🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

1 total messages Started by Matthew Spinks Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00
Pre-BCK-Algebras
#743
Author: Matthew Spinks
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 00:00
82 lines
2975 bytes

Hi All,

Recall that a _BCK-algebra_ is a groupoid <A; *, 0> satisfying:

((x * y) * (x * z)) * (z * y) = 0       (1)
(x * (x * y)) * y = 0                   (2)
x * x = 0                               (3)
0 * x = 0                               (4)
x <= y, y <= x implies x = y            (5)
x <= y if and only if x * y = 0.        (6)

and that such an algebra also satisfies:

(x * y) * z = (x * z) * y.              (7)

Recall too that a BCK-algebra is called _positive implicative_ if
the equality:

(x * z) * (y * z) = (x * y) * z         (8)

holds, _commutative_ if the equality:

x * (x * y) = y * (y * x)               (9)

holds, and _implicative_ if the equality:

x * (y * x) = x                        (10)

holds.

Cornish has previously considered the class of _pre-BCK-algebras_.
These are groupoids <A; *, 0> such that (1)--(4) holds, but (5) fails.
Clearly pre-BCK-algebras form a variety.

Example 1.   Let <A; \, 0> be an algebra with a zero 0 and a binary
operation \ defined by:

a \ b = a if b = 0
        0 otherwise

for any a, b in A.   Then <A; \, 0> satisfies (1), (2), (3) and (4),
but not (5).   Thus <A; \, 0> is a pre-BCK-algebra.

Consider now the variety V of type <2, 0> defined by the following
equations:

(x * y) * z = (x * z) * y               (7)
(x * z) * (y * z) = (x * y) * z         (8)
x * (y * x) = x                        (10)
x * x = 0.                             (11)

It can be shown that V satisfies (1), (2), (3) and (4), but not (5).
Thus V is a class of pre-BCK-algebras.   The following BCK-algebra
identities also hold in V:

(x * y) * x = 0                        (12)
x * 0 = x                              (13)
0 * x = 0                              (14)
x * y = (x * y) * y                    (15)
x * (x * (x * y)) = x * y.             (16)

It is not difficult to show that (9) fails to hold in V; if (9) holds,
then V collapses to the variety of implicative BCK-algebras.

Some questions.   Has this class of algebras been investigated before?
If so, what are they called, and what is a pointer to the literature?

Comments?

Thanks,

- Matthew.

--
Matthew Spinks      |
PhD grad. slave     | 'I bet the human brain is a kludge.'
GSCIT Research Ctr. |
Monash University   | - Marvin Minsky
Churchill, Victoria |
Australia           |
Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads