See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265867268

A proposal for a new approach to Quantum

Logic

Article

CITATIONS READS

0 17

2 authors, including:

Antonino Drago
University of Naples Federico II
70 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

interpretation of analytical mechanics through the two dichotomies. Search of a new formualtion of
quantum mechanics relying on the alternative choices of the Dirac-von Neumann's one A new View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonino Drago on 14 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 A proposal for a new approach to Quantum Logic
Antonino Drago and Antonio Venezia

Group of History of Physics Department of Physical Science University Federico II, Napoli

Abstract

In order to solve the problem of which is the real logic of Quantum Mechanics (QM), we suggest to study the
mutual relationships between the physical theory (as a whole, that is both its experimental part and its theoretical
part), its mathematics and its logic. That results to be a more general problem than what is considered by
traditional studies on Quantum Logic (QL). These studies focus attention on the problem of the relationship
between the experimental part of the physical theory and only its mathematics, from which logic is then derived.
The new approach, that we suggest, generalises the interpretation that one of us (A. D.) successfully tested on the
foundations of classical physical theories. The foundations of a theory are interpreted in terms of two options on
the kind of mathematics, either classical one or constructive one, and the kind of logic, either classical logic or
intuitionistic logic. It is remarkable that each theory making use of intuitionistic logic i. e. L. Carnots classical
mechanics, S. Carnots thermodynamics, Lobacevskijs non-Euclidean geometry - is organised in order to solve
an universal problem (expressed by a double negated sentence), rather than in an entirely deductive way; hence,
a non-classical logic does not belong exclusively to QM. From an historical and foundational analysis about QM,
we conclude that in QM it is the law of double negation - and not modular law (introduced by Birkhoff and von
Neumann without giving physical evidence to it) - which fails, i. e. which represents the true difference between
Classical Logic (CL) and QL. We have looked for previous works on QL supporting our suggestion; in the past
Destouches-Fevrier (1948), Fine (1974), Bell-Hallett (1981), Gauthier (1983), Adelman-Corbett (1995) already
defended this thesis on the relevance of double negation law for QL. Under this light, QL results to have the
same logic of a classical theory organised in a problematic manner. Hence, QM has to be referred to
intuitionistic logic, in the same way every theory which is developed around a fundamental problem, expressed
by a double negated sentence, does. In particular, by following the founder of intuitionism, Brouwer, we reject
the identification of intuitionistic logic with an entirely deductive system; rather, the logical system of QL, as a
theory, is organised in such a way to put a crucial problem to be solved. In agreement with this kind of
organisation, among the several QM formulations we choose Heisenbergs formulation, which was ignored by
previous authors on QL. This formulation is aimed to solve the problem of quantum measurement, that
originates the uncertainty methodological principle. Moreover, it is remarkable that it makes use of an
operational mathematics (discrete matrices only). We interpret its characteristic arguing about its principal
problem through double negated sentences; it results to be a moving from arguments belonging to non-classical
logic - expressed by a double negated sentence - to the recognition of a suitable mathematics for QM
formulation. In sum, QL shows how it is possible to state the relationship between QM and mathematics. This
point has been almost ignored by the most traditional approaches to QL, which rather drew it from an a priori
mathematics of QM (commonly, Hilbert space). As a verification of our approach, we show that even both
Lobachevskijs geometry and S. Carnots thermodynamics argued in order to achieve mathematical formulas
expressing the content of the basic double negated sentences of respective theory. In the same way the recent
book on QM by T. F. Jordan formalised his matrix mechanics.

