Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: Boolean algebra

Bottom of Page

1 to 5 of 5

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2012

    Added more material to Boolean algebra, particularly the principle of duality and the connection to Boolean rings, and a wee bit of material on Stone duality.

    Stone duality deserves greater expansion, bringing out the dualities via ambimorphic (ahem, schizophrenic) structures on the 2-element set, and mentioning the connection to Chu spaces. Another day, another dollar.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMar 12th 2012

    You might want to look also at Boolean ring.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2024
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorJ-B Vienney
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2024

    Added that a Boolean algebra can be defined as a cartesian *-autonomous poset.

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorPause706
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    In the article on boolean algebra (and a similar one in complete boolean algebras), the statement "Any lattice homomorphism automatically preserves ¬"
    But that doesn't sound right, how do you know what happens to bottom (0) and top (1) after a lattice homomorphism? It should only preserve it for surjective homos (Lyndon; clearly a v 1 = 1 and a v 0 = a are both positive formulas). A counter example would be the 2 element boolean alg to the square boolean alg mapping top _A to top_B and bottom_A to anything other than the bottom_B. A lattice homo but not an Boolean alg homo and if it doesn't preserve top/bottoms, it clearly can't preserve complements. If lattice homos must preserve top/bottom then it makes more sense but why would that be true? Shouldn't we say bounded lattice homos instead? Perhaps change it to "BoolAlg is a full subcategory of BouLat, the category of bounded lattice with morphisms as the homos in universal algebra" And distributivity clearly follows since homos give "operation properties" for free, then establish uniqueness of complements etc.

    Thanks for reading :)

1 to 5 of 5

  1.