\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,booktabs}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

\title{Algebraic Semantics of the Universal Model:\\
Lattices, Residuation, and the Interpretation Theorem}
\author{Claude and MJC}
\date{February 12, 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
We develop the algebraic semantics of the Universal Model.  The support
lattice $L = \{0, 1, \ldots, 255\}$ with $\max$ and $\min$ is a
bounded distributive lattice.  The forward pass is a lattice homomorphism.
The G\"odel residual $a \to b = \max\{c : \min(a, c) \leq b\}$ provides
the algebraic interpretation of implication.  We prove an Interpretation
Theorem: every UM prediction has a unique algebraic normal form as a
composition of lattice operations.  The theorem connects to the logic
paper: G\"odel fuzzy logic IS the equational theory of the support
lattice.  We characterize the UM's deductive system (what follows from
what) as a residuated lattice and show that the three epistemic modes
(evidence, belief, abduction) correspond to three different lattice
completions.  The algebraic perspective explains why the forward pass
has the specific form $\max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$: it is the UNIQUE
operation that is simultaneously a lattice homomorphism, preserves the
semiring structure, and computes the correct conditionals.
\end{abstract}


\section{The Support Lattice}

\begin{definition}[Support lattice]
The \emph{support lattice} is the bounded chain:
\[
L = (\{0, 1, \ldots, 255\}, \leq, \min, \max, 0, 255).
\]
It is a bounded distributive lattice with:
\begin{itemize}
\item Meet: $a \wedge b = \min(a, b)$.
\item Join: $a \vee b = \max(a, b)$.
\item Bottom: $\bot = 0$ (no support).
\item Top: $\top = 255$ (maximum support).
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}[Distributivity]
$L$ is distributive:
\begin{align}
\min(a, \max(b, c)) &= \max(\min(a, b), \min(a, c)), \\
\max(a, \min(b, c)) &= \min(\max(a, b), \max(a, c)).
\end{align}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Both identities hold for chains (totally ordered sets) because
$\min$ and $\max$ on chains satisfy both distributive laws.
\end{proof}


\section{Residuation}

\begin{definition}[G\"odel residual]
The \emph{G\"odel residual} (implication) on $L$ is:
\[
a \to b = \begin{cases} 255 & \text{if } a \leq b, \\ b & \text{if } a > b. \end{cases}
\]
Equivalently, $a \to b = \max\{c \in L : \min(a, c) \leq b\}$.
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}[Adjunction]
The residual satisfies the \emph{adjunction property}:
\[
\min(a, c) \leq b \iff c \leq (a \to b).
\]
This makes $(L, \min, \to)$ a \emph{residuated lattice}.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
If $\min(a, c) \leq b$, then $c \leq \max\{c' : \min(a, c') \leq b\} = a \to b$.
Conversely, if $c \leq a \to b$, then $\min(a, c) \leq \min(a, a \to b) \leq b$
(the latter by the definition of $\to$).
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The adjunction property is the algebraic content of modus ponens:
$\min(a, a \to b) \leq b$.  ``If $a$ has support $s$ and $a \to b$
has support $s'$, then $b$ has support at least $\min(s, s')$.''
This is exactly the forward pass: $\min(t_i, p_{ij})$ computes the
support for $j$ given input $i$'s support $t_i$ and the implication
strength $p_{ij}$.
\end{remark}


\section{The Forward Pass as Lattice Homomorphism}

\begin{theorem}[Forward pass is a lattice homomorphism]
\label{thm:hom}
Fix an output $j$.  The map $F_j: L^m \to L$ defined by
$F_j(t) = \max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$ is a lattice homomorphism from
the product lattice $L^m$ (with componentwise $\min$ and $\max$)
to $L$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $F_j$ preserves joins: $F_j(t \vee t') = F_j(t) \vee F_j(t')$.
\item $F_j$ preserves the bottom: $F_j(\mathbf{0}) = 0$.
\end{enumerate}
It does NOT preserve meets in general:
$F_j(t \wedge t') \leq F_j(t) \wedge F_j(t')$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
(1) $F_j(t \vee t') = \max_i \min(\max(t_i, t'_i), p_{ij})
= \max_i \max(\min(t_i, p_{ij}), \min(t'_i, p_{ij}))$
(by distributivity)
$= \max(\max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij}), \max_i \min(t'_i, p_{ij}))
= F_j(t) \vee F_j(t')$.

(2) $F_j(\mathbf{0}) = \max_i \min(0, p_{ij}) = 0$.

