LukasiewiczMoisil ManyValued Logic Algebra of HighlyComplex Systems vs the Qlogics of Quantum Automata and Chryssippian Logic
LukasiewiczMoisil ManyValued Logic Algebra of HighlyComplex Systems vs the Qlogics of Quantum Automata and Chryssippian Logic
ŁukasiewiczMoisil ManyValued Logic Algebra of HighlyComplex Systems vs the Qlogics of Quantum Automata and Chryssippian Logic
Oct 19th, 2010
I. C. Baianu, G. Georgescu and J. F. Glazebrook
I. C. Baianu]ibaianu@illinois.edu
G. Georgescu]georgescu@funinf.cs.unibuc.ro
J. F. Glazebrook]jfglazebrook@eiu.edu
Keywords:LM–algebraic logic, LM–logic algebras^{}, algebraic category^{} of LMlogic algebras^{}, fundamental theorems of LMlogic algebra, centered n–Łukasiewicz algebras, categories^{} of n–Łukasiewicz logic algebras, categories of Boolean logic algebras, Adjointness theorem^{}, manyvalued logics of highly complex systems and Categorical Ontology, nonlinear genetic networks, nonlinear dynamics, Epigenomics, Cellular Interactomics, Immunology and hormonal regulatory systems, category theory^{}, functors^{} and natural transformations, toposes and Heyting logic algebras, quantum automata categories, limits and colimits^{}, quantum automata homomorphisms^{}, Abelian category^{}, bicomplete categories, Quantum Relational Biology, generalised metabolicreplication $\mathrm{(}M\mathrm{,}R\mathrm{)}$–systems, complex bionetworks, quantum logic, noncommutative lattices, Hilbert space^{}, quantum computers^{}, computability of complex biological systems, Cartesian closed categories, extended quantum topos, category of groupoids^{}, dynamic realisations of generalised $\mathrm{(}M\mathrm{,}R\mathrm{)}$systems (GMRs), category of GMRs, compact subsystems of GMRs, direct sums^{}, fundamental groupoid^{} of a dynamic state space^{}, Hopf algebra^{}, quantum groups^{}, bialgebra^{}, quantum groupoids^{}, weak Hopf algebra, YangBaxter equations, Homotopy theory, homotopy category, ncategories, Higher Dimensional Algebra.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: OG320, OG330, 03G30 (Algebraic logic:: Categorical logic, topoi), 03G20 (Algebraic logic:: Lukasiewicz algebras), 03G12 (Quantum logic), 93A30 (Systems theory; control :: General :: Mathematical modeling ), 18A15 (Category theory; General theory of categories and functors : Foundations, relations^{} to logic), 18A40 (Category theory: General theory of categories and functors:: Adjoint functors^{} ), 93B15 (Systems theory; control:: Realizations from inputoutput data), 92D10 (Genetics and population dynamics::Genetics), 18B40 (Category theory: Special categories :: Groupoids^{}, semigroupoids, semigroups^{}, groups), 18G55 (Category theory;Homotopical algebra), 55U40 (Algebraic topology: Applied category theory:: Foundations of homotopy theory), 55U35 (Algebraic topology:: Applied category theory :: Abstract and axiomatic homotopy theory).
1. Introduction
Long before Boole, Chrysippus of Soli (Ancient Greek: Chrysippos ho Soleus; c. 279–206 BC) – who was a Greek Stoic philosopher– introduced the idea of a twovalue logic, now called Boolean. It is the operational logic of everyday computing and Hilbert’s theory of Logical Predicates^{} or Symbolic Logic. The first system of multiplevalued logic was introduced by Jan Łukasiewicz in 1920, and independently, by E. Post who also introduced in 1921 a different multiplevalued logic that carries his name. Subsequently, in 1930’s Łukasiewicz and Tarski studied a logic with truth values in the continuous^{} interval $[0,1]$ of real numbers. However, an algebraic formulation of manyvalued (MV) logic was missing until its introduction by Acad. Grigore C. Moisil who defined the 3valued and 4valued Łukasiewicz algebras in 1940 [31], and the $n$valued Łukasiewicz algebras ($n>2$) in 1942. Boolean algebras^{}, that are defined as algebraic models of classical, or chryssipianBoolean logic, are then only particular cases of the new structures^{}. of MVlogic. In the description of a logical system, the implication^{} was traditionally the principal connector. The nvalent system of Łukasiewicz had as truth values the elements of a certain set ${L}_{n}$ and was built around a new concept^{} of implication, on which are based the definitions of the other connectors. On the other hand for Moisil and modern mathematical logicians, the basic structure is that of a lattice^{}, to which he added a negation^{} (thus generating the socalled ”De Morgan algebra”) together with certain unary operations (that were called by Moisil “chryssipian endomorphisms^{}”), that represent the “nuancing”, or nuances of MVlogic. Therefore, the fundamental concept of Moisil logic is that of nuancing.The Łukasiewicz implication has then taken secondary place, and– in the case of an arbitrary valence– was completely left out. lt is henceforth appropriate to refer to such $MV$algebras as ŁukasiewiczMoisil algebras or $LM$ logic algebras. The logic corresponding to $n$valued ŁukasiewiczMoisil algebras was published by Moisil in 1964 [35].
A characterization^{} of the category of $LM$ logic algebras was published by Georgescu and Vraciu in 1970 [15]. A more detailed account of $LM$–logic algebras than the early work reported in [15] was recently published in refs.[1] and [16], with the latter paper also including a comparison among several MVlogics such as the Post logic, as well as the relevance of MVlogics to Complex Systems Biology (CSB), highlycomplex systems, fuzzy structures, the MVlogic foundations of Probability Theory and Biostatistics.
Interestingly, Acad. Moisil also considered the applications of LMlogic algebras to switching circuits, new designs of automata and computers based on LMlogic algebras [32][33], [37][39]; his early results in the latter fields are also pertinent to this article. An alternative approach is provided by the formalism of variable categories [40] that would allow in principle the construction of artificial intelligence systems with varying transition functions which would exhibit adaptive, learning behaviors. We are taking further these previous results and ideas through a comparison of LMlogic algebra categories– and their appications to representations of functional^{} genomes and genetic networks–with the operational Q–logic algebras of categories of both quantum automata and quantum supercomputers that may result in a deeper understanding of highlycomplex systems and also in improved design, biomimetic strategies for artificial intelligent meta–systems.
2. Algebraic Logic, Operational and Łukasiewicz Quantum Logic
As pointed out by Birkhoff and von Neumann as early as 1936, a logical foundation of quantum mechanics consistent with quantum algebra is essential for both the completeness and mathematical validity of the theory. The development of Quantum Mechanics from its very beginnings both inspired and required the consideration of specialized logics that are designed to be compatible with a new theory of measurements applicable to microphysical systems. Such a specialized logic was initially formulated by Birkhoff and von Neumann in 1936, and called ‘Quantum Logic’ or Qlogic (QL). However, in recent QL research several distinct approaches were developed involving several types of nondistributive lattice, and their corresponding algebras, for $n$–valued quantum logics. Thus, modifications of the Łukasiewicz, and indeed of ŁukasiewiczMoisil (LM) logic algebras, that were introduced in the context of algebraic categories [14] by Georgescu and Popescu [15] (also recently reviewed and expanded by Georgescu [16]) can provide an appropriate framework for representing quantum systems; alternatively, in their unmodified form, such LMlogic algebras were found to be instrumental in describing, or formally representing, the activities of complex networks in categories of such LMlogic algebras [6].
There is, nevertheless, a serious problem remaining in the recent Qlogic literature which is caused by the logical inconsistency between any quantum algebra and the Heyting logic algebra that has been seriously suggested as a candidate for quantum logic. Furthermore, quantum algebra and topological approaches that are ultimately based on settheoretical concepts and differentiable spaces (manifolds) also encounter serious problems of internal inconsistency. Since it has been shown that standard set theory^{}– which is subject to the axiom of choice^{}– relies on Boolean logic, there appears to exist a basic logical inconsistency between the quantum logic–which is not Boolean–and the Boolean logic underlying all differentiable manifold approaches that rely on continuous spaces of points, or certain specialized sets of elements. A possible solution to such inconsistencies is the definition of a generalized Topos concept, and more specifically, of an Extended Quantum Topos (EQT) concept which is consistent with both Qlogic and Quantum logic algebras, thus being potentially suitable for the development of a framework that may unify quantum field theories with ultracomplex system modeling and Complex Systems Biology (CSB).
3. Lattices and Von NeumannBirkhoff (VNB) Quantum Logic: Definition and Some Logical Properties
We commence here by giving the setbased definition of a lattice. An s–lattice $\mathbf{L}$, or a ‘setbased’ lattice, is defined as a partially ordered set^{} that has all binary products^{} (defined by the $s$–lattice operation^{} “ $\bigwedge $”) and coproducts (defined by the $s$–lattice operation “$\bigvee $ ”), with the ”partial ordering” between two elements X and Y belonging to the $s$–lattice being written as “$X\u2aafY$”. The partial order defined by $\u2aaf$ holds in L as $X\u2aafY$ if and only if $X=X\bigwedge Y$ (or equivalently, $Y=X\bigvee Y$ Eq.(3.1).
A lattice can also be defined as a category (see for example, ref.[9]) subject to all ETAC axioms, (but not subject, in general, to the Axiom of Choice usually encountered with sets relying on (distributive) Boolean Logic), that has all binary products and all binary coproducts, as well as the following ’partial ordering’ properties:
As an example, let us consider the logical structure formed with all truth ’nuances’ or assertions of the type $$ system $A$ is excitable to the $i$th level and system $B$ is excitable to the $j$th level $\gg $ that defines a special type of lattice which is subject to the axioms introduced by Georgescu and Vraciu [15], thus becoming a $n$valued ŁukasiewiczMoisil, or LMAlgebra. Further algebraic and logic details are provided in refs.[16] and [9]. Such a logical structure is usually associated with the functioning of a neural network, either natural in an organism or artificial as in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. However, it can also be found in vivo in functional genomes of various organisms.
In order to have the $n$valued ŁukasiewiczMoisil logic (LML) algebra represent correctly the basic behavior of quantum systems [3], [17],[24],[44] –which is usually observed through measurements that involve a quantum system interactions with a macroscopic measuring instrument– several of these axioms have to be significantly changed so that the resulting lattice becomes nondistributive and also (possibly) nonassociative. Several encouraging results in this direction were recently obtained by Dala Chiara and coworkers. With an appropriately defined quantum logic of events one can proceed to define Hilbert, or ‘nuclear’/Frechet, spaces in order to be able to utilize the ‘standard’ procedures of quantum theories^{} [17], [24].
On the other hand, for classical systems, modeling with the unmodified Łukasiewicz logic algebra can also include both stochastic and fuzzy behaviors. For examples of such models the reader is referred to a previous report [6] where the activities of complex genetic networks are considered from a classical standpoint. One can also define as in [8] the ‘centers’ of certain types of Łukasiewicz $n$logic algebras; then one has the following important theorem for such centered Łukasiewicz $n$logic algebras which actually defines an equivalence relation^{}.
Theorem 3.1.
The Logic Adjointness Theorem (Georgescu and Vraciu (1970) in ref.[15]. There exists an Adjointness between the Category of Centered Łukasiewicz $n$Logic Algebras, CLuk–$\mathrm{n}$, and the Category of Boolean Logic Algebras (Bl).
Remark 3.1.
The logic adjointness relation between CLuk–$n$ and Bl is naturally defined by the left and right adjoint functors between these two categories of logic algebras.
Remark 3.2.
The natural equivalence logic classes defined by the adjointness relationships in the above Adjointness Theorem define a fundamental, ‘logical groupoid’ structure.
Remark 3.3.
In order to adapt the standard ŁukasiewiczMoisil logic algebra to the appropriate Quantum ŁukasiewiczMoisil logic algebra, $LQL$, a few axioms of LMalgebra need modifications, such as : $N(N(X))=Y\ne X$ (instead of the restrictive identity^{} $N(N(X))=X$, whenever the context, ‘reference frame for the measurements’, or ‘measurement preparation’ interaction conditions for quantum systems are incompatible with the standard ‘negation’ operation $N$ of the ŁukasiewiczMoisil logic algebra; the latter remains however valid for classical or semi–classical systems, such as various complex networks with $n$states (cf.[6]– [7]). Further algebraic and conceptual details were provided in a rigorous review by George Georgescu [16], and also in [6] as well as in recently published reports [10], [41].
4. Quantum Automata and Quantum Computation
Quantum computation and quantum ‘machines’ (or nanobots) were much publicized in the early 1980’s by Richard Feynman (Nobel Laureate in Physics for his approach to Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED), and subsequently a very large number of papers were published on this topic by a rapidly growing number of quantum theoreticians and some applied mathematicians. Two such specific definitions of QAs are briefly considered next.
Quantum automata were defined in refs. [2] and [3] as generalized, probabilistic automata with quantum state spaces^{}. Their nextstate functions operate through transitions between quantum states defined by the quantum equations of motions in the Schrödinger representation, with both initial and boundary conditions in spacetime. Such quantum automata are here renamed as Squantum automata.
Definition 1. One obtains a simple, formal definition of Squantum automaton by considering instead of the transition function of a classical sequential machine, the (quantum) transitions in a finite quantum system with definite probabilities determined by quantum dynamics. The quantum state space of a quantum automaton is thus defined as a quantum groupoid over a bundle of Hilbert spaces, or over rigged Hilbert spaces^{}.
Formally, whereas a sequential machine, or state machine with state space S, input set I and output set O, is defined as a quintuple: $(S,I,O,\delta :S\times S\to S,\lambda :S\times I\to O)$, an S quantum automaton is defined by a triple $(\text{H},\mathrm{\Delta}:\text{H}\to \text{H},\mu )$, where H is either a Hilbert space or a rigged Hilbert space of quantum states and operators acting on H, and $\mu $ is a measure related to the quantum logic, LM, and (quantum) transition probabilities of this quantum system.
Two new theorems are also noted in this context (albeit stated here without proof):
Theorem 4.1.
Bicompleteness Theorem. The category of Squantum automata and Squantum automata homomorphisms has both limits and colimits.
Theorem 4.2.
Classical Embedding^{} Theorem. The category of classical, finite automata is a subcategory^{} of the category of Squantum automata.
Therefore, both categories of Squantum automata and classical automata (sequential machines) are bicomplete as Theorem 3 states that the standard automata category, ${C}_{SA}$, is a subcategory of the Squantum automata category, ${C}_{QA}$, or in shorthand notation: ${C}_{SA}\prec {C}_{QA}$.
Remark 4.1.
Quantum computation becomes possible only when macroscopic blocks of quantum states can be controlled via quantum preparation and subsequent, classical observation. Obstructions to actually building, or constructing quantum computers are known to exist in dimensions^{} greater than $2$ as a result of the standard
KS theorem. Subsequent definitions of quantum computers reflect attempts to either avoid or surmount such difficulties often without seeking solutions through quantum operator algebras^{} and their representations related to extended quantum symmetries which define fundamental invariants that are key to actual constructions of this type of quantum computers.
Defining a quantum automaton as an object of a Quantum Algebraic Topology (QAT) theory requires the concept of quantum groupoid (or of a weak Hopf algebra) which is defined as follows.
Definition 2 Quantum groupoids, ${Q}_{Gd}$’ s, are currently defined either as quantized, locally compact groupoids^{} endowed with a left Haar measure system, $(Gd,\mu )$, or as weak Hopf algebras (WHA). This concept can also be considered as an extension^{} of the notion of quantum group, which is sometimes represented by a Hopf algebra, $\U0001d5a7$.
The concept of Hopf algebra, or ‘quantum group’, will be introduced next in three steps.
