Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:35:41.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE VARIETY OF COSET RELATION ALGEBRAS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2018

STEVEN GIVANT  and
HAJNAL ANDRÉKA
STEVEN GIVANT
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE MILLS COLLEGE 5000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, OAKLAND, CA94613, USAE-mail:[email protected]
HAJNAL ANDRÉKA
Affiliation:
ALFRÉD RÉNYI INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REÁLTANODA UTCA 13-15, BUDAPEST1053, HUNGARYE-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Givant [6] generalized the notion of an atomic pair-dense relation algebra from Maddux [13] by defining the notion of a measurable relation algebra, that is to say, a relation algebra in which the identity element is a sum of atoms that can be measured in the sense that the “size” of each such atom can be defined in an intuitive and reasonable way (within the framework of the first-order theory of relation algebras). In Andréka--Givant [2], a large class of examples of such algebras is constructed from systems of groups, coordinated systems of isomorphisms between quotients of the groups, and systems of cosets that are used to “shift” the operation of relative multiplication. In Givant--Andréka [8], it is shown that the class of these full coset relation algebras is adequate to the task of describing all measurable relation algebras in the sense that every atomic and complete measurable relation algebra is isomorphic to a full coset relation algebra.

Call an algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ a coset relation algebra if $\mathfrak{A}$ is embeddable into some full coset relation algebra. In the present article, it is shown that the class of coset relation algebras is equationally axiomatizable (that is to say, it is a variety), but that no finite set of sentences suffices to axiomatize the class (that is to say, the class is not finitely axiomatizable).

Keywords

03G1503C0503C6003E2020A1503C5208C10relation algebragroupnonrepresentable relation algebracoset relation algebravarietynonfinite axiomatizability
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 83 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 1595 - 1609
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andréka, H. and Givant, S., Functionally dense relation algebras. Algebra Universalis, vol. 68 (2013), pp. 151–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andréka, H. and Givant, S., Coset relation algebras. Algebra Universalis, vol. 79 (2018), pp. 28:1–28:53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andréka, H., Givant, S., and Németi, I., Non-representable relation algebras constructed from groups, manuscript, 2017.Google Scholar
Givant, S., Advanced Topics in Relation Algebras, Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givant, S., Introduction to Relation Algebras, Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givant, S., Relation algebras and groups. Algebra Universalis, vol. 79 (2018), pp. 16:1–16:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givant, S. and Andréka, H., Groups and algebras of binary relations. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, vol. 8 (2002), pp. 38–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givant, S. and Andréka, H., A representation theorem for measurable relation algebras. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, (2018), published online https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2018.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, R. and Hodkinson, I., Relation Algebras by Games, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.Google Scholar
Jónsson, B., The theory of binary relations, Algebraic Logic (Andréka, H., Monk, J. D., and Németi, I., editors), North–Holland, Amsterdam, 1991, pp. 245–290.Google Scholar
Jónsson, B. and Tarski, A., Boolean algebras with operators. Part II. American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 74 (1952), pp. 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyndon, R. C., Relation algebras and projective geometries. Michigan Mathematical Journal, vol. 8 (1961), pp. 21–28.Google Scholar
Maddux, R. D., Pair-dense relation algebras. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 328 (1991), pp. 83–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddux, R. D., Relation Algebras, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2006.Google Scholar
Monk, J. D., On representable relation algebras. The Michigan Mathematical Journal, vol. 11 (1964), pp. 207–210.Google Scholar
Tarski, A., Contributions to the theory of models, II. Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 57 (1954), pp. 582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A., Contributions to the theory of models, III. Indagationes Mathematicae, vol. 58 (1955), pp. 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, A. and Givant, S., A formalization of Set Theory without Variables, American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publications, Providence, RI, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar