1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
We define here Boolean operations on not necessarily complete partial orders, and then probability measures on such orders.

Boolean operators
In the rest of Section 1 (page 1), we discuss in general terms how to find and judge a generalizing definition.
In Section 2 (page 2), we first give the basic definitions, see Definition 2.3 (page 2.3), they are quite standard, but due to incompleteness, the results may be sets of several elements, and not single elements (or singletons). This forces us to consider operators on sets of elements, which sometimes complicates the picture, see Definition 2.4 (page 2.4). An alternative definition for sets is given in Definition 2.5 (page 2.5), but Fact 2.4 (page 2.4) shows why we will not use this definition.

Height, size, and probability
In Section 3 (page 3), we introduce the “height” of an element, as the maximal length of a chain from to that element, see Definition 3.1 (page 3.1).
This is a rough draft, and mainly intended to present ideas.
1.2 Adequacy of a definition
We are not perfectly happy with our generalizations of the usual operations of and to not necessarily complete partial orders. We looked at a few alternative definitions, but none is fully satisfactory.
There are a number of possible considerations when working on a new definition, here a generalization of a standard definition:

Do we have a clear intuition?

Is there a desired behaviour?

Are there undesirable properties, like trivialisation in certain cases?

Can we describe it as an approximation to some ideal? Perhaps with some natural distance?

How does the new definition behave for the original situation, here complete partial orders, etc.?
In Section 2.3 (page 2.3), we discuss in preliminary outline a (new) approach, by adding supplementary information to the results of the operations, which may help further processing. Thus, it may help to improve definitions of the operators. The operators now do not only work on elements or sets of elements, but also the additional information, e.g., instead of considering we consider etc., where “inf” and “sup” is the supplementary information.
1.3 Motivation
In reasoning about complicated situations, e.g. in legal reasoning, see for instance [Haa14]
, the chapter on legal probabilism, classical probability theory is often criticised for imposing comparisons which seem arbitrary. Our approach tries to counter such criticism by a more flexible approach.
2 Boolean operations in partial orders
Assume a finite partial order with TOP, and BOTTOM, and i.e. has at least two elements. is assumed transitive. We do not assume that the order is complete.
We will not always detail the order, so if we do not explicitly say that or we will assume that they are incomparable  with the exception for any and transitivity is always assumed to hold.
2.1 Definitions
Definition 2.1

For set iff and implies

For define
Fact 2.1
(Trivial by transitivity.)
Definition 2.2
We define


iff

iff
Remark 2.2

(trivial).

(trivial).

The alternative definition:
iff
does not seem right, as the example and shows, as then
We want to define analogues of the usual boolean operators, written here
We will see below that the result of a simple operation will not always give a simple result, i.e. an element or a singleton, but a set with several elements as result. Consequently, we will, in the general case, have to define operations on sets of elements, not only on single elements. Note that we will often not distinguish between singletons and their element, what is meant will be clear from the context.
Definition 2.3

Let The ususal might not exist, as the order is not necessarily complete. So, instead of a single “best” element, we might have only a set of “good” elements.
Define

and
This is not empty, as
If is a set, we define
for all
In particular,

We may refine, and consider
Usually, also will contain more than one element.
We will consider in the next section a subset of but may still contain several elements.


Consider now The same remark as for applies here, too.
Define

and Note that
If is a set, we define
for all
In particular,

Next, we define
Again, we will also define some later.


Consider now
Define

Unary

note that
If is a set, we define
for all

Define
Again, we will also define some later.
It is not really surprising that the seemingly intuitively correct definition for the set variant of behaves differently from that for and negation often does this. We will, however, discuss an alternative definition in Definition 2.5 (page 2.5), (3), and show that it seems inadequate in Fact 2.4 (page 2.4), (3).