Definition 3. Firstly, an unital associative algebra consists of a linear space $A$ together with two linear maps
$$m:A\otimes A\to A(\mathrm{multiplication}),\eta :\mathbf{C}\to A(\mathrm{unity}),$$ 
satisfying the conditions:
$$m(m\otimes \mathrm{\U0001d7cf})=m(\mathrm{\U0001d7cf}\otimes m),$$ 
and
$$m(\mathrm{\U0001d7cf}\otimes \eta )=m(\eta \otimes \mathrm{\U0001d7cf})=\mathrm{id}.$$ 
Next let us consider ‘reversing the arrows’, and take an algebra $A$ equipped with a linear homorphisms $\mathrm{\Delta}:A\to A\otimes A$, satisfying, for $a,b\in A$:
$$\mathrm{\Delta}(ab)=\mathrm{\Delta}(a)\mathrm{\Delta}(b)$$ 
,
$$(\mathrm{\Delta}\otimes \mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta}=(\mathrm{id}\otimes \mathrm{\Delta})\mathrm{\Delta}.$$ 
We call $\mathrm{\Delta}$ a comultiplication, which is said to be coassociative. There is also a counterpart to $\eta $, the counity map $\u03f5:A\to \text{\mathbf{C}}$ satisfying
(4.1)  $$(\mathrm{id}\otimes \u03f5)\circ \mathrm{\Delta}=(\u03f5\otimes \mathrm{id})\circ \mathrm{\Delta}=\mathrm{id}.$$ 
Definition 4. A bialgebra $(A,m,\mathrm{\Delta},\eta ,\u03f5)$ is defined as a linear space $A$ with maps $m$, $\mathrm{\Delta}$, $\eta $, $\u03f5$ satisfying the above properties.
Now, in order to recover anything resembling a group structure, one must append such a bialgebra with an antihomomorphism^{} $S:A\to A$, satisfying
(4.2)  $$S(ab)=S(b)S(a),$$ 
for $a,b\in A$. This map is defined implicitly via the property:
(4.3)  $$m(S\otimes \mathrm{id}\circ \mathrm{\Delta})=m(\mathrm{id}\otimes S)\circ \mathrm{\Delta}=\eta \circ \u03f5$$ 
We call $S$ the antipode map.
Definition 5. A Hopf algebra is then defined as a bialgebra $(A,m,\eta ,\mathrm{\Delta},\u03f5)$ equipped with an antipode map $S$.
Commutative^{} and noncommutative Hopf algebras form the backbone of quantum groups [17],[23], [24], and are thus essential to the generalizations^{} of symmetry^{}. Indeed, in most respects a quantum group is identifiable with a Hopf algebra. When such algebras are actually associated with proper groups of matrices there is considerable scope for their representations on both finite and infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces.
Alternatively, as defined in refs.[17],[23] quantum groupoids can be regarded simply as weak Hopf algebras. Algebroid symmetries, on the other hand, figure prominently both in the theory of dynamical deformations of quantum ‘groups’ (e.g., Hopf algebras) and the quantum Yang–Baxter equations.
Definition 6. In order to define a weak Hopf algebra, one can relax certain axioms of a Hopf algebra as follows:

(1)
The comultiplication is not necessarily unitpreserving.

(2)
The counit $\u03f5$ is not necessarily a homomorphism of algebras.

(3)
The axioms for the antipode map $S:A\to A$ with respect to the counit are as follows. For all $h\in H$,
(4.4) $$m(\mathrm{id}\otimes S)\mathrm{\Delta}(h)=(\u03f5\otimes \mathrm{id})(\mathrm{\Delta}(1)(h\otimes 1)),$$ (4.5) $$m(S\otimes \mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta}(h)=(\mathrm{id}\otimes \u03f5)((1\otimes h)\mathrm{\Delta}(1)),$$ (4.6) $$S(h)=S({h}_{(1)})S({h}_{(2)})S({h}_{(3)})$$
Several mathematicians substitute the term quantum groupoid for a weak Hopf algebra, although this algebra in itself is not a proper groupoid, but it may have a component group algebra as in certain examples of the quantum double; nevertheless, weak Hopf algebras generalise Hopf algebras that, with additional properties, were previously introduced as‘ quantum groups’ by mathematical physicists.
Note, however, that the requirement of local compactness for quantum groupoids, as well as that of the existence of a left Haar measure system, is not generally considered for quantum groups. Quantum groupoid representations can thus define extended quantum symmetries beyond the ‘Standard Model’ (SUSY) in Mathematical Physics or Noncommutative Geometry^{}.
Definition 7. An algebraic quantum automaton, or $A$quantum automaton can now be defined as a quantum algebraic topology object– the triplet
(4.7)  $${Q}_{A}=({G}_{d},H{R}_{{G}_{d}},\text{Aut}(G)),$$ 
where ${G}_{d}$ is a locally compact quantum groupoid, $H{R}_{{G}_{d}}$ are the unitary representations^{} of ${G}_{d}$ on rigged Hilbert spaces ${R}_{{G}_{d}}$ of quantum states and quantum operators on $H$, and $\text{Aut}({G}_{d})$ is the transformation^{}, or automorphism, groupoid of quantum transitions that represents all flipflop quantum transitions of one qubit each between the permitted quantum states of the quantum automaton.
Remark 4.2.
Other definitions of quantum automata and quantum computations have also been reported that are closely related to recent experimental attempts at constructing quantum computing devices. One can consider next the category of quantum automata.
Definition 8. The category of algebraic quantum automata ${C}_{QA}$ is defined as an algebraic category whose objects are $A$quantum automata defined by triples $(H,\mathrm{\Delta}:H\to H,\mu )$ (where $H$ is either a Hilbert space or a rigged Hilbert space of quantum states and operators acting on $H$, and $\mu $ is a measure related to the quantum logic, $LM$, and (quantum) transition probabilities of this quantum system, and whose morphisms are defined between such triples by homomorphisms of Hilbert spaces, $\mathrm{\Delta}:H\to H$, naturally compatible with the operators $\mathrm{\Delta}$, and by homomorphisms between the associated Haar measure systems.
