1 = H1 ∩ G+ are direct factors in H + and G+ , respectively, and it is plain that G+ ∼ G+ and H + ∼ H1 . By Theorem 4.4.1 (or 4.4.7), the pseudo= 1 = + + and H + are isomorphic, and consequently, the -groups G and H BCK-algebras G are isomophic as well. Other similar theorems of Cantor-Bernstein type were proved by A. De Simone, M. Navara and P. Pt´k [10] for σ-complete orthomodular lattices, by G. Jenˇa [45] a c for σ-complete eﬀect algebras (a lattice-ordered eﬀect algebra is σ-complete iﬀ it is a σ-complete lattice), and by A. Dvureˇenskij [15] for pseudo-eﬀect algebras satisfying c the so-called central decomposition property. An abstract version for (total) algebras that have an underlying bounded lattice (such as MV-algebras, orthomodular lattices, pseudo-MV-algebras, etc.) was proved by H. Freytes [24].

Bibliography

[1] M. Anderson and T. Feil, Lattice-Ordered Groups (An Introduction), D. Reidel, Dordrecht–Boston–Lancaster–Tokyo, 1988. [2] W. Blok and D. Pigozzi, Algebraizable logics, Memoirs of the Am. Math. Soc., no. 396, Providence, 1989. [3] W. Blok and J. Raftery, Varieties of commutative residuated integral pomonoids and their residuation subreducts, J. Algebra 190 (1997), 280–328. [4] K. Blount and C. Tsinakis, The structure of residuated lattices, Int. J. Algebra Comput. 13 (2003), 437–461. [5] T. S. Blyth, Lattices and Ordered Algebraic Structures, Springer-Verlag, London, 2005. [6] I. Chajda, G. Eigenthaler, and H. L¨nger, Congruence Classes in Universal Algea bra, Heldermann Verlag, Lemgo, 2003. [7] R. Cignoli and A. Torrens, Glivenko like theorems in natural expansions of BCKlogic, Math. Log. Quart. 50 (2004), 111–125. [8] R. L. O. Cignoli, I. M. L. D’Ottaviano, and D. Mundici, Algebraic Foundations of Many-valued Reasoning, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2000. [9] A. De Simone, D. Mundici, and M. Navara, A Cantor-Bernstein theorem for σcomplete MV-algebras, Czechoslovak Math. J. 53 (2003), 437–447. [10] A. De Simone, M. Navara, and P. Pt´k, On interval homogeneous orthomodular a lattices, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae 42 (2001), 23–30. [11] A. Di Nola, G. Georgescu, and A. Iorgulescu, Pseudo-BL algebras: Part I, II, Mult.-Valued Log. 8 (2002), 673–714, 717–750. [12] J. Duda, Arithmeticality at 0, Czechoslovak Math. J. 37 (1987), 197–206. [13] A. Dvureˇenskij, States on pseudo MV-algebras, Stud. Log. 68 (2001), 301–327. c [14] , Pseudo MV-algebras are intervals in -groups, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 70 (2002), 427–445.

[15] A. Dvureˇenskij, Central elements and Cantor-Bernstein’s theorem for pseudoc eﬀect algebras, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 74 (2003), 121–143. 86

