From Partitions to Information: The Theory of Partition LogicPartition logic is an alternative but deeply connected way to think about structure, distinction, and information. Where classical propositional logic centers on subsets and truth-values, partition logic focuses on how a universe is divided into distinguishable blocks. This shift in perspective reframes familiar logical ideas and gives a natural language for information, distinctions, and classifications. This article develops the foundations of partition logic, compares it to subset-based logic, and explores applications in information theory, computer science, and foundations of mathematics.
1. Introduction: Why partitions?
A partition of a set U is a collection of nonempty, pairwise disjoint subsets (blocks) whose union is U. Partitions formalize the intuitive idea of classifying elements into indistinguishable groups: two elements are indistinguishable relative to a partition if they lie in the same block; they are distinguished if they lie in different blocks.
Whereas classical Boolean logic treats propositions as subsets of a universe (an element either belongs to a subset or not), partition logic treats propositions as partitions: a proposition asserts which distinctions are made. This dual viewpoint—subsets versus partitions—turns out to be mathematically and conceptually rich. Partition logic yields a natural treatment of equivalence relations, information content, observability, and refinement of knowledge.
2. Basics: partitions, distinctions, and refinement
- Partition π on U: a set {B1, B2, …, Bk} with Bi ≠ ∅, Bi ∩ Bj = ∅ for i ≠ j, and ⋃i Bi = U.
- Distinction (dit): an ordered (or unordered) pair (u, v) ∈ U × U with u and v in different blocks of π. The set of all such pairs is the ditset of π, denoted dit(π).
- Indistinction (indit): a pair of elements within the same block. The set of indits is the equivalence relation induced by π.
- Refinement: partition π refines σ (π ≤ σ) if every block of π is a subset of some block of σ. Equivalently, π makes at least the distinctions σ makes (and possibly more).
Viewing partitions via their ditsets provides a bridge to logic: logical operations on partitions correspond to set operations on their ditsets.
3. Algebra of partitions: operations and duality
Partition logic can be cast as an algebra with operations dual to those in Boolean algebra for subsets. Important operations:
- Join (least upper bound) π ∨ σ: the coarsest partition finer than both π and σ — equivalently, the partition whose blocks are nonempty intersections of blocks of π and σ.
- Meet (greatest lower bound) π ∧ σ: the finest partition coarser than both; can be described via the transitive closure of the union of indit relations or via connected components of a graph linking elements declared indistinct by either partition.
- Implication and difference: there are natural implication-like and difference-like operations in partition algebra that reflect how making distinctions in one partition relates to distinctions in another.
Duality with Boolean logic: Where Boolean algebra’s atoms are singleton subsets, partition algebra’s atoms are binary distinctions (pairs). Formally, lattice-theoretic dualities relate the lattice of partitions on a finite set with the lattice of equivalence relations and with certain sublattices of binary relations.
4. Partition logic as a formal logic
We can develop a syntactic system whose semantic models are partitions. Atomic formulas correspond to basic partitions (e.g., an atomic observation that separates certain elements); compound formulas combine these with partition operations. Satisfaction is evaluated by whether a formula’s associated partition makes a particular distinction.
Key points:
- Semantics: formulas denote partitions on a fixed universe U (or on variables ranging over elements of U). A formula φ is true of a pair (u, v) iff φ’s partition distinguishes u from v.
- Logical consequence and entailment can be defined in terms of refinement: φ entails ψ if every partition denoted by φ refines the partition denoted by ψ (i.e., φ makes all distinctions ψ makes).
- Axiomatization: partition logic can be axiomatized with rules reflecting the algebraic laws of partition lattices (associativity, commutativity of join/meet where appropriate, absorption laws adapted to partition operations, etc.). Some laws from Boolean logic do not carry over (e.g., distributivity generally fails for partition lattices).
This yields a logic that is non-classical in structure but natural for reasoning about distinctions and information.
5. Information theory reinterpretation
Partition logic aligns closely with qualitative information measures. If a partition represents the distinctions an observer can make, then the “amount of information” is related to how many distinctions are made.
