
Cloud storage is crucial in today's digital era due to its accessibility, scalability, cost savings, collaboration and enhanced security features. The selection of a reliable cloud storage provider is a significant multi-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) problem that involves intrinsic relationships among the various alternatives, attributes and decision DMs. Due to the uncertain and incomplete nature of the evaluation data for cloud storage providers, i.e., quality of service and user feedback, the identification of appropriate cloud storage providers with accurate service ranking remains an open research challenge. To address the above-mentioned challenge, this work proposes the concept of interval-valued probabilistic linguistic T-spherical fuzzy set (IVPLt-SFS). Then, some basic operations and a score function are defined to compare two or more IVPLt-SF numbers (IVPLt-SFNs). For information fusion, two aggregation operators for IVPLt-SFN are also developed. Next, an extended TOPSIS method-based group decision-making technique under interval-valued probabilistic linguistic T-spherical fuzzy information is established to solve the MAGDM problem. Finally, a numerical example is given to illustrate the practicability and usefulness of the designed approach and its suitability as a decision-making tool for selecting a cloud storage provider. Comparative and sensitivity analysis confirmed that this paper enriches the theory and methodology of the selection problem of cloud storage provider and MAGDM analysis.
Citation: Shahid Hussain Gurmani, Zhao Zhang, Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain. An integrated group decision-making technique under interval-valued probabilistic linguistic T-spherical fuzzy information and its application to the selection of cloud storage provider[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20223-20253. doi: 10.3934/math.20231031
[1] | Ali N. A. Koam, Adnan Khalil, Ali Ahmad, Muhammad Azeem . Cardinality bounds on subsets in the partition resolving set for complex convex polytope-like graph. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 10078-10094. doi: 10.3934/math.2024493 |
[2] | Ali N. A. Koam . Metric based resolvability of cycle related graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9911-9925. doi: 10.3934/math.2024485 |
[3] | Naila Mehreen, Rashid Farooq, Shehnaz Akhter . On partition dimension of fullerene graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2018, 3(3): 343-352. doi: 10.3934/Math.2018.3.343 |
[4] | Suliman Khan, Sakander Hayat, Asad Khan, Muhammad Yasir Hayat Malik, Jinde Cao . Hamilton-connectedness and Hamilton-laceability of planar geometric graphs with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3947-3973. doi: 10.3934/math.2021235 |
[5] | Moussa Benoumhani . Restricted partitions and convex topologies. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 10187-10203. doi: 10.3934/math.2025464 |
[6] | Li Liu, Long Zhang, Huaxiang Zhang, Shuang Gao, Dongmei Liu, Tianshi Wang . A data partition strategy for dimension reduction. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4702-4721. doi: 10.3934/math.2020301 |
[7] | Sakander Hayat, Bagus Imanda, Asad Khan, Mohammed J. F. Alenazi . Three infinite families of Hamilton-connected convex polytopes and their detour index. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 12343-12387. doi: 10.3934/math.2025559 |
[8] | Dalal Awadh Alrowaili, Uzma Ahmad, Saira Hameeed, Muhammad Javaid . Graphs with mixed metric dimension three and related algorithms. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16708-16723. doi: 10.3934/math.2023854 |
[9] | Ahmed Alamer, Hassan Zafar, Muhammad Javaid . Study of modified prism networks via fractional metric dimension. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10864-10886. doi: 10.3934/math.2023551 |
[10] | Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes, Ernesto Estrada . Network bipartitioning in the anti-communicability Euclidean space. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1153-1174. doi: 10.3934/math.2021070 |
Cloud storage is crucial in today's digital era due to its accessibility, scalability, cost savings, collaboration and enhanced security features. The selection of a reliable cloud storage provider is a significant multi-attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) problem that involves intrinsic relationships among the various alternatives, attributes and decision DMs. Due to the uncertain and incomplete nature of the evaluation data for cloud storage providers, i.e., quality of service and user feedback, the identification of appropriate cloud storage providers with accurate service ranking remains an open research challenge. To address the above-mentioned challenge, this work proposes the concept of interval-valued probabilistic linguistic T-spherical fuzzy set (IVPLt-SFS). Then, some basic operations and a score function are defined to compare two or more IVPLt-SF numbers (IVPLt-SFNs). For information fusion, two aggregation operators for IVPLt-SFN are also developed. Next, an extended TOPSIS method-based group decision-making technique under interval-valued probabilistic linguistic T-spherical fuzzy information is established to solve the MAGDM problem. Finally, a numerical example is given to illustrate the practicability and usefulness of the designed approach and its suitability as a decision-making tool for selecting a cloud storage provider. Comparative and sensitivity analysis confirmed that this paper enriches the theory and methodology of the selection problem of cloud storage provider and MAGDM analysis.
Let ψ be a simple, connected graph with vertex set V(ψ) and edge set E(ψ). The distance d(ρ1,ρ2), ρ1,ρ2∈V(ψ) is the length of shortest path between ρ1 and ρ2. Let Q={v1,v2,…,vj} be an ordered set of vertices of ψ. Let ρ1∈V(ψ), the representations denoted by r(ρ1|Q) is the j-tuple distances as (d(ρ1|v1),d(ρ1|v2),…,d(ρ1|vj)). If distinct vertices of ψ have distinct representation w.r.t. Q then Q is called the resolving set. The minimum number of j in the resolving set is known as the metric dimension of ψ and written as dim(ψ). Motivated by the problem of determining an intruder's location in a network in a unique way, Slater introduced the definition of metric dimension in [27] and later independently by Harary and Melter in [11]. The concept of resolving set, metric basis and metric dimension appeared in the literature [4,6,8,9,10,12,15,19,28,30,31].
A partition of a set is collection of its subsets, no pair of which overlap, such that the union of all the subsets is the whole set and partition dimension is related to the partitioning of the vertex set V(Ω) and resolvability. The partition dimension is a generalized variant of matric dimension. Another type of dimension of a graph, is called partition dimension. Let Γ={Γ1,Γ2…,Γj} and r(ρ1|Γ)={d(ρ1,Γ1),d(ρ1,Γ2),…,d(ρ1,Γj)} are named as j-ordered partition of vertices and j-tuple representations respectively. If the representations of every ρ1 in V(ψ) w.r.t. Γ is different, then Γ is the resolving partition of the vertex set and the minimum count of the resolving partition set of V(ψ) is named as the partition dimension of ψ and it is represented by pd(ψ) [7]. The problem of determining the resolving set of a graph is NP-hard [20]. As, the problem of finding the partition dimension is a generalize version of metric dimension, therefore partition dimension is also a NP-complete problem. It is natural to think that there is a relation between metric and partition dimension, [7] proved for any non-trivial connected graph ψ,
pd(ψ)≤dim(ψ)+1. | (1.1) |
In [22], fullerene graph of chemical structure is discussed and proved that the graph has constant and bounded partition dimension. For more and interesting results on constant partition dimension can see [16,21,24]. To find the exact value of partition dimension of a graph is not easy therefore, various results on the bounds of the partition dimension are discussed in literature, such as the partition dimension of Cartesian product operation on different graphs are studies and provided extensive bounds on partition dimension [29]. In [1] different bounds of partition dimension of subdivision of different graphs are discussed. In [25,26] provide bounds of partition dimension of tree and uni-cyclic graphs in the form of subgraphs.
The applications of partition resolving sets can be found in different fields such as robot navigation [19], Djokovic-Winkler relation [9], strategies for the mastermind game [10], network discovery and verification [5], in chemistry for representing chemical compounds [17,18] and in problems of pattern recognition and image processing, some of which involve the use of hierarchical data structures [23] for more applications see [6,11]. Following theorems are very helpful in finding the partition dimension of a graph.
Theorem 1.1. [7] Let Γ be a resolving partition of V(ψ) and ρ1,ρ2∈V(ψ). If d(ρ1,z)=d(ρ2,z) for all vertices z∈V(ψ)∖(ρ1,ρ2), then ρ1,ρ2 belong to different classes of Γ.
Theorem 1.2. [7] Let ψ be a simple and connected graph, then
● pd(ψ) is 2 iff ψ is a path graph
● pd(ψ) is n iff ψ is a complete graph,
Let R be a family of connected graphs Gn:R=(Gn)n≥1, where |V(ψ)|=λ(n) and limn→∞λ(n)=∞. If there exists a constant α≥1 such that pd(ψ)≤α,n≥1, then R has bounded partition dimension otherwise unbounded. Imran et al. [14] studied the metric dimension of Rpn, Dpn, and Qpn, convex polytopes which motivates us to find the partition dimension of same families of convex polytopes. In this paper, the partition dimension of same families of convex polytopes are studied. We determine the partition dimension of Rpn, in second section. In the third section, the partition dimension of the graph Dpn of a convex polytope with pendent edges is presented. The fourth section remains for the partition dimension of the graph Qpn.