Binary We may define either by or directly:

and note again that
and



We turn to the set operations, so assume are sets of elements, and we define
The natural idea seems to consider all pairs
Definition 2.4
We define the set operators:





and were already defined. We do not define but see it as an abbreviation for
2.2 Properties
We now look at a list of properties, for the element and the set versions.
Fact 2.3
Definition 2.5
We define alternative set operators, and argue in Fact 2.4 (page 2.4) that they do not seem the right definitions.





: for some
Fact 2.4
Consider with and




(Trivial)

In particular, which seems doubtful.

By and the above,

fails in general.
Consider a, with
Then so

so defined is not antitone
Consider then

Fact 2.5
Commutativity of and is trivial. We check simple cases like show that associativity holds, but distributivity fails. Concerning we see that is not wellbehaved, and neither is the combination of with

and

?

?
for some
 which is not necessarily (if there are with

?

?
Note that for all thus for some
 which is not necessarily

?
Let
Set

We have to show
If then moreover so
Let then there is As so so by transitivity.

Set
Let so there is and by so
Suppose there is Then by (1.5.1) contradicting maximality of a.
Conversely, let then by (1.5.1). Suppose there is so we may assume then as we just saw, contradiction.
Thus, it works for too.



and

?

?
for some
 which is not necessarily

?

?
Note that for all thus for some
 which is not necessarily

?
Let
Set

We have to show
If then moreover so
Let then there is As so so by transitivity.

Set
Let so there is and by so
Suppose there is Then by (2.5.1) contradicting minimality of a.
Conversely, let then by (2.5.1). Suppose there is so we may assume then as we just saw, contradiction.
Thus, it works for too.



Distributivity for

?
Let
Then so
so
so
so
So distributivity fails for both versions.

?
Let
So it fails again for both versions.


and

?

?

?
Consider with
Then so it fails for both versions.

?
and

?
by Let for then and so

?
for all by for all Conclude as for (4.5).

?
and

?
Consider with
Then and
so it fails for both versions.

is antitone:
for all so for all

for all
Let By so

fails in general.
Consider a, with
Then so

2.3 Sets with a sign
We will outline here a  to our knowledge, new  approach, and code the last operation into the result, so the “same” result of two different operations will look differently, and the difference will be felt in further processing the result, see the following Example 2.1 (page 2.1). See also Definition 3.3 (page 3.3).
Basically, we give not only the result, as well as we can, but also an indication, what the intended result is, “what is really meant”, the ideal  even if we are unable to formulate it, for lack of an suitable element.
More precisely, if the result is a set but what we really want is which does not exist in the structure we will have the result with the sign sup, i.e., likewise inf and and further processing may take this into consideration.
In a way, it is a compromise. The full information gives all arguments and operators, the basic information gives just the result, we give the result with an indication how to read it.
Example 2.1
Let with
Then:

more precisely  which does not exist, but we do as if, i.e., we give a “label” to
Reason:
We have is the smallest such that thus but this does not exist.

more precisely  which does not exist, but we do as if, i.e., we give a “label” to
Reason:
We have is the biggest such that thus but this does not exist.

To summarize, we have and  but and need not exist.
Consider now and to see the difference:
Basically, we remember the last operation resulting in an intermediate result, but even this is not always sufficient as the example in Fact 2.5 (page 2.5), (3.1), failure of distributivity, shows: The intermediate results are singletons, so our idea has no influence.
One could try to write everything down without intermediate results, but one has to find a compromise between correctness and simplicity.
Diagram 2.1
3 Height
3.1 Basic definitions
Definition 3.1
Let
Set the length of the longest chain from to  where we count the number of in the chain.
Let
Define
and
Fact 3.1


for all

We have for all

If and are incomparable, it does not necessarily follow that
(This is trivial, as seen e.g. in the example with so and are incomparable.)

Example 3.1
Consider with
Then and so we lose important information, in particular, if we want to continue with Boolean operations.
For this reason, the versions should be used with caution.
3.2 Sequences
Example 3.2
In the second example, we compensate a loss in the second coordinate by a bigger gain in the first. Thus, the situation in the product might be more complex that the combined situations of the elements of the product.

Consider and with the natural orders. In in