1. Logic in classical physics and in Quantum Mechanics

An historical analysis of Quantum Mechanics (QM) shows that there were at the origin of the
theory two distinct formulations: Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg, 1925) and Wave Mechanics
(Schroedinger, 1926). Although Dirac subsumed these two formulations in a comprehensive
mathematical framework (Hilbert space), we think that the organisation of the principles is different
in Matrix Mechanics from that in Wave Mechanics, and this difference implies different logics. So
we think that in order to characterise the logic of QM it is necessary to distinguish between this two
formulations.
In Matrix Mechanics, Heisenbergs basic idea was to explain atomic spectra not in terms of atomic
orbits (as Old Quantum Theory tried to make), but only by means of the study of experimental data;
i. e., frequencies and intensities of light both emitted and absorbed by matter. Through a
1
mathematical model of an anarmonic oscillator, Heisenberg realised that - in order to give account
of experimentally observed atomic spectra - multiplications commutative property of two
oscillation amplitudes fails. In this way he formulated in 1925 his uncertainty principle:
"More we determine precisely position [Q of an electron], less momentum [P in same direction] is
precisely known in this instant and viceversa". (H)
Heisenbergs QM formulation is developed around a main operational problem (the measurement of
conjugated variables), with the use of only discrete mathematics (i. e. matrix). For brevitys sake,
we call OP (Problematic Organisation) this kind of formulation, and IP (Potential infinity) this kind
of mathematics.
In Wave Mechanics instead Schroedinger developed deductively quantum theory from his
celebrated equation, which is an axiom-principle. For brevitys sake, we call OA (Aristotelian
Organisation) this kind of formulation. The mathematics of this equation is the traditional
mathematics of differential equations, relying upon a notion of a priori continuum or actual infinity
(IA).
One of us (A. D.) showed [10] that also in classical mechanics there are several theories that are
organised in this two different ways. The most remarkable instances are Newtons mechanics and L.
Carnots mechanics. While Newtons mechanics is based on Classical Logic, L. Carnot formalised
the main problem of his mechanics (p. 49, [4]) by means of doubled negated statements, which are
not equivalent to correspondent affirmative statements, i. e. he used a non-classical logic. The use
of double negation is necessary when a problem cannot be solved by traditional scientific methods;
in this case Carnot suggests a new general method, that he calls synthetic method: because the
main problem is not solvable in an operational way, an auxiliary variable is introduced in order to
define a new and more general system in which the resolution of stated problem is easier; once the
solution is found out, the auxiliary variable is eliminated in order to obtain the solution of the
problem in original system. This way of arguing may be recognised in several more classical
theories.
Table 1: Synthetic method in classical theories.
OP Theory Main problem Auxiliary Operations Suppression of Solution
variables cycle auxil. variables
L. Carnots It is not true that Infinitesimal Yes Higher order Derivative,
calculus infinitesimals are infinitesimals integral
chimerical beings are negligible
L. Carnots Isolated negative Displacement Correlation
geometry quantities are by insensible table
inadmissible degrees
L. Carnots It is not true that Geometrical Spatial Algebraic Mechanical
mechanics there are not motions transformati calculations invariants of
invariant quantities on the motion
Chemistry Matter is not Atomic mass periodicity Periodic table
divisible at infinity increment of elements
S. Carnot It is impossible a Infinitesimal Carnots Cycle without Efficiency
thermodynam perpetual motion adiabats thermodyna adiabats factor
ics mics cycle
Galois theory It is not true that the Addition of Iteration of Resolvant Solvability
eq. of degree >4 is radicals field equation decision
unsolvable extentions
Lobachevskij It is not absurd the Triangles Propositions Coming back to Construction
non hypothesis of two 16-22 of parallel lines of the
Euclidean parallel lines Theory of hyperbolic
geometry parallel parallel line
lines
2
Legenda: The blank in the boxes point out the cases needing more investigation.

The results of analysis on the classical theories of table 1 leads us to propose a new approach to QL;
our main objective is not to define a new non-classical logic for QM, but to recognise a QL as an
intuitionistic logic, based on double negations, likely as the logic exhibited by classical OP theories
in table 1. From previously remembered classical theories we obtain the following suggestions:
1) In a physical theory we can distinguish four parts: (a) constants and variables; (b) experimental
laws; (c) mathematical formalisms (differential equations, symmetries); (d) principles. Logical
problems of an OP physical theory concern point (d) only, concerning both the principles and the
organisation of the theory.
2) Contrarily to most scholars excluding a non-classical logic in classical physics, we take as proved
that in classical physics there are several problem-based theories - as table 1 shows - including a
non-classical logic, since their principles are formulated through a double negated statements. Then,
contrarily to many scholars recognising in QM new logical connectives through analyses on
experimental situations, we will assume that an analysis of OP theorys principles in terms of
double negations is sufficient to both characterise the primitive connectives of this kind of non-
classical logic and to define its syntax, that is suggested to be the intuitionistic one.
3) Our approach contrasts traditional ones, because it rejects the identification of a logic with its
axiomatic. Intuitionistic logic is substantially different from Classical Logic (CL) also because - as
Brouwer (but not Heyting and followers) stressed - it rejects the axiomatic organisation. As a
consequence, intuitionistic logic becomes logic that is organised problematically. Hence, our intent
is not to build QL as an axiomatic, but to characterise its principal aspects in terms of intuitionistic
logic, organised as a system in a problematic way.
4) The most natural choice on mathematics, by a theory making use of a problem-based organised
(OP) logic, is for a mathematics relying upon potential infinity (IP) only; these two choices (OP and
IP) are typical of L. Carnots Model of Scientific Theory (MTS). In quantum theory this same
model is realised by Heisenbergs matrix mechanics, and its relevance is confirmed by its historical
occurring as the first formulation of QM. We remark that our restriction to Heisenbergs
formulation leads us to work outside Hilbert space, that is the traditional framework where almost
all researchers studied QL.
5) According to our experience on classical theories, inside a OP theory - and therefore also in
Heisenbergs QM the passage from double negated principles, belonging to non-classical logic, to
the mathematical part, introducing to a subsequent deductive development of the theory, plays a
crucial role; it is substantiated in the clearest case (S. Carnots thermodynamics) through a
completeness theorem, shown by means of an ad absurdum proof (e. g., in thermodynamics
Carnots theorem is valid for whatever thermal transformation between two thermal sources, and it
is shown by an ad absurdum proof). We will try to find a completeness theorem in the above-
mentioned QM formulation. Instead almost all QL scholars follow a reverse path; they first try to
specify the kind of mathematics at issue (Hilbert subspaces), then they want to recognise a new
logic in terms of algebraic structures (lattices) involved by this mathematics.
6) Usually the mathematical technique of an OP theory belongs to constructive mathematics, and in
the clearest case (L. Carnots mechanics) it is symmetrys technique. Also in QM, in 1928 H. Weyl
[19] and recently T. F. Jordan [15] have proposed this technique. Then QL would have to introduce
the use of transformations groups (till now instead the greatest part of QL researchers referred to
the mathematics of differential equations).
In the following we will give only programmatic indications to delineate an alternative to dominant
approaches of an algebraic or topologic nature.

2. A new approach to QL: Intuitionistic Logic in QM

In previous section, our interpretation of QM distinguished both two formulations of quantum
theory and two different roles of their respective principles. In particular, we remarked that opposite

3
logical choices correspond to each of these formulations: Schroedinger equation introduces to an
OA, whose logic is classical one, while uncertainty principle introduces to an OP, whose logic is
non-classical one.
In Heisenbergs QM, uncertainty principle plays a fundamental role; it expresses the impossibility
to measure with unbounded accuracy two conjugated variables belonging to a same system.
We want to show that this principle can be correctly expressed through a double negated statement
which is not equivalent to its corresponding affirmative statement; therefore, the logic of this
principle is at least intuitionistic logic.
"It is not true that both x and p are measurable on the same system with unbounded [=not bounded]
accuracy" (1)
where x and p are two conjugated variable (for instance position and momentum).
By denoting with A the following proposition:
"Both x and p are measurable on the same system with bounded accuracy"
the statement (1) becomes:
it is not true A (2)
The positive sentence corresponding to statement (2) is:
it is true A (3)
Statement (3) affirms that "it is true that both x and p are measurable with bounded accuracy"; this
proposition, without further qualifications, is neither true, nor false: it is not true, because, when
xp < ! / 2 , both x and p cannot be measured on the same system, even with bounded accuracy; it
is not false, because, if x p> ! / 2 , the measurement is possible.
The same can be stated about the negation of (3); in fact proposition
it is not true A (4)
means that it is not true that both x and p can be measured on the same system with bounded
accuracy; likely as statement (3), this proposition is neither true neither false without further
qualifications.
In sum, both propositions (3) and (4) are indefinite, while statement (2) is true. Hence, double
negated statement (2) is not equivalent to its corresponding positive sentence (3); consequently, a
non-classical logic expresses well uncertainty principle; intuitionistic logic may satisfy this
requisite.
By seeing the statement of whole theory, uncertainty principle only includes a double negation of
non-classical logic; instead, classical logic holds true in experimental propositions B (yes-no
experiments), whose BB (in the same way constructive mathematics reduces to classical
mathematics if applied to finite set).
The role of the connective not plays a fundamental role in the logic of QM. Most scholars on QL
missed to recognise explicitly this decisive role of negation in QL; this fact may give reason for the
characterisation of the set of past works on QL as a "labyrinth" (to use a van Fraassens expression).
Few authors only did not accept Birkhoff and von Neumanns algebraic formulation of QL, in
which negation is the classical negation; in particular, some of them considered double negations
law instead of distributive law as the very difference between QL and CL. In literature, we have
found the following authors approaching QL in this way: Destouches-Fevrier (1948), Fine (1974),
Bell-Hallett (1981), Gauthier (1983) and Adelman-Corbett (1995). The sequence of their studies
along a period of fifty years shows a slow but constant increasing of attention for negations
relevance in characterising QL. In the fifties Destouches-Fevrier [9] supported by philosophical
arguments an intuitionistic model for both mathematics and logic of QM; in particular, she made a
distinction between two kinds of negation: a classical one capable to express contradiction - and
an intuitionistic one - capable to explain quantum complementarity. In the seventies A. Fine [11]
reconstructed in an original manner the proposal [3] of Birkhoff and von Neumann (BvN), by
supporting that negation plays a crucial role in differentiating between CL and QL. In fact,
according to Fine, distributive law fails in QL because quantum negation corresponds to an
operation of orthogonal complement in Hilbert space, while it is true in CL, because classical
4
negation corresponds to a set complementation in phase space. In the eighties Fines thesis has been
resumed and developed by Bell and Hallett [2]. In those same years also Gauthier [12] distinguishes
between QL and CL by means of different negations; furthermore, he first contests the capability of
orthogonal complement to express quantum negation in any propositions of theory. Gauthier shows
that orthocomplementation on Hilbert space is not always defined, essentially because not all
physically meaningful Hilbert subspaces - seen as topologic space - are closed spaces. Gauthier
adds a strong criticism against historical QL approaches, which blindly accepted to define QL by
starting from Hilbert spaces mathematics. However, Gauthier doesn't build an alternative
mathematical approach with respect to the traditional one; only in the nineties Adelman and Corbett
[1] tried to build this mathematical alternative, by using of sheaves theory for expressing QM fuzzy
properties; this theory justifies the use of intuitionistic negation.
In a detailed analysis ([18], pp. 138-166) of these proposals, one of us (A. V.) has shown that in the
past QL intuitionistic characterisation (as we have remarked in this section by means of double
negation, according to points 1 and 2 of section 1) was incomplete, because either QL connectives
have not been studied in a correct way (it is the case of Fines conjunction), or (in the two cases of
Bell-Hallett and Gauthier), although the relevance of double negation is recognised, semantics has
not successfully defined, or because the suggested semantics met mathematical difficulties that
bounded its development to particular cases (for example, the double slit experiment in Adelman-
Corbetts paper [1]).