Pulmannov´. 153–184. [23] I. Berlin. Dvureˇenskij and S. . G. 6 (2001). Publ. London. Algebras in the positive cone of po-groups. a 38–43.. pp. 609–621. 217230. Every BCK-algebras is a set of residuables in an integral pomonoid. World Scientiﬁc. Partially Ordered Groups. General Lattice Theory. 2001. Gerla. Order 19 (2000). 2001. Pseudo-BCK algebras: An extension of BCK algebras. a a 1998. 495–501. J. Di Nola and G. Glass. 89–111. Vetterlein. Rach˚nek. Soc. 360–365. o Czechoslovak Math. New Trends in Quantum Structures. Goodearl. Dordrecht–Boston–London. Dedekind complete commutative BCKc algebras. W. Freytes.-Val. [18] A. J.. Georgescu. 95–135. [30] K. Preoteasa. [26] G. Pseudo-MV algebras. Dvureˇenskij and J. Soft Comput. Semigroup Forum 72 (2006). 191–206. Springer. [20] . 125–144. Georgescu and A. Pseudo-hoops. Singapore–New Jersey–London–Hong Kong. pp. Georgescu. An algebraic version of the Canton-Bernstein-Schr¨der theorem. Dordrecht. Publ. [29] A. Leu¸tean. 1999. [21] A. L. Kluwer c a Acad. DMTCS’01: Combinatorics. 8 (2003). Generalized pseudo-eﬀect algebras.). [27] . 97–114.BIBLIOGRAPHY 87 [16] A. Mult. 54 (2004).. Mult. Amer. 23–41. Gr¨tzer. Lectures on c Soft Computing and Fuzzy Logic (A. s Soft Comput. 1998. a [33] P. Birkh¨user. [22] . 1986. M. On Rieˇan and Bosbach states on bounded c u c noncommutative R -monoids. Fleischer. R. Iorgulescu. Dvureˇenskij and M. Partially Ordered Abelian Groups with Interpolation. [17] A. Log. [24] H. Probabilistic averaging in bounded R -monoids. Every linear pseudo BL-algebras admits a state. 2000. Algebra 119 (1988). Computability and Logic. Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic. Rhode Island. and V. Slovaca 56 (2006). Kluwer Acad. J. H´jek. Math. 2nd ed. eds. Basel–Boston–Berlin. [25] G. Proc. Soft Comput. [28] G. [31] G. Dvureˇenskij. Graziano. c 11 (2007). 11 (2005). Dvureˇenskij and T.. Providence. Bosbach states on fuzzy structures. Observations on non-commutative fuzzy logic. 8 (2004). H´jek. Math. 127–146. Order 19 (2002). [19] A. [32] P.-Valued Log. Soft Comput.

to ap- . Czechoslovak Math. Log. Soft Comput.Part I. . Ordered Algebraic Structures (J. Representable pseudo-BCK-algebras and integral residuated lattices. Algebra 16 (2005). [41] [42] [43] [44] .. A survey of residuated lattices. Sci. J. Math. Cantor-Bernstein theorem for pseudo-BCK-algebras. 71–130. Tatra Mt. e Japonica 23 (1978). Direct product decompositions of pseudo MV-algebras. [49] [50] [51] . [35] R. Deductive systems and annihilators of pseudo-BCK-algebras. 399–411. Martinez. Japon. J. Publ. Japan Acad. [36] A. . submitted. Publ. c 48 (2002). Algebra Univers. 12 (2006). ed. Tanaka. Math. Commutative pseudo BCK-algebras. [47] J. [46] P. J. 53 (2003). On pseudo-BCK algebras and porims. A theorem of Cantor-Bernstein type for orthogonally σ-complete pseudo MV-algebras. 26–29. 139–144. 517–526. s u submitted. u [48] pear. 10 (2004). An algebra related with a propositional calculus. 91–103. Proc. Classes of pseudo-BCK algebras . Halaˇ. 22 (2001). Dordrecht. Czechoslovak Math. Math. 19–56. Pseudo BCK-algebras and residuated lattices. [45] G. On orthogonally σ-complete lattice ordered groups. Jenˇa. Arch. Math. Pseudo BCK-semilattices. 49 (1999). Jipsen and C. . Demonstr. [37] . Math. Mult. Gen. Kluwer Acad. A Cantor-Bernstein type theorem for eﬀect algebras. Is´ki. Tsinakis.. (Brno) 37 (2001). Annihilators in BCK-algebras. . K¨hr. 52 (2002).).. 1001– s 1007. Cantor-Bernstein theorem for MV-algebras. [38] K. 153–162. 1–26. submitted. Nachrichten 65 ık. J. K¨hr. pp. Southeast Asian Bull. 42 e (1966). Math.-Val. Jakub´ Conditionally orthogonally complete -groups. . [40] J. . An introduction to the theory of BCK-algebras. Is´ki and S. to appear. (1975). 2002. Math. [39] K. Halaˇ and J. Iorgulescu.BIBLIOGRAPHY 88 [34] R. 881–888. 293–305. Czechoslovak Math. 131–142. Contrib.