The convex polytope Rpn (p for pendant edges) is a planar graph and obtained from the convex polytope Rn defined in [13]. If we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer layer of Rn then we obtained a new planer graph Rpn as shown in Figure 1. The vertex set of Rpn, V(RPn)={V(Rn)}∪{xα:1≤α≤n} and edge set of Rpn, E(RPn)={E(Rn)}∪{wαxα:1≤α≤n}.
For calculation, {uα:1≤α≤n} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1≤α≤n} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1≤α≤n} set of vertices and pendant vertices named {xα:1≤α≤n}.
Theorem 2.1. Let Rpn be a polytopes with n≥6. Then pd(Rpn)≤4.
Proof. We splits the proof into following two cases.
Case 1: When n=2β,β≥3,β∈N. We partition the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets Θ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Rpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertex of Rpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Rpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices w.r.t. resolving partition set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,1,β,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+1,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Rpn. The representations of pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ are shown in Table 1. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation of pendant vertices of Rpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Rpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.
Case 2: When n=2β+1,β≥3,β∈N. Again we resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Rpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Rpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Rpn)≤4. {We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,1,β,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+1,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β,1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are: If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Rpn.
The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ shown in Table 2. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation of pendant vertices of Rpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Rpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.
We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Rpn)≤4.
The convex polytope DPn is a planar graph and if we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle of Dn [2] then we obtained a new plane graph DPn as shown in Figure 2. The vertex and edge set V(DPn)={V(Dn)}∪{yα:1≤α≤n}, E(DPn)={E(Dn)}∪{xαyα:1≤α≤n} are respectively. For calculation, {uα:1≤α≤n} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1≤α≤n} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1≤α≤n} set of vertices, {xα:1≤α≤n} labeled as outer cycle and pendant vertices named for {yα:1≤α≤n}.
Theorem 3.1. Let DPn be a polytopes with n≥6. Then pd(DPn)≤4.
Proof. We split the proof of above theorem into following two cases.
Case 1: When n=2β,β≥3,β∈N. We partition the vertices of Dpn into four partition sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Dpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Dpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Dpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on outer cycle and pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in outer cycle and pendant vertices of Dpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β−1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Dpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.
Case 2: When n=2β+1,β≥3,β∈N. Again we resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Dpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Dpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Dpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on outer cycle and pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Tables 5 and 6. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in outer cycle and pendant vertices of Dpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Dpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.
We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Tpn)≤4.
The convex polytope QPn is a planar graph and If we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle of Qn [3] then we obtained a new plane graph QPn as shown in Figure 3. The vertex and edge set V(QPn)={V(αn)}∪{yα:1≤α≤n}, E(QPn)={E(Qn)}∪{xαyα:1≤α≤n} are respectively.
For convenience, {uα:1≤α≤n} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1≤α≤n} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1≤α≤n} set of vertices, {xα:1≤α≤n} are exterior vertices, and pendant vertices named for {yα:1≤α≤n}.
Theorem 4.1. Let QPn be a polytopes with n≥6. Then pd(QPn)≤4.
Proof. Case 1: When n=2β,β≥3,β∈N. We partition the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Qpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Qpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Qpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α+1,α+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(3,3,α+2,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+1,β−α+3,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+2,3,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+2,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Table 7. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in pendant vertices of Qpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Qpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.
Case 2: When n=2β+1,β≥3,β∈N. Again we resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Qpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Qpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Qpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(3,3,α+2,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+1,β−α+3,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+2,3,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+4,2β−α+5,α−β+2,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Table 8. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in pendant vertices of Qpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+4 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Qpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.
We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Upn)≤4.
The core of the problem of the partition dimension is deciding the resolving partition set for a graph. In this paper, we have studies the partition dimension of some families of convex polytopes graph such as Rpn, Dpn and Qpn, which are obtained from the convex polytopes by adding a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle. In this research work, we have proved that partition dimension of these convex polytopes are bounded. Consequently, we propose the following open problems.