3. From double negated sentences to a mathematical principle

In this section we will try to characterise a new QL, by applying further suggestions than those by
points 1 and 2 of the list in section 1; in particular, the suggestions by points 4 and 5. To
substantiate these suggestions, we will consider a classical theory chosen among OP theories of
table 1. In particular we will refer to Lobachevskijs geometry, because it represents the most
mathematically formalised theory among OP theories; we will exploit the logical analysis on this
theory offered in [7]. Our purpose is to put in evidence the characteristic features of its non-
deductive reasoning (i. e. synthetic method) pertaining to this classical theory, in order to then
extend them to QM1.
3a. QL and Lobachevskij geometry
In "Geometrical studies on the theory of parallel lines" (1840) [16] Lobachevskij introduces a
series of 37 propositions, which may be grouped in the following way, according to their subject:
lines (propositions 1-7)
triangles (propositions 8-10)
geometry of space (propositions 11-15)
parallel lines (propositions 16-23)
deductive development of hyperbolic non-Euclidean geometry (propositions 24-37).
While the presentation of propositions 1-15 constitutes a quick presentation of some basic
statements (where axioms and theorems are mixed together), in the sixteenth proposition
Lobachevskij changes radically the theoretical development. Instead of the fifth Euclidean
postulate, he advances the guess that, given a straight line and an external-line point, the number of
parallel lines, going through this point, is more than one. About this guess Lobacevskij recognises
to lack evidence. He suggests a new definition of parallelism and then starts a detour including
six propositions-theorems (propositions 17-22); after them, he thinks to have collected enough
evidence for concluding that it is not contraddictory the hypothesis of the existence of two parallel

