text:
# Orthomodular Lattices and a Quantum Algebra

## 1 Introduction

Closed subspaces of Hilbert space form an algebra called a Hilbert lattice. A Hilbert lattice is a kind of orthomodular lattice which we, in the next section, introduce starting with an ortholattice which is a still simpler structure. In any Hilbert lattice the operation meet, $`ab`$, corresponds to set intersection, $`_a_b`$, of subspaces $`_a,_b`$ of Hilbert space $``$, the ordering relation $`ab`$ corresponds to $`_a_b`$, the operation join, $`ab`$, corresponds to the smallest closed subspace of $``$ containing $`_a_b`$, and $`a^{}`$ corresponds to $`_a^{}`$, the set of vectors orthogonal to all vectors in $`_a`$. Within Hilbert space there is also an operation which has no a parallel in the Hilbert lattice: the sum of two subspaces $`_a+_b`$ which is defined as the set of sums of vectors from $`_a`$ and $`_b`$. We also have $`_a+_a^{}=`$. One can define all the lattice operations on Hilbert space itself following the above definitions ($`_a_b=_a_b`$, etc.). Thus we have $`_a_b=\overline{_a+_b}=(_a+_b)^{}=(_a^{}_b^{})^{}`$,\[8, p. 175\] where $`\overline{_c}`$ is a closure of $`_c`$, and therefore $`_a+_b_a_b`$. When $``$ is finite dimensional or when the closed subspaces $`_a`$ and $`_b`$ are orthogonal to each other then $`_a+_b=_a_b`$. \[6, pp. 21-29\], \[10, pp. 66,67\], \[13, pp. 8-16\]

In the past, scientists, starting with Birkhoff and von Neumann, wanted to find parallels with a possible logic lying underneath the orthomodular lattice and operations defined on such a logic. A possible candidate for the logic was formulated . However, it has recently been shown  that the logic can have at least two models: Hilbert space and another model which is not orthomodular—so there is no proper quantum logic.333Consequently, the papers that are now appearing and claim as, e.g., Dalla Chiara and Giuntini , that quantum logic, defined as a genuine logical system, characterizes orthomodular lattices are simply incorrect. For, obviously, one cannot claim that a statement holds in proper quantum logic if and only if it is true in orthomodular lattices and at the same time that a statement holds in proper quantum logic if and only if it is true in non-orthomodular lattices. The same holds for proper classical logic and the Boolean algebra. All previous such papers and books on quantum as well as classical logic are outdated by the result. One can still consider operations within the model itself: the orthomodular lattice. The problem of finding quantum operations which would reduce to classical ones for compatible observables has been attacked many times in the past. In particular, it has been shown that one can start with unique classical conjunction, disjunction, and implication and by means of them define five quantum conjunctions, disjunctions, and implications \[which collapse into former classical ones for commuting (compatible, commensurable) observables\]. In this paper we show that one can start with unique quantum operations and arrive at five classical ones. Thus it turns out that the usual way of defining orthomodular lattice by means of unique classical conjunction and disjunction is a consequence of a direct translation of meet and join from Hilbert space. We also express all possible quantum and classical operations by each other, even a chosen either classical or quantum one by means of all other quantum and classical ones in single equations. We do so with the help of a computer program which reduces two-variable expressions to each other.

In Sec. 5 we prove that in an orthomodular lattice the associativity of both quantum disjunctions and conjunctions holds for any triple of lattice elements as soon as one of them commutes with the other two.

In the the end, we partially solve an open problem from Ref.  by proving that the “distributive law,” for a quantum identity holds in the Godowski lattices and therefore in Hilbert space. It remains an open problem whether the law holds in all orthomodular lattices.

## 2 Quantum and classical lattice operations

One usually defines an ortholattice in the following way.

###### Definition 2.1.

An ortholattice (OL) is an algebra $`_\mathrm{O},^{},`$ such that the following conditions are satisfied for any $`a,b,c_\mathrm{O}`$:

$`\mathrm{L1}`$ $`a=a^{\prime \prime }`$ (2.1)
$`\mathrm{L2}`$ $`aab\&bab\&baa^{}`$ (2.2)
$`\mathrm{L3}`$ $`ab\&baa=b;a=bab`$ (2.3)
$`\mathrm{L4}`$ $`abb^{}a^{}`$ (2.4)
$`\mathrm{L5}`$ $`ab\&bcac`$ (2.5)
$`\mathrm{L6}`$ $`ac\&bcabc`$ (2.6)
where

$`ab\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}ab=b,1\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}aa^{},0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}aa^{}.`$ (2.7)
Then we can define six operations of implication:

###### Definition 2.2.

$`a_0b=^{\mathrm{def}}a^{}b`$, $`a_1b=^{\mathrm{def}}a^{}(ab)`$, $`a_2b=^{\mathrm{def}}b^{}_1a^{}`$, $`a_3b=^{\mathrm{def}}((a^{}b)(a^{}b^{}))\left(a(a^{}b)\right)`$, $`a_4b=^{\mathrm{def}}a^{}_3b^{}`$, $`a_5b=^{\mathrm{def}}((ab)(a^{}b))(a^{}b^{})`$, where $`_0`$ is called classical implication and $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ quantum implication.

Quantum implications reduce to the classical one whenever $`a`$ and $`b`$ commute.

###### Definition 2.3.

We say that $`a`$ and $`b`$ commute and write $`aCb`$ when any and therefore all of the following equations hold:  $`(ab)(ab^{})(a^{}b)(a^{}b^{})=1`$, $`a(a^{}b)b`$, $`a=(ab)(ab^{})`$.

We can also define:

###### Definition 2.4.

$`a_ib\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}a^{}_ib,a_ib\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(a_ib^{})^{};i=0,\mathrm{},5`$ (2.8)
$`a_ib\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(a_ib)(b_0a),i=0,\mathrm{},5,`$ (2.9)
where $`a_0b=ab`$, $`a_0b=ab`$ and $`a_0b`$ are classical disjunction, conjunction, and identity, respectively, while $`a_ib`$, $`a_ib`$, and $`a_ib`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ are quantum ones, respectively. The latter obviously reduce to the former when $`a`$ and $`b`$ commute.

For the above operations the following theorems hold. In them, we can also pick any one of the conditions in Theorem 2.5 as our definition of an orthomodular lattice and in Theorem 2.6 as our definition of a distributive lattice (Boolean algebra).

###### Theorem 2.5.

An ortholattice in which any one of the following conditions holds is an orthomodular lattice and vice versa.

$`a_ib=1`$ $``$ $`ab,i=1,\mathrm{},5,`$ (2.10)
$`a_ib=1`$ $``$ $`a^{}b^{},i=1,\mathrm{},5,`$ (2.11)
$`a_ib=0`$ $``$ $`ab,i=1,\mathrm{},5,`$ (2.12)
$`a_ib=1`$ $``$ $`a=b,i=1,\mathrm{},5,`$ (2.13)
$`ab\&ab=1`$ $``$ $`a^{}b^{},`$ (2.14)
where $`ab\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}ab^{}`$

###### Theorem 2.6.

An ortholattice in which any one of the following conditions holds is a distributive lattice and vice versa.

$`a_0b=1`$ $``$ $`ab,`$ (2.15)
$`ab=a_0b=1`$ $``$ $`a^{}b^{},`$ (2.16)
$`ab=a_0b=0`$ $``$ $`ab,`$ (2.17)
$`a_0b=1`$ $``$ $`a=b.`$ (2.18)
Actually, in any orthomodular lattice all expressions with 2 variables are reducible to one of 96 Beran canonical forms.\[1, Table 1, p. 82\] The reader can easily reduce any 2 variable expression with the help of our program beran which we describe in Sec. 8. All 96 forms can be also viewed inside the source code of beran.c. In general we can divide them to 16 classical and 80 quantum ones. Classical expressions are: classical implication and its negation (disjunction and conjunction)—Beran expressions 2–5 and 92–95, classical identity and its negation—expressions 9 and 88, variables $`a,b`$ and their negations—expressions 22, 39, 58, and 75, and “0” and “1”—expressions 1 and 96, respectively. Quantum expressions are all the other expressions, that reduce to classical ones whenever the variables commute: quantum implications and their negations (quantum disjunctions and conjunctions)—12–15, 18–21, 28–31, 34–37, 50–53, 60–63, 66–69, 76–79, and 82–85, quantum identities ($`a_1b=a^{}_3b^{},a_2b=a^{}_4b^{}`$, $`a_5b`$) and their negations—24, 25, 40, 41, 56, 57, 72, 73, 8, and 89, “quantum variables” (which reduce to “classical $`a,b`$”) and their negations—$`a`$: 6, 38, 54, 70, 86, $`b`$: 7, 23, 55, 71, 87, $`a^{}`$: 11, 27, 43, 59, 91, and $`b^{}`$: 10, 26, 42, 74, 90, and “quantum 0,1”—“0”: 17, 33, 49, 65, 81 and “1”: 16, 32, 48, 64, 80. For some of these quantum expressions we give the following definitions and theorems.

