The well known Stone duality says that there is an equivalence between Boolean algebras (BA) and the opposite of Stone spaces and continuous maps. Here a Stone space is a Hausdorff zero-dimensional compact space. Furthermore, Boolean algebras correspond to Boolean rings with unit. How exactly does this extend to generalized Boolean algebras? A generalized Boolean algebra (GBA) is an algebra with 0, binary meet, binary join, and relative complement in which meets distribute over joins. Equivalently it is a Boolean ring (possibly without a unit). I have seen it stated that the dual to these are (the opposite of) locally compact zero-dimensional Hausdorff spaces and proper maps, e.g., it is stated in Benjamin Steinberg: "A groupoid approach to discrete inverse semigroup algebras", Advances in Mathematics 223 (2010) 689-727. Another source to look at is Givant & Halmos "Introduction to Boolean algebras", but there this material is covered in exercises and the duality is stated separately for objects and for morphisms, and I can't find an exercise that treats the morphisms, so I wouldn't count that as a reliable reference. Stone's original work does not seem to speak about morphisms very clearly (to me). Unless I am missing something very obvious, it cannot be the case that GBA's correspond to locally compact 0-dimensional Hausdorff spaces and proper maps, for the following reason. The space which corresponds to the GBA 2 = {0,1} is the singleton. The space which corresponds to the four-element GBA 2 x 2 is the two-point discrete space 2. There are _four_ GBA homomorphisms from 2 to 2 x 2 (because a GBA homomorphism preserves 0 but it need not preserve 1), but there is only one continuous map from 2 to 1. Or to put it another way, there are _four_ ring homomorphisms from Z_2 to Z_2 x Z_2 (because they need not preserve 1), but there is only one continuous map from 2 to 1. So, either the spectrum of a GBA is not what I think it is (namely maximal ideals), or we should be taking a more liberal notion of maps on the topological side. For example, there are _four_ partial maps from 2 to 1. If someone knows of a reliable reference, one would be much appreciated. I won't object to a direct proof of duality either. With kind regards, Andrej [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]