1
No surprise if we suggest a geometric model in order to study a physical theory. The objection that such a model is too
abstract to be able to describe a physical reality does not apply to Lobachevskijs geometry. In fact, this theory - in an
opposite way to the idealistic notions of Euclidean tradition (that we remember is an OA theory) - takes as a starting
point the experimental world, from which the author induces in an operational way the basic notion, i. e., body, contact
between bodies, section a body.
5
lines. Once acquired this result, Lobachevskij develops deductively his hyperbolic geometry from
the new hypothesis.
Lobachevskijs new way of arguing is represented by propositions 16-22 ([7], p. 47-56). These
propositions represent a typical cyclical reasoning (according to L. Carnots synthetic method) that
can be so summarised; at beginning of cycle (proposition 16) Lobachevskij presents the main
problem of his geometry (How much parallel straight lines can be traced through an external point
to a given line?) and tries a new definition of its basic concept (the parallelism angle between the
parallel line and the perpendicular to the given line through the external point); then he successfully
verifies this new definition of parallelism (propositions 17-18). But despite propositions 17-18,
Lobacevskij has not still filled that "lack of evidence" about the number of parallel lines underlined
in proposition 16; in other words, he did not solve the initial problem. Then he defines a new and
more general system by eliminating a variable of the initial problem, i. e. the point at infinity
involved by parallelism definition; so he considers the intersection of straight lines at a finite
distance only (the triangles of proposition 19); in terms of triangles the initial problem becomes the
following one: can the sum of the three angles be <?; Lobachevskij solve this problem (which
does not concern points at infinity) by finding in general (propositions 20-21) two distinct
possibilities (the sum is either , or <); finally, by including again the point at infinity, he comes
back to the initial problem (parallelism), by having acquired an additional information of universal
nature (the existence of two exhaustive possibilities) that at beginning he didnt have. This is a
typical example of Carnots synthetic method; the auxiliary variable is the point at infinity.
Now we want to translate this scheme of arguing to the case of QM. The main quantum problem,
like parallelism in Lobachevskijs geometry, is clearly the incommensurability of two conjugated
variables (for instance, position x and momentum p); likely as the value of angle (p) formalises
mathematically the problem of parallelism with respect to distance p between straight lines (either
(p)=/2 or (p)</2), in QM indeterminacy relation (on the values of errors x and p)
establishes when two state variables are commensurable or not. Euclidean postulate states (p)=/2
(or i = for the sum of triangles inside angles); a similar relationship can be found out in
classical physics for expressing the commensurability, that is xp-px=0. Then, hyperbolic
geometrys solution
"it is not true that is not /2"
has the following quantum analogous:
"it is not true that [x,p]=xp-px is not 0"
The last proposition adequately expresses uncertainty principle (in fact in QM [x,p]= i! 0 ),
because it introduces an inequality, which can be interpreted as a constraint. Besides, we can also
see one more mathematical parallelism between QM and Lobachevskij theory: when ! 0 , we
obtain classical relationship [x,p]=0, likely as in hyperbolic geometry for p0 (see proposition 23)
we obtain Euclidean geometrys relationship =/2.
Between hyperbolic geometry and QM there is some more than a naive parallelism; the way of
reasoning about the main principles is the same. In both cases classical logic fails to express
respective principles. We have already represented uncertainty principle by means of a double
negated sentence that manifests a non-classical (intuitionistic) logic in QM. Lobacevskijs theory
suggests a further consideration; to say that hyperbolic hypothesis is not contradictory means to
change from considering the only one Euclidean parallel (known in every its point
till to the infinity point with absolute precision) to consider instead a fuzzy parallel straight line or
better a parallel lines sheaf, whose points at infinity constitute together a segment, in other words, a
relative accurateness only is allowed.

3b. Quantum Mechanics and synthetic method

To verify in detail that there is also in QM a cyclical reasoning likely as in Lobachevskijs
geometry, we will choose the suitable formulation of QM; instead of Schroedingers QM, which is