###### Definition 2.7.

Quantum unities and zeros in an OML are:

$`1_{1(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`a^{}(ab^{})(ab)`$ (2.19)
$`1_{2(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`b(ab^{})(a^{}b^{})`$ (2.20)
$`1_{3(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`a(a^{}b)(a^{}b^{})`$ (2.21)
$`1_{4(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`b^{}(a^{}b)(ab)`$ (2.22)
$`1_{5(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`(ab)(ab^{})(a^{}b)(a^{}b^{})`$ (2.23)
$`0_{1(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`a(a^{}b)(a^{}b^{})`$ (2.24)
$`0_{2(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`b^{}(a^{}b)(ab)`$ (2.25)
$`0_{3(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`a^{}(ab^{})(ab)`$ (2.26)
$`0_{4(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`b(ab^{})(a^{}b^{})`$ (2.27)
$`0_{5(a,b)}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`(ab)(ab^{})(a^{}b)(a^{}b^{})`$ (2.28)
Some consequences of these definitions are straightforward:

###### Lemma 2.8.

Two variables commute iff any of the 80 two-variable quantum expressions is equal to its classical counterpart. Two variables also commute iff any two of the five different forms of each quantum expression are equal to each other.

For example, $`1_{i(a,b)}=1`$ or $`0_{i(a,b)}=0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ is equivalent to $`aCb`$. In particular, $`1_{5(a,b)}=1`$ is the first expression from Def. 2.3. Also, e.g., $`a_{i(a,b)}=a`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$, where $`a_{i(a,b)}`$ are given by Beran expressions: 6, 38, 54, 70, 86, respectively, are equivalent to $`aCb`$. In particular, $`a_{1(a,b)}=(ab)(ab^{})=a`$ is the third expression from Def. 2.3. Examples for the second claim of the theorem are that $`a_ib=a_jb`$, $`a_ib=a_jb`$, and $`a_ib=a_jb`$, $`ij`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},5`$ are equivalent to $`aCb`$. \[17, p. 1487\] The same holds for $`1_{i(a,b)}=1_{j(a,b)}`$, $`a_{i(a,b)}=a_{j(a,b)}`$, $`a_ib=a_jb`$, $`ij`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},5`$, etc.

###### Theorem 2.9.

An ortholattice in which any one of the following conditions holds is an orthomodular lattice and vice versa.

$`a_ib=1_{j(a,b)}`$ $``$ $`ab,i,j=1,\mathrm{},5;ij;`$ (2.29)
$`a_ib=1_{j(a,b)}`$ $``$ $`a=b,i,j=1,\mathrm{},5;ij.`$ (2.30)
###### Proof.

We will exemplify the proofs by proving the case $`i=1,j=5`$. Other cases the reader can prove analogously. We first use Eq. (2.13) to write the premise as $`(a_1b)_5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_5=1`$ ($`_5`$ should be used for all cases—in it the subscript 5 is not $`j`$) and then we find the canonical expression of

$`(a_1b)_5\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{5(a,b)}=(a_1b)_5(ab)(ab^{})(a^{}b)(a^{}b^{})`$
by typing (see Sec. 8 for details on our program beran):

```
       beran "((aIb)=(((a^b)v(a^-b))v((-a^b)v(-a^-b))))"

```

The program responds with:

```
       30 ((-avb)^((av(-a^-b))v(-a^b)))

```

which is nothing but $`a_3b`$. Using Eq. (2.10) we get the desired conclusion. ∎

## 3 Relations between operations

In this section we show how one can connect operations we defined in Sec. 2 with each other in an orthomodular lattice defined in a standard way given by Def. 2.1. In counting the cases for commuting operations below we disregard the order of $`a`$ and $`b`$.

In Ref.  we have shown how one can express classical disjunction by quantum and classical implications within a single equation. (That equation was one of the four smallest ones. Below is another.)

###### Lemma 3.1.

(i) The equation

$`ab=((((b_ia)_i(a_ib))_ib)_ia)_ia`$ (3.1)
is true in all orthomodular lattices for $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ and in all distributive lattices for $`i=0,\mathrm{},5`$;

(ii) an ortholattice in which Eq. 3.1 holds is an orthomodular lattice for $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ and a distributive lattice for $`i=0`$.

This equation does not contain negations and if we wanted to define an algebra by means of so merged implications and without using negation we should at least introduce 0. Alternatively one can use the negation and define 0. In this paper we adopt the latter approach. We do not give proofs of the lemmas in this section because all expressions can be trivially checked with the help of the computer program beran written by one of us (N. D. M.) which the reader can download from our web sites.

###### Lemma 3.2.

There is only one “smallest” (lowest number of occurrence of variables, 5, and negations, 2) expression of classical disjunction by means of quantum implications:

$`ab=((a^{}_ib^{})_ib)_ia)_ia;i=1,\mathrm{},5,`$ (3.2)
and seven smallest (5 variables, 4 negations) expressions of classical conjunction by means of quantum implications, one of which is:

$`ab=(a_i((a_ib)_i(b^{}_ia^{})^{})^{};i=1,\mathrm{},5.`$ (3.3)
There are two smallest (5 variables, 3 negations) expressions of classical disjunction by means of quantum disjunctions one of which is:

$`ab=((a_ib^{})_i(b^{}_ia))^{}_ia;i=1,\mathrm{},5,`$ (3.4)
and two (5,5) by means of quantum conjunctions one of which is:

$`ab=(((a^{}_ib)_i(b_ia^{}))^{}_ia^{})^{};i=1,\mathrm{},5.`$ (3.5)
An equal number of smallest expressions of classical conjunction by means of quantum disjunctions and conjunctions we get by using $`ab=(a^{}b^{})^{}`$ and $`a_ib=(a^{}_ib^{})^{}`$ (of course with reversed smallest number of negations).

Any of these equations when added to an ortholattice makes it orthomodular.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Here are samples of the smallest expressions (with their numbers being given in curly brackets) of classical conjunction and disjunction by means of both, classical ($`i=0`$) and quantum ($`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$) implications, disjunctions, and conjunctions in single equations in any orthomodular lattice:

$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`((b_ia)_i(((a_ib^{})_ib^{})_ia))\{1\}`$ (3.6)
$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`(b_i(a_i((a_ib)_i(b^{}_ia))^{}))\{16\}`$ (3.7)
$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`((a^{}_ib)^{}_i(a^{}_i(b_i(b_ia)^{})^{}))^{}\{8\}`$ (3.8)
$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`(a_i((a_i((a_ib)_ib^{}))_ia^{})^{})^{}\{23\}`$ (3.9)
$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`((b^{}_i(a_i(a_ib)^{})^{})_i(b^{}_ia)^{})^{}\{8\}`$ (3.10)
$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`(b_i(a_i((a_ib)_i(b^{}_ia))^{}))\{16\},`$ (3.11)
where $`i=0,\mathrm{},5`$. Any of these equations for $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ and Eqs. (3.6), (3.8), (3.9), and (3.10) for $`i=0`$ when added to an ortholattice makes it orthomodular (fails in O6). For $`i=0`$, there are no such smallest samples of the type given by Eqs. (3.7) and (3.11) and there are 18 samples that pass O6 of Eq. (3.9) type, 4 of (3.8) type and 4 of (3.10) type. Samples of the latter ones are:

$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`(a_i(b_i((b_ia)_i(b^{}_ia^{})^{})))^{}`$ (3.12)
$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`(b^{}_i(a^{}_i((a^{}_ib)_i(b_ia^{}))^{}))^{}`$ (3.13)
$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`(b^{}_i(a^{}_i((a^{}_ib)_i(b_ia^{}))^{}))^{},`$ (3.14)
respectively.

###### Lemma 3.4.

The shortest expressions of some above defined operations by each other are:

$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`a_0b=b_1(b_1a^{})^{}=a_2(b^{}_2a)^{}=b_3(b_3a)`$ (3.15)
$`=`$ $`a_4(b_4a)=b_5(b_5a^{})^{}`$
$`a_1b`$ $`=`$ $`b_2a=(a_3b)_3b=b_4(b_4a)=a_5(b_5a)`$ (3.16)
$`a_2b`$ $`=`$ $`b_1a=(b_3a)_3a=a_4(a_4b)=b_5(b_5a)`$ (3.17)
$`a_3b`$ $`=`$ $`b_4a=(a_1b^{})^{}_1(b_1a)=(a_2b)_2(b^{}_2a)^{}`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`(a_5b)_5(a_5(b_5a^{}))^{}`$
$`a_4b`$ $`=`$ $`b_3a=(b_1a^{})^{}_1(a_1b)=(b_2a)_2(a^{}_2b)^{}`$ (3.19)
$`=`$ $`(b_5a)_5(b_5(a_5b^{}))^{}`$
$`a_5b`$ $`=`$ $`b_5a=((a_1b)^{}_1(a^{}_1(b_1a))^{})^{}=((b_2a)^{}_2((a_2b)_2a^{})^{})^{}`$ (3.20)
$`=`$ $`((b_3a)^{}_3((b_3a)_3a)^{})^{}=((b_4a)^{}_4(b_4(b_4a))^{})^{}`$
$`a_0b`$ $`=`$ $`(a^{}_5b)^{}=(b_ia)^{}_i(b^{}_ia^{})^{};i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (3.21)
$`a_1b`$ $`=`$ $`a^{}_3b^{}=(a_{1,3}b)^{}_{1,3}(b^{}_{1,3}a^{})^{}=(a^{}_{2,4}b^{})^{}_{2,4}(b_{2,4}a)^{}`$ (3.22)
$`=`$ $`(a_5(a_5b))^{}_5(a^{}_5(b_5a^{})^{})^{}`$
$`a_2b`$ $`=`$ $`a^{}_4b^{}=(b^{}_{1,3}a^{})^{}_{1,3}(a_{1,3}(b_{1,3}a))^{}`$ (3.23)
$`=`$ $`((a^{}_2b)^{}_2(a_2(b_2a)^{})^{})^{}=(a_4b)^{}_4(a^{}_4(b^{}_4a^{}))^{}`$
$`=`$ $`((b_5(b_5a^{}))^{}_5(a_5(b_5a)^{})^{})^{}`$
Dual expressions on both sides of equations we get by using $`a_ib=(a^{}_ib^{})^{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Samples of expressions of particular quantum disjunctions by means of all five of them together in single equations are

$`a_1b`$ $`=`$ $`a_i(b^{}_i(b_ia)^{})^{}`$ (3.24)
$`a_2b`$ $`=`$ $`b_i(a^{}_i(a_ib)^{})^{}`$ (3.25)
$`a_3b`$ $`=`$ $`((a^{}_i(b_ia))^{}_i((b_i(a_ib))_i(b^{}_ia)^{})^{})^{}`$ (3.26)
$`a_4b`$ $`=`$ $`((b^{}_i(a_ib))^{}_i((a_i(b_ia))_i(a^{}_ib)^{})^{})^{}`$ (3.27)
$`a_5b`$ $`=`$ $`((b_ia)^{}_i(b^{}_i((a_ib)_i(b_ia^{})))^{})^{},`$ (3.28)
where $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$. Dual expressions ($`ab`$ by means of $`a_ib`$ and $`ab`$ by means of $`a_ib`$ and $`a_ib`$) we get by using $`ab=(a^{}b^{})^{}`$ and $`a_ib=(a^{}_ib^{})^{}`$.

