A homogeneous binary relation is found in the power set of X × X for some set X, while a heterogeneous relation is found in the power set of X × Y, where X ≠ Y. Whether a given relation holds for two individuals is one bit of information, so relations are studied with Boolean arithmetic. Elements of the power set are partially ordered by inclusion, and lattice of these sets becomes an algebra through relative multiplication or composition of relations.
"The basic operations are set-theoretic union, intersection and complementation, the relative multiplication, and conversion."[1]
The conversion refers to the converse relation that always exists, contrary to function theory. A given relation may be represented by a logical matrix; then the converse relation is represented by the transpose matrix. A relation obtained as the composition of two others is then represented by the logical matrix obtained by matrix multiplication using Boolean arithmetic.
Example
An example of calculus of relations arises in erotetics, the theory of questions. In the universe of utterances there are statementsS and questionsQ. There are two relations π and α from Q to S: q α a holds when a is a direct answer to question q. The other relation, qπp holds when p is a presupposition of question q. The converse relation πT runs from S to Q so that the composition πTα is a homogeneous relation on S.[2] The art of putting the right question to elicit a sufficient answer is recognized in Socratic method dialogue.
Functions
The description of the key binary relation properties has been formulated with the calculus of relations. The univalence property of functions describes a relation R that satisfies the formula where I is the identity relation on the range of R. The injective property corresponds to univalence of , or the formula where this time I is the identity on the domain of R.
The facility of complementary relations inspired Augustus De Morgan and Ernst Schröder to introduce equivalences using for the complement of relation R. These equivalences provide alternative formulas for univalent relations (), and total relations ().
Therefore, mappings satisfy the formula Schmidt uses this principle as "slipping below negation from the left".[5] For a mapping f,
Abstraction
The relation algebra structure, based in set theory, was transcended by Tarski with axioms describing it. Then he asked if every algebra satisfying the axioms could be represented by a set relation. The negative answer[6] opened the frontier of abstract algebraic logic.[7][8][9]
The rules of proof are the substitution of equals for equals[clarification needed], and uniform replacement. Modus ponens remains valid, but is seldom employed.
In the table below, the left column contains one or more logical or mathematical systems, and the algebraic structure which are its models are shown on the right in the same row. Some of these structures are either Boolean algebras or proper extensions thereof. Modal and other nonclassical logics are typically modeled by what are called "Boolean algebras with operators."
Algebraic formalisms going beyond first-order logic in at least some respects include:
Algebraic logic is, perhaps, the oldest approach to formal logic, arguably beginning with a number of memoranda Leibniz wrote in the 1680s, some of which were published in the 19th century and translated into English by Clarence Lewis in 1918.[10]: 291–305 But nearly all of Leibniz's known work on algebraic logic was published only in 1903 after Louis Couturat discovered it in Leibniz's Nachlass. Parkinson (1966) and Loemker (1969) translated selections from Couturat's volume into English.
Some writings by Leopold Löwenheim and Thoralf Skolem on algebraic logic appeared after the 1910–13 publication of Principia Mathematica, and Tarski revived interest in relations with his 1941 essay "On the Calculus of Relations".[9]
According to Helena Rasiowa, "The years 1920-40 saw, in particular in the Polish school of logic, researches on non-classical propositional calculi conducted by what is termed the logical matrix method. Since logical matrices are certain abstract algebras, this led to the use of an algebraic method in logic."[17]
Brady (2000) discusses the rich historical connections between algebraic logic and model theory. The founders of model theory, Ernst Schröder and Leopold Loewenheim, were logicians in the algebraic tradition. Alfred Tarski, the founder of set theoretic model theory as a major branch of contemporary mathematical logic, also:
In the practice of the calculus of relations, Jacques Riguet used the algebraic logic to advance useful concepts: he extended the concept of an equivalence relation (on a set) to the heterogeneous case with the notion of a difunctional relation. Riguet also extended ordering to the heterogeneous context by his note that a staircase logical matrix has a complement that is also a staircase, and that the theorem of N. M. Ferrers follows from interpretation of the transpose of a staircase. Riguet generated rectangular relations by taking the outer product of logical vectors; these contribute to the non-enlargeable rectangles of formal concept analysis.
Leibniz had no influence on the rise of algebraic logic because his logical writings were little studied before the Parkinson and Loemker translations. Our present understanding of Leibniz as a logician stems mainly from the work of Wolfgang Lenzen, summarized in Lenzen (2004). To see how present-day work in logic and metaphysics can draw inspiration from, and shed light on, Leibniz's thought, see Zalta (2000).
^Bjarni Jónsson (1984). "Maximal Algebras of Binary Relations". In Kenneth I. Appel; John G. Ratcliffe; Paul E. Schupp (eds.). Contributions to Group Theory. Contemporary Mathematics. Vol. 33. Providence/RI: American Mathematical Society. pp. 299–307. ISBN978-0-8218-5035-0.
^Eugene Freeman (1934) The Categories of Charles Peirce, page 10, Open Court Publishing Company, quote: By retaining the realistic presuppositions of the plain man concerning the genuineness of external reality, Peirce is able to reinforce the precarious defenses of a conventionalistic theory of nature with the powerful armament of common-sense realism.
^G. Schmidt & T. Ströhlein (1993) Relations and Graphs Discrete Mathematics for Computer Scientists, page 54, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science, Springer Verlag, ISBN3-540-56254-0
Czelakowski, Janusz (2003). "Review: Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic by J. Michael Dunn and Gary M. Hardegree". The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 9. Association for Symbolic Logic, Cambridge University Press. ISSN1079-8986. JSTOR3094793.
Lenzen, Wolfgang, 2004, "Leibniz’s Logic" in Gabbay, D., and Woods, J., eds., Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 3: The Rise of Modern Logic from Leibniz to Frege. North-Holland: 1-84.
Parkinson, G.H.R (1966). Leibniz: Logical Papers. Oxford University Press.
Zalta, E. N., 2000, "A (Leibnizian) Theory of Concepts," Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse / Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 3: 137-183.
Further reading
J. Michael Dunn; Gary M. Hardegree (2001). Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-853192-0. Good introduction for readers with prior exposure to non-classical logics but without much background in order theory and/or universal algebra; the book covers these prerequisites at length. This book however has been criticized for poor and sometimes incorrect presentation of AAL results. Review by Janusz Czelakowski
Hajnal Andréka, István Németi and Ildikó Sain (2001). "Algebraic logic". In Dov M. Gabbay, Franz Guenthner (ed.). Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol 2 (2nd ed.). Springer. ISBN978-0-7923-7126-7. Draft.