Projectable \(\ell\)-groups and algebras of logic: categorical and algebraic connections. (Q284973)

\textit{Generalized MV algebras}, or \textit{GMV algebras} for short, are ``simultaneous generalizations of MV algebras to the noncommutative, unbounded and nonintegral case'', while \textit{IGMV algebras} are integral GMV algebras. In the paper [\textit{N. Galatos} and \textit{C. Tsinakis}, J. Algebra 283, No. 1, 254-291 (2005; Zbl 1063.06008)] it was proved in fact that ``the categories of IGMV algebras and of negative cones of \(l\)-groups with a dense nucleus are equivalent''.NEWLINENEWLINE This paper answers the natural conjecture ``that such an equivalence restricts to an equivalence of the subcategories whose objects are the projectable members of these classes of algebras''. The authors prove that, indeed, ``the categories of projectable IGMV algebras and of negative cones of projectable \(l\)-groups with a dense nucleus are equivalent''.NEWLINENEWLINE Moreover, by adding the Gödel implication to an IGMV algebra, they introduce the notion of \textit{Gödel GMV algebra} -- as an algebra \((M,\wedge,\vee,\cdot,\backslash,/,\to,1)\) of type \((2,2,2,2,2,2,0)\) such that \((M,\wedge,\vee,\cdot,\backslash,/,1)\) is an IGMV algebra and \((M,\wedge,\vee,\cdot,\to,1)\) is a Gödel algebra. And they prove that there is an adjunction between the category of Gödel GMV algebras and a certain category.NEWLINENEWLINE Reviewer's remarks: The readability of the paper is restricted by the use of the divisions (the ``Chinese sticks'') \(\backslash\), \(/\), instead of the implications \(\to\), \(\rightsquigarrow\) (\(y\to z=z/y\) and \(y\rightsquigarrow z=y\backslash z\)) coming from logic.