(Non-preservation of meets): Take $m = 2$, $p_{1j} = p_{2j} = 5$.
Let $t = (5, 0)$, $t' = (0, 5)$.  Then $t \wedge t' = (0, 0)$, so
$F_j(t \wedge t') = 0$.  But $F_j(t) = F_j(t') = 5$, so
$F_j(t) \wedge F_j(t') = 5 \neq 0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The forward pass preserves joins but not meets.  This means it is a
\emph{$\vee$-homomorphism} (an ``existential'' operation: it detects
the existence of ANY supporting pattern) but not a
\emph{$\wedge$-homomorphism} (it does NOT require ALL patterns to
support the output).  This is the algebraic content of the existential
quantification identified in the logic paper: the forward pass asks
``does there EXIST a pattern supporting this output?''  not ``do ALL
patterns support this output?''
\end{remark}


\section{The Interpretation Theorem}

\begin{definition}[Algebraic normal form]
An expression over $L$ in variables $t_1, \ldots, t_m$ using $\min$,
$\max$, and constants from $L$ is in \emph{algebraic normal form} (ANF)
if it has the form:
\[
\max_{k=1}^K \min_{i \in S_k} \min(t_i, c_{ki}),
\]
where $S_k \subseteq \{1, \ldots, m\}$ and $c_{ki} \in L$ are constants.
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}[Interpretation theorem]
\label{thm:interp}
Every UM forward pass output has a unique ANF.  The ANF is determined
by the pattern matrix: $K = $ number of rows, $S_k = $ support of
row $k$, and $c_{ki} = p_{ki}$.

Conversely, every ANF expression corresponds to a valid UM forward pass
with an appropriate pattern matrix.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The forward pass $(f_p(t))_j = \max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$ is already in
ANF with $K = m$ (one term per input event), $S_k = \{k\}$ (single
variable per term), and $c_{k,k} = p_{kj}$.

For uniqueness: in a bounded distributive lattice, every lattice polynomial
has a unique representation as a join of meets of generators, by the
Birkhoff representation theorem.  The ANF IS this representation.

For the converse: any ANF can be realized as a forward pass by setting
$p_{ij} = c_{ij}$ for $i \in S_k$ and $p_{ij} = 0$ for $i \notin S_k$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The Interpretation Theorem says: the UM's predictions have a canonical
algebraic form.  Every prediction can be read as: ``the output support
is the maximum over all patterns of the minimum support along each
pattern.''  There is no ambiguity in the interpretation---the algebraic
form determines the semantic content.
\end{remark}


\section{Three Completions: Evidence, Belief, Abduction}

The no-support paper identifies three sources of support: evidence,
belief, and abduction.  These correspond to three different lattice
completions.

\begin{definition}[Evidence completion]
The \emph{evidence completion} of $L$ is $L$ itself: support comes
only from counting ($\omega_0$).  The bottom element $0$ means
``no evidence'' (ignorance).
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Belief completion]
The \emph{belief completion} extends $L$ with an additional element
$\bot^-$ (``believed false'') below $0$:
\[
L^- = \{\bot^-, 0, 1, \ldots, 255\}.
\]
Now $0$ means ignorance and $\bot^-$ means disbelief.  The closed-world
assumption identifies $0$ with $\bot^-$ (collapsing the distinction).
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Abductive completion]
The \emph{abductive completion} extends $L$ with a ``provisional
support'' element $\top^?$ above $0$ but of uncertain status:
\[
L^? = \{0, \top^?, 1, 2, \ldots, 255\}.
\]
The element $\top^?$ represents abductive support: ``I have no direct
evidence, but I commit to this event provisionally because it explains
the data.''  Abductive support is withdrawn if contradicted.
\end{definition}

\begin{proposition}[Lattice properties of completions]
\begin{enumerate}
\item The evidence completion $L$ is a chain (totally ordered).
\item The belief completion $L^-$ is a chain with $\bot^- < 0$.
\item The abductive completion $L^?$ is NOT a chain: $\top^?$ and
  $1$ are incomparable (abductive support is neither more nor less
  than minimal evidence).
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
The three completions formalize the epistemological distinctions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Evidence: you SAW it (counting).
\item Belief: you CHOSE it (axiom, closed-world assumption, KN
  smoothing).
\item Abduction: you INFERRED it (pattern commitment, explaining away).
\end{itemize}
The forward pass operates on all three types of support identically
($\min$ and $\max$ don't distinguish the source of support).  The
distinction matters only at the learning stage ($\omega_0$ produces
evidence; belief and abduction are external additions).
\end{remark}


