Foulis quantales and complete orthomodular lattices

Abstract: Our approach establishes a natural correspondence between complete orthomodular lattices and certain types of quantales. Firstly, given a complete orthomodular lattice X, we associate with it a Foulis quantale Lin(X) consisting of its endomorphisms. This allows us to view X as a left module over Lin(X), thereby introducing a novel fuzzy-theoretic perspective to the study of complete orthomodular lattices. Conversely, for any Foulis quantale Q, we associate a complete orthomodular lattice [Q] that naturally forms a left Q-module. Furthermore, there exists a canonical homomorphism of Foulis quantales from Q to Lin([Q]).

• The paper introduces two canonical constructions: from a complete orthomodular lattice X to the endomorphism quantale Lin(X), and from a Foulis quantale Q to its complete orthomodular lattice of Sasaki projections [Q. These constructions offer representations in both directions and establish an algebraic connection between these structures.
• The authors show that complete orthomodular lattices, inspired by quantum logic and capable of representing propositions or properties of quantum systems, can be dualized with Foulis quantales, an algebraic construct defined by involutive operations.
• The central computational connection, $X$ carries a $Lin(X)$-module structure, while $Q$ has a $Q$-module structure. These dual constructions link lattice theory with quantale operations and define both linear maps and actions between the constructs.

The paper establishes a two-sided structural correspondence between complete orthomodular lattices and a class of involutive quantales equipped with Foulis-type kernel operations. Its central construction assigns to every complete orthomodular lattice $X$ the endomorphism quantale ${\rm Lin}(X)$, while the converse construction assigns to every Foulis quantale $Q$ its complete orthomodular lattice of Sasaki projections, denoted $[Q}$. These constructions are not presented as a categorical equivalence, but they provide canonical representations in both directions: $X$ carries a natural left ${\rm Lin}(X)$-module structure, and $Q$ acts on $[Q}$ through a homomorphism

$Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$

The results combine orthomodular-lattice theory, dagger kernel categories, Foulis semigroups, quantales, and quantale modules into a unified algebraic framework (2502.06350).

Complete orthomodular lattices as a dagger-theoretic setting

A complete orthomodular lattice is treated as the algebraic structure of propositions or properties associated with a quantum system. The orthocomplementation is order-reversing and involutive, while orthomodularity replaces distributivity and captures the non-Boolean behavior characteristic of quantum logic. Completeness is essential because it permits arbitrary joins and meets, which subsequently provide the sup-lattice structure required by quantale theory.

The morphisms are the linear maps introduced in the category ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$. A map ${\rm Lin}(X)$0 is linear when it admits an adjoint ${\rm Lin}(X)$1 characterized by preservation and reflection of orthogonality: ${\rm Lin}(X)$2 For complete orthomodular lattices, this condition is equivalent to preservation of arbitrary joins. Consequently, the morphisms simultaneously admit an order-theoretic description as complete join-preserving maps and a dagger-theoretic description through orthogonality adjunctions. This equivalence is the technical basis for the later quantale construction.

The paper uses Sasaki projections as canonical endomorphisms. For ${\rm Lin}(X)$3, the Sasaki projection is

${\rm Lin}(X)$4

It is self-adjoint and idempotent, and its image is the principal interval below ${\rm Lin}(X)$5. In the category ${\rm Lin}(X)$6, it factors through the sublattice determined by ${\rm Lin}(X)$7 as a dagger epimorphism followed by a dagger monomorphism. This factorization is more than a formal analogy with Hilbert-space projections: it supplies the categorical kernel structure needed to identify lattice-theoretic kernels with dagger kernels.

For a linear map ${\rm Lin}(X)$8, the paper identifies its kernel as

${\rm Lin}(X)$9

The kernel is itself a complete orthomodular lattice, and its inclusion into $Q$0 is a dagger kernel. Thus $Q$1 is a dagger kernel category. This result links the order-theoretic notion of elements annihilated by a map with the universal-property notion of kernels in category theory. It also makes the Sasaki projection onto a kernel the associated projection $Q$2, where $Q$3 is the dagger-kernel morphism.

The endomorphism quantale of a complete orthomodular lattice

The category of complete orthomodular lattices and linear maps is shown to be an involutive quantaloid. Each hom-set $Q$4 is a complete lattice under pointwise ordering, and composition preserves arbitrary joins in both variables. The dagger on this quantaloid is the adjoint operation on linear maps. Therefore, the endomorphism set $Q$5 is a unital involutive quantale: multiplication is composition, the unit is the identity map, arbitrary joins are computed pointwise, and involution is given by the dagger.

This construction is the first direction of the paper’s correspondence: $Q$6 Its significance is that the full algebra of endomorphisms of $Q$7 has enough structure to recover the kernel behavior of maps and the Sasaki projections of the lattice. The construction is not merely a generic endomorphism-quantale construction. The orthomodular structure ensures that $Q$8 satisfies the additional Foulis axioms.

Specifically, for $Q$9, the paper defines the Foulis operation by

$[Q}$0

This is the Sasaki projection onto the kernel element of $[Q}$1. It is self-adjoint and idempotent, and $[Q}$2. The crucial annihilator property is

$[Q}$3

Hence the right annihilator of $[Q}$4 is generated by the projection onto $[Q}$5. This proves that $[Q}$6 is a Foulis quantale.

The result gives an algebraic reformulation of dagger kernels: the Foulis operation on an endomorphism is precisely the projection onto its dagger kernel. In this sense, the Foulis quantale retains categorical kernel information inside its multiplication, involution, and annihilator structure.

Foulis quantales and their projection lattices

A Foulis quantale is a unital involutive quantale $[Q}$7 equipped with an operation $[Q}$8 assigning to each $[Q}$9 a self-adjoint idempotent satisfying the annihilator condition

$X$0

The elements of the form $X$1 are called Sasaki projections. The induced operation

$X$2

provides the orthocomplementation on the projection part of the quantale.

The converse construction begins with the set

$X$3

The paper proves that $X$4 is a complete orthomodular lattice. Its order is inherited from the quantale multiplication: $X$5 The top element is $X$6, and the orthocomplement of a projection $X$7 is $X$8. The meet is expressed using multiplication and double orthocomplementation: $X$9 while arbitrary joins are obtained by applying the Foulis operation twice to the quantale join: ${\rm Lin}(X)$0

This is the principal structural theorem of the paper. It shows that the orthomodular lattice is not externally imposed on a Foulis quantale; it is reconstructed from its internally defined Sasaki projections. The result extends the corresponding construction for Foulis semigroups to the complete, join-enriched setting of quantales. The additional completeness assertion is important: arbitrary joins of projections remain projections after the double Foulis operation, so the projection structure is itself complete.

The theorem also clarifies the division of roles between the quantale and its projection lattice. The quantale contains general, potentially non-idempotent operations, whereas ${\rm Lin}(X)$1 isolates the self-adjoint idempotents that encode proposition-like or subobject-like data. Orthocomplementation and orthomodularity arise from the annihilator calculus of the ambient quantale.

Quantale modules and Sasaki actions

A complete orthomodular lattice ${\rm Lin}(X)$2 is naturally a left ${\rm Lin}(X)$3-module. The action is evaluation: ${\rm Lin}(X)$4 Because linear maps preserve arbitrary joins and composition is associative, the module axioms follow directly. This action provides an algebraic interpretation of lattice endomorphisms as quantale actions on states or propositions.

Conversely, the projection lattice ${\rm Lin}(X)$5 carries a left ${\rm Lin}(X)$6-module structure. The action is

${\rm Lin}(X)$7

The double orthocomplementation ensures that the result is again a Sasaki projection. The action preserves arbitrary joins in both variables and is compatible with quantale multiplication. Thus ${\rm Lin}(X)$8 is not merely a complete orthomodular lattice extracted from ${\rm Lin}(X)$9; it is a canonical left module over $Q$0.

For each $Q$1, the induced map

$Q$2

is a linear map. When $Q$3 is itself a Sasaki projection, $Q$4 is self-adjoint, idempotent, and has image $Q$5. Therefore the action recovers the usual Sasaki projections in the special case where the acting quantale element is already a projection.