Sem. Y. Arch. 247–270. Algebra Univers. Pseudo-BCK algebras and PD-posets. S. Bounded dually residuated lattice ordered monoids as u a a generalization of fuzzy structures. c [64] B. 749–751. Int. 869–909. [54] J. 5 (1977). On the probability on BL-algebras. The class of commutative BCK-algebras is equationally deﬁnable. Liu. Amsterdam. Snodgrass and C. [61] J. 425–445. Mundici. [57] D. Stud. 3 (1973). Symb. 1]-valued algeu braic logic. Ono and Y. Leu¸tean. Log. Notes Kobe Univ. [63] B. Logics without the contradiction rule. J. 83 (2006). Rach˚nek and V. to appear. Math. Japon. n 8 (1980). Nitra 4 (2000). The ﬁnite basis theorem for relatively normal lattices. [58] H. Komori. BCK-algebras do not form a variety. 2002. [69] A. Liu. 91–101. Log. Int. [67] C. [68] . 40–67. Reasoning. van Alten. J. Slovaca 56 (2006). 52 (2002). J. A non-commutative generalization of MV-algebras. Math. 55 (1995). De Finetti theorem and Borel states in [0. pp. Representable biresiduated lattices. T. 672– 691. Acta Math. [59] M. Tsinakis. Rieˇan. ed. Math. K¨hr. [65] J. Algebra Univers. . Math. Non-commutative Lukasiewicz propositional logic. Czechoslovak u Math. 191–213. Slez´k. Seminar Notes Kobe Univ. Approx. 10 (1982). Rieˇan and D. J. Seminar Notes Kobe Univ. Pap. 137–144. Xu. J. Averaging the truth value in lukasiewicz sentential logic.). to appear. Math. Mundici and J. 50 (1985). Some remarks on BCK-algebras. [70] H. Mundici. On varieties of biresiduation algebras. 113–127. 169–201. 211– n 213. Stud. 33 (1995). 311–318. [66] . Finite-valued algebraic lattices. J. Soft Comput. Math. Rach˚nek. Algebra 247 (2002). 11 (2007). Probability on MV-algebras. [56] . 30 (1993). 255–273. Handbook of Measure c Theory (E. 223–233. 3–13. North-Holland. 28 (1983). [55] D. 469–480. and Y. Reasoning. [53] Y. [60] . Algebra Univers. Logic s 45 (2005). Log. Yutani. Martinez. Archimedean lattices. An embedding theorem for BCK-algebras. Palasi´ski. Bookmaking over inﬁnite-valued events. Approx.BIBLIOGRAPHY 89 [52] I. Wro´ski. L. [62] J.

17 x n y. 40 [c]Θ . 44 ∂e S(A). 55 P(A). 27 C(X). 27 Ker(s). 55 a/K. 17 Dc (X). 42 Com(DS(A)). 44 ρa (x). 27 D. 57 O(X). 22 X l . 47 a∼ . 78 a− .List of symbols D(X). y). 18 X ⊕ X δ . 21 D . E . 24 DS c (A). 17 90 . 27 S(A). 17 λa (x). 81 X δ . 44 Com(L). 20 M(A). 49 Reg(A). 26 a b. 27 ΘK . 47 x →n y. 44 MM V (A). 24 Γ(X). 20 X r . 39 DS(A). 62 U (x.

22 left. 6 pseudo-BCK-semilattice. 56 compatible deductive system. 78 pseudo-MV-algebra. 4 pseudo-BCK-join-semilattice. 65 Dedekind σ-complete. 21 relative cancellation property. 40 porim. 16 generated by a set. 73 with the condition (A). 29. 24 generated by a set. 6 good. 50 relative annihilator. 3 bounded. 33 with the condition (P). 60 pseudo-LBCK-algebra. 12 pseudo-BCK-meet-semilattice. 25 Rieˇan state. 17 direct factor.Index additive measure. 61 c . 30 representable. 6 pseudo-BCK-lattice. 2 archimedean. 1. 46 relatively normal. 20 BCK-algebra associated to a poset. 2 GPE-algebra. 23 principal. 27 congruence kernel. 74 integral residuated lattice. 79 relatively subdirectly irreducible. 81 equivalent quasivariety semantics. 76 Dedekind complete. 42 pairwise orthogonal set. 12 biresiduation algebra. 42 kernel of a state. 79 deductive system. 3 commutative. 48 coherent mapping. 3 commutative. 1. 3 orthogonally σ-complete. 4 I RN . 65 BCK-logic. 49 lattice archimedean. 45 pseudo-BCK-algebra. 80 direct sum. 17 prime. 14 GMV-algebra. 4 prime spectrum. 5 Bosbach state. 20 right. 77 left reversed. 70 archimedean. 24 Dedekind completion of pseudo-LBCKalgebra. 77 Dedekind orthogonally complete. 77 polar. 76 Dedekind orthogonally σ-complete. 69 relative congruence. 60 involutive. 61 annihilator. 46 91 hyper-archimedean. 6 pseudo-BCK-logic.

51 variety arithmetical at 1. 45 state. 29 weakly regular. 35 spectral topology. 28 92 .INDEX root-system. 54 state-morphism. 48 extremal.