Conjecture 5.1. The following equalities hold:
pd(Rpn)=pd(Dpn)=pd(Qpn)=4 |
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
P. Prajapati, P. Shah, A review on secure data deduplication: Cloud storage security issue, J. King Saud Univ. Inf. Sci., 34 (2022), 3996–4007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2020.10.021 doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2020.10.021
![]() |
[2] | C. W. Chang, P. Liu, J. J. Wu, Probability-based cloud storage providers selection algorithms with maximum availability, In: 2012 41st Int. Conf. Parallel Process., IEEE, 2012,199–208. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPP.2012.51 |
[3] |
S. Liu, F. T. S. Chan, W. Ran, Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: An improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes, Expert Syst. Appl., 55 (2016), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.059 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.059
![]() |
[4] |
H. Wang, T. Mahmood, K. Ullah, Improved CoCoSo method based on Frank softmax aggregation operators for T-spherical fuzzy multiple attribute group decision-making, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 25 (2023), 1275–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01442-5 doi: 10.1007/s40815-022-01442-5
![]() |
[5] |
T. Senapati, G. Chen, R. R. Yager, Aczel-Alsina aggregation operators and their application to intuitionistic fuzzy multiple attribute decision making, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 37 (2022), 1529–1551. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22684 doi: 10.1002/int.22684
![]() |
[6] |
K. Kumar, S. M. Chen, Multiple attribute group decision making based on advanced linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging aggregation operator of linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, Inf. Sci., 587 (2022), 813–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.11.014 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2021.11.014
![]() |
[7] | R. M. Zulqarnain, I. Siddique, A. Iampan, D. Baleanu, Aggregation operators for interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy soft set with their application to solve multi-attribute group decision making problem, Comput. Model. Eng. Sci., 2 (2022), 1–34. |
[8] |
H. Zhang, G. Wei, X. Chen, SF-GRA method based on cumulative prospect theory for multiple attribute group decision making and its application to emergency supplies supplier selection, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 110 (2022), 104679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104679 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104679
![]() |
[9] |
Y. Su, M. Zhao, G. Wei, C. Wei, X. Chen, Probabilistic uncertain linguistic EDAS method based on prospect theory for multiple attribute group decision-making and its application to green finance, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 24 (2022), 1318–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-021-01184-w doi: 10.1007/s40815-021-01184-w
![]() |
[10] |
X. Zhong, X. Xu, B. Pan, A non-threshold consensus model based on the minimum cost and maximum consensus-increasing for multi-attribute large group decision-making, Inf. Fusion., 77 (2022), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.07.006 doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.07.006
![]() |
[11] |
A. S. Yalcin, H. S. Kilic, D. Delen, The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in business analytics: A comprehensive literature review, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change., 174 (2022), 121193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121193 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121193
![]() |
[12] |
Y. Xing, M. Cao, Y. Liu, M. Zhou, J. Wu, A Choquet integral based interval Type-2 trapezoidal fuzzy multiple attribute group decision making for Sustainable Supplier Selection, Comput. Ind. Eng., 165 (2022), 107935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.107935 doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.107935
![]() |
[13] |
Y. Yuan, Z. Xu, Y. Zhang, The DEMATEL-COPRAS hybrid method under probabilistic linguistic environment and its application in Third Party Logistics provider selection, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak., 21 (2022), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-021-09358-9 doi: 10.1007/s10700-021-09358-9
![]() |
[14] |
M. R. Seikh, U. Mandal, Q-rung orthopair fuzzy Frank aggregation operators and its application in multiple attribute decision-making with unknown attribute weights, Granul. Comput., 7 (2022), 709–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41066-021-00290-2 doi: 10.1007/s41066-021-00290-2
![]() |
[15] |
A. R. Fayek, Fuzzy logic and fuzzy hybrid techniques for construction engineering and management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 146 (2020), 4020064. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001854 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001854
![]() |
[16] |