An alternative definition is also possible based on Quantum Algebraic Topology.
Definition 9. A quantum algebraic topology definition of the category of algebraic quantum automata ${C}_{QA}$ involves the objects specified above in Definition 4 as $A$quantum automaton triples $({Q}_{A})$, and quantum automata homomorphisms defined between such triples; these ${Q}_{A}$ morphisms are defined by groupoid homomorphisms $h:Gd\to G{d}^{*}$ and $\alpha :\text{Aut}(Gd)\to \text{Aut}(G{d}^{*})$, together with unitarity preserving mappings $u$ between unitary representations of $Gd$ on rigged Hilbert spaces (or Hilbert space bundles).
Theorem 4.3.
QuantumAlgebraic Bicompleteness Conjecture. The category of $A$quantum automata and $A$quantum automata homomorphisms has both limits and colimits.
With these definitions we can now turn to the question of how one can apply quantum automata to modelling problems of highly complex systems and Complex Systems Biology.
5. Quantum Automata Applications to Modelling Complex Systems
One finds that the quantum automata category has a faithful representation^{} in the category of generalised $(M,R)$ systems (GMRs) which are open, dynamic bionetworks [6] with defined biological relations that represent physiological functions of primordial(s), single cells and higher organisms. A new category of quantum computers, ${C}_{QC}$, can also be defined in terms of reversible quantum automata with quantum state spaces represented by topological groupoids that admit a local characterization through unique ‘quantum’ Lie algebroids. On the other hand, the category of $n$Łukasiewicz algebras has a subcategory of centered $n$ Łukasiewicz algebras [15] (which can be employed to design and construct subcategories of quantum automata based on $n$Łukasiewicz diagrams of existing VLSI. Furthermore, as shown in ref. [15] the category of centered $n$Łukasiewicz algebras and the category of Boolean algebras are naturally equivalent.
Variable^{} machines with a varying transition function were previously discussed informally by Norbert Wiener as possible models for complex biological systems although how this might be achieved in Biocybernetics has not been specifcally, or mathematically, presented by Wiener. Therefore, let us consider the formal definitions of simple $(M,R)$systems and their generalisations. The simplest $MR$system is a relational model of the primordial organism which is defined by the following categorical sequence (or diagram) of sets and settheoretical mappings: $f:A\to B,\varphi :B\to {\mathrm{Hom}}_{MR}(A,B)$, where $A$ is the set of inputs to the $MR$system, $B$ is the set of its outputs, and $\varphi $ is the ‘repair map’, or $R$component, of the $MR$system which associates to a certain product, or output $b$, the ‘metabolic’ component (such as an enzyme, E, for example) represented by the settheoretical mapping $f$. Then, ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{MR}(A,B)$ is defined as the set of all such metabolic (settheoretical) mappings (occasionally written incorrectly by some authors as $\left\{f\right\}$).
Definition 10. A general $\mathrm{(}M\mathrm{,}R\mathrm{)}$system was defined by Rosen (1958a,b) as the network or graph of the metabolic and repair components of the type specified specified above in the definition of a simple $(M,R)$ system; such components are networked in a complex, abstract ‘organism’ defined by all the abstract relations and connecting maps between the sets specifying all the metabolic and repair components of such a general, abstract model of the biological organism. The mappings between $(M,R)$systems are defined as the the metabolic and repair settheoretical mappings, such as $f$ and $\varphi $ (as specified in the definition of a simple $(M,R)$ system); moreover, there is also a finite number of sets (just like A and B, respectively, the input and output sets, that are present in the definition of a simple $(M,R)$ system): ${A}_{i},{B}_{i}$, where ${f}_{i}\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{M{R}_{i}}({A}_{i},{B}_{i})$ and $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{M{R}_{i}}[B,{\mathrm{Hom}}_{M{R}_{i}}({A}_{i},{B}_{i})]$, with $i\in I$, and $I$ being a finite index set^{}, or directed set^{}, for a a finite number $n$ of distinct metabolic and repair components pairs $({f}_{i},{\varphi}_{i})$. Alternatively, one may think of a general $MR$system as consisting of a finite number $N$ of inter–connected^{} metabolicrepair,$M{R}_{i}$, modules, each one such $M{R}_{i}$ module having the input sets ${A}_{i}$ and output sets ${B}_{i}$, with $i=1,2,\mathrm{\dots},n$ being finite integers. To sum up: a general MRsystem can be defined as a family of $n$ inter–connected quartets: ${\left\{({A}_{i},{B}_{i},{f}_{i},{\varphi}_{i})\right\}}_{i\in I}$, where $I$ is an index set of finite integers $i=1,2,\mathrm{\dots},n$.
With these concepts available we can now turn to defining the category of $(M,R)$–systems, ${\text{\mathbf{C}}}_{MR}$.
Definition 11.
A category ${\text{\mathbf{C}}}_{M\mathit{}R}$ of $\mathrm{(}M\mathrm{,}R\mathrm{)}$system quartet modules,
${\left\{({A}_{i},{B}_{i},{f}_{i},{\varphi}_{i})\right\}}_{i\in I}$, with I being an index set of integers $i=1,2,\mathrm{\dots},n$,
is a small category of sets with settheoretical mappings defined by the $(M,R)$morphisms between the quarted modules
${\left\{({A}_{i},{B}_{i},{f}_{i},{\varphi}_{i})\right\}}_{i\in I}$, and also with repair components defined as
${\varphi}_{i}\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{M{R}_{i}}[B,{\mathrm{Hom}}_{M{R}_{i}}({A}_{i},{B}_{i})]$, where the $(M,R)$morphism composition is defined by the usual composition of functions between sets.