## 4 Quantum algebra

In Lemma 3.2, Eq. (3.4) we have shown how one can express the classical disjunction by means of quantum ones in a single equation. So, we can substitute this expressions for the disjunctions in conditions which define an orthomodular lattice (Def. 2.1) and obtain five formally identical ways to writing those conditions by means of five quantum disjunctions. But we can do even more and define an algebra with a lattice ordering as follows.

###### Definition 4.1.

A quantum algebra QA is an algebra $`𝒜_\mathrm{O},^{},`$ such that the following conditions are satisfied for any $`a,b,c𝒜_\mathrm{O}`$:

$`\mathrm{A1}`$ $`a=a^{\prime \prime }\&a1`$ (4.1)
$`\mathrm{A2}`$ $`a((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}a\&b((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}a`$ (4.2)
$`\mathrm{A3}`$ $`ab\&baa=b;a=bab`$ (4.3)
$`\mathrm{A4}`$ $`abb^{}a^{}`$ (4.4)
$`\mathrm{A5}`$ $`ab\&bcac`$ (4.5)
$`\mathrm{A6}`$ $`ac\&bc((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}ac`$ (4.6)
$`\mathrm{A7}`$ $`ab\&((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}a=1a^{}b^{},`$ (4.7)
where

$`ab\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}a=b`$ (4.8)
$`1\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}((aa)(aa))^{}a\&0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(((aa)(aa))^{}a)^{}.`$ (4.9)
Substitution Rule. Any valid condition or equation one can obtain in the standard formulation of OML containing only variables, $`_i`$ (satisfied for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$), and negations written in QA with $``$ substituted for $`_i`$ is a valid condition or equation in QA.

We can easily check that the above ordering is a proper ordering and that for $`a,b,c𝒜_\mathrm{O}`$ lower upper and greater lower bounds exist—they are given by $`((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}a`$ and $`(((a^{}b)(ba^{}))^{}a^{})^{}`$, respectively. Obviously we can introduce the following definition $`xy=^{\mathrm{def}}((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}a`$ and obtain the standard definition of OML as given in Sec. 2. This enables us to formulate the above Substitution Rule, which actually introduces an infinite number of conditions. Whether they can be replaced with a finite set of individual conditions is an open problem. Along this rule, A7 becomes Eq. (2.14). Eq. (2.14) is equivalent to Eq. (2.13) which for $`j=5`$ reads : $`a_5b=(ab)(a^{}b^{})=1a=b`$. Since we have $`a_5b=((b_ia^{})^{}_i(b^{}a)^{})^{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ \[Eq. (3.23)\], we get A8 below. Similarly, we get A9 etc. Of course, we can never arrive at $`aab`$, $`a(ab)=a`$, $`a(a^{}(ab))=ab`$, or many other equations we are used to in OML. For example, if we had had $`a(ab)=a`$, that would have reduced Eq. (4.12) below to Eq. (2.17) and therefore turn QA into a Boolean algebra.

###### Lemma 4.2.

$`\mathrm{A8}`$ $`(ba^{})(b^{}a)=1a=b,`$ (4.10)
$`\mathrm{A9}`$ $`aa^{}=1,`$ (4.11)
$`\mathrm{A10}`$ $`a(b(ba))=0ab,`$ (4.12)
$`\mathrm{A11}`$ $`(((ba)a)^{}b)a=a(b(ba)),`$ (4.13)
$`\mathrm{A12}`$ $`ab=1a^{}b^{},`$ (4.14)
where $`ab\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}(a^{}b^{})^{}`$.

On the other hand, Lemma 3.4 indicates that there might be different ways of expressing classical disjunctions by means of quantum ones. And indeed, $`ab=(a_5b)_5(b^{}_5a^{})^{}`$ does not match any other $`_i`$—meaning $`ab(a_ib)_i(b^{}_ia^{})^{}`$, $`i=1,2,3,4`$. The same is true with Eq. (3.15) for $`_3`$ and $`_4`$, as well as with $`ab=((a^{}_1b^{})^{}_1b^{})^{}_1((a_1b^{})^{}_1a^{})^{}`$ and $`ab=((a^{}_2b^{})^{}_2a^{})^{}_2(b^{}_2(b_2a^{})^{})^{}`$. Thus we arrive at

###### Theorem 4.3.

In QA one can express classical disjunction in the following five non-equivalent ways:

$`a_{cl1}b`$ $`=`$ $`((a^{}b^{})^{}b^{})^{}((ab^{})^{}a^{})^{}`$ (4.15)
$`a_{cl2}b`$ $`=`$ $`((a^{}b^{})^{}a^{})^{}(b^{}(ba^{})^{})^{}`$ (4.16)
$`a_{cl3}b`$ $`=`$ $`b(ba)`$ (4.17)
$`a_{cl4}b`$ $`=`$ $`a(ba)`$ (4.18)
$`a_{cl5}b`$ $`=`$ $`(ab)(b^{}a^{})^{}.`$ (4.19)
Of course, there are many other such non-equivalent 5-tuples. Altogether, there are $`(5^5)^5`$ such 5-tuples.

In conclusion, by using the parallels with the standard orthomodular lattice theory, in QA we can derive all the equations that hold in the lattice theory in terms of $`_i,i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ and negation, even those that cannot be obtained by the method presented in Section 3—for example, $`a_i(b_ia)=a_i(b^{}_ia)`$ or $`a_i(b_i(a^{}_i(a_ib)))=a_ib`$ where neither sides of these equations are equal to particular Beran expressions for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ while the equations themselves do hold for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$. On the other hand, by using $`ab=`$ $`=^{\mathrm{def}}((ab^{})(b^{}a))^{}a`$ and A1-A7 from Def. 4.1 we can embed the standard orthomodular lattice theory in QA.

## 5 Conditional associativity of quantum operations

Quantum disjunctions and conjunctions are not associative. However, a conditional associativity, similar to Foulis-Holland distributivity, does hold in any orthomodular lattice as proved in the theorem below. D’Hooghe and Pykacz \[4, p. 648\] the theorem for $`i=`$1, 2 and 5, and conjectured it for $`i=`$3 and 4. Below we confirm their conjecture by giving the proofs for $`i=`$3 and 4. By doing so we prove that the conditional associativity holds for the unified quantum disjunction and conjunction ($``$ and $``$) from the previous section. For this purpose, we may take $`aCb`$ to be $`a(a^{}b)=ba`$, noting that in any OML $`a_i(a^{}_ib)=b_ia`$ is equivalent to $`aCb`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

In any orthomodular lattice any triple $`\{a,b,c\}`$ in which one of the elements commutes with the other two is associative with respect to $`_i`$ and $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$:

$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`aCc(a_ib)_ic=a_i(b_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (5.1)
$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`bCc(a_ib)_ic=a_i(b_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (5.2)
$`aCc`$ $`\&`$ $`bCc(a_ib)_ic=a_i(b_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (5.3)
$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`aCc(a_ib)_ic=a_i(b_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (5.4)
$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`bCc(a_ib)_ic=a_i(b_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (5.5)
$`aCc`$ $`\&`$ $`bCc(a_ib)_ic=a_i(b_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (5.6)
###### Proof.

Since D’Hooghe and Pykacz \[4, p. 648\] proved the cases $`i=1,2,5`$ we only give sketchy proofs for these cases for the sake of completeness.

For $`i=1,2`$, Eq. (5.1), given the premise ($`aCb`$) and the Foulis-Holland theorem (F-H) \[$`aCb\&aCc(ab)c=(ac)(bc)`$, etc\] we have (since $`a^{}Ca`$): $`a_1b=a(a^{}b)=(aa^{})(ab)=ab)`$. Thus, the conclusion from Eq. (5.1) reads

$`(a_1b)_1c=abc=a_1(b_1c).`$
Eq. (5.2) and Eq. (5.3) follow analogously. Since $`a_2b=b_1a`$ and $`a_{1,2}b=(a^{}_{1,2}b^{})^{}`$, we have proved the theorem for $`i=1,2`$.

For $`i=5`$, (again we have $`aCba_5b=ab`$, etc.) both sides of the conclusion of Eqs. (5.1), Eqs. (5.2), and Eqs. (5.3) reduce to $`a(b_5c)`$, $`b(a_5c)`$, and $`c(a_5b)`$, respectively.