Z. Wen, H. Liao, E. K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, Applications of fuzzy multiple criteria decision making methods in civil engineering: A state-of-the-art survey, J. Civ. Eng. Manag., 27 (2021), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.15252 doi: 10.3846/jcem.2021.15252
![]() |
[17] |
S. Mehryar, S. Surminski, Investigating flood resilience perceptions and supporting collective decision-making through fuzzy cognitive mapping, Sci. Total Environ., 837 (2022), 155854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155854 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155854
![]() |
[18] |
L. A. Zadeh, Zadeh, fuzzy sets, Inf. Control, 8 (1965), 338–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
![]() |
[19] |
K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Set. Syst., 20 (1986), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3 doi: 10.1016/S0165-0114(86)80034-3
![]() |
[20] | R. R. Yager, Pythagorean fuzzy subsets, In: 2013 Jt. IFSA World Congr. NAFIPS Annu. Meet., IEEE, 2013, 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/IFSA-NAFIPS.2013.6608375 |
[21] |
R. R. Yager, Pythagorean membership grades in multicriteria decision making, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2013), 958–965. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2278989
![]() |
[22] |
R. R. Yager, Generalized orthopair fuzzy sets, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 25 (2016), 1222–1230. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.260400 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2016.260400
![]() |
[23] | B. C. Cuong, V. Kreinovich, Picture fuzzy sets-a new concept for computational intelligence problems, In: 2013 Third World Congr. Inf. Commun. Technol. (WICT 2013), IEEE, 2013, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/WICT.2013.7113099 |
[24] |
S. He, Y. Wang, Evaluating new energy vehicles by picture fuzzy sets based on sentiment analysis from online reviews, Artif. Intell. Rev., 56 (2023), 2171–2192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10217-1 doi: 10.1007/s10462-022-10217-1
![]() |
[25] |
M. R. Seikh, U. Mandal, Some picture fuzzy aggregation operators based on Frank t-norm and t-conorm: Application to MADM process, Informatica, 45 (2021). https://doi.org/10.31449/inf.v45i3.3025 doi: 10.31449/inf.v45i3.3025
![]() |
[26] |
T. Mahmood, K. Ullah, Q. Khan, N. Jan, An approach toward decision-making and medical diagnosis problems using the concept of spherical fuzzy sets, Neural Comput. Appl., 31 (2019), 7041–7053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3521-2 doi: 10.1007/s00521-018-3521-2
![]() |
[27] |
H. Wang, Sustainable circular supplier selection in the power battery industry using a linguistic T-spherical fuzzy MAGDM model based on the improved ARAS method, Sustainability, 14 (2022), 7816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137816 doi: 10.3390/su14137816
![]() |
[28] |
M. R. Khan, K. Ullah, Q. Khan, Multi-attribute decision-making using Archimedean aggregation operator in T-spherical fuzzy environment, Reports Mech. Eng., 4 (2023), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.31181/rme20031012023k doi: 10.31181/rme20031012023k
![]() |
[29] |
R. G. Pirbalouti, M. K. Dehkordi, J. Mohammadpour, E. Zarei, M. Yazdi, An advanced framework for leakage risk assessment of hydrogen refueling stations using interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets (Ⅳ-SFS), Int. J. Hydrogen Energ., 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.03.028 doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.03.028
![]() |
[30] |
L. A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—Ⅰ, Inf. Sci., 8 (1975), 199–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5 doi: 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5
![]() |
[31] |
L. A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—Ⅱ, Inf. Sci., 8 (1975), 301–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-8 doi: 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-8
![]() |
[32] |
L. A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—Ⅲ, Inf. Sci., 9 (1975), 43–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90017-1 doi: 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90017-1
![]() |
[33] | M. Yazdi, Linguistic methods under fuzzy information in system safety and reliability analysis, Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93352-4 |
[34] |
Z. Chen, P. Liu, Z. Pei, An approach to multiple attribute group decision making based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., 8 (2015), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2015.1061394 doi: 10.1080/18756891.2015.1061394
![]() |
[35] | H. Garg, Linguistic Pythagorean fuzzy sets and its applications in multiattribute decision‐making process, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 33 (2018), 1234–1263. |
[36] |
D. Liu, Y. Luo, Z. Liu, The linguistic picture fuzzy set and its application in multi-criteria decision-making: An illustration to the TOPSIS and TODIM methods based on entropy weight, Symmetry (Basel)., 12 (2020), 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12071170 doi: 10.3390/sym12071170
![]() |
[37] |