- Hartley information: For a uniform probability on U, the information gained by learning the block containing an element equals log(|blocks|) if blocks are equal-sized, leading to a coarse-grained Hartley measure.
- Shannon information: Given a probability distribution p on U and a partition π with blocks B1,…,Bk, the Shannon information (mutual information between the true element and the block label) is H(π) = H(X) − H(X|block). Partition logic helps conceptualize these quantities: distinctions correspond to whether two elements can be told apart by the observation; the expected number of distinctions relates to entropy.
- Logical entropy (Ellerman): A more direct partition-based information measure is logical entropy, defined for partition π as the probability that two independent draws from U fall in different blocks: h(π) = Pr[(X,Y) ∈ dit(π)]. Logical entropy equals 1 − Σi p(Bi)^2 and relates to Gini impurity and to Shannon entropy via transformations. Logical entropy is literally the normalized size of the ditset and fits naturally with partition logic’s emphasis on distinctions.
Thus partitions give a combinatorial grounding for information measures: information is distinctions.
6. Examples and intuition
- Equivalence classification: measuring whether two people share the same social category (e.g., blood type) is modeled by a partition; observations that refine the partition (genetic tests) make more distinctions.
- Sensor observations: different sensors partition the state space of a system according to what they can distinguish. Combining sensors corresponds to join of partitions (making all distinctions each sensor can).
- Database anonymity: k-anonymity corresponds to partitions whose blocks have size at least k; re-identification risk decreases as blocks grow, reflecting fewer distinctions.
Concrete small example: U = {a,b,c,d} π1 = {{a,b},{c,d}} (distinguishes a/b from c/d) π2 = {{a,c},{b,d}} (distinguishes a/c from b/d) π1 ∨ π2 = {{a},{b},{c},{d}} (all distinctions; discrete partition) π1 ∧ π2 = {{a,b,c,d}} (coarsest common coarsening — here the trivial partition) — note: meet/coarsening behavior depends on definitions; for finite sets, meet corresponds to the partition induced by connected components when linking elements not distinguished by either.
7. Computational aspects
- Representations: partitions can be stored as block lists, parent pointers (union-find), or as ditsets (binary relation matrices). Union-find structures are efficient for building coarsenings.
- Algorithms: computing joins (refinements) is straightforward via intersection of blocks; computing meets (coarsenings) may require graph connectivity or transitive closure computations over indit relations.
- Complexity: many decision problems in partition lattices are tractable for finite universes, but reasoning with partition formulas of large structure can be expensive. Partition refinement appears in graph isomorphism heuristics (Weisfeiler–Leman) and state minimization in automata.
8. Connections to other fields
- Category theory: partitions correspond to equivalence relations; quotients and coequalizers capture partition constructions categorically.
- Model theory and logic of information: partition-based semantics align with distinction-based modalities and observational logics where knowledge is modeled by equivalence classes (epistemic logic S5 uses equivalence relations).
- Machine learning: decision trees and classification induce partitions of feature space; impurity measures (Gini, entropy) measure how informative a split (a partition) is.
- Quantum information: notions of distinguishability and coarse-graining have analogues; partition logic offers a classical counterpart emphasizing distinctions rather than truth-values.
9. Advanced topics and open questions
- A full proof-theoretic system for partition logic with completeness and decidability results—what fragments are decidable and what are the complexity bounds?
- Extensions to infinite universes and measure-theoretic partitions: handling sigma-algebras, measurable partitions, and ergodic decompositions.
- Deeper categorical dualities: exploring exact duals of Boolean algebras and partition lattices in different categorical contexts.
- Quantum generalizations: developing partition-like logics for quantum systems where indistinguishability has fundamentally different character.
10. Conclusion
Partition logic reframes logic around distinctions instead of membership. This perspective ties directly to intuitive notions of information, classification, and observation. It complements subset/Boolean-based thinking and provides natural tools for reasoning about what an agent can or cannot distinguish. From combinatorial foundations to information measures and computational methods, partition logic offers fertile ground for both theoretical investigation and practical applications.
If you want, I can expand any section into a longer technical treatment, add formal definitions and proofs, or include examples in code (e.g., union-find implementations for partition operations).
Leave a Reply