With a few, additional notational changes it can be shown that the category of $(M,R)$systems is a subcategory of the category of automata (or sequential machines), ${\mathcal{S}}_{[M,A]}$. Similar conclusions^{} were also reached independently in ref. [22]. Moreover, one has the following important property of the category ${\text{\mathbf{C}}}_{MR}$ of simple $(M,R)$systems.
Theorem 5.1.
$(M,R)$Systems Category Theorem (Baianu, 1973 in ref. [4]. The category ${\text{\mathbf{C}}}_{M\mathit{}R}$ of simple $\mathrm{(}M\mathrm{,}R\mathrm{)}$systems and their homomorphisms is Cartesian closed.
Remark 5.1.
Thus, the category ${\text{\mathbf{C}}}_{MR}$ of simple $(M,R)$systems belongs to the important family of categories that are Cartesian closed, which also includes the category of sequential machines/classic automata and the category of groupoids; therefore, one would be able to develop a homotopy theory of dynamic realisations of $(M,R)$systems [20] based on dynamic realisations in a homotopy category, in a manner broadly similar to the development of the current Homotopy Theory for groupoids [12][13], including concepts such as the fundamental groupoid of a dynamic state space generated by any dynamic realisation of a simple $(M,R)$ system. Such dynamic realisations of $(M,R)$systems can thus lead to higher homotopy and a Higher Dimensional Algebra of extended, or generalised $(M,R)$ systems that are endowed with dynamic, topological structures.
On the other hand, generalised $(M,R)$systems, or GMRs, can be constructed functorially by employing the Yoneda Lemma, as shown in refs.[4][5]; GMRs are no longer restricted to sets, and can be also endowed with structure, such as those possesed by quantum groupoids or quantum automata. It follows then immediately that, unless the structure of GMRs is restricted to that of quantum groupoids or quantum automata, the categories of quantum automata or quantum groupoids can be either isomorphic or equivalent^{} only to a subcategory of the GMR category, ${C}_{GMR}$, and not to the category of all GMRs. A ‘nogo’ conjecture is then here proposed:
Theorem 5.2.
NoGo Conjecture for Recursive Computation of Generalised (M,R)–Systems. The high level of complexity of generalised (M,R)–Systems [5], [20] that represent functional (living) organisms in noncommutative modelling encoding diagrams [6],[10] prevents their complete^{} computability via recursive programming functions or algorithms^{} by either standard or quantum automata which require commutative encoding computation diagrams [9]– [10],[14].
The concepts of quantum automata and quantum computation were initially studied, and are also currently further investigated, in the contexts of quantum genetics, genetic networks with nonlinear dynamics, and bioinformatics. In a previous publication [2]– after introducing the formal concept of quantum automaton–the possible implications of this concept for correctly modeling genetic and metabolic activities in functional (living) cells and organisms were also considered. This was followed by a formal report on quantum and abstract, symbolic computation^{} based on the theory of categories, functors and natural transformations [3]. The notions of topological semigroup, quantum automaton, or quantum computer, were then suggested with a view to their potential applications to the analogous simulation of biological systems, and especially genetic activities and nonlinear dynamics in genetic networks [6]–[7].
Further, detailed studies of nonlinear dynamics in genetic networks were carried out in categories of $n$valued, Łukasiewicz Logic Algebras that showed significant dissimilarities [6] from the widespread Boolean models of human neural networks that may have begun with the early publication of [18]. Molecular models in terms of categories, functors and natural transformations were then formulated for unimolecular chemical transformations, multimolecular chemical and biochemical transformations [7]. Previous applications of computer modeling, classical automata theory, and relational biology to molecular biology, oncogenesis and medicine were extensively reviewed in a monograph [7], and several important conclusions were reached regarding both the potential and the limitations of computationassisted modeling of biological systems, especially those concerned with very complex organisms such as Homo sapiens sapiens [7]– [10]. Computer modeling and recursive computation models are thus often restricted only to compact^{} subsystems (see also the following Compactness Lemma 1) of complex living organisms that are represented by GMRs [4] [5],[7].
Novel approaches to solving the realisation problems of Relational Biology models in Complex Systems Biology were introduced in terms of natural transformations between functors of such molecular categories. Several applications of such natural transformations of functors were then presented to protein biosynthesis, embryogenesis and nuclear transplant experiments. Other possible realisations in Molecular Biology and Relational Biology of organisms were then suggested in terms of quantum automata models in Quantum Genetics and Cellular Interactomics. Future developments of this novel approach are likely to also include: fuzzy relations in Biology and Epigenomics, Relational Biology modeling of complex immunological and hormonal regulatory systems, $n$categories and generalised $L\mathit{}M$–Topoi of Łukasiewicz Logic Algebras and intuitionistic logic^{} (Heyting) algebras for modeling nonlinear dynamics and cognitive processes in complex neural networks that are present in the human brain, as well as stochastic modeling of genetic networks in Łukasiewicz Logic Algebras (LLAs).
A special case of compact subsystems of a GMR representing some component of an organism, such as the skeleton^{}, may however escape the interdiction imposed by the ‘nogo’ Conjecture 2. Such compact objects of a GMR–in the sense of category theory– form either an additive or an Abelian category $\mathcal{A}$ to which the following compactness lemma applies.
Lemma 5.1.
An object $X$ in an Abelian category $\mathrm{A}$ with arbitrary direct sums (also called coproducts) is compact if and only if the functor ${\mathrm{hom}}_{\mathrm{A}}\mathit{}\mathrm{(}X\mathrm{,}\mathrm{}\mathrm{)}$ commutes with arbitrary direct sums, that is, if
(5.1)  $${\mathrm{hom}}_{\mathcal{A}}(X,\underset{\alpha \in S}{\oplus}{Y}_{\alpha})=\underset{\alpha \in S}{\oplus}{\mathrm{hom}}_{\mathcal{A}}(X,{Y}_{\alpha}).$$ 
(Compactness Lemma from ref. [21]).
6. Conclusions
Nondistributive varieties^{} of manyvalued, LMlogic algebras that are also noncommutative open new possibilities for formal treatments of both complex quantum systems and highly complex biological networks, such as genetic nets, metabolicreplication systems (see for example refs. [19]–[20] and [22]), the interactome [6] and neural networks [7]. This novel approach that involves both Algebraic Logic and Category Theory, provides an important framework for understanding the complexity inherent in intelligent systems and their flexible, adaptive behaviors. A consequence of the Logical Adjointness Theorem– which defines categorically the natural equivalence between the category of centered LMlogic algebras and that of Boolean logic algebras– is that one may be able to define Artificial Intelligence analogs of neural networks based on centered LMlogic algebras. In this process, higher dimensional algebra (HDA; [12][13]) and categorical models of human brain dynamics (refs. [8]–[11]) were predicted to play a central role. These new approaches are also relevant for resolving the tugofwar between naturevs.nurture theories of human development and the ‘natural’ emergence through coevolution of intelligence in the first H. sapiens sapiens societies.
References
[1] Georgescu G, Iorgulescu A, Rudeanu S (2006) International Journal of Computers, Communications and Control, vol.1 (1): 81–99
[2] Baianu I C (1971a) Organismic Supercategories^{} and Qualitative Dynamics^{} of Systems. Bull. Math.Biophysics., 33:339353
[3] Baianu I C (1971b) Categories, Functors and Quantum Algebraic Computations. In: Suppes P (ed) Proceed. Fourth Intl. Congress LMPS, September 14, 1971, University of Bucharest
[4] Baianu I C (1973) Some Algebraic Properties of (M,R)Systems in Categories. Bull. Math. Biophysics 35: 213218
[5] Baianu I C and Mircea M. Marinescu (1974) On a Functorial Construction of Generalized (M,R) Systems. Rev.Roum.Math Pur.et Appl. 19:389–392.
[6] Baianu I C (1977) A Logical Model of Genetic Activities in Łukasiewicz Algebras: The Nonlinear Theory. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 39:249–258
[7] Baianu I.C (1987) Computer Models and Automata Theory in Biology and Medicine(A Review). In:M. Witten (ed) Mathematical Models in Medicine. vol.7:.1513–1577. Pergamon Press, New York
[8] Baianu I C, Brown R, and Glazebrook J F (2007a) Categorical ontology of complex spacetime structures: the emergence of life and human consciousness, Axiomathes 17: 223–352.
[9] Baianu I.C, Brown R, and Glazebrook J F (2007b) A conceptual construction of complexity levels theory in spacetime categorical ontology: nonabelian^{} algebraic topology, manyvalued logics and dynamic systems. Axiomathes 17:409–493.
[10] Baianu I.C, Georgescu G, Glazebrook J F, and Brown R (2010) ŁukasiewiczMoisil manyvalued logic algebra of highlycomplex systems. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience (BRAIN). In: Iantovics B, Radoiu D, Maruteri M, and Dehmer, M (eds) Special Issue on Complexity in Sciences and Artificial Intelligence. (ISSN: 20673957) 1:1–11
[11] Brown R, and Porter T (2003) Category theory and higher dimensional algebra: potential descriptive tools in neuroscience. In: Singh N (ed) Proceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical Neurobiology (February 2003). Conference Proceedings vol.1:8092. National Brain Research Centre, Delhi
[12] Brown R (2004) Crossed complexes and homotopy groupoids as non commutative tools for higher dimensional localtoglobal problems. In: Proceedings of the Fields Institute Workshop on Categorical Structures for Descent and Galois Theory, Hopf Algebras and Semiabelian Categories, September 2328, 2004, Fields Institute Communications 43:101–130.
[13] Brown R, Hardie K A, Kamps K H, and Porter T (2002) A homotopy double groupoid^{} of a Hausdorff space. Theory and Applications of Categories 10:7193.
[14] Georgescu G, and Popescu D (1968) On Algebraic Categories. Revue Roumaine de Mathematiques Pures et Appliquées 13:337–342.
[15] Georgescu G, and Vraciu C (1970) On the Characterization of Łukasiewicz Algebras. J. Algebra, 16 (4):486–495.
[16] Georgescu G (2006) Nvalued Logics and Łukasiewicz–Moisil Algebras. Axiomathes 16 (1–2): 123–136.
[17] Landsman N P (1998) Mathematical topics between classical and quantum mechanics. Springer Verlag, New York.
[18] McCullough E, and Pitts M (1945) Bull. Math. Biophys 7:112–145.
[19] Rosen R (1958) The Representation of Biological Systems from the Standpoint of the Theory of Categories. Bull. Math. Biophys., 20, 317341.