Let us now consider the case $`i=3`$, Eq. (5.1). According to the first definition of $`aCb`$ from Def. 2.3 we have, given the premises ($`aCb`$ and $`aCc`$) and the orthomodularity property \[$`a(a^{}(ab))=ab`$\]:

$`a_3b=(ab)(ab^{})(a^{}(ab))=a(a^{}(ab))=ab`$
and therefore, using Foulis-Holland theorem (F-H) and the second premise and Def. 2.3:

$`(a_3b)_3c`$ $`=`$ $`((ab)c)((ab)c^{})((a^{}b^{})(abc))`$ (5.7)
$`=`$ $`\text{[F-H]}=(ac)(bc)(ac^{})(bc^{})((a^{}b^{})(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`\text{[Df.}\text{2.3}\text{]}=a(bc)(bc^{})((a^{}b^{})(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(bc)(bc^{})((a(a^{}b^{}))(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(bc)(bc^{})(((aa^{})(ab^{}))(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(bc)(bc^{})((ab^{})(abc))`$
The right-hand side of the conclusion in Eq. (5.1) reads:

$`a_3(b_3c)=(a(b_3c))(a(b_3c)^{})a^{}((a(b_3c))).`$ (5.8)
Now $`b_3c=(bc)(bc^{})(b^{}(bc))`$ and since we also have $`aCb`$ and $`aCc`$ and therefore: $`aC(bc)`$, $`aC(bc^{})`$, and $`aC(b^{}(bc))`$, we have $`aC(b_3c)`$ as well. Hence, using Def. 2.3 we reduce Eq. (5.8) to:

$`a_3(b_3c)`$ $`=`$ $`aa^{}(a(b_3c))=a(bc)(bc^{})(b^{}(bc)))`$
$`=`$ $`(bc)(bc^{})((ab^{})(abc))),`$
which is nothing but Eq. (5.7). Hence, Eq. (5.1) is proved.

Let us next consider Eq. (5.2). Here we have: $`a_3b=ab`$ and $`b_3c=bc`$ and therefore:

$`(a_3b)_3c`$ $`=`$ $`((ab)c)((ab)c^{})((a^{}b^{})(abc))`$ (5.9)
$`=`$ $`\text{[F-H]}=(ac)(bc)(ac^{})(bc^{})((a^{}b^{})(ac))`$
$`=`$ $`(ac)(ac^{})(bc)(bc^{})((a^{}b^{})(ac))`$
$`=`$ $`[bCc]=(ac)(ac^{})b((a^{}b^{})(ac))`$
$`=`$ $`[bC(a^{}b^{}),bC(bc)]=(ac)(ac^{})((a^{}b)(abc)).`$
On the other hand, we have

$`a_3(b_3c)`$ $`=`$ $`(a(bc))(ab^{}c^{})(a^{}(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`\text{[F-H]}=(ab)(ac)(ab^{}c^{})(a^{}(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(ac)(ab^{}c^{})(ab)(a^{}b)(a^{}(ac))`$
$`=`$ $`[aCb]=(ac)(ab^{}c^{})b(a^{}(ac))`$
$`=`$ $`[bC(ac^{})]=(ac)((ac^{})b)(b^{}b)(a^{}(ac))`$
$`=`$ $`(ac)(ac^{})b(a^{}(ac))`$
$`=`$ $`[bCa^{},bC(ac)]=(ac)(ac^{})((a^{}b)(abc))`$
which is nothing but Eq. (5.9) and this proves Eq. (5.2).

As for Eq. (5.3), here we again have $`cC(a_3b)`$ and $`b_3c=bc`$. Thus we get:

$`(a_3b)_3c`$ $`=`$ $`((a_3b)c)((a_3b)c^{})((a_3b)^{}((a_3b)c))`$ (5.10)
$`=`$ $`(a_3b)((a_3b)^{}((a_3b)c))`$
$`=`$ $`[\mathrm{OM}\mathrm{property}]=(\mathrm{a}_3\mathrm{b})\mathrm{c}=(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b})(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}^{})(\mathrm{a}^{}(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}))\mathrm{c}`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)(ab^{})((a^{}c)(abc))`$
For the right-hand side we have:

$`a_3(b_3c)`$ $`=`$ $`(a(bc))(ab^{}c^{})(a^{}(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)(ac)(ab^{}c^{})(a^{}(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)(ab^{}c^{})(a^{}(ac))((ac)abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)(ab^{}c^{})(a^{}c)(abc))`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)(ab^{}c^{})(a^{}(abc)))c`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)((ab^{})c)(cc^{})(a^{}(abc)))`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)(ab^{})c(a^{}(abc)))`$
$`=`$ $`(ab)(ab^{})((a^{}c)(abc)))`$
which is nothing but Eq. (5.10), what proves Eq. (5.3).

Since $`a_4b=b_3a`$ and $`a_{3,4}b=(a^{}_{3,4}b^{})^{}`$, we have proved the theorem for $`i=3,4`$. ∎

We conjecture that the theorem holds in any weakly orthomodular lattice, WOML  as well.

## 6 Conditional distributivity of quantum operations

The Foulis-Holland theorem for conditional distributivity does not in general hold for the quantum disjunctions and conjunctions. D’Hooghe and Pykacz show this for $`_5,_5`$ \[4, p. 646\] and state that (in our notation for $`i`$) “the same can be checked for $`i=1,2,3,4`$” (p. 647). While this is true for $`i=3,4`$, distributivity in the forms given by Theorems 6.1 and 6.2 does hold for $`i=1,2`$. Also, parts of the Foulis-Holland theorem, presented in Theorem 6.3 hold for any $`i`$ and therefore for the unified quantum disjunction and conjunction ($``$ and $``$) from Sec. 4.

###### Theorem 6.1.

In any orthomodular lattice any triple $`\{a,b,c\}`$ in which one of the elements commutes with the other two is distributive with respect to $`_1`$ and $`_1`$ in the following sense:

$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`aCca_1(b_1c)=(a_1b)_1(a_1c)`$ (6.1)
$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`bCca_1(b_1c)=(a_1b)_1(a_1c)`$ (6.2)
$`aCc`$ $`\&`$ $`bCca_1(b_1c)=(a_1b)_1(a_1c)`$ (6.3)
###### Proof.

In this and all other proofs of this section, we will implicitly make use of the rules $`aCba_ib=a_jb`$, $`aCba_ib=a_jb`$, $`aCb\&aCcaCb_i,_ic`$, and $`aCba,b,a_ib,a_ibCa_jb,a_jb`$, $`0i,j5`$. Also, $`aCa_{0,1,3,5},_{0,1,3,5}b`$, $`bCa_{0,2,4,5},_{0,2,4,5}b`$, $`a_{0,1}bCa^{}_{0,1}c`$, $`a_{0,1}bCa^{}_{0,1}c`$, $`a_{0,1}bCc_{0,2}a^{}`$, and $`a_{0,1}bCc_{0,2}a^{}`$. We will use F-H implicitly. Recall that $`_0=`$.

For (6.1), $`a(b_1c)=a(b(b^{}c))=(ab)((a^{}b^{})ac)=(ab)_1(ac)`$.

For (6.2), $`a_1(bc)=a(a^{}bc)=a(ba^{}c)=(ab)(a(a^{}c))=(ab)(a_1c)`$.

For (6.3), $`a_1(bc)=a(a^{}bc)=(a(a^{}b))(ac)=(a_1b)(ac)`$. ∎

Because $`_1,_1`$ are not commutative, the “reverse” distributivity $`(a_1b)_1c=(a_1c)_1(b_1c)`$ does not hold for all F-H hypotheses. However, it does hold for $`_2,_2`$:

###### Theorem 6.2.

In any orthomodular lattice any triple $`\{a,b,c\}`$ in which one of the elements commutes with the other two is distributive with respect to $`_2`$ and $`_2`$ in the following sense:

$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`aCc(a_2b)_2c=(a_2c)_2(b_2c)`$ (6.4)
$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`bCc(a_2b)_2c=(a_2c)_2(b_2c)`$ (6.5)
$`aCc`$ $`\&`$ $`bCc(a_2b)_2c=(a_2c)_2(b_2c)`$ (6.6)
###### Proof.

Theorem 6.1 and the fact that $`a_2b=b_1a`$, $`a_2b=b_1a`$. ∎

For certain F-H hypotheses, distributive laws hold for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$. In addition, a couple of other cases hold for $`i=1,2`$.

###### Theorem 6.3.

In any orthomodular lattice the following laws hold:

$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`aCca_i(b_ic)=(a_ib)_i(a_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (6.7)
$`aCc`$ $`\&`$ $`bCc(a_ib)_ic=(a_ic)_i(b_ic),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (6.8)
$`aCb`$ $`\&`$ $`aCc(a_1b)_1c=(a_1c)_1(b_1c)`$ (6.9)
$`aCc`$ $`\&`$ $`bCca_2(b_2c)=(a_2b)_2(a_2c)`$ (6.10)
###### Proof.

For Eq. (6.7), using $`aCba_ib=ab`$ and $`aCb\&aCcaC(b_ic)`$ and F-H we can write the conclusion as

$`a(b_ic)=(ab)_i(ac),i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ (6.11)
To prove that the right-hand side boils down to the left-hand one is straightforward and can be done in a complete analogy to the case $`i=1`$ already done above—Eq. (6.1). For example, for $`i=4`$ we have:

$`(ab)_4(ac)`$ $`=`$ $`((a^{}c^{})((ab)(ac)))(abc)((a^{}b^{})ac)`$
$`=`$ $`((a^{}c^{})a(bc))(abc)(ab^{}c)`$
$`=`$ $`a(b_4c).`$
For Eq. (6.8), the proof follows from Eq. (6.11) by symmetry.