H. Jin, S. Ashraf, S. Abdullah, M. Qiyas, M. Bano, S. Zeng, Linguistic spherical fuzzy aggregation operators and their applications in multi-attribute decision making problems, Mathematics, 7 (2019), 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/math7050413 doi: 10.3390/math7050413
![]() |
[38] |
S. H. Gurmani, H. Chen, Y. Bai, Dombi operations for linguistic T-spherical fuzzy number: An approach for selection of the best variety of maize, Soft Comput., 26 (2022), 9083–9100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07307-1 doi: 10.1007/s00500-022-07307-1
![]() |
[39] |
S. H. Gurmani, H. Chen, Y. Bai, Multi-attribute group decision-making model for selecting the most suitable construction company using the linguistic interval-valued T-spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method, Appl. Intell., 53 (2022), 11768–11785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-04103-0 doi: 10.1007/s10489-022-04103-0
![]() |
[40] |
S. H. Gurmani, H. Chen, Y. Bai, An extended MABAC method for multiple-attribute group decision making under probabilistic T-spherical hesitant fuzzy environment, Kybernetes, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2022-0137 doi: 10.1108/K-01-2022-0137
![]() |
[41] |
S. Luo, J. Liu, The probabilistic interval-valued hesitant pythagorean fuzzy set and its application in selecting processes of project private partner, IEEE Access, 7 (2019), 170304–170321. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2954995 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2954995
![]() |
[42] | D. Liu, A. Huang, Consensus reaching process for fuzzy behavioral TOPSIS method with probabilistic linguistic q‐rung orthopair fuzzy set based on correlation measure, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 35 (2020), 494–528. |
[43] |
Y. Xu, S. Liu, J. Wang, X. Shang, A novel two-stage TOPSIS approach based on interval-valued probabilistic linguistic q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets with its application to MAGDM problems, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 116 (2022), 105413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105413 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105413
![]() |
[44] |
Q. Pang, H. Wang, Z. Xu, Probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi-attribute group decision making, Inf. Sci., 369 (2016), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.06.021 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.06.021
![]() |
[45] | C. L. Hwang, M. J. Lin, Group decision making under multiple criteria: methods and applications, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. |
[46] | S. Opricovic, Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems, Fac. Civ. Eng. Belgrade., 2 (1998), 5–21. |
[47] |
T. L. Saaty, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, J. Math. Psychol., 15 (1977), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
![]() |
[48] |
D. Pamučar, G. Ćirović, The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC), Expert Syst. Appl., 42 (2015), 3016–3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
![]() |
[49] | L. Gomes, M. Lima, From modeling individual preferences to multicriteria ranking of discrete alternatives: A look at prospect theory and the additive difference model, Found. Comput. Decis. Sci., 17 (1992), 171–184. |
[50] | L. F. A. M. Gomes, M. M. P. P. Lima, Todimi: Basics and application to multicriteria ranking, Found. Comput. Decis. Sci., 16 (1991), 113–127. |
[51] |
S. H. Gurmani, H. Chen, Y. Bai, Extension of TOPSIS method under q-rung orthopair fuzzy hypersoft environment based on correlation coefficients and its applications to multi-attribute group decision-making, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 25 (2023), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-022-01386-w doi: 10.1007/s40815-022-01386-w
![]() |
[52] |
T. Mahmood, Z. Ali, T. Panityakul, A method to multi-attribute decision making problems by using heronian mean operators based on linear diophantine uncertain linguistic settings, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 42 (2022), 5291–5319. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-211839 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-211839
![]() |
[53] |
J. Wątróbski, A. Bączkiewicz, E. Ziemba, W. Sałabun, Sustainable cities and communities assessment using the DARIA-TOPSIS method, Sustain. Cities Soc., 83 (2022), 103926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103926 doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.103926
![]() |
[54] |
Z. Li, Z. Luo, Y. Wang, G. Fan, J. Zhang, Suitability evaluation system for the shallow geothermal energy implementation in region by entropy weight method and TOPSIS method, Renew. Energy., 184 (2022), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.11.112 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.11.112
![]() |
[55] |
F. Bilgili, F. Zarali, M. F. Ilgün, C. Dumrul, Y. Dumrul, The evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for sustainable development in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy-TOPSIS method, Renew. Energ., 189 (2022), 1443–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.058 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.058
![]() |
[56] |