\section{The Equational Theory}

\begin{theorem}[G\"odel fuzzy logic = equational theory of $L$]
\label{thm:godel}
The valid equations of the support lattice $L = \{0, \ldots, 255\}$
(those holding for all assignments of values to variables) are exactly
the theorems of \emph{G\"odel fuzzy logic} (G\"odel--Dummett logic, LC).
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
G\"odel logic is the logic of linearly ordered Heyting algebras.
$L$ is a finite linearly ordered Heyting algebra (with the G\"odel
residual as implication).  The equational theory of finite chains
is axiomatized by the G\"odel logic axioms:
\begin{enumerate}
\item All intuitionistic logic axioms.
\item The prelinearity axiom: $(a \to b) \vee (b \to a) = \top$.
\end{enumerate}
The prelinearity axiom holds because $L$ is a chain: for any $a, b$,
either $a \leq b$ (so $a \to b = 255$) or $b \leq a$ (so $b \to a = 255$).
In either case, $\max(a \to b, b \to a) = 255 = \top$.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
The UM's native logic is G\"odel fuzzy logic.  All UM inferences
(forward pass computations) are sound with respect to G\"odel logic.
Conversely, every G\"odel-logic inference can be realized as a
forward pass.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}
This connects to the logic-from-counting paper: the forward pass
derives all classical inference rules (modus ponens, tollens,
syllogisms) because G\"odel logic extends intuitionistic logic, which
contains all classically valid inference rules that don't require
excluded middle.  Classical logic is the quotient $L \to \{0, 1\}$
(binarize support), which identifies $\{1, \ldots, 255\}$ with $\top$.
\end{remark}


\section{Why This Specific Forward Pass?}

\begin{theorem}[Uniqueness of the forward pass]
\label{thm:unique}
The forward pass $(f_p(t))_j = \max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$ is the
\textbf{unique} operation satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Lattice compatibility:} $F_j$ preserves joins (is
  existential).
\item \textbf{Residuation:} $\min(t_i, p_{ij})$ is the adjoint of
  the G\"odel residual.
\item \textbf{Caution:} $F_j(t) \leq \max_i p_{ij}$ (output support
  never exceeds the strongest pattern).
\item \textbf{Faithfulness:} $F_j(t) \geq \max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$
  (every supporting pattern contributes).
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
By (4), $F_j(t) \geq \max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$.
By (3) and (1), $F_j(t) \leq \max_i p_{ij}$, and by (1) applied to
the decomposition $t = \max_i (t_i \cdot e_i)$ (where $e_i$ are unit
vectors), $F_j(t) = \max_i F_j(t_i \cdot e_i) = \max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$
(using (2) for single-input evaluation).  The upper and lower bounds
coincide.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The forward pass is not a design choice---it is forced by the algebraic
structure.  Any operation satisfying the four natural requirements
(existential, residuated, cautious, faithful) must be
$\max_i \min(t_i, p_{ij})$.  This is the algebraic version of the
claim that the UM is ``universal'': its forward pass is the unique
operation that correctly implements inference in the support lattice.
\end{remark}


\section{Discussion}

The algebraic semantics reveals:

\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{The forward pass is algebraically forced.}  Given the
  support lattice and natural requirements, the $\max \min$ form is
  the only possibility.

\item \textbf{G\"odel logic is the UM's native logic.}  Not classical
  logic (too strong---assumes excluded middle), not intuitionistic
  logic (too weak---doesn't use linearity of the chain), but G\"odel
  logic (exactly right for a chain-valued Heyting algebra).

\item \textbf{The three epistemic modes are lattice completions.}
  Evidence, belief, and abduction extend the support lattice in
  different directions, adding elements that distinguish types of
  support that plain counting cannot.

\item \textbf{The ANF is the canonical interpretation.}  Every
  prediction has a unique algebraic normal form, which IS its
  semantic content.  Interpretation is not a separate activity from
  computation---it is the SAME algebraic expression read semantically.
\end{enumerate}


\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{cmp}
Michaeljohn Clement.
\newblock \emph{CMP}.
\newblock \url{https://cmpr.ai/cmp.pdf}, 2026.

\bibitem{logic-counting}
Claude and MJC.
\newblock \emph{Logic from Counting}.
\newblock Hutter archive, 12 Feb 2026.

\bibitem{no-support}
Claude and MJC.
\newblock \emph{No Support Is Not Disbelief}.
\newblock Hutter archive, 12 Feb 2026.

\bibitem{hajek}
Petr H\'ajek.
\newblock \emph{Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic}.
\newblock Kluwer, 1998.

\bibitem{galatos}
Nikolaos Galatos et al.
\newblock \emph{Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse at Substructural Logics}.
\newblock Elsevier, 2007.
\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