[20] Rosen R (1973) On the Dynamical realization of (M,R)Systems. Bull. Math. Biology. 35:1–10.
[21] Popescu, N (1973) Abelian Categories with Applications to Rings and Modules. Academic Press, New York and London, 2nd edn. 1975. (English translation by I.C. Baianu).
[22] Warner M (1982) Representations of (M,R)Systems by Categories of Automata. Bull. Math. Biol. 44: 661668.
[23] Baianu I C, Glazebrook J F, and Brown R.2009. Algebraic Topology Foundations of Supersymmetry and Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Gravity: A Review. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications (SIGMA) 5: 051, 70 pages. arXiv:0904.3644. doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2009.051
[24] Alfsen E M, and Schultz F W (2003) Geometry of State Spaces of Operator Algebras. Birkhäuser, Boston–Basel–Berlin
[25] G M, Roscoe A W, and Wachter R F ( eds) (1991) Topology^{} and Category Theory in Computer Science. Oxford University Press, USA, 498 pp. ISBN10: 0198537603.
[26] Moggi E, and Rosolini G (eds) (1997) Category Theory and Computer Science: 7th International Conference, CTCS’97, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, September 46, 1997, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1290) . ISBN10: 354063455X ; see also the proceedings of the 5th and 6th Conferences in the same series.
[27] Adian S, and Nerode, A (eds) (1997) Logical Foundations of Computer Science., In: Proceedings, vol. 1233. IX.Berlin, Springer Verlag, 431 pages.
[28] Neumann J (2002) Learning the Systematic Transformation of Holographic Reduced Representations.Cognitive Systems Research 3: 227235.
[29]
Paine J (2010) What might Category Theory do for Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science? April 15, popx\@jpaine.org.
http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2010/04/whatmightcate.html
;jsessionid=IY4ULLJKFMHNXQE1GHRSKHWATMY32JVN
[30] Lawvere W F (1994) Tools for the Advancement of Objective Logic: Closed Categories and Toposes. In: Macnamara J, and. Reyes G E (eds) The Logical Foundations of Cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
[31] Moisil Gr C (1940) Recherches sur les logiques nonchrysippiennes. Ann Sci Univ Jassy 26: 431466
[32] Moisil Gr C (1959) Utilization of threevalued logics to the theory of switching circuits. VI. Polarized relays with unstable neutral. VII. Operation of ordinary relays under low selfmaintaining current. VIII. two terminals with contacts and resistances. IX. twoterminals with contacts, valves and resistances. X. Physical interpretation^{} of the characteristic function^{} of a multiterminal (Romanian), Comunic. Acad. R.P. Romane 9: 411–413, 531–532, 533–535, 665–666, and 667–669
[33] Moisil Gr C (1960) Sur les idéaux des algèbres Łukasiewicziennes trivalentes. Analele Univ. C.I. Parhon, Seria Acta Logica 3: 83–95
[34] Moisil Gr C (1964) Sur les logiques de Łukasiewicz à un nombre fini de valeurs. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl. 9: 905920
[35] Moisil Gr C (1965) Old and New Essays on NonClassical Logics. Editura Stiintifica, Bucuresti
[36] Moisil Gr C (1967) “Théorie structurelle des automats finis.”. GauthiersVillars, Paris
[37] Moisil Gr C (1968) Łukasiewicz algebras. Computing Center: University of Bucharest: (preprint–unpublished), pp.311324.
[38] Moisil Gr C (1969) The Algebraic Theory of Switching Circuits (orig. in Romanian). Editura Tehnica Bucuresti. (English translation in1969), Pergamon Press, Oxford and Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti
[39] Moisil Gr C (1972) Essais sur les logiques nonchrysippiennnes. Editura Academiei R.S. Romania, Bucuresti
[40] Janelidze G, Schumacher D and R. Street R (1991) Galois theory in variable categories. Applied Categorical Structures, vol 1, No 1: 103110, DOI: 10.1007/BF00872989.
[41] Mac Lane S, and Moerdijk, I (1992) Sheaves in geometry and logic: A first introduction to topos theory, in Prologue, on p.1. Springer, Berlin
[42] Eytan M (1981) Fuzzy sets and Systems. Elsevier Publs, London and New York
[43] Stout L N (1984) Topoi and categories of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol 12, Issue 2, pp 169–184, Elsevier Publs, London and New York
[44] Baianu I C (2004) Quantum NanoAutomata (QNA): Microphysical Measurements with Microphysical QNA Instruments. CERN Preprint EXT2004125.
[45]
Baianu I C, Glazebrook J F, and Georgescu G (2004) Categories of Quantum Automata and NValued Lukasiewicz Algebras in Relation to Dynamic Bionetworks,
$(M,R)$Systems and Their Higher Dimensional Algebra. Abstract and Preprint of Report:
http://www.medicalupapers.com/quantum+automata+math+categories+baianu/
Title  LukasiewiczMoisil ManyValued Logic Algebra of HighlyComplex Systems vs the Qlogics of Quantum Automata and Chryssippian Logic 

Canonical name  LukasiewiczMoisilManyValuedLogicAlgebraOfHighlyComplexSystemsVsTheQlogicsOfQuantumAutomataAndChryssippianLogic 
Date of creation  20130311 19:54:39 
Last modified on  20130311 19:54:39 
Owner  bci1 (20947) 
Last modified by  (0) 
Numerical id  1 
Author  bci1 (0) 
Entry type  Definition 