The module structure yields the canonical homomorphism

$Q$6

The map preserves arbitrary joins, multiplication, and the unit by the module axioms. The paper further proves preservation of involution: $Q$7 using the orthogonality characterization of adjoints, and preservation of the Foulis operation: $Q$8 Consequently, $Q$9 is a homomorphism of Foulis quantales.

This representation result is structurally significant but deliberately weaker than an isomorphism statement. The paper proves that every Foulis quantale acts canonically on its projection lattice, not that every element of $[Q}$0 is uniquely determined by this action. Faithfulness or injectivity of $[Q}$1 would require an additional separation condition on $[Q}$2, which is not established here.

Relation between the two constructions

The two constructions can be summarized as follows:

Starting structure	Constructed structure	Main structural result
Complete orthomodular lattice $[Q}$3	$[Q}$4	A Foulis quantale
Foulis quantale $[Q}$5	$[Q}$6	A complete orthomodular lattice
Complete orthomodular lattice $[Q}$7	$[Q}$8 as a $[Q}$9-module	Action by evaluation
Foulis quantale $Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$0	$Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$1 as a $Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$2-module	Sasaki action
Foulis quantale $Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$3	$Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$4	Canonical Foulis-quantale homomorphism

The constructions are connected through the fact that kernels in $Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$5 become Foulis projections, while Foulis projections in $Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$6 become the elements of the reconstructed orthomodular lattice. This is a categorical-algebraic cycle: $Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$7 and

$Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$8

The paper establishes the maps and module actions required for these cycles, but it does not prove that either composite is naturally isomorphic to the original structure. The constructions should therefore be interpreted as canonical representations and embeddings of structure rather than as a completed duality theorem.

The connection with fuzzy order is also precise in scope. Since quantale modules are complete lattices acted on by join-preserving operations, they inherit the order-enriched semantics used in quantale-based fuzzy logic. In the present setting, however, the paper does not develop a new fuzzy logic, prove completeness or soundness results for a logical calculus, or compare the induced module semantics with particular t-norm systems. The fuzzy-theoretic perspective is instead an interpretation of the quantale-module structure of complete orthomodular lattices.

Limitations and open questions

The main limitation is that the paper establishes a correspondence of constructions without proving an equivalence of categories, an adjunction, or a natural isomorphism between the relevant double constructions. In particular, the canonical homomorphism

$Q\longrightarrow {\rm Lin}([Q}).$9

is not shown to be injective or surjective. Its injectivity would depend on whether the Sasaki-projection action separates elements of ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$0; its surjectivity would require every linear endomorphism of ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$1 to arise from quantale multiplication, which is a substantially stronger assertion.

The construction from ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$2 to ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$3 also depends essentially on completeness. Arbitrary joins are needed both for the quantale structure and for the equivalence between linearity and join preservation. The paper does not characterize which weaker orthomodular structures admit analogous constructions, nor does it identify the precise class of Foulis quantales lying in the image of ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$4.

Several proofs are presented by appeal to earlier results on Foulis semigroups, Foulis m-semilattices, and dagger kernel categories, with the principal adaptation being the replacement of finite joins by arbitrary joins. The validity of this extension depends on the stated completeness and join-continuity properties; a systematic analysis of which semigroup arguments remain valid in the quantale setting is not undertaken. Finally, the paper leaves open how the module construction interacts with morphisms between complete orthomodular lattices and with morphisms of Foulis quantales at a fully functorial level.

Conclusion

The paper identifies a robust algebraic interface between complete orthomodular lattices and Foulis quantales. For a complete orthomodular lattice ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$5, the endomorphism quantale ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$6 is a Foulis quantale whose annihilator projections encode dagger kernels. Conversely, the Sasaki projections of a Foulis quantale ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$7 form a complete orthomodular lattice ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$8 carrying a canonical ${\rm SupOMLatLin}$9-module structure. The resulting homomorphism ${\rm Lin}(X)$00 demonstrates that quantale multiplication acts through linear transformations of the reconstructed projection lattice. These results provide a unified formulation of orthomodularity, kernel structure, Sasaki projections, and quantale action, while leaving the precise categorical status of the two constructions as an open structural question (2502.06350).