6
developed axiomatically from his celebrated equation, we will take in consideration QM
formulation that T. F. Jordan [15] proposed in 1985 in a text titled "Quantum Mechanics in simple
matrix form", in which by using of a simple mathematics (i. e. a mathematics without IA) he
developed the theory by arguing around the main problem solved by the uncertainty principle. So
Jordan theory is a OP formulation of QM. In this formulation we want to show a specific kind of
arguing that is different from the deductive classical one.
In a schematic manner, Jordans work deals with the followings matters:
The strange equation QP-PQ=ih/2p: imaginary numbers, matrices, probability and quantum
measurement.
Angular Momentum and Pauli matrices
Harmonic Oscillator
Hydrogen atom
Spatial and temporal transformations: invariance.
We will dwell upon Jordans way to develop the first and decisive point of QM. In a 1925 writing,
Heisenberg expressed his famous principle in the following form:
"More we determine precisely position [Q of an electron], less momentum [P in same direction] is
precisely known in this instant and viceversa". (H)
In order to express this principle in a mathematical way, Heisenberg suggested a new rule for
multiplying two magnitudes P and Q; he formalised it through the following relationship:
QP-PQ = ih/2 (1)
The question is how justify this formula.
A first hint is to consider P and Q as two matrices, since the matrix product PQ is not equal to
matrix product QP, because in general row-column multiplication of two matrices is not
commutative. Then, the first result is: P and Q can be interpreted as matrices.
The following step is to develop matrix calculation and to verify whether its formal rules well
express principle (H). For brevitys sake, in following pages we will denote quantity [Q, P]=QP-
PQ with the term commutator, although this term was introduced by Dirac in the framework of a
different formalism. While classically [Q, P]=0, Heisenberg principle introduces an asymmetry
("more less") between the measurements of the two conjugated variables Q and P. As we have
noticed at end of our discussion on Lobachevskijs geometry, sentence "it is not true that is not [Q,
P]=0" well expresses uncertainty principle, because it translates this asymmetry. Furthermore,
Jordan states that (p. 44, ibid.) to express the asymmetry between Q and P, their commutator,
beyond to be different from zero, has to be an imaginary number. In fact, Jordan writes, by
reasoning ad absurdum, if commutator was not an imaginary number, but it was a real number, we
would be able "to measure position and to find out a [real] value for Q [and at the same time] to
measure momentum and to find a [real] value for P. This [two] real numbers commute; the value of
Q multiplied by the value of P is the same as the value of P multiplied by the value of Q". But in
this way we would admit a measure of both two conjugated variables with absolute accurateness,
against principle (H). Therefore, a second result is that P and Q commutator has to be an imaginary
number. At this point we are in the position to develop the new formalism constituted by matrix
theory with complex numbers. For brevitys sake we omit to recall the rules of this calculation.
In this way Jordan justified the connection between relationship (1) and uncertainty principle (H),
although in an insufficient way, because the values of uncertainty is not quantified in a
mathematical way. Then he consider probability in QM.
In uncertainty principles formulation (H) there is another fundamental term: "in this instant". With
reference to it, Jordan writes (p. 44, ibid.):
"The position can be measured with unlimited accuracy to get a value for Q, and the momentum can
be measured with unlimited accuracy to get a value for P, but both cannot be measured together
with unlimited accuracy. Multiplying the two values together has no simple meaning, because they
refer to two different situations. When the position has been measured there can be no definite value
for the momentum. There are probabilities for various possible values."
7
Jordan concludes (p. 57, ibid.):
"QM makes a distinction between a quantity and its values. In any situation, depending on what we
has been measured, some quantities have definite values and others do not. For a quantity that
has a definite value, the probability is 1 for that value, and 0 for the other possible values. For a
quantity that does not have a definite value, there are non-zero probabilities for more than one
possible value."
Let us underline how Jordan introduces probability: he starts from uncertainty principle (H) (by
considering the words "in that instant") and through a theoretical distinction between a physical
observable and its possible values he arrives to the notion of probability. Since a matrix represents a
physical quantity (p. 57, ibid.), how can we represent the values of this quantity? Jordan makes use
of the concept of middle value. This is a crucial passage. If really it is essential in QM to distinguish
the (physical) observable from its possible values after a measurement, every time that we speak
about matrices, we refer to (physical) observable; while if we speak about probability and middle
value (and consequently also measurement error), we refer to the values of this (physical)
observable. These values represent a measurement result and are real numbers, while when we
operate with matrices (the observables) we work with imaginary numbers.
Then, Jordan defines measurement uncertainty as
P=
2
P2 P

At this point we are near to find out the mathematical content of uncertainty principle (H),
concerning the inaccurateness of measurement; it is easy to show (p. 132, ibid.) that
(Q)2 (P)2 <[Q,P] >2 (2)
If [Q,P]=ih/2, relationship (2) expresses uncertainty principle (H).
In sum, Jordan starts from the problem of quantum measurement expressed by the principle (H); he
first finds out a representation (matrices and imaginary numbers), which is consistent with this
principle, referring to two conjugate variables P and Q; he introduces matrix formal calculation: in
this way he solves the problem of how operating in a mathematical way with P and Q; to express
uncertainty principle (H), he introduces the distinction between a physical observable and its
possible values after a measurement; through probability (the square of absolute value) he moves
from the imaginary numbers of the complex matrix to deal with the real numbers of a measurement;
then he finds out the mathematical representation of Heisenberg principle concerning the
uncertainties of both Q and P.
Jordans reasoning appears to be cyclical; he first introduces imaginary numbers in order to
formalise calculations and then he abandons them in order to recover reality. This is a typical
application of L. Carnots synthetic method, which in a problematic organisation of QM is applied
to every quantum problem, i. e. every time we move from measurement problem to a mathematical
formalism.

3c. The passage from logic to mathematics in Weyls QM

In this section we will analyse Weyls QM formulation [19], which is an OP theory (as we showed
in [18]). We will pick up from it some precious suggestions about the kind of passage in an OP
theory from intuitionistic logic to an IP mathematics (according to points 4, 5 and 6 of section 1).
In previous section we have shown that, by means of synthetic method, it is possible to justify
logically the passage from an intuitive problem - e. g. quantum measurement of two conjugated
variables expressed through a double negation - to a mathematical formal problem of two
observables that don't commute. Now we want to show that the resulting mathematics for these
variables may be group theory. Our referencing author is H. Weyl. This choice is motivated by the
fact that Weyl was the first author to introduce in QM group theory - i. e. an alternative
mathematics with respect to differential equations (IA) - and this novelty marked an epoch;
moreover, he wanted to use only a mathematics without actual infinity, conceived according to the