Y. Han, Y. Deng, Z. Cao, C. T. Lin, An interval-valued Pythagorean prioritized operator-based game theoretical framework with its applications in multicriteria group decision making, Neural Comput. Appl., 32 (2020), 7641–7659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04014-1 doi: 10.1007/s00521-019-04014-1
![]() |
[57] |
C. Y. Wang, S. M. Chen, A new multiple attribute decision making method based on linear programming methodology and novel score function and novel accuracy function of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy values, Inf. Sci., 438 (2018), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.01.036 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.01.036
![]() |
[58] |
K. Ullah, N. Hassan, T. Mahmood, N. Jan, M. Hassan, Evaluation of investment policy based on multi-attribute decision-making using interval valued T-spherical fuzzy aggregation operators, Symmetry (Basel), 11 (2019), 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11030357 doi: 10.3390/sym11030357
![]() |
[59] |
B. P. Joshi, A. Singh, P. K. Bhatt, K. S. Vaisla, Interval valued q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets and their properties, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 35 (2018), 5225–5230. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-169806 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-169806
![]() |
[60] |
C. Bai, R. Zhang, L. Qian, Y. Wu, Comparisons of probabilistic linguistic term sets for multi-criteria decision making, Knowl.-Based Syst., 119 (2017), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.12.020 doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2016.12.020
![]() |
[61] | C. Bai, R. Zhang, S. Shen, C. Huang, X. Fan, Interval‐valued probabilistic linguistic term sets in multi‐criteria group decision making, Int. J. Intell. Syst., 33 (2018), 1301–1321. |
[62] |
P. Liu, Y. Li, A novel decision-making method based on probabilistic linguistic information, Cognit. Comput., 11 (2019), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-019-09648-w doi: 10.1007/s12559-019-09648-w
![]() |
[63] |
F. Lei, G. Wei, H. Gao, J. Wu, C. Wei, TOPSIS method for developing supplier selection with probabilistic linguistic information, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst., 22 (2020), 749–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-019-00797-6 doi: 10.1007/s40815-019-00797-6
![]() |
[64] |
M. Tang, H. Liao, From conventional group decision making to large-scale group decision making: What are the challenges and how to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey, Omega, 100 (2021), 102141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2019.102141 doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2019.102141
![]() |
[65] |
Y. Li, G. Kou, G. Li, Y. Peng, Consensus reaching process in large-scale group decision making based on bounded confidence and social network, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 303 (2022), 790–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2022.03.040 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2022.03.040
![]() |
[66] |
M. R. Seikh, U. Mandal, Interval-valued Fermatean fuzzy Dombi aggregation operators and SWARA based PROMETHEE Ⅱ method to bio-medical waste management, Expert Syst. Appl., 226 (2023), 120082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120082 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120082
![]() |
[67] |
M. R. Seikh, U. Mandal, Multiple attribute group decision making based on quasirung orthopair fuzzy sets: Application to electric vehicle charging station site selection problem, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 115 (2022), 105299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105299 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105299
![]() |
1. | Xiujun Zhang, Muhammad Salman, Anam Rani, Rashna Tanveer, Usman Ali, Zehui Shao, Metric Identification of Vertices in Polygonal Cacti, 2023, 136, 1526-1506, 883, 10.32604/cmes.2023.025162 | |
2. | Kamran Azhar, Sohail Zafar, Agha Kashif, Amer Aljaedi, Umar Albalawi, The Application of Fault-Tolerant Partition Resolvability in Cycle-Related Graphs, 2022, 12, 2076-3417, 9558, 10.3390/app12199558 | |
3. | Wajdi Alghamdi, Muhammad Ahsan Asim, Akbar Ali, On the Bounded Partition Dimension of Some Generalised Graph Structures, 2022, 2022, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2022/9531182 | |
4. | Ali Al Khabyah, Ali N. A. Koam, Ali Ahmad, Niansheng Tang, Partition Resolvability of Nanosheet and Nanotube Derived from Octagonal Grid, 2024, 2024, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2024/6222086 | |
5. | Syed Waqas Shah, Muhammad Yasin Khan, Gohar Ali, Irfan Nurhidayat, Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Homan Emadifar, Ram Jiwari, On Partition Dimension of Generalized Convex Polytopes, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/4412591 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β−1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+4 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β−1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+4 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |