Complete Axiomatizations for Quantum Actions
We present two equivalent axiomatizations for a logic of quantum actions: one in terms of quantum transition systems, and the other in terms of quantum dynamic algebras. The main contribution of the paper is conceptual, offering a new view of quantum structures in terms of their underlying logical dynamics. We also prove Representation Theorems, showing these axiomatizations to be complete with respect to the natural Hilbert-space semantics. The advantages of this setting are many: (1) it provides a clear and intuitive dynamic-operational meaning to key postulates (e.g. Orthomodularity, Covering Law); (2) it reduces the complexity of the Solèr–Mayet axiomatization by replacing some of their key higher-order concepts (e.g. “automorphisms of the ortholattice”) by first-order objects (“actions”) in our structure; (3) it provides a link between traditional quantum logic and the needs of quantum computation.
Keywordsdynamic quantum logic quantum frames quantum dynamic algebra quantum transition systems quantales Piron lattices
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Abramsky, S. and Coecke, B. (2004). A categorial semantics of quantum protocols. In Proceedings of the 19th annual IEEE symposium on Logic (LICS) in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 2004. Available at arXiv:quant-ph/0402130.Google Scholar
- Amemiya, I. and Araki, H. (1967). A remark on Piron’s paper. Publications of the Research Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Series A 2, 423–427.Google Scholar
- Baltag, A. and Smets, S. (2004). The logic of quantum programs. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Quantum Programming Languages (QPL2004), TUCS General Publication, P. Selinger, ed., Turku Center for Computer Science, Finland, vol. 33, pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
- Coecke, B. and Smets, S. (to appear). The Sasaki hook is not a [static] implicative connective but induces a backward [in time] dynamic one that assigns causes. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. Available at arXiv: quant-ph/0111076.Google Scholar
- Coecke, B., Moore, D. J., and Smets, S. (2004). Logic of dynamics & dynamics of logic; some paradigm examples. Logic, Epistemology and the Unity of Science, S. Rahman, J. Symons, D. M. Gabbay, and J. P. Van Bendegem, eds., Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Coecke, B., Moore, D. J., and Stubbe, I. (2001). Quantaloids describing causation and propagation for physical properties. Foundations of Physics Letters 14, 357–367. Available at (arXiv: quant-ph/0009100).Google Scholar
- Hardegree, G. M. (1979). The conditional in abstract and concrete quantum logic. The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics, C. A. Hooker, ed., Vol. 2, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Pauli, W. (1980). Handbuch der Physik, Vol. 5, Part 1: Prinzipien der Quantentheorie 1 (1958); English translation by P. Achuthan and K. Venkatsesan: General Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
- Piron, C. (1964). Axiomatique quantique (PhD-Thesis), Helvetica Physica Acta, 37, 439–468, English Translation by M. Cole: “Quantum Axiomatics” RB4 Technical memo 107/106/104, GPO Engineering Department (London).Google Scholar
- Smets, S. (to appear). From intuitionistic logic to dynamic operational quantum logic. Poznan Studies in Philosophy and the Humanities.Google Scholar
- van Benthem, J. (1996). Exploring Logical Dynamics, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar