International Journal of Theoretical Physics

, Volume 44, Issue 12, pp 2267–2282 | Cite as

Complete Axiomatizations for Quantum Actions

  • A. Baltag
  • S. Smets


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.


dynamic quantum logic quantum frames quantum dynamic algebra quantum transition systems quantales Piron lattices 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Amira, H., Coecke, B., and Stubbe, I. (1998). How quantales emerge by introducing induction within the operational approach. Helvetica Physica Acta 71, 554–572.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Beltrametti, E. G. and Cassinelli, G. (1977). On state transformations induced by yes-no experiments, in the context of quantum logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 6, 369–379.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Coecke, B. and Stubbe, I. (1999). On a duality of quantales emerging from an operational resolution. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38, 3269–3281.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Dalla Chiara, M., Giuntini, R., and Greechie, R. (2004). Reasoning in Quantum Theory, Sharp and Unsharp Quantum Logics, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht .zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel, W. (1982). On the non-unitary evolution of quantum systems. Helvetica Physica Acta 55, 330–338.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel, W. (1989). Axiomatic description of irreversible and reversible evolution of a physical system. Helvetica Physica Acta 62, 941–968.MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  13. Faure, C. L.-A., Moore, D. J., and Piron, C. (1995). Deterministic evolutions and schrodinger flows. Helvetica Physica Acta 68, 150–157.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Foulis, D. J. and Randall, C. H. (1971). Lexicographic orthogonality. Journal of Combinatorial Theory 11(2), 157–162.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldblatt, R. (1974). Semantic analysis of orthologic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 3, 19–35.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldblatt, R. (1984). Orthomodularity is not elementary. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 49, 401–404.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardegree, G. M. (1975). Stalnaker conditional and quantum logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 4, 399–421.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Harel, D., Kozen, D., and Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic Logic, MIT-Press, Massachusetts.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Jauch, J. M. (1968). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Jauch, J. M. and Piron, C. (1969). On the structure of quantal proposition systems. Helvetica Physica Acta 42, 842–848.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Keller, H. A. (1980). Ein nichtklassischer hilbertscher Raum. Mathematische Zeitschrift 172, 41–49.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayet, R. (1998). Some characterizations of the underlying division ring of a Hilbert lattice by automorphisms. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 37(1), 109–114.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Piron, C. (1976). Foundations of Quantum Physics, W.A. Benjamin, Massachusetts.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Smets, S. (2001). On Causation and a counterfactual in quantum logic: The Sasaki hook. Logique et Analyse 173–175, 307–325.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. Smets, S. (2003). In defense of operational quantum logic. Logic and Logical Philosophy 11, 191–212.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Smets, S. (to appear). From intuitionistic logic to dynamic operational quantum logic. Poznan Studies in Philosophy and the Humanities.Google Scholar
  30. Solèr, M. P. (1995). Characterization of Hilbert spaces by orthomodular spaces. Communications in Algebra 23(1), 219–243.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. van Benthem, J. (1996). Exploring Logical Dynamics, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryOxford UniversityOxfordUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium
  3. 3.Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Flanders’ Fund for Scientific Research Post-DocBelgium

Personalised recommendations