8
mathematical knowledge of that time2. In the introduction (1928) of his book, Weyl presents a
conflict between the old mathematics and a new mathematics:
Newer mathematics, including modern theory of groups and abstract algebra, is clearly motivated
by a spirit different from that of classical mathematics, that found its highest expression in the
theory of functions of a complex variable, [in which] the continuum of real numbers has retained its
ancient prerogative in physics for the expression of physical measurement.
In the introduction of the second edition (1930) of his work, Weyl underlines four times that this
newer mathematics will be an elementary mathematics: "the subject has been treated from a more
thoroughly elementary standpoint"; "the [mathematical] relationship is to be obtained only by
following an explicit elementary development"; "the group-theoretic problem has also been
treated from the elementary standpoint"; "in presenting the group theoretic portions in as
elementary a form as possible". Weyls mathematics is introduced therefore as a least powerful
mathematics with respect to classical mathematics of continuous functions of complex variable;
at present, it can be considered as an attempt to re-formulate QM using only potential infinity (IP).
Since we are interested to the line of arguing for passing in QM from non-classical logic (it is with
the double negations of synthetic method that we justified the mathematical formula of not
commutation) to mathematics, we will quote the theses of theorems only.
Weyl follows this line of arguing:
1. Burnsides theorem (pp. 153-154): "In a system S, that is irreducible and multiplicative [i. e. S is
a set of correspondences U between subspaces R, in which R doesn't contain any subspaces except
the same R or the void space- that is invariant under S] of linear correspondences [matrixes]
U= uik of an n dimensional vector space on to itself, the components uik are linearly independent."
The demonstration of this theorem is ad absurdum: "Burnsides theorem follows by reductio ad
absurdum" (p. 155).
2. Irreducibility postulate (p. 238): "It is impossible to choose the coordinates in system space in
such a way that the 2f matrices q1,, qf, p1,, pf are simultaneously completely reduced"
3. Burnside theorem [together with irreducibility postulate] asserts that the equation
tr (AQ) =tr (A'Q)
can be satisfied for all Q only if A=A ' [being Q density matrix and A a projection operator]; or it is
impossible to distinguish between the two statistic aggregate represented by the positive definite
Hermitian forms only if A=A' (p. 239) In this way the Leibnizian principle of coincidentia
indiscernibilium holds in QM. (p. 241)
4. "The kinematical structure of a physical system is expressed by an irreducible Abelian group
the real elements of the algebra of this group are the physical quantities of the system; if the
group is continuous, this procedure automatically leads to Heisenbergs formulation" (p. 275).
5. "The postulate of irreducibility allows us to conclude that the particular operators [q=(q) and
d
p= ] of the Schroedinger theory are a necessary consequence of Heisenbergs commutation
idq
rules". (p. 280)
Through this theoretical formulation Weyl succeeds in explaining Schroedingers mechanics in
terms of Heisenbergs formulation.
Burnside theorem (1) and irreducibility postulate (2) play a fundamental role in order to reach this
conclusion. In particular, point 1 translates the problem of non-commutative multiplication in terms
of irreducible groups. Then, Burnside theorem represents just the theorem that in an OP formulation
of QM is necessary in order to introduce the mathematics of group theory.

2
We have chosen Weyl also because he solved invariant problem in special relativity (he mathematically showed the
theorem of complete reduction for Lorentz group L) using a method (that in a 1926 memory he calls unitarian trick)
which can be interpreted as the synthetic method.

9
We remark that Burnside theorem, being a theorem ad absurdum, represents a completeness
theorem on the whole space, likely as S. Carnot theorem3 does in thermodynamics. This is another
common point between QM and OP classical theory of table 1.