The proof of (6.9) seems a little tricky, so we show it in some detail. First, we show that (under the hypotheses)

$`(ab)(a^{}c)`$ $`=`$ $`(ac)(ba^{}).`$ (6.12)
From $`bab=a(ba^{})`$ and $`cc(ba^{})`$ we have $`bc(a(ba^{}))(c(ba^{}))=(ac)(ba^{})`$. Therefore $`(ac)(ba^{})=(ba^{})(ac)(bc)=((ab)a^{})((ab)c)=(ab)(a^{}c)`$, establishing (6.12). The left-hand side of (6.9) reduces to $`(ab)_1c=(ab)((ab)^{}c)=(ab)((a^{}b^{})c)=(ab)(a^{}c)(b^{}c)`$. The right-hand side reduces to $`(ac)_1(b_1c)=(ac)((ac)^{}b(b^{}c))=(ac)((a^{}c^{})b(b^{}c))=(ac)(b(a^{}c^{})(b^{}c))=(ac)(((ba^{})(bc^{}))(b^{}c))=(ac)((b^{}c)_1(ba^{}))=(ac)((ba^{})(b^{}c))=((ac)(ba^{}))((ac)b^{}c)=((ac)(ba^{}))(b^{}c)`$. Using (6.12), we see they are the same.

For (6.10) we use (6.9) and $`a_2b=b_1a`$, $`a_2b=b_1a`$.

Similar results can be stated for the dual operations ($`_i`$ and $`_i`$ interchanged). In all other cases not shown in the three theorems above, the distributive law does not hold: all of them fail in orthomodular lattice MO2 (Fig. 1).

If we allow a mixture of the different disjunctions and conjunctions, we can obtain a distributive law that holds unconditionally.

###### Theorem 6.4.

In any orthomodular lattice the following law holds:

$`a_1(b_0c)=(a_1b)_0(a_1c)`$ (6.13)
###### Proof.

Expanding definitions and using F-H, $`a_1(b_0c)=a(a^{}bc)=a(a^{}ba^{}c)=(a(a^{}b))(a(a^{}c))=(a_1b)_0(a_1c)`$. ∎

It is interesting that if we consider all equations of the form $`a_i(b_jc)=(a_kb)_l(a_mc)`$ for all possible assignments $`0i,j,k,l,m5`$ ($`6^5=7776`$ possibilities), the equation holds in all OMLs for exactly the one case of (6.13): $`i=1,j=0,k=1,l=0,m=1`$. All other 7775 cases fail in lattice MO2.

The “reverse” form of (6.13) holds with $`_2`$ substituted for $`_1`$. Dual results with $`_i`$ and $`_i`$ interchanged can also be stated.

## 7 An open problem

In Ref.  we opened an interesting problem on whether the “distributivity of symmetric identity,” expressed by Equation (7.7) below, holds in all orthomodular lattices or not and whether a particular equation derivable from it in any orthomodular lattice characterizes the latter lattices. An indication that they might do so is that they pass all Greechie diagrams we let them run on—with up to 38 atoms and 38 blocks (more than 50 million lattices). We used our program greechie to obtain the diagrams and our program latticeg to check the equations on them.  On the other hand Equation (7.7) does not imply the orthomodularity property—it does not fail in the diagram O6 which characterizes any orthomodular lattice.

In Ref.  we proved several partial results for the above distributivity. In this section we prove that it holds in Hilbert space and in the Godowski lattices of the second lowest order (4GO). We recall from Ref.  that a 4GO is any OML (actually any OL) in which the following equation, which we call 4-Go, holds:

$`(a_1b)(b_1c)(c_1d)(d_1a)`$ $``$ $`a_1d.`$ (7.1)
We define $`ab=^{\mathrm{def}}(ab)(a^{}b^{})`$ and note that $`ab=a_5b`$ holds in all OMLs.

###### Lemma 7.1.

In any OML we have:

$`(ac)(bc)=((a_2c)(b_2c))((c_1a)(c_1b))`$ (7.2)
$`(ac)(bc)((ab)_2c)(c_1(ab))`$ (7.3)
$`((ab)c)(ab)=(ac)(ab).`$ (7.4)
In any 4GO we have:

$`(ab)((bc)(ac))`$ $``$ $`ac.`$ (7.5)
###### Proof.

For (7.2), we have

$`(ac)(bc)=(bc)(a^{}c^{})(b^{}c^{})(ac)`$
$`=(bc)(a^{}c^{})((b_2c)(c_1a))`$
$`=(bc)(((a^{}c^{})(b_2c))((a^{}c^{})(c_1a)))`$
$`=(bc)(((a^{}c^{})(b_2c))(c_1a))`$
$`=((bc)(a^{}c^{})(b_2c))((bc)(c_1a))`$
$`=((a^{}c^{})(b_2c))((bc)(c_1a))`$
$`=(((a^{}c^{})c)(c(b^{}c^{})))(((bc)c^{})(c^{}(ca))))`$
$`=((a_2c)(b_2c))((c_1b)(c_1a))).`$
In the second step, we use Equation (3.20) from Ref. . In the third and fifth steps we apply the Foulis-Holland theorem (F-H), and in the fourth and sixth steps we apply absorption laws.

For (7.3), $`(a_2c)(b_2c)(ab)_2c`$ and $`(c_1a)(c_1b)c_1(ab)`$ in any OL, so $`(ac)(bc)=`$ \[from (7.2)\]$`((a_2c)(b_2c))((c_1a)(c_1b))((ab)_2c)(c_1(ab))`$.

For (7.4), we have

$`((ab)c)(ab)=((ab)c)(a^{}b^{}c^{}))((ab)(a^{}b^{}))`$
$`=(((ab)c)((ab)(a^{}b^{})))((a^{}b^{}c^{})((ab)(a^{}b^{})))`$
$`=(((ab)c)(ab))(((ab)c)(a^{}b^{}))`$
$`((a^{}b^{}c^{})(ab))((a^{}b^{}c^{})(a^{}b^{}))`$
$`=((abc)00(a^{}b^{}c^{}))=(ac)(ab)`$
where in the second and third steps we apply F-H and in the last step we apply Lemma 3.11 of Ref. .

Finally, (7.5) is proved as follows. Equation (3.30) of Ref. , which we repeat below as (7.6), was shown to hold in all 4GOs.

$`(ab)((b^{}c^{})(ac))`$ $``$ $`ac.`$ (7.6)
Using Equation (3.20) of Ref.  and renaming variables, we see that this is the same as

$`(de)(e_2c)(c_1d)`$ $``$ $`dc.`$
Substituting $`ab`$ for $`d`$ and $`ab`$ for $`e`$,

$`((ab)(ab))((ab)_2c)(c_1(ab))`$ $``$ $`(ab)c.`$
Since $`(ab)(ab)=ab`$ holds in any OML, we have

$`(ab)((ab)_2c)(c_1(ab))`$ $``$ $`(ab)c`$
$`(ab)((ab)_2c)(c_1(ab))`$ $``$ $`((ab)c)(ab)`$
$`(ab)((ab)_2c)(c_1(ab))`$ $``$ $`(ac)(ab)`$
$`(ab)((ab)_2c)(c_1(ab))`$ $``$ $`ac`$
$`(ab)((ac)(bc))`$ $``$ $`ac.`$
where in the third step we use (7.4) and in the last step we use (7.3). ∎

###### Theorem 7.2.

The following equation, which we call distributivity of symmetric identity, holds in all 4GOs (and therefore all $`n`$GO, $`n4`$) and thus in the lattice of all closed subspaces of finite or infinite dimensional Hilbert space:

$`(ab)((bc)(ac))`$ $`=`$ $`((ab)(bc))((ab)(ac)).`$ (7.7)
###### Proof.

The result follows immediately from (7.5) and Theorem 2.9 of Ref. . ∎

Whether or not (7.7) holds in all OMLs or even in all WOMLs (since it does not fail in O6) is still an open question. However, the most important question from the point of view of quantum mechanics, which is whether it holds in Hilbert space, is answered by Theorem 7.2.

Since (7.6) also follows from (7.7), as shown in Ref. , the OML variety in which (7.6) holds is the same as the OML variety in which (7.7) holds. Thus if one of these holds in any OML (our open question), so does the other.

Another open question is whether the stronger-looking Equation (3.29) of Ref. , from which (7.6) follows and which we repeat below as (7.8),

$`(a_1b)(b_2c)(c_1a)`$ $``$ $`(ac)`$ (7.8)
can be derived (in an OML) from (7.6).

## 8 Algorithms for the programs

In an OML, any expression with 2 variables is equal to one of 96 canonical forms, corresponding to the 96 elements of the free OML F2. We fix the 96 expressions of \[1, Table 1, p. 82\] as our canonical standard.

The program beran takes, as its input, an arbitrary two-variable expression and outputs the equivalent canonical form. The program can be used to prove or disprove any 2-variable conjecture expressed as an equation, simply by verifying that both sides of the equation reduce (or do not reduce) to the same canonical form.

Each element of OML F2 can be separated into a “Boolean part” and an “MO2 part.”  Each of them has relatively simple rules of calculation, and we use this method in the program beran.444The authors wish to thank Prof. Navara for suggesting this method. The reader can download this or any other afore-mentioned program from our ftp sites:
ftp://users.shore.net/members/n/d/ndm/quantum-logic/ and
ftp://m3k.grad.hr/pavicic/quantum-logic/programs This is implemented in the program by checking for either Boolean or MO2 lattice violation of the 96 equations formed by setting the input expression equal to each of the 96 canonical expressions, and the unique equation which violates neither lattice gives us the answer.

The program beran is contained in a single file, beran.c, and compiles on any platform with an ansi c compiler such as gcc. The use of the program is simple. The operations $``$, $``$, and  are represented by the characters `v`, `^`, and `-`. (Other operations are also defined and can be seen with the program’s `--help` option). As an example, to see the canonical expression corresponding to $`a(a^{}(ab))`$, we type

```
       beran "(av(-a^(avb)))"

```

and the program responds with `(avb)`.

A second program, bercomb, was used to find the minimal expressions shown in Section 3. This program is contained in the single file bercomb.c. Its input parameters include the number of variable occurrences and the number of negations (orthocomplementations), and it exhaustively constructs all possible expressions containing a single binary operation with these parameters fixed. For each expression it uses the algorithm from beran.c to determine the expression’s canonical form which it prints out. When a set of operations is specified, such as $`_1`$ through $`_5`$, it prints out the canonical form only when all operations simultaneously result in that canonical form.

If $`v2`$ is the number of variable occurrences and $`n0,2v1`$ the number of negations, then the number of possible expressions containing one or two different variables is as follows. The number of ways of parenthesizing a binary operation in an expression with $`v`$ variables is the Catalan number $`C_{v1}`$, where $`C_i=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2i}{i}\right)/(i+1)`$. There are $`2^v`$ possible ways to assign two variables to an expression. If we display an expression with no negations in Polish notation, it is easy to see that there are $`2v1`$ symbols and therefore $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2v1}{n}\right)`$ ways to distribute $`n`$ negations (disallowing double negations). Thus for fixed $`v`$ and $`n`$, there are $`2^v\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2v1}{n}\right)C_{v1}`$ possible expressions.

For example, if we type

```
       bercomb 7 0 i n

```

then all $`2^7\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{271}{0}\right)C_{71}=16896`$ expressions with 7 variable occurrences and 0 negations are scanned, and the output includes the four smallest implicational expressions resulting in $`ab`$ that we mentioned before Lemma 3.1. We refer the reader to the program’s `--help` option for the meaning and usage of the other bercomb parameters. In this example `i` means $`_1`$ through $`_5`$ and `n` means don’t suppress duplicate canonical expressions.

## 9 Concluding remarks

In Ref.  we stressed that all the operations in an orthomodular lattice are fivefold defined and we illustrated this on the identity operations. The claim was based on Ref.  where we proved that “quantum” as well as “classical” operations can serve for a formulation of an orthomodular lattice underlying Hilbert space. In 1998 we also put on the web the computer program beran which reduces any two-variable expression in an orthomodular lattice to one of the 96 possible ones as given in Ref. .

In effect, in the standard orthomodular lattice formulation (where the “classical” operations are inherited from the Hilbert space formalism) there are 80 quantum expressions which for compatible variables reduce to 16 classical expressions. In general all quantum expressions (including “quantum 0” and “quantum 1”) are fivefold defined. (Detailed presentation of them all we give in Sec. 2.) In our quantum algebraic approach the situation reverses and we have classical operations fivefold defined in a quantum algebra formulation.

Still, recently several papers on “some new operations on orthomodular lattices” appeared in press as, e.g., the one by D’Hooghe and Pykacz  in which they picked out Beran expressions 12, 18, 28, 34, 44, 50, 60, and 76 and looked at some of their properties. So, for example, in \[4, p. 649, bottom\] one reads (in our notation): “Theorem 7 allows one to express in many ways any of the studied operations by (any of) the other(s) orthocomplementation. However, the following example in which we express $`_1`$ by $`_5`$ and shows that the obtained formulas might be rather lengthy: $`a_1b=(a_5((a_5b)^{}_5a))^{}_5a`$. It is an open question which of such formulas (if any) could be written in a more economical way.” Our approach immediately closes this open question: all the formulas could be written in a more economical way and one gets all alternatives in seconds; e.g., in the afore-cited example, there are over 100 shorter expressions—one of 3 shortest ones is given by Eq. (3.16) above—and there are over 500 of them with the same (5) variable occurrences. On the other hand, Theorem 6 from Ref. \[4, p. 648\] is just a special case of our Theorem 2.5 from \[17, p. 1487\]. Also all the results from \[4, Section 3.2, p. 646-8\], can be trivially obtained using our computer program latticeg.  In addition, their two conjectures (p. 648) following from their Theorem 5 (p. 647) one can support by our program latticeg with millions of lattices. Hence, it appears necessary to present our results in detail, give explicit proofs of all our previous claims, present the most important and relevant outputs of our programs in some detail, and provide the reader with instructions on how to use our programs which give answers to virtually all questions one can have on algebraic properties of two variable orthomodular formulas in seconds.

Thus, in Sec. 3 we prove several lemmas in which we show how one can express operations in any standardly defined (in Sec. 2) orthomodular lattice by each other. Lemma 3.1 gives expressions of classical disjunction ($``$) by means of all five quantum implications $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ and without negations in a shortest possible single equation—meaning that the equation preserves its form for all $`i`$’s and that there are no simpler equations with such a property. Expressions of $``$ by means of quantum disjunctions ($`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$) and conjunctions ($`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$) follow from Def. 2.4. Lemma 3.2 gives the shortest expressions of $`=_0`$ and $`=_0`$ by means of $`_i`$, $`_i`$, and $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ with negation. Lemma 3.4 gives the shortest expressions of $`_i`$, $`_i`$, and $`_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},5`$ by means of $`_i`$, and $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ with negation.

In Sec. 4 we start with the possibility—opened by Lemma 3.2—of expressing $``$ by means of $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$ in five equations of the same form and define—in Def. 4.1—the orthomodular lattice by means of one unique quantum operation. We have chosen quantum disjunction $``$, but the same, of course, can be done with quantum conjunction $``$ or implication (the latter being just another way of writing disjunction)—quantum identity is the only quantum operation which cannot serve for the purpose as we proved in Ref. . In such a formulation of orthomodular lattice everything reverses and now classical operations can be expressed in five different ways as shown by Theorem 4.3.

We stress that the quantum algebra QA (Def. 4.1) is actually completely defined by its Substitution Rule, and that “axioms” A1–A7 are merely some consequences of that rule. A1–A7 are important in that they show that standard OML can be embedded in QA and are included for this reason. However there are many other non-obvious consequences of QA such as those exemplified in Lemma 4.2. That lemma only touches the surface of the kind of conditions one can obtain from QA, and it is possible that QA provides a rich algebraic structure that has yet to be explored. It also remains an interesting open problem whether QA can be finitely axiomatized.

Lemma 3.3 shows the surprising result that classical disjunction can be expressed in a single equation that holds in any OML for all 6 disjunctions $`_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},5`$. This opens the possibility of an even more general quantum algebra, with Eq. (3.7) used in place of Eq. (3.4) as the basis for A1–A7. In this case we would replace “$`i=0,\mathrm{},5`$” for “$`i=1,\mathrm{},5`$” in the Substitution Rule. The same kinds of open questions we brought up for QA would also apply to this more general algebra.

As for D’Hooghe and Pykacz’s conjecture on a possible conditional associativity of $`_{3,4}`$ and $`_{3,4}`$ , we decided that its passage through millions of Greechie diagrams makes it worth proving it and we did so in Sec. 5. In that way we obtained the conditional associativity for the unified operations $``$ and $``$ from Sec. 5.

In Sec. 6 we prove several Foulis-Holland-type conditional distributivities some of which are valid for all standard quantum disjunctions and conjunctions and therefore for the unified quantum disjunction and conjunction ($``$ and $``$) from Sec. 4.

As for properties taken over from Hilbert space in Sec. 7 we present two, given by Eqs. (7.5) and (7.7) for which we proved to hold in a variety of orthomodular lattice 4GO (and therefore in $`n`$GO, $`n4`$). but which do not fail in any of over 50 million Greechie diagrams we tested the properties on. Thus it remains an open problem whether the properties hold in any orthomodular lattice and even more whether Eq. (7.7) holds in an even weaker ortholattice called weakly orthomodular lattice, WOML.

In Sec. 8 we give algorithms we used to obtain and check all our equations and proofs for properties involving two variables.

To conclude, the only genuine target that apparently remains for scientific investigation in algebraic properties of orthomodular lattices in the future are properties with 3 and more variables.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One of us (M. P.) is grateful to Prof. Anton Zeilinger, Institute for Experimental Physics, University of Vienna, Austria, for his kind invitation to participate in the program Quantum Measurement Theory and Quantum Information (Sept 1, 2000—Jan 20, 2001) organized by A. Eckert, A. Zeilinger and P. Zoller at the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna, where this paper has been written in part. He would also like to acknowledge support of the Ministry of Science of Croatia through the Project No. 082006.


format: text

text:
# Effective supersymmetric theory and muon anomalous magnetic moment with 𝑅 parity violation

## Abstract

The effective supersymmetric theory (ESUSY) with $`R`$ parity conservation cannot give a large anomalous magnetic moment of $`\mu `$. It is pointed out that the flavor conservation and a large $`(g2)_\mu `$ within the experimental limits are achievable in the ESUSY with $`R`$ parity violating couplings involving the third generation superparticles.

preprint: SNUTP 01/009

\[Key words: anomalous magnetic moment of muon, effective SUSY, $`R`$ parity violation\]

The recent hint  that the anomalous magnetic moment of muon $`a_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(g2)_\mu `$ might not fall within the predicted range in the standard model attracted a great deal of attention in the hope of probing new physics possibility . Probably, in the future this excitement can be compared to that on the discussion of the weak neutral current thirty years ago .

In general, the loop correction to the magnetic moment of $`\mu `$ arises if there exists a left to right (or right to left) chirality transition of the external muon lines. This chirality transition needs an insertion of a fermion mass or a Yukawa coupling vertex. If heavy fermions are introduced, it has been known that a large magnetic moment is possible, with both left-handed and right-handed currents . Without a heavy fermion, the mass insertion or the Yukawa coupling leads to a magnetic moment proportional to the external fermion mass. But in the standard model there does not exist a heavy fermion and we expect small lepton magnetic moments of order $`a_\nu (m_\nu m_e/M_W^2)10^{18}`$ times the electron Bohr magneton  for the eV range neutrino mass and $`a_\mu (m_\mu ^2/M_W^2)`$ times the muon Bohr magneton . There is a new heavy(but relatively light to resolve the hierarchy problem) fermion in supersymmetric models, i.e. the chargino. Then the above argument may imply an anomalously large anomalous magnetic moment of $`\mu `$, which however is not realized due to the chiral nature of the supersymmetric models .

Indeed, the recent observation of the anomalous magnetic moment of muon are around the electroweak scale order , i.e. of order predicted in the standard model

$$a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}=426(165)\times 10^{11},$$
(1)
but off from the standard model prediction by $`2.6\sigma `$. The theoretical prediction quoted above is from Ref.  which gives the most stringent error bar compared to the other published results , the main difference coming from the treatment of the hadronic contributions. Therefore, at present it is premature to conclude the existence of a new physics beyond 100 GeV.

Nevertheless, it is tempting to search for possibilities of generating $`(g2)_\mu `$ of order the electroweak scale or even a larger value. Then, the mass scale of new physics must be close to the electroweak scale since the possible deviation is of order the predicted range in the standard model. In this spirit, already there appeared several explanations . Among these, the supergravity scenario is particularly interesting because a relatively light (mass $`<`$ 500 GeV) superpartners are around the corner as shown in , which gives a hope of probing whole spectrum of superparticles below TeV at TevatronII and LHC.

However, the supergravity models have the notorious problem regarding the flavor changing processes . One of the models resolving this flavor changing problem is the gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking at low energy . Another model is the effective supersymmetric theory(ESUSY) in which the superpartners of the first two generations are heavy (masses greater than tens of TeV) while the superpartners of the third generation is relatively light (masses a few hundred GeV) . Thus, the ESUSY with $`R`$ parity conservation cannot account for the possible extra contribution to the $`g2`$ of muon, reported recently , since smuonneutrino($`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$) and smuon ($`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$) masses are very heavy $`>20`$ TeV in ESUSY.

In this paper, we consider both the flavor changing problem and the BNL experiment  seriously, and study the anomalous magnetic moment of $`\mu `$ in the ESUSY. Here, we do not digress into how the ESUSY phenomenon results at low energy, but mainly discuss its effects on the $`(g2)_\mu `$. In the effective SUSY scenario, sparticle masses of the first two generations are required to be heavier than 20 TeV . These sparticles of the first two generations are not responsible for a large anomalous magnetic moment of $`\mu `$. Therefore, the SUSY loops considered in Ref.  for $`a_\mu `$ are negligible in ESUSY. For the gauge hierarchy solution, however, there is an effective SUSY for the third generation particles. The phenomenological constraints on the third generation sparticle masses are expected to be lighter than 1 TeV . Within the experimentally allowed regions of these mass parameters, we look for a possibility of generating a large anomalous magnetic moment of $`\mu `$ by introducing $`R`$ parity violating interactions.

The ESUSY requires that top squarks must be lighter than 1 TeV for a hierarchy solution and $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ breaking by the top quark Yukawa coupling : the left-handed stop mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t},L}<`$ 1 TeV and the right-handed stop mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t},R}<1`$ TeV. Because of the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry left-handed sbottom mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{b},L}`$ must be smaller than 1 TeV, while right-handed sbottom mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{b},R}`$ need not to be constrained to $`<1`$ TeV. Similarly, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau ,L},M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau },L}`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau },R}`$ are not restricted. However, the Fayet-Iliopoulos anomaly should lead to a light Higgs boson below 20 TeV for the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ breaking, i.e. there remains an effective SUSY for the third generation below 20 TeV, which gives a condition

$$\mathrm{Tr}YM_{\mathrm{heavy}}^2=0,$$
(2)
where $`Y`$ is the electroweak hypercharge. If the full third generation sparticles are light, the above trace is can be satisfied under the assumption that the first two generations satisfy the trace rule. In addition, note that if the third generation scalar leptons are heavy with the same mass and the third generation scalar quarks are light then Rule (2) can also be satisfied, which however is not considered below. Therefore, for simplicity and in search of a possibility, we assume that the full third generation masses are light with mass less than 1 TeV.

In the estimation of the anomalous magnetic moment, there can be a mixing between the left scalar and the right scalar fermions, which however gives a contribution negligible compared to the case without the mixing. The main reason for this is that the standard model is a chiral theory and scalars introduced in the supersymmetrization remembers this chiral nature. So if there is a mixing term between left- and right-sfermion masses, then there must be a chirality flip by a mass insertion in the fermion line in the loop. However, the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetry forbids the mass insertion for charged leptons and quarks as an internal fermion line. The only allowed diagram for the internal neutrino line, which is possible only by introducing neutrino masses beyond the standard model, is as shown in Fig. 1 (b). We can anticipate Fig. 1 (a), but it is absent due to the illegal $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ insertion in the supersymmetric limit. (Note however that there will be a small correction if we consider the $`A`$ term arising from $`\lambda _{333}^{}`$ coupling which must be very small in view of a small $`\nu _\tau `$ mass.)

Fig. 1. The contribution from the slepton mixing term.

Since neutrino masses are below 10 eV, we can neglect Fig. 1 (b) also and hence in the remainder of this paper we will neglect the mass mixing between the left- and right-handed sfermions. Also, for the mixing between squarks, there does not appear an important contribution.

The relevant $`R`$ parity violating superpotential($`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ couplings) is given by

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _{ijk}L_iL_jE_k^c+\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_jD_k^c,`$ (3)
where $`i,j,`$ and $`k`$ are generation indices, $`L_i`$ and $`Q_i`$ are the left-handed lepton and quark doublet superfields, and $`E_i^c`$ and $`D_i^c`$ are the left-handed anti-lepton and anti-quark singlet superfields. The bosonic symmetry implies, $`\lambda _{ijk}=\lambda _{jik}`$.

The needed vertices for the $`(g2)_\mu `$ calculation can be read from the above superpotential,

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{ijk}(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}e_{jL}e_{kL}^c+\stackrel{~}{e}_{jL}\nu _{iL}e_{kL}^c+\stackrel{~}{e}_{kR}^{}\nu _{iL}e_{jL})`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}d_{jL}d_{kL}^c+\stackrel{~}{d}_{jL}\nu _{iL}d_{kL}^c+\stackrel{~}{d}_{kR}^{}\nu _{iL}d_{jL}\stackrel{~}{e}_{iL}u_{jL}d_{kL}^c\stackrel{~}{u}_{jL}e_{iL}d_{kL}^c\stackrel{~}{d}_{kR}^{}e_{iL}u_{jL})`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`h.c.`$ (6)
In terms of the four component spinors, we obtain

$`_Y=`$ $`\lambda _{ij2}`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}\overline{\mu }P_Le_j+\stackrel{~}{e}_{jL}\overline{\mu }P_L\nu _i)+\lambda _{i2k}^{}(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}^{}\overline{\mu }P_Re_k+\stackrel{~}{e}_{kR}\overline{\mu }P_R\nu _i^c)`$ (7)
$``$ $`\lambda _{2jk}^{}(\stackrel{~}{u}_{jL}^{}\overline{\mu }P_Rd_k+\stackrel{~}{d}_{kR}\overline{\mu }P_Ru_j^c)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`h.c.`$ (9)
where the left-handed and right-handed chirality projecton operator are defined as $`P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma ^5)`$.

As commented above, the slepton mixing diagrams, Fig. 1, are not important for $`(g2)_\mu `$.

The $`R`$ violating $`\lambda `$ couplings contribute  to the muon anomalous magnetic moment as shown in Fig. 2, $`(a)(d)`$. In Figs. 2, one of the external lines shown as left-handed muon is understood as shifted to a right-handed one by $`m_\mu `$ insertion in that external line. Then, we obtain,

$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau (1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{i2k}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2x^3}{m_\mu ^2x^2+(m_{e_k}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}}^2(1x)}}`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{32k}|^2}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\tau L}}^2}},`$ (11)
$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{i2k}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^3x^2}{m^2x^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{kR}}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{\nu _i}^2(1x)}}`$ (12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{i23}^{}|^2}{96\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau R}}^2}},`$ (13)
$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau (2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{ij2}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2x^3}{m_\mu ^2x^2+(m_{e_j}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{iL}}^2(1x)}}`$ (14)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{3j2}|^2}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\tau L}}^2}},`$ (15)
$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{ij2}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^3x^2}{m_\mu ^2x^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{jL}}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{\nu _i}^2(1x)}}`$ (16)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{i32}|^2}{96\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau L}}^2}}.`$ (17)
Therefore, the $`\lambda `$ contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is

$$a_\mu ^\lambda =\frac{m_\mu ^2}{96\pi ^2}\left(|\lambda _{32k}|^2\frac{2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }^2}+|\lambda _{3k2}|^2\left[\frac{2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }^2}\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}^2}\right]\frac{|\lambda _{k23}|^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2}\right)$$
(18)
where the sum over the repeated indices is implied.

Fig. 2. The contribution from the $`\lambda `$ couplings. One $`\mu _L`$ (or

$`\mu _R`$) is changed to $`\mu _R`$ (or $`\mu _L`$) by $`m_\mu `$ insertion.

The $`\lambda ^{}`$ couplings also contribute to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. The effect of soft supersymmetry breaking term can be considered, but we find that they are not important for our purpose. In addition, the constraint from the flavor changing effects restrict possible models, and here we concentrate on one allowed model as discussed in the introduction, the ESUSY model; thus the allowed couplings are rather restricted. Then, we obtain

$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{t}_L(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{2jk}^{}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2x^3}{m_\mu ^2x^2+(m_{d_k}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_{jL}}^2(1x)}}`$ (19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{23k}^{}|^2}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2}}`$ (20)
$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{b}_R(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{2jk}^{}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^3x^2}{m_\mu ^2x^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_{kR}}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{u_j}^2(1x)}}`$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{2j3}^{}|^2}{96\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2m_{u_j}^2}}(1+F_1(x_{u_j\stackrel{~}{b}_R}))`$ (22)
$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{b}_R(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{2jk}^{}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2x^3}{m_\mu ^2x^2+(m_{u_j}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_{kR}}^2(1x)}}`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{2j3}^{}|^2}{24\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2m_{u_j}^2}}(1+F_2(x_{u_j\stackrel{~}{b}_R}))`$ (24)
$`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{t}_L(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\lambda _{2jk}^{}|^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^3x^2}{m_\mu ^2x^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_{jL}}^2m_\mu ^2)x+m_{d_k}^2(1x)}}`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda _{23k}^{}|^2}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2}}`$ (26)
where

$`F_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6x}{1x}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{(1x)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x\right],`$ (27)
$`F_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3x}{1x}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1x)^2}}\mathrm{ln}x\right],`$ (28)
and $`x_{u_j\stackrel{~}{b}_R}=m_{u_j}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2`$. These $`F`$ functions are important only for the top quark, i.e. for $`x_tx_{u_3\stackrel{~}{b}_R}`$. Note that $`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{t}_L(1)}`$ and $`a_\mu ^{\stackrel{~}{t}_L(2)}`$ add up to zero. Thus, the remaining Eqs. (22) and (24) give the $`\lambda ^{}`$ contribution,

$$a_\mu ^\lambda ^{}=\frac{m_\mu ^2}{32\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2m_t^2}|\lambda _{233}^{}|^2\left(1+\frac{2x_t}{1x_t}\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{1x_t}+\frac{2+x_t}{(1x_t)^2}\mathrm{ln}x_t\right]\right)\right\}$$

$$+\frac{m_\mu ^2}{32\pi ^2}\left\{\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2}(|\lambda _{213}^{}|^2+|\lambda _{223}^{}|^2)\right\}>0.$$
(29)
Note that this contribution is positive definite.

Fig. 3. The contribution from $`\lambda ^{}`$ couplings. One $`\mu _L`$

is changed to $`\mu _R`$ by $`m_\mu `$ insertion.

We can show from the above expression that in the supersymmetric limit, i.e. $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}}=m_t`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{b}}=m_b`$, etc, the contribution to $`(g2)_\mu `$ vanishes, which is a necessary consistency check. In the expression (29), the unknown mass is $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}`$. Without the left- and right-sbottom mixing and the flavor mixing, it is the physical mass.

For completeness, however, we present the formula with the left- and right-sbottom mixing. We need to consider a $`2\times 2`$ sbottom mass matrix, in the $`(\stackrel{~}{b}_L,\stackrel{~}{b}_R^{})^T`$ basis,

$$M^2=\left(\begin{array}{c}M_{11}^2,M_{12}^2\\ M_{21}^2,M_{22}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(30)
After diagonalization of $`M^2`$, $`(M^2)_{22}^1`$ should replace $`1/m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2`$

$$\left(V^{}(M_D^2)^1V\right)_{22}=\underset{k}{}\frac{|V_{k2}|^2}{M_k^2}=\frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2}\left[1\frac{m_b^2(A_b+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_L}^2}\right]^1$$
(31)
where $`V`$ is the diagonalizing unitary matrix, $`M_D^2`$ is the diagonalized mass matrix, and the last relation is given for the MSSM case.

Therefore, we obtain the total contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ in the ESUSY with $`R`$ parity violating couplings as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^{R/}=a_\mu ^\lambda +a_\mu ^\lambda ^{}$$
(32)
where $`a_\mu ^\lambda `$ and $`a_\mu ^\lambda ^{}`$ are given in Eqs. (18) and (29), respectively. In principle, the anomalous magnetic moment can take both signs. But for the most range of the parameter space, in view of Eq. (29), $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ is positive. The possibility of a negative sign arises when the contributions of Fig. 2 (b) and (d) dominate.

Fig. 4. The $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ band of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ in the $`\lambda _{322}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }=m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ plane.

The low mass cut is the LEP bound of 81.0 GeV on the stau mass .

In view of the Brookhaven data of the anomalous magnetic moment of muon with the $`2\sigma `$ deviation, we obtain the necessary lower bound on the $`R`$ parity violating couplings ($`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$) from Eqs. (18) and (29) as

$`|\lambda |(\mathrm{or}|\lambda ^{}|)>0.524\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}}{100GeV}}\right)`$ (33)
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the third generation sfermion mass (or the sbottom mass). In that case, the $`\lambda ^{}`$ couplings cannot give sizable effects for the muon anomaly since there are unavoidable single bounds. $`\lambda _{233}^{}`$ is constrained from the radiative muon neutrino mass, $`m_{\nu _\mu }[3|\lambda _{233}^{}|^2m_b^2(A_b+\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )]/(8\pi ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2)`$ as $`|\lambda _{233}^{}|<0.15\times \sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}/100GeV})`$ . And we also have single bounds such as $`|\lambda _{213}^{}|<0.059\times (m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}/100GeV)`$ from $`R_\pi =\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi e\nu )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \mu \nu )`$ and $`|\lambda _{223}^{}|<0.21\times (m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}/100GeV)`$ from the decay process $`DKl\nu `$.

For the $`\lambda `$ couplings, on the other hand, we can get a naturally large contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the effective SUSY model we are considering. Let us enumerate the $`\lambda `$ contribution from Eq. (18) as

$`a_\mu ^\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{32\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}|\lambda _{321}|^2+|\lambda _{322}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|\lambda _{323}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|\lambda _{312}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|\lambda _{123}|^2\right)`$ (34)
where we set $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }=m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}\stackrel{~}{m}`$. There also exist relevant single bounds on the $`\lambda `$ couplings. Firstly, $`\lambda _{123}`$ giving a negative contribution becomes negligible since $`|\lambda _{123}|<0.05\times (m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}/100GeV)`$ from the charged current universality and thus the $`\lambda `$ contributions can be regarded as positive definite values consistent with the Brookhaven data if the other $`\lambda `$ couplings are allowed to be larger than $`|\lambda _{123}|`$. And we can also ignore $`\lambda _{312}`$ and $`\lambda _{321}`$, which just give contributions less than required by factor 10 since they are constrained as $`\sqrt{|\lambda _{312}|^2+|\lambda _{321}|^2}<0.25\times (m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }/100GeV)`$ from asymmetries in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at the $`Z`$ peak. Lastly, since

$`\sqrt{|\lambda _{322}|^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{M}}{\stackrel{~}{m}}}\right)^2|\lambda _{323}|^2}<0.070\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{M}}{100GeV}}\right)`$ (35)
from $`R_\tau =\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau e\nu \overline{\nu })/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \nu \overline{\nu })`$ or $`R_{\tau \mu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau \mu \nu \overline{\nu })/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\nu \overline{\nu })`$, $`|\lambda _{323}|<0.070\times (\stackrel{~}{m}/100GeV)`$ becomes negligible while $`|\lambda _{322}|`$ can be as large as order one for $`\stackrel{~}{M}m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}=20`$ TeV, which is a natural assumption in the effective SUSY.

Consequently, it is experimentally viable to take the $`\lambda _{322}`$ dominant case among $`R`$ parity violating couplings such that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^{R/}34.9\times 10^{10}\left({\displaystyle \frac{100GeV}{\stackrel{~}{m}}}\right)^2|\lambda _{322}|^2.`$ (36)
In Fig. 4, the above equation is plotted in the $`|\lambda _{322}|`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ plane. Here we show the $`1\sigma `$(dark grey) and $`2\sigma `$(light grey) bands beyond the standard model prediction. It is shown that most of the parameter space is consistent with the experimental bound (35) for the decoupling assumption $`\stackrel{~}{M}=20`$ TeV. Note that there exists a enough room for perturbative $`\lambda _{322}`$ to explain the BNL experiment even for a relatively large slepton mass in the third generation, for example $`\stackrel{~}{m}500`$ GeV can give a perturbative $`\lambda _{322}`$ coupling within the shaded region. If we consider the other terms in Eqs. (18) and (29) in the phenomenologically allowed region with positive contributions, the $`R`$ parity violating couplings can be even lowered. \[In this regard, we note that the SUSY calculation of $`a_\mu `$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$  amounts to the Yukawa couplings of order 1.\]

In conclusion, we have shown that the effective supersymmetric model toward a flavor conserving phenomena for the first two light generations and the introduction of $`R`$ parity violating couplings open up the possibility of a large anomalous magnetic moment of $`\mu `$ within the accessible range of the BNL experiment  and a discovery potential of the third generation sfermions in the TevatronII and LHC accelerators.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank E. J. Chun and P. Ko for useful discussions. This work is supported in part by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education, Korea Research Foundation Grant No. KRF-2000-015-DP0072, and by the Center for High Energy Physics(CHEP), Kyungpook National University, and the Office of Research Affairs, Seoul National University.