Conclusion
Our new approach to QL requires a preliminary distinction among the several QM formulations, by
means of an analysis on their foundations. Instead, almost all the previous approaches to QL
neglected this choice, by blindly accepting BvNs assumption, i. e. that QL is Hilbert spaces logic.
Hence, almost all scholars approached QL by starting from Hilbert space formulation, without
justifying it in terms of QM principles. A test on principles absence in BvNs QL is the lack of
quantifiers in the calculation that they suggested. Indeed BvN formalised a logic of projection
operators answers and they interpreted the operations of this logic as mathematical operations upon
closed Hilbert subspaces. However one has to remark that without quantifiers this calculation is
unable to express QM principles, resulting drastically incomplete.
Our approach clarifies the reason of this incompleteness; starting from mathematical formulation,
BvN and followers excluded from logic the problem of how to pass from informal principles to a
mathematical formulation (Actually, never theoretical physicists clearly dealt with this problem);
that is, they ignored the passage that is described by synthetic method. Then, if one starts from
Hilberts mathematical formulation, a priori one misses a part of theory (principles and the different
formulation of QM). Because QM is then developed almost entirely through a deductive
mathematics, non-classical logic will emerge very partially, only when this mathematical
formulation will be used to explain those experimental forecasts, that are built by using the
methodological principles of theory. BvN worked just in this way. This is a reason justifying,
according with van Fraassen, QL as a labyrinth.
It is interesting to notice that our approach to QL requires to specify QM basis foundations. We
recognise them in the choices about the kind of organisation and the kind of mathematics. We can
say that we found out the hidden variables that famous scientists (Einstein, de Broglie, Bohm,
etc.) searched for over fifty years; but these variables belong to a less operational and material level
with respect to the level conceived by these authors; they belong to the level of the main differences
among the several formulations of a same theory. These variables bring us to distinguish between
two QM formulations - Schroedingers Wave Mechanics and Heisenbergs Matrix Mechanics - and
they clarify the relationships among theory, mathematics and experiment. By means of these
clarifications it is possible to revisit previous works about QL and to suggest their improvements. In
conclusion, we can say, in objective terms, that our contribution to clarification of this field of
research is to have shown that the solution of the problems of which is QL cannot be put aside from
the study of the several QM formulations4. We have obtained a radical change, although we have
not added any new experimental result.

Bibliography

1. Adelman M., Corbett J. V. "A sheaf model for intuitionistic quantum mechanics", Appl. Categ.
Struct., vol. 3, n. 1 (1995), pp. 79-104.
2. Bell J., Hallett M. "Logic, quantum logic and empiricism", Philosophy of Science, 49 (1882),
pp. 355-379.
3. Birkhoff G., von Neumann J. "The logic of Quantum Mechanics", Annals of Mathematics 37
(1936), pp. 823-843.

3
Carnot theorem is shown ad absurdum and is a completeness theorem, because it holds true for whatever thermal
machine that operate between two sources.
4
Trough this investigation method, we have obtained one more result [18], i. e. we clarified the two classifications by
Mittelstaedt [8] and by Holdsworth-Hooker [14] of QL approaches.

10
4. Carnot L. Essai sur les machines en gnral, Defay, Dijon, 1783 (Italian translation of A. Drago
and S. D. Manno, CUEN, 1994).
5. Carnot L. Reflxions sur the mtaphysique du calcul infinitsimal, Courcier, Paris, 1813,
footnote pp. 213-257.
6. Carnot S. Reflxions sur the puissance engine du feu, Bachelier, Paris, 1824.
7. Cicenia S., A. Drago Teoria delle parallele secondo Lobacevskij, Danilo, Naples, 1996.
8. Mittelstaedt P. "Classification of different areas of work afferent to Quantum Logic", in E. G.
Beltrametti, B. van Frassen (eds.) Current Issues in Quantum Logic, Plenum, New York,
1981, pp. 3-16.
9. Destouches-Fevrier P. Contradiction et complementarite, Synthese 7 (1948-49).
10. Drago A. Le due opzioni, La Meridiana, Molfetta (1991).
11. Fine A. "Some conceptual problems of Quantum Theory" in R. S. Colodny Paradigms and
Paradoxes, Pittsbourgh, 1972, pp. 3-31.
12. Gauthier Y. "Quantum Mechanics and the local observer", International Journal of
Theoretical Physics, vol. 22, n. 12 (1983), pp. 1141-1152.
13. Heisenberg W. Uber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer
Beziehungen Z. Physik 30 (1925), pp. 879-893.
14. Holdsworth D. G. and Hooker C. A. "A critical survey of Quantum Logic" in Logic in the 20th
century, Scientia, 1983, pp. 127-246.
15. Jordan T. F. Quantum mechanics in simple matrix form, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985.
16. Lobacevskij N. I. Geometrische Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Parallellinien, Finckl, Berlin
(1840); Italian translation in [7].
17. Schroedinger E. Uber Indeterminismus in der Physik, Barth, Lipsia 1932.
18. Venezia A. La logica della Meccanica Quantistica: analisi storico-critica, M. D. Thesis in
Physics, Universit Federico II, A. A. 2000, Naples; I diversi approcci alla Logica Quantistica:
due classificazioni e loro interpretazione, in E. Schettino (ed.): Atti XX Conv. Naz. Storia Fis.
Astron., in press.
19. Weyl H. The theory of groups and quantum mechanics, Dover Publications, New York, 1931.

11